Content uploaded by Witold Grabowski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Witold Grabowski on Jul 21, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Interna tional Journa l of Hea lth S ciences
March 2015, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 157-175
ISSN: 2372-5060 (Print), 2372-5079 (Online)
Copyright © The Author(s). 2015. All Rights Re s erved.
Publishe d by American Re sea rch Institute for Policy Development
DOI: 10.15640/v3n1a 9
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.15640/v3n1a 9
A New Approach to The Organiza tiona l Justice Concept: The Collective
Leve l of J us tice Pe rce ptions
Taş kın Kılıç1, Se dat Bos ta n2 & Witold Grabowski3
Abs tract
Base d on litera ture re view it is discernible, that re sea rch and studies
concerning organizationa l jus tice matte rs , tend to focus primarily on the
aspects of the individua l re lations hip betwee n an orga niza tion, and the
justice pe rceptions developed by an individual. In re a l circums ta nces
however, it can be a ssume d, tha t any individual as pa rt of a group, may
be come a ffected not only by a jus tice procedure or process directly
concerning the mse lves, but simultane ously, by indirect e xperience
involving social interactions and the implications of justice impleme nted in
relation to their colleagues at the group level. Existing scales found in
litera ture a nd de signe d to me asure the orga nizationa l justice perceptions
ma y not a lways be sufficient to a ccura tely inve s tiga te the pe rceptions of
justice a t the collective leve l. Conducted study re veals an e xisting link and
expose s vital correlation be twee n the scales currently us ed to me asure
the orga nizationa l justice perceptions and, the collective level of these
pe rceptions and behaviors.
Extende d Abs tra ct4
The Problem of the Study: Bas ed on literature re view, it is disce rnible,
tha t rese a rch and studies conce rning organizational justice matters , tend
1Gü m üş ha ne Univers ity, He a lthca re Manage m e nt De p ., Turkey. E m a il:
ta s kinkilic@ gumusha ne .e du.tr
2Gü m üş ha ne Univers ity, He a lthca re Manage m e nt De p ., Turkey. E m a il:
sbosta n@ gm a il.co m
3Se ta Acade m y, Lon don, UK. Email: go.wsky@ yah oo.com
4Extende d ab s tract of this study wa s pre se nte d as a ora l pre s en ta tion a tEıghth
Inte rn a tıonal Con fere nce on He althca re Sys te ms & Globa l Bus ine ss Issue s . Ha rlaxton
Co llege , Grantha m, Eng la nd, June 23 – 25, 2014.
158 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
to focus primarily on the a spe cts of the individual re lations hip be twe e n an
organization, usua lly setting out rules and administering justice, and the
justice perceptions subs equently de veloped by an individua l, me mber of
this organiza tion. In real circumstance s however, it ca n be ass ume d, that
any individua l a s part of a group and membe r of an organization, ma y
be come a ffected not only by a jus tice procedure or process directly
concerning the mse lves, but s imultaneous ly, by indirect experience
involving social interactions , and the implications of justice implemented
in relation to the ir colleague s and me mbers of their group. Each of the two
dimensions represe nting separate subse t of crucial cha racte ristics of this
pe rsonal expe rience , may have a role to play in cha nging perceptions a nd
adjus ting behavior a t the collective leve l of the orga nization. Existing
scales found in litera ture, de signe d to meas ure the organiza tional jus tice
pe rceptions within the basic three dimens ions of the orga nizationa l jus tice
mode l (distributive, procedural a nd inte ra ctiona l justice), much as useful
for the purpose of exa mining the justice pe rceptions of a person in a
direct and individua l relationship with their orga nization, may in fact, not
always be sufficient to a ccura tely inves tiga te , a nd to e nable valid
de scriptions of the se perceptions at the collective level.
The P urpos e of the S tudy :The pres ent s tudy is aimed a t finding
correlation be twe e n the orga niza tional justice impleme ntation a nd the
resultant justice pe rce ptions , being develope d and adjusted in a collective
conte xt by individuals, who, while rema ining in a persona l relationship
with their organization, simultane ously e xperience ra mifica tions of jus tice
proce ss a nd procedure s affecting othe rs , by remaining in the group
relation with colleague s, learning from the be ha vior of the ir pe ers, having
exposure to the perceptions developed by others, and implications of
group interactions, ultimate ly becoming a major factor affecting justice
pe rceptions of their own.Also explaining how e xactly the individual
pe rceptions are being de veloped and sha pe d in the course of such an
interchange . Relevant s ca les and the ories concerning the organizationa l
justice model, are be ing inves tiga te d a nd, in addition to the currently
existing scales, a ne w approa ch is being teste d, in orde r to further
de termine the bas ic cha ra cteristics of the perceptions of justice,
me a sured at the collective level.
Method :The the ore tica l part of this study, has be e n developed via
litera ture re view. A s urvey e mploye d to ga ther data from the he a lth
organizations' s taff in Turkey included: doctors, nurse s and othe r
he althca re sta ff membe rs . Interviews were us e d, and ques tionna ires were
distributed to the secondary care hospitals, reaching the final sample total
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
159
of 105 respondents . S tatistical analyse s of the data were conducted in the
environment of SP SS a nd LISREL software packages.
Findings a nd Results: Conducted study revea ls a n e xisting link a nd
expose s vital correlation be twee n the scales currently us ed to measure
the orga nizationa l justice pe rceptions and, the collective level of thes e
pe rceptions , forme d, not only unde r the influence of direct and individua l
interactions be twee n a pe rson a nd the organization the y are a part of, but
also, s imultaneous ly, remain moderate d through the social context of the
pa rticipation in a justice proces s at the collective leve l, and coe xisting,
see n to be s ignifica ntly a ffecting thes e perce ptions , pers onal re lations . A
ne w sca le, with field a pplication has be en de velope d a nd tes ted in order
to query the collective conte xt of justice pe rceptions . Relate d hypothesis
and sca les have be e n evaluate d. It ha s s ubseque ntly be e n as s umed, that
adding a fourth (the collective dimension) to the a lready existing a nd
found in literature as a thre e-dimensional concept s ca les, facilitates better
and more comprehens ive unde rs tanding of the organiza tional justice
pe rceptions with unde rlying factors.
