Interactional Justice in Relation to Turnover Intention

Introduction Retaining competitive employees in a dynamic labor market is one of the responsibilities of the human resource department. Almost all organizations aim to maximize profit, and along with this primary goal is to reduce cost. One way of reducing cost is to retain employees and reduce employee withdrawal. To reduce employee withdrawal, the organization must be able to point out reasons why an employee intent to leave the organization.

And, one of the possible reasons is the perception of international injustice. The literature on employee-employer relations show that employees expect the organization to treat them with respect, dignity, honesty and to extend equal treatment to all employees Amanuenses Sell & Van den Branded, 2003 as cited in Ladder, Attuned, & Abdullah-Shirr, 2006 p. 206). Employees assess this treatment subjectively. What is fair treatment on one employee may not be viewed as fair by other employees.

And, these perceptions of international Justice play a vital role in the determination of employees’ work behavior and attitudes (Cohen- Charts & Specter, 2001; Colonist, Cocoon, Wesson, Porter, & Ye Eng, 2001 as cited in Ladder, Attuned, & Abdullah-Shirr, 2006 p. 206). International Justice refers to the quality of treatment employees experience in their interactions with authorities, particularly authorities enacting formal organizational procedures (Ibis & Imago, 1986; Colonist et al,. 2001 as cited in Chubbier, 2007 p. 11). Usually these authorities are the supervisors who act as a mediator between the organization and its employees (Ergo & Chuan, 2012 p. 408). Supervisors can treat their subordinates respectfully, politely, and professionally. On the other hand, they can also treat them disrespectfully, discourteously and unprofessionally. Supervisors can provide their subordinates with information and explanation regarding a certain organizational situation or decision. However, they can also withhold these information.

When supervisors treat their subordinates with respect and when they provide timely, reasonable and specific information to their subordinates, international Justice is said to be present (Ibis & Imago, 1986; Shapiro et al. , 1994 as cited in Chubbier, 2007 p. 211). Many researchers before have conceptualized international Justice as a dimension of procedural Justice (e. G. , Norman, 1991; Nineveh & Norman, 1993; Tyler & dies, 1990; Mansion-Cole & Scott, 1998; Garlicky & Lethal, 1997 as cited in Colonist, 2001 p. 386).

However, Colonist (2001) suggests that organizational Justice is best conceptualized as four distinct dimensions: procedural Justice, distributive Justice, interpersonal Justice, and informational Justice. Collapsing procedural and International Justice in Relation to Turnover Intention: How Power Distance Moderates? By Eligible 396). Additionally, international Justice should also be classified into interpersonal and informational Justice as they have different effects as well (Greenberg, 1993 as cited in Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-passwords, 2012; Colonist, 2001 p. 396). International Justice has also been conceptualized based on it sources.

This conceptualization was used by Ladder, Attuned and Abdullah-Shirr (2008) in their study on the effects of co-workers and supervisor international fairness on employees’ Job satisfaction, distress and aggressive behavior. According to Ladder, Attuned and Abdullah-Shirr (2008) studies on social exchange relationships indicates that an employee is always in regular exchange relations with the supervisor and co-workers (Branded, Drawback, & Whitley, 2004; Vandenberg, Bennett, & Establishing, 2004 as cited in Ladder, Attuned and Abdullah- Shirr, 2008 p. 207).

This claim of the researchers leads to the conceptualization of international Justice specifying the sources of Justice. Thus, perception of international Justice has two sources: co-workers and the supervisor. For the purpose of this study, international Justice will be conceptualized based on the proposition of Greenberg (1993). Greenberg (1993, as cited in Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-passwords, 2012) suggested that international Justice has two dimensions: informational Justice and interpersonal Justice. Informational Justice refers to the accuracy and quality of received information (Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-passwords, 2012 p. 343). It focuses on explanations received by employees that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion (Colonist, Cocoon, Wesson, Porter, & Ye Eng, 2001 p. 427). On the other hand, interpersonal Justice refers to the quality of interpersonal interactions (e. G. Dignity and respect, truthfulness and propriety), particularly interactions between hierarchical superiors and their subordinates (Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-Passwords,2012 p. 1343).

It reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes (Colonist, Cocoon, Wesson, Porter, & ye Eng, 2001 p. 427). Current empirical literature on international Justice found that international Justice is related to several employee outcomes such as: Job distress (Ladder, Attuned, & Abdullah-Shirr, 2008), aggressive behavior (Ladder, Attuned, & Abdullah-Shirr, 2008), counterproductive work behavior (Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-passwords, 2012), pay satisfaction (Thomas & Nightingales, 2012 p. 8), Job satisfaction (Thomas & Nightingales, 2012 p. 58; Has Shah, Was & Salem, 2012 p. 71 1), and turnover intention (I. . Psychological withdrawal) (Thomas & Nightingales, 2012; Bucking & Coffman, 1999 as cited in Thomas & Nightingales, 2012 p. 59). In the study conducted by Ladder, Attuned, and Abdullah-Shirr (2008), they examined the effects of co-workers and supervisor international fairness on employee Job satisfaction, distress and aggressive behavior. The study proposed and supervisors. Job Distress.

Results of their study showed that co-workers’ and supervisors’ international fairness were negatively related to Job distress. Job distress is experienced when an employee reacts to work-related environmental stresses Pagoda, 2002 as cited in Ladder et al. , 2008 p. 208). Result of the study implies that unfair treatment from co-workers and supervisors may cause stress to an employee which is harmful to his/her well being and to the organization as well. Aggressive Behavior. Results of this study also showed that co-workers’ and supervisors’ international fairness influence an employee to engage in aggressive behavior.

Aggressive behavior refers to efforts by an employee to harm co-workers or the organization in which s/he is employed (Neumann & Baron, 1997 as cited in Ladder et al. , 2008 p. 210). Aggressive behaviors are acts such as yelling, cursing, pushing or punching. Employees view social relations on Job not only as a means for achieving assigned tasks but as a way of providing a sense of belonging, affirmation and support. Thus, due to frustration, employees who perceived unfair treatment from their co-workers and supervisor may react thru aggressive behaviors. Counterproductive Work Behavior.

Roy, Bassoonist and Minibus-passwords (2012) conducted a study on the mediating role of negative emotions between the relationship of international Justice and counterproductive work behavior (CAB). CAB refers to volitional acts that harm or are intended to harm organizations or people in organizations (Specter & Fox, 2005 as cited in Roy, Bassoonist and Minibus- Passwords, 2012 p. 1342). According to the literature, international injustice is an important predictor of CAB (Fox et al. , 2001; Panderer et al. , 2000 as cited in Roy, Bassoonist & Minibus-passwords, 2012 p. 1350).

Their study supported these previous studies and further explained this relationship through the mediating role of negative emotions. Researchers proposed and tested that negative emotions, articulacy anger, play a mediating role in the relationship between perceived interpersonal injustice and CAB. It proposed that, when employees feel that they are being treated unfairly they feel angry, which leads them to overt motivational reactions such as: verbal aggression, sabotage and theft. Additionally, fear is also found to be a mediating variable in the relationship between low perceived informational Justice and CAB.

This proposed that employees who feel that they do not have satisfactory access to information at work feel afraid which leads them to engage in aversive behaviors like absenteeism and taking repeated breaks. In the study made by Thomas and Nightingales (2012), they examined the relationship between perception on fairness of pay system and its impact on various outcomes (I. E. Pay satisfaction, Job satisfaction, commitment and turnover intention). They found out that international Justice is positively correlated with pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, moderately related with commitment and negatively related to turnover intention. s a stronger determinant of pay satisfaction compared to procedural Justice and international Justice, it was also found out that the combination of distributive Justice ND international Justice is a stronger determinant of pay satisfaction. They found out that the combination of these two dimensions contribute 63% of pay satisfaction. Job Satisfaction. In the study, researchers found out that international Justice is a stronger predictor of Job satisfaction than distributive Justice.

