Organizational justice climate & organizational citizenship behavior in Indian banks.
Jain, Ravindra ; Jain, Sheelam
Introduction
Employees are considered as the pivotal factor of any
service-oriented organization like banking and play a significant role
in improving its effectiveness. Indian banking industry is witnessing a
paradigm shift not only in its profitability and performance but also in
its systems and strategies. To sustain such transformations, there is a
need to focus on creating a sense of belongingness and loyalty among the
employees and that can be a great source of competitive advantage for
Indian banking industry. Committed and loyal employees will produce
highest quality of customer services leading to overall customer
satisfaction culminating into organizational success. In view of such
observations, today's challenge is to satisfy the employees in all
respects and help them feel being treated fairly (Bhatt, 2012) and
therefore, creating and maintaining 'organizational justice
climate' within the organizational set up is a critical phenomenon.
Organizational justice (OJ) refers to the extent to which employee
perceives workplace procedures, outcomes and interactions to be fair in
nature. The social science definition of organizational justice is based
on individual perceptions. An act is considered fair because someone
perceives it to be just (Nakra, 2014). The dimensions of OJ are commonly
conceptualized as distributive justice i.e., the fairness of decision
outcomes, procedural justice i.e., the fairness of procedures leading to
a particular outcome, and interactional justice which refers to the
quality of interpersonal treatment received by employees particularly as
part of formal decision making procedures. Such fairness perceptions can
influence employees' attitudes and behavior and consequently
organizational performance. More specifically, it involves the ways in
which employee perceives whether they have been treated fairly on their
jobs and the ways in which those perceptions influence other work
related variables (Moorman, 1991).
Most of the prior research in the area of organizational justice
has focused on two major issues: firstly, employees' responses to
the outcomes they receive, that is distributive justice and, secondly,
the means or procedures by which they obtain these outcomes, that is
procedural justice (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). A few studies
provide evidence that people consider the nature of their treatment by
others also as a determinant of fairness (e.g., Bies, 1986; Tyler,
1988). Thus, the quality of interpersonal treatment received was also
considered as a major determinant of people's assessment of fair
treatment (Greenberg, 1990). Interactional justice may be sought by
showing concern for individuals regarding the distributive outcomes they
received (Greenberg, 1993). Although few researchers have treated
interactional justice as a component of procedural justice (e.g.,
Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990) many
others have considered it independently as a third type of justice
(e.g., Aquino, 1995; Barling & Phillips, 1993; Bies & Shapiro,
1987; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). Colquitt (2001) empirically tested
the dimensionality of organizational justice and suggested a three
dimension structure of OJ as procedural justice, distributive justice
and interactional justice. Following Colquit's suggestion, we argue
that all the three components are equally significant as an organization
that encourages distributive, procedural and interactional justice which
are beneficial to both the employees as well as the organization;
employees will be satisfied that they have been treated fairly and the
organization will be benefitted by positive attitudes and behaviors of
those satisfied employees. Earlier research on organizational justice in
the Indian context has focused on the unique effects of justice
dimensions on key outcomes such as job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, turnover intentions,
etc. Further, a fuller understanding of the fairness judgment requires a
simultaneous examination of the three dimensions (distributive,
procedural and interactional justices) which are found scarce in the
literature as most of the studies focused on either one or two
dimensions of OJ. In view of these research gaps, we investigated
organizational justice with respect to three dimensions viz.,
distributive, procedural and interactional justice in Indian banks.
Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) has important implications for
organizational performance (Podsakoff et al, 2009) and therefore, we
also assessed the impact of OJ on OCB of bank employees.