Keywords: Collective J ustice, Organizationa l Justice, Justice
Introduction
Although the que s tion of fairne ss , as a funda menta l a spect of
huma n be ha vior, s ocial e xchange a nd inte raction has , to date , bee n
exa mine d from nume rous pe rspe ctives and, a s a concept, its history is
ce rta inly much olde r tha n any printe d a ccount of the se thorough
explora tions , its prominence in the concerning organiza tiona l iss ue s
literature , beca me gra dua lly more notice able in re latively rece nt time s.
Orga niza tional jus tice, a s a ke y te rm to unders tanding fairnes s within an
orga niza tional se tting, ha s be en gra dua lly ga ining on its clarity and s ha pe,
within the time of me rely pa st few deca de s. Amongst many differe nt
approaches , one, provide d by Be ugré (1998) concise de finition, se e ms to
be bringing s ome of the different views to a common ground; After Be ugré ,
“Organiza tiona l justice refers to the perceived fairne ss of the excha nge s
taking place in a n organiza tion, be the y s ocial or economic, and involving
the individual, in his or he r re lations with supe riors , subordinate s, pee rs,
and the orga nization a s a social syste m”.
160 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
In the e xisting litera ture addre ss ing the concept of jus tice in the
orga niza tional s e tting, the idea of the perce ption of justice can, in principle,
be framed in the proces s of e xamining some of the well e sta blishe d a nd
offering va riety of pers pectives the ories : Equity (Adams , 1963), Relative
Deprivation (Stouffer et al, 1949), J udgeme nt of Jus tice (Leve ntha l,
1976,1980), Compa rative Cognition (Folger, 1986) and Control (Lind a nd
Tyler, 1988), to mention the mos t s ignificant and freque ntly cited. Eme rging
picture conve ys the orga nizationa l jus tice notion, tha t encompa ss es three
ba sic dimens ions : distributive, proce dura l and inte ractional jus tice .
Adopte d by different authors pers pectives, bring to the focus va rious
the oretica l as pe cts cons tituting the orga niza tional jus tice conce pt,
ne ve rthe less , mos t of the the ories a nd s ca les, tha t ha ve bee n de velope d,
thus far, to chara cterise and mea sure the pe rce ptions of organisa tiona l
justice , while aiming to explicate its most fundame nta l compone nts, offer
only limited methodologica l ins ights (s uch a s exa mples of applica ble
que stionnaire state ments ), that would be suitable for s urve ys and for the
purpose of inve stiga ting a nd me as uring the pe rce ptions of jus tice on othe r
tha n, the involving direct relation of a pers on and their orga niza tion leve l,
es pe cially, not a s se en and sha pe d through a n indirect, but pa lpa bly
releva nt to the s e perce ptions (eve n if os tens ibly less tangible)
pe rspe ctives ; e xa mple: indirect pa rticipa tion in a jus tice proce ss involving a
collea gue ; perce ptions resulting from ine quitable administra tion of justice
affecting othe r me mbe r of a group or, the pe rce ptions following pe rce ived
at the collective leve l miscarriages of justice or insta nce s of jus tice not
be ing s erve d.
In fact, any individua l, be it within a bus ines s environment or other
pe e r-group should, by the same , be see n as inte rrelate d through various
type s of relations hips with othe rs and, ca n not comprehe ns ively be
cha racte rise d a s a pers on, in se para tion from their collea gue s and pee rs,
(Bandura, 2000). "Social Impa ct" (Ana sta sia, 1981), "Social Ide ntity"
(Tajfel and Turne r, 1979), "Social Compa rison" (Fe s tinge r, 1954),
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
161
"Collective Memory / mind" (We ick a nd Robe rts , 1993)and, "Survivors
Syndrome " (Noe r, 1993). In the light of the ories e nume rate d above ,
individua ls in a n organiza tiona l s etting, tend na tura lly to de ve lop
pe rceptions and a ttitudes towards co-employee s within a group, a nd while
obs erving, e valua ting a nd learning from the be ha viour of othe rs, ma ke
simultaneous atte mpts to gain a mea sure of control over their beha vior.
Bas ed on the se as sumptions , other individuals ma y a djust the ir own
pe rceptions, building upon the se group relations a nd attitudes , while
exe rting similar influe nce on the collective pe rce ptions a nd beha vior.
Cons equently, pe rce ptions of jus tice reve al at the collective level,
the ir strong inte rdepe nde nce with any repres enta tive beha vioral sta nda rd
and attitude pe rmitted or a dopte d within the group, s ens itivity to unde rlying
group relations social context, corre lation with collective expe cta tions and
norms followe d by othe rs , a lso, interpe rsonal and cultura l relations,
unde rpinning the unde rsta nding of notion of jus tice itself a nd further s ee n
to me diate the impa ct of procedures a nd profoundly modera te the
pe rceptions and be ha vior.
On that account, the ke y objective of this study is, to inve stiga te how
exa ctly the pe rce ptions of jus tice are be ing influe nce d at the collective level
of e xperience of orga niza tional jus tice, s ugge st what beha viora l factors ca n
ma rke dly a ffect the se pe rceptions ; (pa tterns of inte raction, differe nt
expe cta tions, va riations in norms and coe xisting sta nda rds ) and, to wha t
me a s urable e xtent.
2. The Conce ptua l Fra me work
2.1. Orga niza tional Jus tice
Orga niza tional jus tice re fers to the pe rceived fairne ss of the
exchange s taking place in an orga niza tion, be the y social or economic and,
involving the individual, in his or her re lations with s upe riors , s ubordinate s,
pe e rs ; a nd the orga niza tion a s a s ocial sys tem (Beugre, 1998).
