Does Fair Treatment in the Workplace Matter? An Assessment of Organizational Fairness and Employee Outcomes in Government

Abstract

The purpose of the current study was to investigate how perceptions of organizational fairness may facilitate positive outcomes and prevent negative consequences in government organizations. In that effort, this study examined relationship between perceived organizational fairness and organizational identification, job involvement and turnover intention with data collected through an organizational survey from 764 professional employees working in 65 geographically distributed offices in an agency in state government. The findings indicated that perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness have positive effects on professional employees’ job involvement and negative influences on their turnover intention, though these effects are mediated by their organizational identification. Implications of these findings for public management theory and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Personnel/Human Resource Management Research Methods—Quantitative Organizational Behavior/Psychology

Introduction

Fair and equal treatment is a core principle upon which legal and political institutions are designed and operate in the United States. Under the U.S. Constitution and the accompanying Bill of Rights, all citizens are equal before the law and equally enjoy the right to participate in the electoral process. The legal statutes that authorize and govern public agencies are also rooted in the principle of fairness: civil service procedures for the selection, evaluation, promotion, and termination of government employees typically require unbiased and equal treatment (Rubin, 2009). Given its seminal importance as a guiding principle for the design and operation of government organizations, an assessment of the impact of fairness’ application on public employees has both theoretical and practical significance for public administration scholarship.

Fair treatment is a long-standing normative principle that provides legitimacy to the decisions and actions of government authorities (Rubin, 2009; Waldo, 1948). When street-level public officials like police officers and social service case workers treat citizens in similar situations the same—that is they treat them fairly—citizens are expected to perceive their public actions as legitimate and comply with them. Research in legal and political psychology has indicated that citizens’ trust and confidence in police and courts depends largely on their procedural fairness judgments and, that citizens care about procedural fairness even when they experience unfavorable outcomes (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Degoey, 1995; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Tyler, 2006). A recent study by Van Ryzin (2011) also found that that citizens’ trust in civil servants depends on not only whether government is successful in delivering outcomes but also “on getting the process right by treating people fairly, avoiding favoritism and containing corruption” (p. 755). Similarly, Moynihan and Herd (2010) have asserted that the treatment that citizens experience in their interactions with government authorities influences important outcomes including civic engagement, social capital, and citizens’ cooperation with government initiatives. The same basic phenomenon may also occur within government organizations, as managers interact with their subordinates (Barnard, 1938). Employees care deeply about how they are treated in their workplaces and their perceptions of organizational fairness are likely to have a strong influence on how they feel about their organization, and their desire to work hard on the organization’s behalf (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003).

Fairness is not simply a moral consideration in the design and operation of government agencies. The roots of the principle may be normative, but the impact of its application can potentially impact the day-to-day functioning of public agencies. Organizational fairness has implications for both employees’ economic well-being as well as their psychological health by satisfying many socioemotional needs in the workplace (e.g., the need for control, self-esteem and inclusion; Lind & Tyler, 1988). Recent studies have provided evidence that fair treatment can improve public employees’ trust in their management, increase satisfaction with their jobs, enhance their intrinsic motivation, lower their intention to leave their agency, and reduce their propensity to pay union fees (Choi, 2011; Kim & Rubyanti, 2011; Rubin, 2009, 2011). What these studies did not identify, though, is how perceptions of fair treatment drive these outcomes. Specifically, these studies did not provide sufficient theoretical insight about the underlying mechanisms through which fairness perceptions facilitate positive outcomes and prevent negative organizational consequences. A lack of understanding of such process may cause misinterpretation of the function as well as usage of formal policies designed to ensure fair treatment of employees in public agencies, providing no reliable guidance to managers about how to develop appropriate interventions to bolster employees’ views of organizational fairness.

The purpose of the present study was to examine how public employees’ perceptions about whether or not they are treated fairly in the workplace impacts two critical aspects of organizational effectiveness: employees’ level of involvement in their work and their intention to remain with their agency. This study focused on job involvement because it is closely associated with employee motivation and performance (Diefendorff, Brown, Kamin, & Lord, 2002; Kanungo, 1982; Lawler, 1992; Lodahl & Kejner, 1965; Paullay, Alliger, & Stone-Romero, 1994). Public employees are generally driven by a concern for their community and desire to serve the public interest (Perry & Wise, 1990) and these altruistic motives can enhance their level of involvement in their jobs (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Additionally, research has shown that a variety of organizational and job related factors can influence public employees’ job involvement (DeHart-Davis & Pandey, 2006; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007; Ward & Park, 2010). While these works provided valuable insight, little effort has been made to assess how fairness perceptions may influence public employees to become more involved in their work.