The result shows that superior’s role in decision making and interpersonal relations coupled with informational Justice is having an influence on the satisfaction level of employees. Turnover Intention. The negative relationship between turnover intention and international Justice is high compared to all other variables. Turnover intention does not refer to the actual leaving of the organization; it refers to the employees’ intent to leave the organization. Thus, when employees feel that they are socially mistreated, they might think of leaving the organization.

This study found out that 18% of the total variation in turnover intention is explained by the variation in international justice. The present study intends to examine how power distance will moderate the relationship between the two dimensions of international Justice and psychological withdrawal. The present study contributes to the international Justice literature in two ways. First, this study builds on prior studies (Thomas & Nightingales, 2012; Bucking & Coffman, 1999 as cited in Thomas & Nightingales, 2012 p. 59) in the relationship between international Justice and intention to quit (I. . Psychological withdrawal) by conceptualizing international Justice into two dimensions. The present study intends to investigate the relationship between interpersonal Justice and psychological withdrawal as well as the relationship between informational Justice and psychological withdrawal. Second, the study intends to use power distance as a moderating variable between the two dimensions of international Justice and psychological withdrawal. We intend to examine whether power distance would buffer the international Justice-psychological withdrawal relationship.

The group- value model (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler, 1989 as cited in Lee, Fang & Lie, 2002 p. 694) supports that power distance can be integrated in the relationship of international justice and psychological withdrawal. The model addresses aspects of leader- subordinate relations that are central to the power distance relationship with Justice and employee outcomes (Lee, Fang & Lie, 2002). A study conducted by Lee, Fang and Lie 2002) showed that power distance buffered the relationship between the two other organizational Justice dimensions (I. E. Distributive and procedural Justice) and intention to quit.

International Justice is more important to members of low power distance cultures (Lind, Tyler, and Huh,1997; Tyler, Lind, and Huh, 2000 as cited in Conner, 2003 p. 35). In fact, a study conducted by Lee, Palatal & Law (2000) showed that for low power-distance employees, perceived international Justice had stronger that power distance may also ameliorate the relationship between the two dimensions of international Justice and psychological withdrawal (I. . Intention to quit). As stated earlier, employee withdrawal is disruptive and is costly for an organization.

As one of the possible reasons of employee withdrawal, it is important for organizations to understand the relationship between international Justice and withdrawal intention (I. E. Psychological withdrawal). This study may provide organizations with information that may help them reduce manpower cost. By knowing the relationship between international Justice and employee withdrawal intentions, organizations may reduce psychological withdrawal through practicing interpersonal and informational Justice. Theory and Hypotheses Psychological withdrawal. Supervisory Support.

In the study conducted by Tutus and Kalmia (201 1), they examined the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS), perceived supervisory support (ASS) and turnover intentions. POS refers to an employee’s perception concerning the extent that an organization values his/her contributions and cares about his/her well being. On the other hand, ASS refers to employee views concerning the extent to which supervisors value subordinates contributions and care about their well being. Results proposed that when supervisors provide high support, POS becomes a less important predictor of remover intentions.

However, POS becomes more important predictor of turnover intention when the supervisor provides no support. Power distance, as an individual difference variable (Boucher & Hester, 1994; Early, 1993; Ackerman & Broken, 1996 as cited in Lee, Fang & L’, 2002 p. 694), will be use to moderate the relationship between international Justice and psychological withdrawal. Power distance describes the extent to which less powerful members of institutions and organizations within a country expect and accept that power is distributed unequally (Hefted, 1991 as cited in Lam, Checkbook & Aware, 2002 p. ).