2.2. Collective J us tice in the Orga nizationa l Mode l of Justice
162 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
The dimens ion of jus tice in orga nizations directly re flecting influe nce
of complex group inte ractions and social beha viour, inte rrelate d with
promoted by the group s tanda rds , mode ra ted by social compone nt and
adjus ted at the group leve l. Linking collective expe rience with individual
expe cta tions of fairne s s , affecting attitude s , modera ting impact of jus tice
proce dure s.
2.3. Dime nsions of the Orga nizationa l Justice
Orga niza tional jus tice re flects the e xtent, to which individuals
pe rceive, tha t they a re tre ate d fairly a t work. Existing s ubject studies led to
the identifica tion of three e ss ential components of the orga nizationa l jus tice
concept: the distributive, procedural a nd intera ctiona l dime ns ions of
justice . Distributive justice re flects the perce ived fairne ss , with rega rd to
how res ource s and re wards a re distributed, a nd alloca ted in organiza tions
(Adams , 1963). Proce dura l jus tice is define d as the perce ived fairnes s of
the proce ss a nd procedures , use d to make alloca tion de cisions (Leve ntha l,
1976). The las t justice dime nsion, inte ractiona l jus tice, relate s to the
“quality of the inte rpe rs ona l tre atme nt pe ople rece ive, whe n proce dure s are
impleme nte d.”
This form of justice doe s not pe rtain to the outcome s of proce dure s
as sociated with decision ma king, but ra ther, s crutinize s whethe r or not
pe ople feel that the y a re trea ted fairly, whe n decisions are be ing
impleme nte d. Fair interpe rsonal trea tment ne ce ss itates tha t ma na gers
communica te truthfully a nd tre at people with courtes y a nd re spe ct
(Colquitt, 2001).
2.4.Relate d Theories
a) Equity Theory: First deve loped in the ea rly 1960s, by be ha viora l
ps ychologist John S. Ada ms, e quity the ory, is large ly conce rne d with
de fining and me as uring the relationa l sa tisfaction of the e mploye es . Adams
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
163
sugges ted, tha t e mploye e s try to re tain a ba lance betwe e n wha t the y give
to an organiza tion and wha t they rece ive in return, and ba se sa tisfaction
with their own balance on compa ra ble pe rceptions in colleague s . The
'inputs ', or wha t the e mploye es give to a n orga nization, ca n be broke n
down to many metrics including time , loyalty, effort, tolera nce , flexibility,
enthusias m, pers ona l sa crifice, s kill and trust in s upe riors.
Outcomes ma y include 'ha rd' factors, such a s s a lary, job s ecurity and
employee bene fits, but e xtend to less tangible as pects such a s se nse of
achieveme nt, praise a nd re putation (Ada ms, 1963).
b) Relative De privation The ory: Is a theore tical conce pt, that has often
be e n use d to a nalyze context of pe rce ived injus tice a nd ine qua lity. An
importa nt as pe ct of re lative de privation is, tha t a n individua l does not
employ a bs olute mea s ure s of de privation while forming their pe rceptions,
but rathe r deprivation or a chieve me nt levels, relative to some s tandard
(Runciman, 1966). He nce, relative de privation is s ee n to s tem from a
subjective feeling of disconte nt ba se d on the belief tha t "one is ge tting les s,
tha t one is e ntitled to" (Appelgryn and Bornma n, 1996).
c) Judgeme nt of J us tice Model: Leventha l (1976b), pointe d to the
importa nce of va rious alloca tion norms , that spe cify criteria, by which the
distribution of outcomes are be ing de fined, as jus tice . A justice rule is a
be lief, that "outcome s " mus t be distributed in accorda nce with ce rtain
criteria. Leventhal's (1976a) justice judgeme nt model take s a more
proa ctive approach tha n the equity theory does . Pe ople judge the ir
"des ervingnes s" by us ing s eve ral different justice rules . The re a re primarily
thre e distributive jus tice rules: (a ) the contribution rule, (b) the e qua lity rule,
and (c) the ne eds rule. The jus tice judgme nt model posits a four sta ge
se que nce , whe reby an individua l evalua tes the jus tice of outcomes .
The individual (1) decide s which justice rules to us e a nd how much we ight
to a ss ociate with the m - weighting; (2) es timate s the amount a nd types of
outcomes the recipient des erve s ba se d on ea ch jus tice rule - preliminary
es timation; (3) combine s the outcome s de se rved on the ba sis of ea ch rule
into a fina l estima te - rule combina tion; a nd (4) e va lua tes the fairnes s of the
164 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
recipient's actual outcome s , by compa ring the actual, to the des erve d
outcomes - outcome s eva luation.
Re sultantly, the jus tice judgment mode l as sume s that a n individual's
judgme nt of fairne ss may be bas ed, not only on a contributions rule but,
de pending on circums tance s , a n equa lity rule, or a nee ds rule. According
to the jus tice judgme nt mode l, individuals eva lua te alloca tion proce dure s
us ed by de cision-make rs, ba se d on the s ituation, in effect proactively
employing va rious jus tice norms such a s: e quity, ne eds a nd e qua lity.
d) Re fere nt Cognitions Theory: "One ’s pres ent sta te , is a product of what
ha s happene d in the pa st. When pe ople reflect upon pre se nt outcomes ,
the re fore, the ir s ubjective e valua tion of the se outcomes will be affected by
wha te ve r a lternative recons tructions of the pas t a re mos t cognitively
acces sible.
Beca us e the se alternative re constructions provide a frame of refere nce ,
the y will be called re fere nt cognitions . This te rm is us ed the n, as a
shorthand e xpres sion for things tha t pe ople can e as ily imagine ha ving
take n place, a s contras ted with wha teve r a ctua lly took place" (Folge r,
1980,39).
e) Control The ory: According to this the ory, individuals who are include d in
the de cision-ma king proce ss , tend to perce ive the res ults (Lind and Tyler,
1988) of the proces s of jus tice (eg. ma nage rial-led disputes ) a s more jus t,
eve n if the re sults thems elves we re les s favorable to the mse lves, tha n in a
situa tion, in which they have be en denied a voice and participa tion in the
proce ss , eve n if the outcome s of the proce ss itse lf are ultima te ly more
favora ble to them. (Thiba ut a nd Wa lker 1975,427; Colquitt a nd others ,
2001).