Review of Literature
The study of Nadiri & Tanova (2010) showed that the perceptions
of organizational justice have a strong effect on organizational
citizenship behavior. Moorman (1991) studied the relationship between
fairness perceptions in the form of procedural justice/distributive
justice and OCB and found a causal relationship between procedural
justice and OCB but perceptions of distributive justice were not found
to influence OCB. Viswesvaran and Ones (2002) revealed that procedural
justice was positively related to a greater extent than distributive
justice with OCB. Moorman, Niehoff and Organ (1993) found significant
relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and OCB
dimensions of courtesy, sportsmanship and conscientiousness. Kamdar,
McAllister and Turban (2006) examined the relationship between
procedural justice and 'interpersonal helping' dimension of
OCB in an oil refinery in India and their study findings indicate that
procedural justice has positive impact on OCB. Moideenkutty, Blau, Kumar
and Nalakath (2006) examined the relationships between OJ and OCB in an
Indian company and they revealed that procedural justice (but not
distributive justice) and sportsmanship and civic virtue dimensions of
OCB were found to have positive correlation. In a recent study of Indian
public and private sector companies, Gupta & Singh (2013) found that
interpersonal justice significantly predicts courtesy behaviour (a
dimension of OCB). Niehoff and Moorman (1993) found significant
relationship between interactional justice and sportsmanship dimension
of OCB. Dickinson (2009) studied the relationship between OCB and
interactional justice among bank employees in the US and found
significant but negative correlation between OCB and interactional
justice. Schappe (1998) studied the influence of job satisfaction,
organizational commitment and fairness perceptions in the form of
procedural justice and interactional justice on OCB and found that
neither procedural justice nor interactional justice was a significant
predictor of OCB. Batool (2013), in his study of banks of Pakistan,
found that organizational justice has no considerable positive effect in
the direction towards OCB of a banker. Aquino (1995) in an empirical
study proved the linkages between interpersonal justice and helping
behavior among both managerial and non-managerial employees in several
organizations. Colquitt (2001) suggests that individual referenced type
of extra role behavior (such as helping) would be driven primarily by
interactional justice whereas system referenced types of extra role
behavior (e.g., civic virtue) would be driven by procedural justice.
Review of literature presented here indicates that procedural justice
has positive impact on OCB. However, so far as positive impact of
distributive justice and interactional justice on OCB is concerned, in
some studies it was found to exist whereas other studies reported that
it was missing. Overall, extant research on the issue of the impact of
the three dimensions of OJ on OCB is inconclusive.
The Study
Perceived organizational justice (OJ) with respect to: a)
distributive justice, b) procedural justice, and c) interactional
justice as well as perceived organizational citizenship behavior (OCB)
with respect to a) helping behavior, b) courtesy, and c) sportsmanship
have been assessed by the present study. The main objectives of the
study were: first, to measure the level of distributive justice,
procedural justice and interactional justice in public and private
sector banks and foreign banks operating in India. Second, to find out
the relationship between the three dimensions (viz., distributive
justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) of organizational
justice. Third, to compare the level of OJ dimensions as perceived by
the three managerial levels (senior, middle and junior) in the selected
banks. Fourth, to compare the difference of managerial perceptions of OJ
dimensions among the three banking sectors, viz., public sector banks,
private sector banks and foreign banks in India. Fifth, to study the OCB
of the bank managers with respect to helping behavior, courtesy, and
sportsmanship. Sixth, to assess the impact of OJ on OCB of the bank
managers across the three sectors of Indian commercial banks.
The Sample Design
The study was carried out with a sample survey of 318 managers
belonging to public sector, private sector and foreign banks operating
in India. For the purpose, State Bank of India (SBI), Bank of India
(BOI), ICICI Bank, HDFC Bank, Axis Bank, Yes Bank, Standard Chartered
Bank, and Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) have been
selected. The first two banks represent Indian public sector banks, next
four banks represent Indian private sector banks and the remaining two
banks represent foreign banks operating in India. The selection of
branches/administrative offices for the survey was based on convenience
sampling. For the purpose, the three levels of bank managers, viz.,
senior managers, middle-level managers, and junior managers working in
various branches and administrative offices of the chosen banks were
selected. Out of 318 participant managers, one hundred and thirty six
(42.7%) managers were from public sector banks, one hundred and twenty
five (39.3%) managers were from private sector banks and fifty seven
(18%) managers were from foreign banks operating in India. The sample
included 12.3% senior level managers, 36.8% middle level managers and
50.9% junior level managers. Our sample covers mangers of both the
sexes, various age-groups, varying qualifications and length of
experience.
