A Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction

Abstract

This study examined the relationship between of organizational justice encompassed by three components:(distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) and job satisfaction, and employees’ perceptionsof workplace justice. The study investigated the relationship of these justice measures in the Jordanianenvironment. The data was collected through the distribution of questionnaires among 229 employees of numberElectrical Industrial Companies selected through a stratified random sampling.The study findings show that only one significant relationship exists between the age of respondents and theirperceptions of organizational justice. The findings also suggested that this was positive associationorganizational justice and job satisfaction. Employee job satisfaction depends upon the organizational justice ofmanagers. Nevertheless, in measuring the three dimensions of organizational justice, the current study usedsurvey items that asked employees to respond to items that asked whether something is generally fair.Finally, although this study was conducted in Jordan, it is anticipated that the findings may have relevance on abroader scale. By replicating this study in different countries and contexts the results could be very helpful fordeveloping a new model of organizational justice with new implementation techniques that can be implementedeasily and successfully.

Full text

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
102
A Study of Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction
Hasan Ali Al-Zu’bi
Associate Professor, Department of Business Administration, Applied Science University
P.O. Box 922717, Amman 11192, Jordan
Tel: 962-795-629-808 E-mail: zubi1963@yahoo.com
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between of organizational justice encompassed by three components:
(distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) and job satisfaction, and employees’ perceptions
of workplace justice. The study investigated the relationship of these justice measures in the Jordanian
environment. The data was collected through the distribution of questionnaires among 229 employees of number
Electrical Industrial Companies selected through a stratified random sampling.
The study findings show that only one significant relationship exists between the age of respondents and their
perceptions of organizational justice. The findings also suggested that this was positive association
organizational justice and job satisfaction. Employee job satisfaction depends upon the organizational justice of
managers. Nevertheless, in measuring the three dimensions of organizational justice, the current study used
survey items that asked employees to respond to items that asked whether something is generally fair.
Finally, although this study was conducted in Jordan, it is anticipated that the findings may have relevance on a
broader scale. By replicating this study in different countries and contexts the results could be very helpful for
developing a new model of organizational justice with new implementation techniques that can be implemented
easily and successfully.
Keywords: Organizational justice, Job satisfaction, Electrical Industries
1. Introduction
Organizations are social systems where human resources are the most important factors for effectiveness and
efficiency. Organizations need effective managers and employees to achieve their objectives. Organizations
cannot succeed without their personnel efforts and commitment (Rad&Yarmohammadian, 2006).
Employee job performance and satisfaction are considered to be key variables that impact the performance of
organizations. In highly competitive global businesses must strive to identify factors that influence the
performance and job satisfaction of employees. One such factor is organizational justice; which describes the
individual’s perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization and their behavioral reactions
to such perceptions (Fernandes and Awamleh, 2006). Employees were more satisfied when they felt they were
rewarded fairly for the work they have done by making sure these rewards were for genuine contributions to the
organization and consistent with the reward policies. The reward could include a variety of benefits and
perquisites other than monetary gains. Employees with higher job satisfaction were important as they believed
that the organization would be of tremendous future in the long run and care about the quality of their work;
hence they were more committed to the organization, have higher retention rates and tend to have higher
productivity (Fatt, Khin and Heng 2010).
Below, we reviewed the literature and developed related hypotheses for the variables of interest, followed by the
description of the sampling design, selection of measurement scales and data analysis techniques. Afterwards is a
presentation and discussion of results, limitations of study and implications for practitioners and future research.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Organizational Justice
In an article assessing the past, present, and future states of research on organizational justice (Greenberg, 1990)
suggested that organizational justice research may potentially explain many organizational behavior outcome
variables. Organizational justice is the term used to describe the role of fairness as it directly relates to the
workplace. Specifically, organizational justice is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 103
have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influence other work-related
variables (Moorman, 1991). Organizational justice can help explain why employees retaliate against inequitable
outcomes or inappropriate processes and interactions (Alsalem and Alhaiani, 2007).