Outline d a bove ke y the ories , se tting up the conce ptua l frame work of
this s tudy will briefly be exa mined below, in orde r, to e sta blish a
ba ckground, bas ed on which, the concept of ‘the collective perce ption of
the organiza tional justice ’, the core subject here , will furthe r be discuss e d.
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
165
Both, Re lative Deprivation and the Equity theory, sha re a common
view, that the pe rce ption of justice in orga niza tions re mains dete rmined by
an ‘input and output’ e xcha nge -relation, betwe en a pe rson a nd his or her
orga niza tional e nvironme nt. Furthe rmore , theories demonstra te, how
individua ls de velop the ir perce ption of the orga nizationa l justice , through
comparing their contributions to the orga niza tion with outcome s , that they
ha ve a chieve d in the exchange with the orga nization, a ga inst compa rable
value s of the input-output ratio, tha t have in pa rallel be en achieved by the ir
pe e rs , superiors , subordina tes .
In this elaborate me ntal proce s s , there ma y not nece ss arily ha ve
arise n a ny imbalance (ine qua lity) betwe en the input and the output in the
relations be twee n the orga niza tion and the individua l, tha t would ha ve
directly a ffecte d his or he r jus tice pe rce ptions , or the ir expe cta tions derived
from a ttributes , such as : s ta tus or compe tency, howeve r, what notably
ne ithe r of the two the ories thoroughly s crutinized, would be the outcome of
a situa tion, in which the re was an obse rvable ine quity or injustice in
res pe ctive ratios , tha t have concurre ntly bee n achieved by other
employee s in a group or by a colleague in the immediate vicinity of this
pe rson. How would this fact be reflecte d in their jus tice perce ptions ? This
situa tion, pote ntially vital in the collective conte xt and ,a rgua bly us e ful as a
conceptua l mea ns towa rds the bette r unde rsta nding of both, the
orga niza tional justice pe rce ptions a nd justice outcome s (by including and
de fining the intrins ic to the work place s ocial factors ), ha ve be e n se en left
out of the sha rp scope of both theories.
Although the Judge me nt of Jus tice Mode l, offers a compre he nsive
view on, wha t rules should ha ve to be impleme nted whe n individua ls
de cide wha t in his or her individua l re lation with an orga nization is
equitable, ne ither the group influe nce on the pre se nted rules va lida tion, nor
us eful a pproache s, to spe cifically explore the cons eque nce s of the
interde pe nde nt pe rce ptions ass ociate d with the jus tice outcomes s ee n
through the collective pe rspective, whe re indirect expe rience s (for
166 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
exa mple: becoming a witnes s of a misca rriage of justice ), complex s ocial
intera ctions ha ving influe nce on expe cta tions, ha ve bee n sugges ted,
although conceivably, it may be as sumed, tha t such cons idera tions ha ve a
key role to play, as an exte ns ion to the mode l and a factor mea s ura bly
contributing to the organiza tiona l justice pe rceptions conce pt. There fore,
this influe ntial the ory, indispe nsa ble for prope r unde rsta nding of the rules
unde rpinning the perce ptions of justice in orga niza tions, e xhibits
compara ble with the theory reviewe d above limitations , with rega rd to the
pos tulate d here collective as pe cts affecting the se perce ptions .
Re ferent Cognitions The ory, origina ted by Folge r, brings to the fore
vital me cha nisms of the cognition, ce ntral to the perce ption proce ss es , a nd
de mons trate s, how s ome highly individua l circums tance s , s uch a s differe nt
pe rsona l expe rience s may lead, to ine vitable rise in individual dispa rities,
with re gard to jus tice pe rce ptions , due to the e mploying by individua ls
thinking proce ss es , linking the ir curre nt situation with expe rience s of the
pa st a nd projecting s ubjective e xpecta tions a gains t the broa de r context of
the pe rsona l circumsta nce s. The ory brings us a ste p clos e r to the
unde rsta nding of how the a lterna tive pe rceptions of justice of an individua l
at pre se nt ma y ha ve de velope d de pe nding on previous pe rsona l
expe riences , and how individuals ma y build upon the se , the ir future
expe cta tions. Although the ory s ugges ts s trong relations be twee n the
pe rception of jus tice of a pe rson at pres ent with demons tra bly les s ta ngible
pre e xisting or e xternal circumsta nce s s ee n through a subjective
pe rspe ctive of a multifacete d cognitive proces se s, collective a ngles
arguably releva nt to this proce ss and affecting ultima te perce ptions ha ve
not be en cons ide red.
Control The ory explains the pe rce ption of organiza tiona l jus tice,
se en a s linke d with the e xtent of an influe nce , tha t one is allowed to
exe rcise ove r a releva nt to him or he r, orga niza tional justice proces s.
Pa rticipation in a course of the proces s of jus tice is se en to
mode rate profoundly individua l pe rce ptions of the proce ss outcomes , but,
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
167
in a nalogica l to pre vious ly pres ente d e xamples , a lso this the ory
concentra tes pre domina ntly on the individua l a spe cts of the jus tice-
relations betwe en a pers on and the orga niza tion-led proce ss a nd, its
be a ring on the perce ptions . How the jus tice pe rce ption of the sa me pers on
would have be e n a djus ted, if some one else had ga ined ine quitably more
control ove r the jus tice proce ss involving thems elves a nd a chieving
inequitably favora ble outcome s for the ms elves compare d to his or he r
pe e rs within a group?
As it has be en demonstra ted in the para graphs above , es tablished
the ories, much a s bringing to light the mos t integra l a spe cts of the
orga niza tional jus tice pe rce ption conce pt, ma terially re flecting the
funda me ntal functions a nd dime ns ions of the re lation which involves
principa lly, a n individual, a nd the e mploying him or he r organiza tion; doe s
not directly addres s, nor ha ve a critica l impact on our unde rsta nding and
ability to me as ure the perce ptions , grown in a conte xt of social inte rcha nge ,
stre tching far beyond the much limited, due to s uch a de finition spa ce .