Power distance can be readily applied to a dyadic relationship such as between supervisor and subordinate (Slowly, Barbara & Scrawled, 2010). Subordinates who are high in power distance values status differences and are more receptive to organizational hierarchy (LOL, Lam & Chain, 2011). They prefer to have less communication with their superiors and maintain greater social distance from them (Afar et al. , 2007 as cited in LOL et al. , 2011). On the other hand, those low in power distance develop strong personal connections to their superiors. They believe that power is equally distributed in the organization.

Additionally, they view themselves to be equal with their superiors which make them less likely to submit to authority (Lam et al. 2002). Dimensions developed by Hefted (Hefted, 1979, 1980, 1983, 1984 as cited in Vital, Nighthawk & Barnes, 1993 p. 753). Hefted proposed that societies differ along these four major cultural dimensions: power distance, individualism, masculinity and uncertainty avoidance. The power distance dimension suggests that people, in general, in countries with a large power distance accepts inequality in power and authority that exist in their society.

On the other hand, people in countries with small power distance view each other to have relatively equal power and authority. For the purpose of this study, power distance will be used in an individual level construct. Although it was originally conceptualized in a cultural level by Hefted (1991; 2001 as cited in Slowly, Barbara & Scrawled, 2011 p. 266), previous researches have indicated that power distance can also be applied within cultures (Broken et al. , 2001 as cited in Slowly, Barbara & Scrawled, 2011 p. 266).

People still differ in the degree to which they subscribe to the dominant values of a even culture (Lee, Palatal & Law, 2000 p. 687). Thus, dominant values in a culture do not apply to all members of that particular culture. If in cultural level, a country is a high power distance society it does not follow that all citizens of that country have high power distance. It also follows that power distance orientation of employees within an organization differs. It is for this reason that we conceptualize power distance in an individual level.

Power distance in an individual level construct is commonly used as a mediating variable (Curtis, Convey, & Chug, 2012) and a moderating variable (Roth, 1995; Lee, Palatal & Law, 2000; Lee, Fang & u, 2002; McAllen, 2007; Hon., yang & Lu, 2011). However, power distance in a cultural level construct is found to be a predictor of consequences such as response to verbal insult (Bond, Wan, Lung & Ecological, 1985) and social power choice (Slowly, Barbara & Scrawled, 2011). Social power choice. In the study made by Slowly, Barbara and Scrawled (201 1), they examined whether power distance predicts social power choice.

Social power refers to tactics used by one party (I. E. The influencing agent) to gain compliance from another party (I. E. The target) in a conflict situation. It has two major categories: harsh and soft. Harsh tactics emphasize the influencing agent’s advantage over the target; however, soft tactics signifies a more or less equal approach to the target. Results showed that when the influencing agent has high power distance, s/he tends to frequently use harsh tactics believing that it is acceptable for his/her target.

Response to verbal insult. In the study made by Bond, Wan, Lung and Ecological (1985), they examined how an individual will react to a hurtful act (I. E. Verbal insult) based on the society degree of power distance in which the act occurred. Results of heir study showed that in a high power distance society, only verbal insult of a high status member is relatively acceptable. Thus, members in low status tend not to react react when the insult came from low status members as well.

The agent-system model of Justice The agent-system model of Justice (Bless & Imago, 1986), which is based from the social exchange principles of Blab (1964), suggests that individuals tend to direct their responses toward the perceived source of fair or unfair treatment (Bless & Imago, 1986 as cited in Jones, 2009 p. 526; Masters, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). There are two sources of Justice: the agent (I. . Supervisors), and the system (I. E. The organization). According to Ibis and Imago (1986, as cited in Korean & Hanged, 2002 p. 20), individuals use international Justice perceptions when deciding how to react to superiors (I. E. The agent) and use procedural Justice perceptions when deciding how to react to the larger organization (I. E. The system). However, Colonist et al. ‘s (2001, p. 437) meta-analysis showed that the model underestimates the importance of interpersonal and informational Justice for behavioral variables and suggested that both international dimensions of Justice are relevant predictors of system-referenced rabbles such as employees’ negative reactions, withdrawal behaviors, and performance.