Employee’s perceptions relate to three dimensions of organizational justice: distributive justice, procedural
justice, and interactional justice.
2.1.1 Distributive Justice
Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes that an individual receives from organization.
Outcomes may be distributed on the basis of equality, need or contribution and individuals determine the fairness
of distribution through comparison with others (Alsalem and Alhaiani, 2007). Perceptions of an unfair
distribution of work rewards relative to work inputs create tension within an individual and the individual is
motivated to resolve the tension (Adams, 1963),
However, with the finding that the procedures used to determine outcomes can be more influential than the
outcomes itself, the emphasis has gradually shifted from distributive to procedural justice.
2.1.2 Procedural Justice
Procedural justice refers to participants' perceptions about the fairness of the rules and procedures that regulate a
process (Nabatchi, et al., 2007). Whereas distributive justice suggests that satisfaction is a function of outcome,
procedural justice suggests that satisfaction is a function of process. Among the traditional principles of
procedural justice are impartiality, voice or opportunity to be heard, and grounds for decisions (Bayles, 1990).
Procedural issues such as neutrality of the process (Tyler and Lind, 1992), treatment of the participants (Bies and
Moag, 1986; Lind and Tyler, 1988), and the trustworthiness of the decision making authority (Tyler& Bies, 1990)
are important to enhancing perceptions of procedural justice. Extensive literature supports procedural justice
theories of satisfaction. In general, research suggests that if organizational processes and procedures are
perceived to be fair, then participants will be more satisfied, more willing to accept the resolution of that
procedure, and more likely to form positive attitudes about the organization (Bingham, 1997;Tyler and Lind,
1992).
2.1.3 Interactional Justice
Organizational justice researchers developed the notion of interactional justice, defined as the quality of
interpersonal treatment received during the enactment of organizational procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986). In
general, interactional justice reflects concerns about the fairness of the non-procedurally dictated aspects of
interaction; however, research has identified two subcategories of interactional justice: informational justice and
interpersonal justice (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). These two subcategories of informational and interpersonal
justice overlap considerably; however, research suggests that they should be considered separately, as each has
differential effects on justice perceptions (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001).
Interactional justice includes various actions displaying social sensitivity, such as when supervisors treat
employees with respect and dignity. Mikula et al. (1990) reported that a considerable proportion of perceived
injustices did not concern distributional or procedural issues in the narrow sense, but instead referred to the
manner in which people were treated interpersonally during interactions and encounters.
2.2 Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction has been widely studied over the last four decades of organizational research. Job satisfaction
has been defined and measured both as a global construct and as a concept with multiple dimensions or facets
(Lund, 2003). In general, overall job satisfaction has been defined as “a function of the perceived relationship
between what one wants from one’s job and what one perceives it as offering” (Locke, 1969).
Job satisfaction is critical to retaining and attracting well-qualified personnel. Job satisfaction is an attitude that
people have about their jobs and the organizations in which they perform these jobs. Methodologically, we can
define job satisfaction as an employee’s affective reaction to a job, based on a comparison between actual
outcomes and desired outcomes (Mosadeghrad, 2003). Job satisfaction is generally recognized as a multifaceted
construct that includes employee feelings about a variety of both intrinsic and extrinsic job elements. It
encompasses specific aspects of satisfaction related to pay, benefits, promotion, work conditions, supervision,
organizational practices and relationships with co-workers (Misener et al., 1996).
Furthermore, more satisfied employees have more innovative activities in continuous quality improvement and
more participation in decision-making in organizations (Kivimaki and Kalimo, 1994). Job satisfaction is also
found to be positively-related to customer's satisfaction (Rad&Yarmohammadian, 2006).

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
104
3. The objectives of the study
The objectives of this study are as follows:
1. Explore the levels of organizational justice as perceived by employees of Electrical Industrial
Companies in Jordan.
2. Find out the relationship between employees perceptions towards organizational justice and job
satisfaction.
3. Investigate the types of relationships that might exist between such personal variables as age, gender,
and level of education, on organizational justice.