Collective perce ptions , germina ted in a complex, increa singly ins e pa rable
from the workplace of a mode rn day conte xt of s ocial intera ction, re main by
and large uninve stiga ted.
At this point, it is pertine nt to draw attention to the fact, that in the
light of found in literature the ories enumera ted below, a pe rs on, de facto,
tends to va lue not me rely a fair ha ndling of jus tice with re lation to
the mse lves and their pe rsonal criteria, but e qua lly, within the bounda ries of
the ir obs erva ble s pa ce, e valua te s insta nce s of justice a dministra tion, which
ma y ha ve be en se rved in relation to their collea gue s and pee rs;
accordingly a djus ting individua l pe rce ptions and cha nging attitude s.
Distinctive theories pe rtaining to this matte r have be en introduce d in
pa ra gra phs be low:
Social Impa ct Theory, explains the relations hip betwe en a group a nd
a pe rson, who be longs to it. Upon this the ory, an individua l re mains
168 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
influence d by othe r me mbe rs of the group. The ge nera l cha racte r of the
relationship may va ry broadly a nd e volves accordingly to a range of
cha racte ristics , s uch as s ize, attra ctivene ss of the group, a nd the pos ition
tha t the pe rson reta ins a ga inst the other membe r of the group (Latane ,
1981). In the light of the S ocial Ide ntity The ory, individua ls clas sify
the mse lves within a group, deve lop a se nse of be longing to the group a nd,
eva luate him or hers elf, in relation to the va lue s held or promote d by the
group. In conse que nce , the group e ffectively re vers e-a ffects the
pe rceptions and a ttitudes of the pe rson (Ta jfel a nd Turne r, 1979).
From the pers pe ctive of the Social Compa rison The ory, individuals
ne e d to be able to eva luate their own opinions, emotions, pers ona l va lue s,
skills and traits, to come to valid conclus ions with rega rd to the mse lves .
Individua ls try to re ach this ide a through compa ring thems elves with others
whe n this nece ss ity is not re solved objectively (Fes tinge r, 1954).
According to the Collective Memory/Menta l Mind Theory, individua ls
pe rceive the ir organiza tion a s a s ocial sys tem a nd a ss e s s the ir
relationships with others within its conte xt a nd s tructure , to de velop a
"collective conscious ne ss /mind" (We ick and Roberts , 1993).
The Survivor Syndrome explains the fear, anxiety a nd a complex
be havior of co-working e mploye es , which res ults directly from the thinking
of the situa tion of dismiss a l, and obs erving othe rs in the proce ss of the
orga niza tional downs izing (Noer, 1993).
Cons ide ring the significa nce of the es tablished the ories a nd
cha racte r of the enumera ted studies , it ca n now be a sce rtaine d, tha t
individua l pe rce ptions re ma in a ffecte d not only by jus tice proces s a nd
proce dure s involving directly the mse lves , but also, affecting the union or
group, they re pres ent through the collective inte rcha nge and through be ing
cognizant to the orga nizationa l justice being simultane ous ly administe re d
and ha ving obs erva ble impa ct on their collea gue s and friends .
Orga niza tional justice pe rceptions, should he nce be e valua ted in this
conte xt. Collective perce ptions of jus tice, which we re not include d in
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
169
lea ding the ories e xamining a spects of jus tice conce pt in orga niza tions,
should furthe r be disclos e d, a s a ma te rial pa rt of the conce pt, since it is not
pos sible to se pa rate a pe rson from the group, and which conte xt a s
concluded above , may manifes tly influe nce me a sured perce ptions , a lso,
profoundly modify be ha vior.
Exa mination of the items of three differe nt scales (Yıldırım, 2007;
Polat, 2007; Özde vecioğlu, 2003; Aryee a nd othe rs, 2002; Gürbüz and
Mert, 2009; Özme n and others , 2007; Nam, 2008) indica tes , tha t only a
limited number of items re lated to the collective pe rce ptions spe cifically
concerning 'othe rs ', can be found. In re lation to thes e s ca les, following
cons ide rations ca n be ma de :
Whe n thre e differe nt s cales commonly us ed in literature , and
de ve lope d by Niehoff and Moorman (1993), Colquitt (2001) a nd Rude r
(2003) to me a sure the perce ption of organiza tiona l jus tice a re exa mine d in
Table 1, it ca n be s ee n, that numbe r of items concerning jus tice
pe rceptions with re spe ct to othe rs are quite limited.
As shown in the ta ble, in the sca le of Niehoff a nd Moorma n (1993),
the 6th,7th,10th a nd 11thitem of the proce dura l jus tice conce rns the
pe rceptions with res pe ct to others . In the s cale be longing to Colquitt
(2001), only the 20th item conce rns pe rceptions with res pect to othe rs, a nd
in the s cale of Rude r (2003), the 10th and 12th item, repre se nts pe rception
with re spect to othe rs.
Ta ble 1. Mos t Commonly Use d Sca les of the Orga niza tional Jus tice
1.Niehoff and Moorman
(1993)
2.Colquitt (2001)
3.Rude r (2003)
1
My work patterns a re fair.
Ca n you expre ss your
ideas and e motions
during the proces s?
Considering my
responsibilities I am
rewarde d in a fair manner.
2
I think my payme nt is fair.
Do you ha ve any
influe nce on the ga ins
during the proces s
I am re wa rded in a fair
ma nner a ccording to my
expe rience s .
3
I am of the opinion tha t my
workload is fair.
Is the proce s s
implemented in a
I am re wa rded in a fair
ma nner a ccording to my
170 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
cons istent manne r?
education level.
4
Cons ide red wholly, the
ga ins obtained from the
workplace is fair.
Is the proce s s
implemented
unbiase d?
I am re wa rded in a fair
ma nner a ccording to my
effort.
5
I am of the opinion tha t my
work res pons ibility is fair.