Data Collection & Analysis
The survey was conducted by using the five point Likert type
scales. Organizational justice was measured using a nine item scale
partially adapted from the organizational justice scale developed by
Niehoff & Moorman (1993). The Cronbach's reliability
coefficients (a) of the overall Organizational Justice scale including
all the three dimensions and nine items was found to be 0.86. The three
items were related to Distributive Justice (a = 0.79), three items to
Procedural justice (a = 0.73) and three items were related to
Interactional justice (a = 0.85). OCB was measured using an eighteen
item scale that measures the three dimensions of OCB, viz., helping
behavior, courtesy, and sportsmanship. The OCB scale consisted of a six
item helping behavior sub-scale which was adapted from the scales
developed by Podsakoff et al., (1990), Williams & Anderson (1991),
Rego (1999), six item courtesy sub-scale which was adapted from the
scales given by Podsakoff, Ahearne & MacKenzie (1997) Williams &
Anderson (1991), and six item sportsmanship sub-scale which was adapted
from the scales developed by Rego (1999) and Pattanayak, Misra &
Niranjana (2003). The reliability coefficient, the Cronbach's alpha
(a) score of the overall OCB scale was found as 0.85.
The reliability coefficients (a values) of all the OJ and OCB
scales were found above Nunnally and Bernstein's (1994) standard
0.70 threshold and hence they are the indicators of the reliability of
the scales. Mean, standard deviation, t- test, ANOVA, correlation
analysis and regression analysis were used to make relevant analysis.
Key Variables
Organizational Justice refers to the extent to which employee
perceives workplace procedures, outcomes and interactions to be fair in
nature. Distributive Justice is the fairness of decision outcomes.
Procedural Justice is the fairness of procedures leading to a particular
outcome. Interactional Justice refers to the quality of interpersonal
treatment received by employees particularly as part of the formal
decision making procedures. OCB represents individual behavior that is
discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
system. Helping Behavior or Altruism is the voluntary action that helps
another co-worker with a work problem. Courtesy measures behaviors such
as taking steps to try to prevent conflicts with coworkers, boosting up
others when they are stressed by work related problems, always willing
to listen to co-worker problems, willingly share expertise with
co-workers, treating customers with respect, speaking courteously with
every customer. Sportsmanship is employees' willingness to tolerate
the inevitable inconveniences and impositions of work without
complaining.
Overall Organizational Justice Climate
Organizational Justice Climate as a whole and Distributive Justice,
Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice separately were perceived
to be found at moderate levels by the bank managers across public
sector, private sector and foreign banks operating in India (Table 1).
While comparing the perceptions of male and female managers as regards
Organizational Justice, it was found that the dimensions of Distributive
Justice and Procedural Justice have been perceived at moderate levels
across both the groups (males and females) without any significant
variation (at 0.05 level of significance). However, Interactional
Justice although has been perceived at a moderate level by both males
and females with significant variation it was found that female managers
perceived Interactional Justice at a significantly higher level as
compared to male managers. Overall Organizational Justice Climate as a
whole was found to prevail at moderate levels as perceived by both male
and female managers without any significant variation.
Three Dimensions
A high degree of positive correlation was found to exist between
the three dimensions of Organizational Justice, viz., Distributive
Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice. It means that all
the three dimensions of Organizational Justice are positively and
strongly related with one another (Table 2).
Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice have been perceived at
moderate levels by the managers of public sector, private sector as well
as foreign banks but with significant variation. The levels of
distributive as well as procedural justice were found higher in the case
of foreign banks. While the level of Distributive Justice was found
lowest in public sector banks, that of procedural justice was found the
lowest in the case of private sector banks. Interactional Justice was
perceived at moderate levels by the managers of public sector, private
sector and foreign banks and there is no significant variation between
the perceptions of managers of the three banking sectors. However,
overall OJ perceptions were found significantly higher in foreign banks
as compared to public sector and private sector banks. This implies that
OJ prevails at higher level in foreign banks as compared to public
sector and private sector banks (Table 3).
Across the three management viz., senior, middle and junior levels
in the selected banks, the three dimensions, viz., Distributive Justice,
Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice have been perceived to
prevail in practice at a moderate level and that too without any
significant variation. This indicates that in the selected banks,
irrespective of their managerial levels, fair treatment is being given
to all the employees in regard to the three dimensions of OJ (Table 4).
The two dimensions of OCB viz., 'helping behavior' and
'sportsmanship' have been found at moderate levels in the
selected banks while the third dimension viz, 'courtesy' was
found at high levels in the selected banks. However, overall OCB of the
bank managers in the aggregate was found only at moderate levels. Thus,
it appears that the bank managers favorably and positively demonstrate
their organizational citizenship behaviors in the matter of helping,
courtesy and sportsmanship (Table 5).
Regression analysis was performed to assess the impact of OJ on OCB
which indicates that the former has a significant impact on the latter
(Table 6). The results revealed that 16.6% of variation in OCB was due
to variation in the three dimensions of Organizational Justice. Hence,
the model adequately explained the relationship between the OCB and
Organizational Justice. As depicted in Table 6, the largest beta
coefficient (P) is 0.365 which is for Interactional Justice. This means
that this OJ dimension makes the strongest contribution to explain the
variations in OCB.
Discussion & Implications
The aim of the present study was to measure the level of
Organizational Justice in Indian banks. It was found that OJ in terms of
Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice
prevailed at moderate levels in practice in Indian banks. Results of the
study indicate that although OJ climate prevails favorably in the Indian
banks to a reasonable extent, such a climate still needs to be improved
substantially. Since earlier research studies have established that all
the three dimensions of OJ play a critical role in influencing various
organizational and individual level outcomes, it becomes significant for
the management of Indian banks to pay special attention by way of
implementing fair procedures, providing fair rewards and giving a fair
treatment to the employees for enhancing the level of Organizational
Justice. OJ climate may be improved by encouraging in a planned way
voice behavior, unbiased behavior, and ethical behavior particularly in
decision-making process. Gupta and Singh (2013:1292) appropriately
argued that "voice emerges as a distinct justice dimension in the
Indian context, because voice makes employees feel that they are
empowered to control their outcomes".
So far as impact of perceived OJ on OCB is concerned, results of
extant research are inconclusive. However, the results of our study
provides the additional weight in support of the proposition that
favorable OJ climate has positive impact on organizational citizenship
behavior. As Gupta and Singh (2013) stated citing Leung (2005) and Leung
& Tong (2004) that although justice is universal, cross-cultural
psychologists and anthropologists have long argued that the substance of
justice varies across cultures. Therefore, the issue of relationship
between OJ and OCB needs to be further researched with reference to
various sectors in the specific culture and across the cultures.
According to Organ's (1988) conceptual framework, OCB consists of
five dimensions, viz., helping behavior, compliance, sportsmanship,
courtesy and civic virtue behavior. While assessing the relationship
between OJ and OCB, all the five dimensions of OCB have not been taken
into consideration in most of the Indian studies including ours. It is,
therefore, expected that future researchers will attend this research
gap while designing their studies in the area of relationship between OJ
and OCB. The findings of our study are based on the perceptions of only
bank managers whereas a substantial number of employees in the banks,
especially in public sector banks, belong to non-managerial cadre.