One reason behind this discrepancy is that supervisors are mediators between organizations and employees (Ergo & Chuan, 2012 p. 408). The supervisor’s behavior mainly indicates how the organization treats and appreciates the employees (Afar, Foodstuff, and Organ, 1990 as cited in Ergo & Chuan, 2010 p. 408). Employees may react toward the organization according to the way they perceive their supervisor’s behavior (Ergo & Chuan, 2010 p. 408). Thus, the behavior displayed by the supervisor represents the macro-organizational behavior, helping employees to decide how to behave in relation to the organization (Ergo & Chuan, 2010 p. 08). Norman (1991, as cited in Ergo & Chuan, 2010 p. 408) argued that employees’ perceptions of the fairness of their interactions with supervisors allow them to ensure that the organization considers them important. Wong and LU (2007, as cited in Ergo & Chuan, 2012 p. 408) also highlighted that employees leave their superiors and not their organization. Thus, perceived interpersonal and informational injustice from the superior may result to a negative behavioral variable against the organization. And, that negative behavioral variable pertains to psychological withdrawal (I. . Turnover intention). Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of interpersonal Justice will be negatively related to psychological withdrawal. Hypothesis 2: Perceptions of informational Justice will be negatively related to psychological withdrawal. The group value model The group value model proposed by Lind and Tyler (1988 as cited in Souse & Vela, 2002 p. 101), which is based from the social identity theory (Teasel and Turner, 1979), distance relationship with Justice and employee outcomes (Lee, Fang & Lie, 2002 p. 694).

This model posits that people value groups because they derive feelings of self- worth from their group membership (Lee, Fang & Lie, 2002 p. 694). Thus, if an authority or a superior will treat his or her subordinates inhumanely, without respect and without dignity, then subordinates might lose their feeling of worthiness in the organization. Same thing may result when a superior will not provide subordinates with the information about a certain decision that they asked for. The subordinates might feel that they are that unworthy in the organization that they do not even deserve an explanation.

Feeling of unworthiness in their current organization may lead subordinates to think about leaving the organization and finding another organization (I. E. Psychological withdrawal) that would make them feel worthy again. However, Lind, Tyler and Huh (1997, as cited in Fischer & Smith) highlighted the importance of moderator variables for these effects. Since then, a number of studies have demonstrated the importance of values, in particular values referring to the acceptance of hierarchical relationships within one’s society (Hefted, 1980) – power distance.

When examining individual reactions it is more practical to focus on individual variation in power distance than on national averages (Lam, Checkbook & Aware, 2002 p. 6). It is well known that employees within the same organization differ substantially in their beliefs about how authority figures should be treated, irrespective of the relatively strong societal differences in the means of these perceptions (Lam, Checkbook & Aware, 2002 p. 6). Power distance describes the extent to which less powerful members of 6).

As an aspect of organizational cultural values, power distance, can be readily applied to a dyadic relationship such as between supervisor and subordinate Slowly, Barbara & Scrawled, 2010). Employees who are high in power distance are likely to accept decisions and treatment made by their superiors without questioning or scrutinizing them in terms of perceived Justice (Fischer & Smith). Thus, high power distance employees seldom perceive informational injustice. They do not seek for explanations regarding a certain decision. So, it would not be a big deal for them whether their superior provide explanation for a certain decision or not.

Their social relations are more likely to be role constrained (Tyler et al. , 2000) and they are sees likely to focus on the quality of their relationship with superiors, because they already accept their position within their work place. This acceptance is motivated by their belief in social order, obedience to authorities and acceptance of their position within the work place (Fischer & Smith). Thus, subordinates who have high power distance believe that, as subordinates, it is their role to follow his or her superior since they are in a higher position.