Is the proce s s bas e d
on a ccurate and
cons istent informa tion?
I am re wa rded according to
my s ucce ss a chieve d a t
work.
6
Decisions about work a re
taken by the executives in
an unbiase d manne r.
Ca n you reques t the
correction of the gains
achieved at the e nd of
the proce ss?
I am re wa rded according to
de gree of pre ssures a nd
challenges at my work.
7
Executives get the opinions
of all the employee s be fore
the y take decisions a bout
work.
Is the proce s s
appropriate for ethical
and mora l sta ndards
point of view?
Procedure s
he lp you to ga the r
accurate informa tion in
de cision-ma king.
8
Before making decisions
about work e xecutives
collect a ccura te and
complete information
Ca n you expre ss your
ideas during thes e
proce sse s ?
Procedure s create
standa rds for cons istency
in de cisions.
9
Executives e xplain the
de cisions ta ken and give
additiona l informa tion.
Do you ha ve any
influe nce on the ga ins
during the proces s?
Procedure s create
standa rds for cons istency
in de cisions.
10
All decisions re lated to the
work are applied to the
affecte d e mploye e s
indiscriminately.
Is the proce s s
implemented in a
cons istent manne r?
Procedure s include e qually
all those affected one s.
11
Employee s can
oppose the de cisions about
work or ma y reques t re-
ne gotiation from top-
executives.
Is the proce s s
implemented
unbiase d?
Procedure s; provides
us eful fee dback regarding
de cision or its execution.
12
While de cisions are taken,
ma nagers be ha ve kindly
towards me.
Are they polite to you?
Procedure s take into
account the re que st of
additiona l informa tion or
clarification.
13
Executives a dopt a
respectful ma nner towards
us while decision ma king.
Do they va lue you?
My immediate supe rvisor
ca res a bout my
pe rspe ctives .
14
While decisions a re taken
about my job, e xecutives
are s ensitive to my
Do they trea t you in a
respectful ma nner?
My immediate supe rvisor
acts to suppres s pe rsonal
biase s .
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
171
individua l needs.
15
While de cisions are
taken about my job, my
executives a re honest a nd
since re to me .
Does s/he make
comments or criticize
you inequitably?
My immediate supe rvisor,
enables time ly de cisions
and conveying the ir
conte nts to me.
16
My executives prote ct my
rights while de cisions a re
taken about my job.
Are they s incere in
dialogue with you?
My immediate supe rvisor is
polite and re spe ctful to me.
17
My executives discus s the
cons equence s of decisions.
Does it explain the
proce ss e ntirely?
My immediate supe rvisor
takes due care of my rights.
18
My executives s how prope r
justification about my work.
Are the explana tions
for the proce ss logical?
My immediate supe rvisor
cons iders a ll vital
circumsta nces when
de aling with me.
19
My executives make
appropriate disclosure
while taking de cisions
about my work.
Does it transfer
the de tails about
proce ss on time?
20
My executives e xplain a ll
de tails to be about my
work.
Does s/he s pe a k in a
apprehensible way
while transferring
informa tion?
As highlighted in the problem of the study, pe ople, while building
the ir jus tice pe rceptions, ta ke into a ccount more tha n only the jus tice
outcomes and implications affecting thems elves. The y adjus t the ir views
while eva lua ting s itua tion of the ir pe ers a nd colleagues . The refore , when
me a s uring the pe rception of orga niza tional jus tice, the ne e d to add que ries
que stioning the perceptions of jus tice with res pe ct to others , s hould a t this
point be emphas ized. In the context of this re a s oning, our res e a rch
provide s me a ns ne ce ss ary to re s olve this deficiency.
Table 2. Items Addre ss ing Aspe cts of the Collective perce ptions ofJus tice
Table 2. Expre s sions Re lated to Collective Justice P ractices items
1
Workload is fair to e ve ryone .
2
Wage s a re fair to e veryone a t work.
3
Executives prote ct e veryone’s rights while ta king de cisions about work.
172 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
4
Proces s a nd rules a re fair for everyone in the workplace.
5
The ma nager’s manne r is polite not only to me but also to othe rs .
6
(-) I am not inte re sted in othe rs ’ rights e xcept from mine a t work.
7
My colleagues ’ thinking of my workplace a s a fair one a ffects my attitude .
8
When I eyewitness an injustice towards a collea gue, I fee l like it’s done to
me .
9
I’d defend my colleague if s/he encountered a n une qual treatme nt.
10
(-) I think there must be a rea s on in the unjus t treatment of some of my
collea gues .
3.Res ea rch
3. 1. The Mode l
Curre ntly es tablishe d s cales of three dimens iona l organiza tiona l justice
mode l e xha ustively
Exa mine e ss ential qua lities of the re lation betwe en an employe e and his or
he r organiza tion.
Organization and its dominant significance in shaping perceptions of justice
reflected on the three-scale model
The organization,
(setting out rules
and administering
justice).
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
173
The collective dime ns ion of justice pe rception, re flects the
me a s urable and s ignifica nt influe nce of complex pa tterns of group be havior
on any of its members a nd their res ulting perce ptions .
3.2. S cale
To me as ure the pe rce ption of orga niza tional jus tice, a commonly
us ed ques tionna ire consisting of 20 items and thre e sub-dime nsions
de ve lope d by Niehoff a nd Moorman (1993), validity of which was ve rified
(Turkish) by Yıldırım (2007), ha s be en us ed. In addition to this scale, in
orde r to mea sure the collective justice pe rceptions, a 10-items
que stionnaire, cons truct va lidity of which, ha s be e n tes ted in a pilot s tudy,
was a pplied. The items include d in the ne w sca le, a re shown in Ta ble 2.
3.3.S ample
The s ample re se arch include s 105 employe es , working in public
hos pital in Turkey (nurs es , doctors , a dministra tive a nd other sta ff
repre se nta tives).
Organiza tion and its employee s in a group-context, which is se e n to mode ra te
pe rceptions through interactions and patterns of complex group be ha viour. The
collective component of justice pe rception
The organization
(setting out rules
and administering
justice).