4. Problem Definition
This study is conducted to address certain key questions abut organizational justice in Electrical Industrial
companies. It would be worth examining the normal influence of organizational justice (Distributive Justice,
Procedural Justice, and Interactional Justice) in job satisfaction. Other questions include: 1. to what extent is the
level of organizational justice in Jordanian industrial Companies? 2. Is there any relationship between
employees' perception of organizational justice and their personal traits? 3. Is there any relationship between
organizational justice and job satisfaction?
5. Hypotheses of the Study
To answer the questions posed by the author, and based on the literature reviewed, the researcher proposed two
main null hypotheses as follows:
1. There is no significant relationship between employees' perception of organizational justice and their
personal traits such as age, gender, and level of education.
2. There is no significant relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction.
6. Methodology
6.1 Data and Sample
To gather data for this study, a random sample of (250) employees was selected from the population of Electrical
Industrial companies, number of workforce in these Companies at the 2010 was (1215) employees. Of the (238)
questionnaires returned, (9) were rejected due to incomplete responses and (229) responses (91 percent response
rate) were used for data analyses.
It should be noted that every questionnaire was personally handed and instructions were given to each employee
before completing the questionnaire. In terms of demographic findings, (90.8%) of respondents were males, and
the remaining (9.2%) were females. In terms of the age group of respondents, it is interested to note that (11.4%)
of them are less than (25) years, whereas (28.8%) fell into the (25-34) age group, whereas (50.2%) fell into the
(35-44) age group, only (9.6%) are above this group. As for the educational levels of these employees, the
majority (77.7%) were university certificate holders, and some those (5.7%) of these, have Higher Education
degree. See table (1).
6.2 Measures
Distributive Justice: Perceptions of distributive justice were measured with a 5-item scale developed by Neihoff
and Moorman (1993). Respondents indicated the extent of their agreement or disagreement with each item on a
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
The Cronbach's alpha for this scale in Western studies was (0.90), (moorman et al., 1998), the reliability
coefficient alpha for distributive justice in this study was (0.79).
Procedural Justice: Perceptions of procedural justice were measured with a 6-item scale developed by Neihoff
and Moorman (1993). Employees responded to each item using a 5-points Likert scale. The alpha coefficient for
this scale in Western studies was (0.90), Neihoff and Moorman (1993), the reliability Cronbach's alpha for
distributive justice in this study was (0.82).
Interactional Justice: Perceptions of Interactional justice were measured with 11-items measuring the degree to
which employees felt their needs were considered, and adequate explanations were made for job decisions. All
items used a five-point format. The alpha coefficient for this scale in Western studies was (0.90), Neihoff and
Moorman (1993), the reliability Cronbach's alpha for distributive justice in this study was (0.80).
Job Satisfactions: A standard job satisfaction questionnaire (Fernand and Awamleh, 2006), was used to assess
the level of job satisfaction among employees. This questionnaire has 7-items. It was decided to use five-point

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 105
Likert scale to measure the responses to each item (from strongly disagree 1 to strongly agree 5). The alpha
coefficient for this scale in Western studies was (0.87), Rad and Yarmohammadian (2006), the reliability
Cronbach's alpha for job satisfactions in this study was (0.83).
7. Results
7.1 Level of Organizational Justice
In order to achieve the first objective of this study, we arranged three tables, each one deals with one dimension
of the organizational justice.
7.1.1 Distributive Justice
Table (2) displays the means and standard deviations of the responses studied employees' attitudes toward
distributive justice exercised by their managers. Employees have negative attitudes toward their workload, and
level of pay, they showed positive attitudes toward work schedule, rewards and job responsibilities.
7.1.2 Procedural Justice
Table (3) reports respondents attitudes toward various issues included in procedural justice. The majority of the
respondents had positive attitudes pertaining to their managers. According to these employees, managers were
seen as unbiased in their job decisions; and they collected accurate and complete information before making any
decisions. Not only that, but these managers were applying job decisions consistently to all affected employees.
On the other hand employees had the right to appeal job decisions made by their managers.
7.1.3 Interactional Justice
The means and standard deviations studied of employees' attitudes toward the behavior of their managers.