Therefore, a more detailed investigation of OJ perceptions of
non-managerial staff who were unrepresented in the present survey should
be carried out in future.
Ravindra Jain is Professor in Business Management, Faculty of
Management Studies, Vikram University, Ujjain 456010. E-mail:
jainravindrak@rediffmail.com. Sheelam Jain is Associate Professor and
Career Mentor, MIT Group of Institutes, Ujjain. E-mail:
sheelam@rediffmail.com
References
Aquino, K. (1995), "Relationships among Pay Inequity,
Perceptions of Procedural Justice, and Organizational Citizenship",
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8(1): 21-33.
Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993), "Interactional, Formal,
and Distributive Justice in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study",
Journal of Psychology, 127(6): 649-56.
Batool, Saima (2013), "Developing Organizational Commitment
and Organizational Justice to Amplify Organizational Citizenship
Behavior in Banking Sector", Pakistan Journal of Commerce and
Social Sciences, 7(3): 646-55.
Bhatt, Prachi (2012), "HRD in Emerging Economies: Research
Perspectives in Indian Banking", Indian Journal of Industrial
Relations, 47(4): 665-72.
Bies, R. J. (1986), "Identifying Principles of Interactional
Justice: The Case of Corporate Recruiting", in R. J. C. Bies (Ed.),
Moving Beyond Equity Theory: New directions in Research on Justice in
Organizations (Proceedings of Symposium at the Annual Meeting of the
Academy of Management, Chicago IL).
Bies, R. J.& Shapiro, D. L. (1987), "Interactional
Fairness Judgments: The Influence of Causal Accounts", Social
Justice Research, 1(2): 199-218.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), "On the Dimensionality of
Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of A Measure",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 386-400.
Cropanzano, R. & Greenberg, J. (1997), "Progress in
Organizational Justice: Tunneling through the Maze", in C.L. Cooper
& I.T. Robertson (Eds.), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 12: 317-372.
Dickinson, Liz (2009), "An Examination of the Factors
Affecting Organizational Citizenship Behavior", Doctoral Thesis,
The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga, Tennessee, USA
Greenberg, J. (1990), "Employee Theft as a Reaction to
Underpayment Inequity: The Hidden Cost of Pay Cuts", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 75(5): 561-68.
Greenberg, J. (1993), "The Social Side of Fairness:
Interpersonal and Informational Classes of Organizational Justice",
in R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness
in Human Resource Management, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gupta, Vishal & Singh, Shailendra (2013), "An Empirical
Study of the Dimensionality of Organizational Justice and its
Relationship with Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the Indian
Context", The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
24(6): 1277-99.
Kamdar, D., McAllister, D.J., & Turban, D.B. (2006), "All
in a Day's Work": How Follower Individual Differences and
Justice Perceptions Predict OCB Role Definitions and Behavior",
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(4): 841-55.
Leung, K. (2005), "How Generalizable are Justice Effects
Across Cultures?" in Jerald Greenberg & Jason A. Colquitt
(Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Leung, K. & Tong, K.K. (2004), "Justice Across Cultures: A
Three-Stage Model for Intercultural Negotiation", in M.J. Gelfand
& J.M. Brett (Eds.), Handbook of Negotiation and Culture.
California, US: Stanford University Press.
Moideenkutty, U., Blau, G., Kumar, R., & Nalakath, A. (2006),
"Comparing Correlates of Organizational Citizenship versus In-Role
Behavior of Sales Representatives In India", International Journal
of Commerce and Management, 16(1): 15-28.
Moorman, R.H., Niehoff, B.P & Organ, D.W. (1993),
"Treating Employees Fairly and Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Sorting the Effects of Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and
Procedural Justice", Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal,
6(3): 209-25.
Moorman, R. H. (1991), "Relationship between Organizational
Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness
Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?", Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(6): 845-55.
Nadiri, H. & Tanova, C. (2010), "An Investigation of the
Role of Justice in Turnover Intentions, Job Satisfaction, and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Hospitality Industry",
International Journal of Hospitality-Management, 29(1): 33-41.