174 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
3.4. Re liability Ana lysis
Re liability ana lysis res ults conce rning e ach sca le in this res ea rch
are (Cronba ch’s Alpha ): distribution jus tice (0,938), procedural jus tice (0,
889), inte ractional jus tice (0.870), a nd collective justice (0,780). According
to the se res ults, it can be ide ntified, that a ll analyse d dime ns ions have
accepta ble reliability va lue s.
3.5. Fa ctor Analysis
‘Confirma tory factor a na lysis‘ ha s be en applied to the s cales in this
study in the LISREL sta tistica l s oftware pa cka ge, following the a pplica tion
of the ‘e xplana tory factor analysis’ pre vious ly ma de by Niehoff a nd
Moorma n (1993). As to this res ult, the organiza tional jus tice pe rception is,
first, subjecte d to factor ana lysis within thre e dimens ions (distributive,
proce dura l a nd inte ractiona l), the n by a dding the fourth (the collective
dime nsion), ne w analysis are conducte d, a nd the compliance va lues ,
de rived from both mode ls, are be ing compa red. During this proce ss , 7th
item, be longing to the proce dura l jus tice s ca le, and 9th item, which be longs
to the collective jus tice sca le, were exclude d from the mode l, a s they did
not ha ve the sufficient fit inde x. Eva lua ting the results obtaine d from this
proce ss , it ca n be see n (Table 3), that the four-factor mode l (distribution,
proce dura l, inte ractional + collective jus tice) e xhibits be tter cohere nce (X² ,
SD, RMSEA, CFI a nd NFI), tha n the thre e-factor model (distribution,
proce dura l a nd inte ractiona l), a s es tablished and found in itemise d
else whe re literature . Following the a na lysis, both mode ls were compa re d.
One , which exhibited a bette r fit inde x, (the four-dime nsiona l: distribution,
proce dura l, intera ctiona l + collective jus tice), ha ve bee n chos en as a model
of prefere nce with rega rd to hypothe s is postulated in this pape r.
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
175
Table 3. Compa rison Chart of Confirmatory Fa ctor Analysis Re sults of the
Sca les
Mode l
X²
SD
RMSEA
CFI
NFI
X² farkı
SD farkı
3 Fa ctor Mode l
176.16
116
0.71
0.95
0.85
4 Fa ctor
Mode l
342.72
293
0.40
0.99
0.91
84,13
132
X²: X-Squa re, SD: Standard Deviation, RMSEA: Root me an Square
Error of Approximation/
CFI: Compa rative Fit Inde x, NFI: Norme d Fit Inde x).
Figure 1: Re sults of Confirma tory Factor Ana lysis Pa tterns ( Four-Factor
Mode l)
176 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
Dj: Distributive J ustice , P j: Proce dura l J ustice , Ij: Inte raction Jus tice , Kj:
Collective J us tice .
4. Conclus ıons a nd Future Projectıons
Within the scope of this res ea rch, three existing dime ns ions of the
es tablished the ore tical concept de fining scales of the organiza tiona l jus tice
pe rceptions, ha ve be en e xa mine d and criticize d.
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
177
Bas ed on the res ults of this exa mination, a new s ca le (the collective
justice dime ns ion), ha ve be en de velope d and te ste d, lea ding to the
conclusion, that pos tulate d four-dime nsiona l conce pt, e nha nce s da ta
ana lyse s pre dicta bility, enables more consiste nt pe rceptions me as ura bly
and improve s mode l cohere nce , facilitating a more intuitive unders ta nding
of the ante ce dents of the perce ptions of jus tice in organiza tions.
It ha s be en conclude d tha t, a lthough scales found in litera ture ,
recognize d under currently esta blishe d model and de signed to me a s ure
orga niza tional perce ptions of jus tice, rema in sufficiently accurate when
applied to eva lua ting the perce ptions de velope d by a pers on in his or he r
individua l a nd most ta ngible relations with the organiza tion, collective
as pe cts of the se pe rce ptions could often bee n se en inves tigate d not
ade qua tely enough. As a n ine vitable re s ult, s uch mode l may often be found
rendere d les s releva nt, whe n strong group-relations and pote nt social
compone nt, underlying and fundame nta lly a ffecting the se pe rce ptions
rema in unte ste d a nd not include d in s urve ys.
Conducte d study clearly indica tes , tha t adding fourth (collective
justice ) dimens ion, to the curre ntly existing s cales of the orga nizationa l
justice model, will res ult in a more intuitive a nd a ccurate unders tanding of
all constitue nt pa rts of the organiza tiona l jus tice pe rce ptions concept.
(Se yme n a nd othe rs, 2013, reported corre sponding re se a rch findings from
a se pa ra te s tudy).
Fora smuch a s both, the ore tical and the e xisting empirica l limitations
of this study were given due conside ration, final conclusions and founde d
on de ductive a ss umptions s tatistica lly va lidate d sta teme nts , ha ve be en
pre se nted convincingly, as to encoura ge de ba te, and inve stiga ted
sufficiently to provide firm grounds to stimulate further rese arch a ime d at
exploring some of the less acknowledge d and discus se d in litera ture , but
178 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
ga ining new re levance in ra pidly changing, inte rconnecte d s ocial
environments , a spe cts of justice perce ptions in orga niza tions.
Re ferences
Ada ms J S.(1963). Toward an Understanding of Inequity. J . of Abnormal
Soc.P sychology. 67:422-36.
Appelgryn, A. E. M., Bornman, E. (1996). Relative Deprivation in
Conte mporary S outh Africa. The J ourna l of Social Psychology, 136(3),
381. Re trieved from
http://search.proques t.com/docview/199807227? accountid=1659530.