According to treat employees, managers are treating them with respect and dignity, and are sensitive to their
personal needs, and they deal with them in a truthful manner, and when making decisions concerning their job,
they discuss the implications with them. See table (4).
7.1.4 Job Satisfaction
Table (5) displays the means and standard deviations of the responses studied employees' attitudes toward of Job
Satisfaction. Where these results indicate that there is a positive level of job satisfaction by the employees'
towards their work. This gives a positive impression of the level of organizational justice available to those
companies.
7.2 Relationship between Employees' Perception of Organizational Justice and their Personal Traits
To achieve the second objective of this study and at the same time test the hypothesis, data about employees'
background traits were collected.
Traits such as age, gender, and educational level were investigated to see if there were significant relationship
between them and the perception of organizational justice.
Using one-way ANOVA between organizational justice and employees personal traits, the results showed that
there was only one significant relationship exists between age of respondents and their perceptions of
organizational justice. But there is no significant relationship between gender and of respondents and their
perceptions of organizational justice, As well as for educational level.
Other studies have proved this result, such as studying. (Alsalem &Alhaiani, 2007).
Figures in table (6) showed that the significant level between these two variables was (0.00) which is significant
at (0.05).
7.3 Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction
To test the significant level of the second hypothesis proposed by the researcher, and at the same time achieve
our final objective that been soughed by this study, table (7) presents the means and standard deviations, and
Zero-order correlations among organizational justice and job satisfaction, although the results in the table
showed strong relationships between the three dimensions of organizational justice, the relationships between
organizational justice and job satisfaction was positively correlated, (0.19).
All dimensions of organizational justice were also positively correlated with job satisfaction. This implied that
job satisfaction studied depend directly on the level of organizational justice being perceived by the employees.
Other studies have shown correlations between Organizational Justice and job satisfaction (e.g., Bakhshi, Kumar,
& Rani, 2009).

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
106
There other studies have shown high correlations between procedural justice and job satisfaction (e.g.,
Mossholder, Bennett, & Martin, 1998; Wesolowski & Mossholder, 1997; Awamleh & Fernandes, 2006). There
other studies have shown correlations between distributive justice and job satisfaction (e.g., Awamleh &
Fernandes, 2006).
In addition, Masterson, Lewis, Goldman and Tyalor (2000) showed procedural justice to be a stronger predictor
of job satisfaction than interactional justice, although both had significant independent effects.
8. Conclusion
This study explores employees’ perceptions toward organizational justice in the form of (distributive justice,
procedural justice, and interactional justice) and to examine how these perceptions correlate with their personal
traits, and also with their job satisfaction.
As for the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ personal traits, only significant
relationship exists between age of respondents and their perceptions of organizational justice. The findings
revealed that positive association organizational justice and job satisfaction. This finding suggests that
organizational justice is antecedent to job satisfaction.
This result lends support to the nation that one cannot predict job satisfaction through examining organizational
justice.
These results build on the work of previous researchers who demonstrated that organizations and their managers
influence employee behavior.
Cultivating a sense of organizational justice may benefit an organization through decreased absenteeism and
employee turnover. (Alsalem and Alhaiani, 2007).
Organizations that ignore procedural justice concerns run the risk of endangering negative organizational
outcomes of decisions, non-compliance with rules and procedures, and in some instances, lower satisfaction.
(Lind and Tyler, 1988).
Consequently, cultivating employees’ sense of organizational justice is key to an job satisfaction.
9. Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
As with any research, our study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. The first limitation of this
study is that the data collected which was self-reported, thus, common method bias may be present. Second, the
measurement of organizational fairness, in measuring the three dimensions of organizational justice, the current
study used survey items that asked employees to respond to items that asked whether something is generally fair.
When focusing on fairness of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, the researchers assumed that
employees consider fairness to themselves. Third, behavioral intentions rather than actual behaviors were
measured, while intentions are not always flawless predictors of behavior, our approach is based on the desire to
assess the intensity of satisfaction responses, which are objectives that can the achieved more readily by
measuring behavioral intentions rather than behaviors.