Nakra, Rashmi (2014), "Understanding the Impact of
Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment and Projected Job
Stay among Employees of the Business Process Outsourcing Sector in
India", Vision - the Journal of Business Perspective, 18(3):
185-94.
Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993), "Justice as a
Mediator of the Relationship between Methods of Monitoring and
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors", Academy of Management
Journal, 36(3): 527-56.
Nunnally, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric Theory
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D. W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good
Soldier Syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Pattanayak, B., Misra, R.K. & Niranjana, P. (2003),
"Organizational Citizenship Be havior: A Conceptual Framework and
Scale Development", Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 39(2):
194-204.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R.H. & Fetter, R.
(1990), "Transformational Leader Behaviors and their Effects on
Followers' Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors", Leadership Quarterly, 1(2): 107-42.
Podsakoff, N.P., Whiting, S.W., Podsakoff, P.M. & Blume, B.D.
(2009), "Individual--and Organizational--Level Consequences of
Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: A Meta-Analysis", Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1): 122-41.
Podsakoff, P.M. Ahearne M. & MacKenzie S.B. (1997),
"Organizational Citizenship Behavior and the Quantity and Quality
for Work Group Performance", Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2):
262-70.
Rego, A. (1999), "Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Operationalizing the Construct", Psicologia, XIII (1-2): 127-48.
Schappe, S. (1998), "The Influence of Job Satisfaction,
Organizational Commitment and
Fairness Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behavior,"
Journal of Applied Psychology, 132(3): 277-90.
Skarlicki, D. P. & Folger, R. (1997), "Retaliation in the
Workplace: The Role of Distributive, Procedural, and Interactional
Justice", Journal of Applied Psychology, 82: 434-43.
Tyler, T. R. & Bies, R. J. (1990), "Beyond Formal
Procedures: The Interpersonal Context of Procedural Justice", in J.
Carroll (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R. (1988), "What is Procedural Justice?", Law
and Society Review, 22(1): 30135.
Viswesvaran, C. & Ones, D.S. (2002), "Examining the
Construct of Organizational Justice: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of
Relations with Work Attitudes and Behaviors", Journal of Business
Ethics, 38(3): 193-203.
Williams, L. J. & Anderson, S. E. (1991), "Job
Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment as Predictors of
Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors", Journal of
Management, 17(3): 601-17.
Table 1 Organizational Justice Climate (OJC) in Selected Banks as
Perceived by Male & Female Managers
OJC Dimensions Mean Value SD Level of OJC
(N = 318)
Distributive 3.44 .886 Moderate
Justice
Procedural 3.66 .661 Moderate
Justice
Interactional 3.67 .661 Moderate
Justice
Overall 3.59 .607 Moderate
Organizational
Justice
OJC Dimensions t Test Results
Male Female t Sig.
Perception Perception Value
(N = 237) (N = 81)
Mean SD Mean SD
Distributive 3.44 .887 3.44 .890 -.025 .929
Justice
Procedural 3.65 .673 3.68 .708 -.365 .712
Justice
Interactional 3.64 .726 3.77 .518 1.482 .008 *
Justice
Overall 3.58 .627 3.63 .548 -.701 .178
Organizational
Justice
Notes: Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific
aspect of perceived OJC is above 4.0, it has been regarded as
'High'; if the mean value is between 2.5 and 4, it has been
considered as 'Moderate'; and, if the mean value is less than
2.5, it has been regarded as 'Low' * Significant at .05
level of significance (Table Value = 1.96).
Table 2 Inter-correlation (r)among the Three Dimensions of
Organizational Justice Climate (OJC) in the Selected Banks
OJ Dimensions Distributive Procedural Interactional
Justice Justice Justice
Distributive Justice 1
Procedural Justice .502 ** 1
Interactional Justice .488 ** .446 ** 1
Notes: N = 318. ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01
level. Correlation coefficient of 0.5 or even 0.4 is
considered to be of a fairly high degree. A correlation
coefficient of 0.5 means 25% of the variation and a
correlation coefficient of 0.4 means only 16% of variation.