They believe that they are always expected to follow their superior despite their superior’s unfair treatment. Additionally, based on he study made by Broken et al. (2001, as cited in Fischer & Smith, 2006 p. 543), employees with low power distance were more strongly influenced by Justice concerns compared to those who have high power distance. Therefore, employees injustice compared to employees with high power distance. Hypothesis 3: Power distance will moderate the relationship between interpersonal justice and psychological withdrawal.

There would be stronger negative relationship between perceived interpersonal injustice and psychological withdrawal for employees with low as opposed to high power distance. Hypothesis 4: Power distance will moderate the relationship between informational Method Research Design This study will utilize descriptive-correlation research design. Descriptive research design will be use to determine the level of international Justice perceive by employees, employees’ intention of leaving the organization as well as employees’ level of power distance.

On the other hand, correlation research design will be use to determine if there are significant relationships among the said variables, especially whether power distance moderates the relationship between international justice (independent variable) and psychological withdrawal (dependent variable). Participants In this research, the target participants are employees of the business process outsourcing (BOP) industry, particularly call center agents. The sample size would be at least 90 respondents since each survey item is equivalent to five respondents. Thus, eighteen items multiplied by five equals 90.

There are two reasons in targeting this sample. First, call center industry is a fast growing BOP industry. This fast growth offers Job vacancies that will make it easy for a call center agent to transfer from one many to the other. Second reason is that, most call center agents are fresh graduates or relatively young people. This young people belong to generation Y who are prone to withdrawal. On a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2010), they found out that 6 out of 10 young workers are not likely to stay with their current organization for the rest of their lives.

Due to these reasons, researchers may know whether perception of international injustice contribute to factors why employees leave the organization. In purposive sampling, samples are chosen according to a particular purpose. Hence, purposive sampling will be use in this study since call center agents are targeted by researchers for sample. Measures Informational Justice. Informational Justice will measured using the 5-item scale with anchors of 1 = too small extent and 5 = too large extent.

The items include: The following items refer to the authority figure who enacted the procedure. To what extent: 1. Has (he/she) been candid in (his/her) communications with you? 2. Has (he/ she) explained the procedures thoroughly? 3. Were (his/her) explanations regarding the procedures reasonable? 4. Has (he/she) communicated details in a timely manner? . Has (he/she) seemed to tailor (his/her) communications to individuals’ specific needs? Interpersonal Justice. Interpersonal Justice will be measured using the 4-item scale developed by Colonist (2001) with a reliability of 0. 1 . All items use a 5-point scale with anchors of 1 = to a small extent and 5 = too large extent. The items include: extent: 1. Has (he/she) treated you in a polite manner? 2. Has (he/she) treated you with dignity? 3. Has (he/she) treated you with respect? 4. Has (he/she) refrained from improper remarks or comments? Psychological Withdrawal. Psychological withdrawal will be measured using the call developed by Mobile, Griffith, Hand, and Meaning (1978) which has a reliability of 0. 88.

Participants will respond using a seven-point Liker scale (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree). The items are: 1. I desire to quit from the organization. 2. I am seriously thinking about leaving the organization. 3. I intend to quit from the organization. Power Distance. Power distance will measured using the 6-item scale developed by Doorman and Howell (1987) which has a reliability of 0. 81 . Participants will respond using a seven-point Liker scale (1 – strongly disagree to 7 – strongly agree). The items appeared to have sufficient reliability (a = 0. 0). Items are as follows: 1 . Managers should make most decisions without consulting subordinates. 2. It is frequently necessary for a manager to use authority and power when dealing with subordinates. 3. Managers should seldom ask for the opinions of employees. 4. Managers should avoid off-the-Job social contacts with employees. 5. Employees should not disagree with management decisions. 6. Managers should not delegate important tasks to employees. Procedures Letters will be personally sent out to different call center companies requesting

Leave a comment