Future studies should go beyond this to assess the possible cause and effect of the relationship between
organizational justice and job satisfaction, this study also suggests more research is needed to examine the
relationship between organizational justice and other variables, such as organizational citizenship behavior.
Therefore, the recommendation is for further researches to be applied to other regions and an environment is
needed:
x In other private sector organizations in Jordan, so that the findings can be generalized across the whole
population of Jordan.
x Not for profit and government organizations in Jordan.
Also, scholarly attention needs to be directed to the assessment of effects that experience, level of skills, career
aspirations have on perceptions of organizational justice and job satisfaction.
References
Adams, J.S. (1963).Wage Inequities, Productivity, and Work quality. Industrial Relations, 3, 9-16.
Alsalem, M., and Alhaiani, A. (2007). Relationship between Organizational Justice and Employees Performance.
Aledari, March, (108), 97-110.
Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor of Job Satisfaction
and Organization Commitment. International Journal of Business and Management, 4, (9), 145-154.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 107
Bayles, M.D. (1990). Procedural Justice: Allocating to Individuals. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bies, R.J and Moag, J.S. (1986). International Justice: communication criteria of fairness. Research on
Negotiation in Organizations. (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 43-55.
Bingham, L.B. (1997). Mediating employment disputes: perceptions of Redress at the United States Postal
Service. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 17, (2), 20-30.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., and Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium:
A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
425-445.
Fatt, C. Kwai, Knin, E. Wong and Heng, T. Ngee. (2010). The Impact of Organizational Justice on Employees’
Job Satisfaction: The Malaysian Companies Perspectives. American Journal of Economics and Business
Administration, 2, (1), 56-63.
Foger, R., and Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational Justice and human resource Management. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Looking Fair Being Fair: managing Impressions of Organizational Justice. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 12, 57-111.
Kivimaki, M., and Kalimo, R. (1994). Contributors to satisfaction with management in hospital wards. Journal
of Nursing Management, 2(5, September), 225-34.
Lind, E.A., and tyler, T.R. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Locke, Edwin A. (1969). What is Job Satisfaction?. Organization Behavior and Human Performance, 4, (4),
309-414.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange:
The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal,
43, 738-748.
Mikula, G., Petrik, B., and Tanzer, N. (1990). What People Regard as Unjust: types and structures of everyday
experiences of injustice. European journal of Social Psychology, 20, (2), 49-133.
Misener, T.R., Haddock, K.S., Gleaton, J.U., and Ajamieh, A.R. (1996). Toward an international measure of job
satisfaction. Nursing Research, 45, 87-91.
Moorman, Robert H. (1991). Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Behavior: Do fairness perceptions influence employee Citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, (76),
845-855.
Moorman, Robert, Blakely, Gerald and Niehoff, Brian. (1998). Does Perceived Organizational Support Mediate
the Relationship between Procedural Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management,
41,(3), 351-357.
Mosadeghrad, A.M. (2003). The role of participative management (suggestion system) in hospital effectiveness
and efficiency. Research in Medical Sciences, 8, (3), 85-9.
Mossholder, K. W., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. L. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141.
Nabatchi, T., Bingham, L. B., and Good, D. H. (2007). Organizational Justice and Workplace Mediation: A Six
Factor Model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18, (2), 148-176.
Niehoff, Brian P., and Moorman, Robert H. (1993). Justice As A mediator of the Relationship Between Methods
of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, (3), 527-566.
Rad, A. Mohammad and Yarmohammadian, M. Hossein (2006). A study of Relationship Between Managers
Leadership Style and Employees Job Satisfaction. Leadership and Health Service, 19, (2), xi – xxviii.
Raed, Awamleh and Fernandes, Cedwyn. (2006). Impact of Organizational Justice in an Expatriate Work
Environment. Management research news, 29, (11), 701-712.
Tyler, T.R., and Bies, R.J. (1990). Beyond Formal Procedures: the interpersonal context of Procedural justice,
Carroll, J.S. Applied Social Psychology in Business Settings. (5th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 77-98.