In view of these standard interpretations, the researchers
considered correlation coefficient of 0.5 or higher as of
fairly high degree and a correlation coefficient less than
0.3 as of negligible or ignorable degree.
Table 3 Organizational Justice in Categories of Banks as
Perceived by the Bank Managers (Results of ANOVA)
OJ Dimensions Public Sector Private Sector
Banks(N = 136) Banks(N = 125)
Mean SD Mean SD
Distributive Justice 3.28 .867 3.42 .851
Procedural Justice 3.68 .578 3.55 .704
Interactional Justice 3.60 .679 3.73 .625
Overall Organizational 3.52 .534 3.57 .619
Justice
OJ Dimensions Foreign F P(Sig.)
Banks(N = 57)
Mean SD
Distributive Justice 3.88 .883 9.564 .000 *
Procedural Justice 3.81 .819 3.030 .050 *
Interactional Justice 3.74 .787 1.553 .213
Overall Organizational 3.81 .700 4.882 .008 *
Justice
* Note: Significant at .05 level of significance (Table
Value of F = 2.6049)
Table 4 Organizational Justice Climate by Management Levels
as Perceived by Bank Managers (Results of ANOVA)
OJ Dimensions Senior Level Middle Level
(N = 39) (N = 117)
Mean SD Mean SD
Distributive Justice 3.73 .769 3.46 .815
Procedural Justice 3.87 .673 3.61 .641
Interactional Justice 3.65 .716 3.65 .654
Overall Organizational 3.70 .582 3.58 .585
Justice
OJ Dimensions Junior Level F P(Sig.)
(N = 162)
Mean SD
Distributive Justice 3.37 .947 2.620 .074
Procedural Justice 3.64 .704 2.267 .105
Interactional Justice 3.69 .694 .147 .864
Overall Organizational 3.57 .630 .756 .470
Justice
Note: No p value is significant at 0.05 level of
significance (Table Value of F = 2.6049)
Table 5 Perceived Organizational Citizenship Behavior
of Bank Managers
Dimensions of OCB Mean (N=318) S.D. Level
Helping Behaviour 3.92 .495 Moderate
Courtesy 4.05 .507 High
Sportsmanship 3.67 .499 Moderate
Overall OCB 3.88 .397 Moderate
Note: Standards for analysis: If mean value of the specific
OCB dimension is above 4.0, it has been regarded as 'High';
if the mean value is between 3 and 4, it has been considered
as 'Moderate'; and, if the mean value is less than 3, it has
been regarded as 'Low'.
Table 6 Impact of Organizational Justice Climate on
Organizational Citizenship Behavior of Bank Managers
(Regression Analysis)
Coefficients
Model Unstandardized Standardize
Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error
1 (Constant) 2.940 .131
Procedural -.064 .028 -.143
Justice
Distributive -.103 .036 .177
Justice
Interactional -.213 .036 .365
Justice
Organizational .192 .085 .294
Justice
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R
Square
1 .408 (a) 0.166 .158
ANOVA (b)
Model Sum of df
Squares
Regression 12.851 6
Residual 104.790 311
Total 117.640 317
Coefficients
Model T Sig.
1 (Constant) 22.436 .000
Procedural -2.258 .025
Justice
Distributive 2.868 .004
Justice
Interactional 5.959 .000
Justice
Organizational 2.258 .025
Justice
Model Summary
Model Std. Error
of the
Estimate
1 .364
ANOVA (b)
Model Mean F Sig.
Square
2.142 6.357 .000 (a)
.337
(a.) Predictors: (Constant), Interactional Justice,
Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Organizational
Justice (b.) Dependent Variable: Organizational
Citizenship Behavior.