05.2014
Aryee; S . P., Budhwar,S; Che n,Z.;X.(2002). Trust a s a Mediator of the
Re lations hip Be tween Organizationa l J ustice and Work Outcome s. Journal
of Organiza tional Beha vior; 23, 3; Abı/Inform Global pg. 267
Atalay, D. D. (2007). Denklik Duya rlılığı Açıs ından Algılanan Örgütse l
Ada let - Örgütsel Bağlanma İlişkisi Doktora Te zi YÖK Tez Merkezi
Bandura , A. (2000). Exercise Of Huma n Age ncy Through Collective
Effica cy , America n P sychological Society, Volume 9, Number 3.
Beugre, C.D.(1998). Mana ging Fairnes s in Orga nizations . Greenwood
Pub. Gr, Westport, CT, USA.
Colquitt.A.J., Conlon,D.E., Wes son, M.J., Porte r, O.L.H., Yee Ng,K.(2001).
Justice a t the Millennium. J ourna l of Applied Psychology, 86:425-445.
Dabe lko, David Dona ld (1971). Re latıve Deprıvatıon The ory And Its
Applıcatıon To The Study Of Polıtıcs Proque st Dissertations And The ses ;
1971; P roques t Disse rtations & The ses Full Text Pg. N/A
Folger,R.(1986). Re lative Deprivation a nd Referent Cognitions.Distributive
and Procedural Justice Effect<. Journa l of Expe rimenta l Social
Psychology, 22. 531-546.141
Heck, Anita K;Wech, Ba rbara A. (2003). Samue l A. S touffer a nd The
Ame rica n S oldier: The S e rendipitous Journa l of Applied Mana ge ment and
Entrepre ne urship; Oct 2003; 8, 4; ABI/INFORM Completepg. 52
Fe s tinger, L. (1954). A Theory of S ocial Compa rison Proce s ses . Huma n
Re lations , 7(2) 117-140.
Gree nberg, J. (1990). Organizational Jus tice : Yes terda y, toda y and
tomorrow. Journal of Mana ge ment, 16, 399-432.
Gürbüz,S., Mert, İ.S.,(2009).Orguts e l Ada let Ölçe ğinin Geçerlik ve
Güvenirlik Uygulamas ı: Kamuda Görgül Bir Çalışma, Amme İda re si
Dergisi, Cilt 42 Sa yı 3 , s. 117-139.
Kılıç, Bosta n & Grabows ki
179
Hofste de , G. (2001). Culture 's Conse quence s : Compa ring Value s,
Beha viours, Institutions , and Orga nizations Across Na tions. London: Sa ge
Publications
Latané, B. (1981). The P s ychology of Social Impa ct. Ame rica n
Psychologist, Vol 36(4), Apr 1981, 343-356.
Leventha l, G. S. (1976a). Fairnes s in Social Relationships . In J. W.
Thibaut, J . T. S pe nce,& R. C. Ca rson (Eds .), Contemporary Topics in
Social Ps ychology, Morristown, NJ:General Learning P ress.
Leventha l, G. S. (1976b). The Distribution of Re wards and Res ource s in
Groups andOrganizations . In L. Berkowitz & E. Walste r (Eds.), Advance s
in Experimenta l SocialPs ychology, 9, 91-131.
Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R. (1988). The S ocial P sychology of Procedura l
Justice. Ne w York: Plenum.
Noer, D. (1993). Healing the Wounds. San Francisco, California: Jos sey-
Bass Publishe rs.
Nam,D. (2008). Güven Ve Örgütse l Ada letin Be klenti Ötes i Özyeterlilik
Davranış ına Etkisi Yüksek Lis. Tezi
Nıehoff, Brian P.I Moorman, Robert H. (1993), "Justice as a Mediator of
the Relationship Between Methods of Monitoring And Orga nizational
Citizenship Behaviour," Academy of Management Journal, 36/3: 527-556.
Özde vecioğlu, M.(2003).Algılanan örgüts el Adaletin Bireyleraras ı
Saldırga n Davranışlar üzerindeki Etkilerinin Be lirlenme sine yönelik Bir
Araştırma . Erciyes Üniversites i İ.ve İdari Bilimler Fakültes i De rgisi, 21,. 77-
96.
Özme n, Ö. N. T., Arba k, Y., Öze r, P.S . (2007).Adalete Verilen De ğe rin
Ada let Algıları Üzerinde ki Etkisinin Sorgulanmas ına İlişkin Bir Araştırma ,
Ege Akade mik Bakış / Ege Aca demic Re view 7(1) 2007: 17–33
RuncimanW G (Berkeley: University of California Pre s s, 1966.1966)
Re lative De privation and S ocial Jus tice : AStudy of Attitude s to Social
Inequality in Twentieth-Century England
Seymen. O. A. Kılıç, T. Saç, O. (2013). Örgütsel Adalet Algısının
Oluşmasında Baş ka larına Dönük Uygulama ların Anlamlı Etkisi Var Mıdır?
21. Yöne tim Ve Organiza syon Kongres i, 30 Mayıs 01 Haziran 2013,
Küta hya,526-531
Sulu, S .(2010). Örgüts el Adalets izlik-İş Da vra nışları İlişkisinde İş Tutum.
Rolü Doktora Tezi. YÖK Tez Merk.
Tajfel, H.-Turner, J. C.: (1979). An Integra tive Theory of Inter-group
Conflict.In W. G. Austin&S.
Weick,K.E,Robe rts,K(1993). Collective Mind in Orga nization: Hee dful
Interrelating on Flight De cks. Ad. Sci Q 38:357–381
180 Inte rnational Journa l of Health S ciences , Vol. 3(1),
March 2015
Rude r, Gary, J. (2003), The Relationship Among Organizationa l J ustice ,
Trust and Role Brea dth S e lf-Efficacy, Doctoral The s is, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univers ity, Virginia.
Polat, S . (2007). Ortaöğre tim Öğre tmenlerinin Örgütsel Ada let Algıları,
Örgüts e l Güven Düzeyleri ile Örgüts el Vata ndaşlık Davranışları Aras ındaki
ilişki Doktora Tezi YÖK Tez Merkezi
Yıldırım, F. (2007). İş Doyumu ile Örgütsel Adalet İlişkisi Ankara
Ünivers itesi SBF Dergisi,Cilt,62.Sayı,1.