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
ISSN 1833-3850 E-ISSN 1833-8119
108
Tyler, T.R., and Lind, E.A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 25, 115 - 191.
Wesolowski, M. A., & Mossholder, K. W. (1997). Relational demography in supervisor subordinate dyads:
Impact on subordinate job satisfaction, burnout, and perceived procedural justice. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 18, 351-362.
Table 1. Characteristics of the Sample (N=229)
Items frequency Percent
Gender:
Male
Female
208
21
90.8
9.2
Age:
Less than 25 year
25 – 34 Years
35 – 44 Years
45 and more
26
66
115
22
11.4
28.8
50.2
9.6
Educational Level:
Secondary
University
Higher Education
38
178
13
16.6
77.7
5.7
Table 2. Employees' Perceptions towards Distributive Justice
Q Items Means Standard Deviation
1 My work schedule is fair. 3.79 1.23
2 I think that my level of pay is fair. 2.96 1.35
3 I consider my work load to be quite fair. 2.65 1.69
4 Overall the rewards I receive here quite fair. 3.38 1.32
5 I feel that my job responsibilities. 3.32 1.45
Total 3.22 1.40
Table 3. Employees' Perceptions towards Procedural Justice
Q Items Means Standard
Deviation
6 Job decisions are made by the manager in a biased manner. 3.54 1.10
7 My manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before Job
decisions are made.
3.29 1.02
8 To make job decisions, my manager collects accurate and complete
information
3.43 1.19
9 My manager clarifies decisions and provides additional information when
requested by employees.
3.51 0.78
10 All jobs decisions are applied consistently to all affected employees. 4.14 0.89
11 Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by their
managers.
3.69 0.57
Total 3.60 0.92

www.ccsenet.org/ijbm International Journal of Business and Management Vol. 5, No. 12; December 2010
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education 109
Table 4. Employees' Perceptions towards Interactional Justice
Q Items Means Standard
Deviation
12 When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with kindness
and consideration.
3.05 1.15
13 When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with respect
and dignity.
4.32 0.69
14 When decisions are made about my job, the manager is sensitive to my
personal needs.
3.56 0.76
15 When decisions are made about my job, the manager deals with me in a
truthful manner.
4.28 0.71
16 When decisions are made about my job, the manager shows concern for my
right as employee.
4.04 0.91
17 Concerning decisions made about my job, the manager discusses with me the
implications of the decisions.
3.12 0.72
18 The manager offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job. 3.21 0.79
19 When making decisions about my job, the manager offers explanations that
make sense to me.
3.91 0.59
20 My manager explains very clearly any decisions made about my job. 3.85 0.87
Total 3.70 0.79
Table 5. The Level of Job satisfaction among Employees'
Q Items Means Standard
Deviation
21 In general, I am satisfied with this job. 4.27 0.67
22 I find that my opinions are respected at work. 3.86 0.58
23 Most people on this job are very satisfied with it. 3.46 0.89
24 I am satisfied with the recognition I get for the work I do 4.43 0.77
25 I am satisfied with the way my pay compares with that for similar jobs in other
firms.
4.82 0.44
26 I am satisfied with the personal relationship between my boss and his/her
employees.
3.78 1.23
27 I am satisfied with the way my boss handles employees. 3.51 1.24
Total 4.01 0.83
Table 6. One-way ANOVA between Organizational Justice and Employees' Personal Traits
organizational
justice
Sum of
Squares
Mean Squares df F Sig.
Age 62.316 15.579 4 55.577 0.000*
Sex 0.200 6.671 4 0.622 0.602
Educational Level 0.640 0.213 4 2.020 0.108
* Significant at p 0.05 <
Table 7. The Intercorrelations among Variables
variables 1 2 3 4
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice
Organizational justice
Job Satisfaction
1
0.19*
0.16*
0.32**
0.10*
1
0.09*
0.51**
0.19*
1
0.37**
0.18*
1
0.19*
* Correlation is sig. at p 0.05 <
** Correlation is sig. at p 0.01 <