This study focused on professional employees’ turnover intention because of the strategic value of their intellectual capital in government organizations (Emmert & Taher, 1992), as well as the significant direct and indirect costs involved in replacing skilled employees (Moynihan & Pandey, 2008). The service orientation of government agencies has resulted in an increasing reliance on professionals from various fields including engineering, accounting, law, and information technology (Emmert & Taher, 1992). Government is one of the largest employers of professionals and they play a vital role in the effective implementation of public programs. A high rate of turnover of skilled employees can have serious negative consequences, including a decline in organization performance (Clotfelter, Ladd, & Vigdor, 2006; Shaw, Gupta, & Delery, 2005). When skilled employees leave, agencies lose sources of valuable institutional knowledge and need to spend resources on recruiting and training new employees that otherwise could be used for public programs (Moynihan & Pandey, 2008).

Fair treatment can be an effective mechanism for lowering professional employees’ intention to leave their agencies. Several studies have found a negative linkage between federal employees’ perceptions of organizational fairness and their turnover intention (Choi, 2011; Rubin, 2009). Building on these works, the current study examined one of the underlying psychological processes that may bind employees to their agencies and propel them to become highly involved in their work, namely the degree to which an employee believes that his or her personal identity is intertwined with his or her organization’s identity and feels emotionally connected to the organization (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley, 2008; Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Based on the group engagement theory of organizational fairness (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), this study examined whether organizational identification mediates the effects of organizational fairness perceptions on involvement and retention of professional employees working in government. These linkages were assessed with data collected through an organizational survey from 764 professional employees working in 65 geographically distributed offices in a large state agency. The section below draws from the extant organizational research to develop a theoretical argument and set of testable hypotheses about how organizational fairness perceptions may lead to higher job involvement and lower turnover intention among professional employees.

Theory and Hypotheses

Organizational fairness refers employees’ perceptions of fairness in their workplaces (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). Organizational fairness is a multidimensional concept that consists primarily of two components—distributive fairness and procedural fairness. Distributive fairness refers to fairness in the allocation of organizational rewards and resources among employees (Adams, 1965), while procedural fairness refers to fairness of formal policies and procedures used in making those allocation decisions (Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988). An additional component of organizational fairness, known as interactional fairness, recently has been proposed, which is quality of interpersonal treatment employees receive from authorities during the implementation of formal procedures (Bies, 2000).¹ This study focused on distributive and procedural fairness due to their close association with a variety of important organizational outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

Distributive fairness and procedural fairness are related, but distinct concepts. Employees develop perceptions about distributive and procedural fairness in different ways (Colquitt, 2001). Employees generally consider the allocation of work rewards to be fair when it is consistent with expected norms such as equity, equality, and need (Colquitt et al., 2005). Additionally, decision-making processes are perceived to be fair when they are accurate, consistent, unbiased, correctable, representative, and ethical (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Moreover, procedural fairness and distributive fairness may affect work attitudes and behaviors in different ways (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).

One prominent line of research from the organizational behavior literature—the group engagement model—provides insight into how procedural and distributive fairness experiences may motivate employees to engage in cooperative behaviors for their organization (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). A central reason why employees willingly cooperate in their organizations, according to the group engagement model, is that they use feedback from their workplace to develop and maintain a favorable social identity. The theory asserts that employees’ engagement in their organizations is strongly influenced by identity-relevant information, which originates directly from their procedural and distributive fairness experiences in the workplace (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). Specifically, fair treatment provides signals to employees about the extent to which their work efforts are valued by their organization. This feedback enhances their self-esteem and helps them to develop a positive view about themselves, which in turn motivates them to engage in cooperative behaviors for their organization. Organizational identification, from this perspective, is likely to mediate the effects of procedural and distributive fairness perceptions on professional employees’ job involvement and their turnover intention.

Organizational Identification

Organizational identification refers to perception of oneness with or belongingness to the organization, where individuals define themselves in terms of the organization of which they are a member (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashforth et al., 2008). This definition has roots in the social identity perspective, which comprises theories of social identity (Tajfel, 1978; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986) and self-categorization (Turner, 1985). From this perspective, social identity is “individual’s knowledge that he belongs to certain social groups together with some emotional and value significance to him of the group membership” (Tajfel, 1972, p. 292). Identification is a process through which individuals categorize themselves and others as members of particular groups to simplify and make sense of the complex social world (Hogg & Terry, 2001).

An organization can be a primary source of an individual’s social identity (Hogg & Terry, 2001). Additionally, organizational Identification has important implications for both employees and the organizations in which they work. Identification with an organization helps individuals to enhance collective self-esteem and develop a positive social identity (Ashforth et al., 2008). When employees identify strongly with their organization, the differences between their personal and their organizational identities become blurred (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994). Therefore, employees feel the successes and failures of their organization as their own, and they engage in behaviors that help the organization to achieve its goals.

Organizational identification has multiple dimensions including a cognitive and an evaluative one (Ashforth et al., 2008). The cognitive component captures the extent to which individuals’ organizational membership is self-defining and how they see themselves in relation to their organization (Ashforth et al., 2008). The evaluative component encompasses the value that individuals attach to their organizational membership (Ashforth et al., 2008). Specifically, it indicates what individuals think and feel about their organizational membership (e.g., pride vs. shame). It is closely associated with individuals’ emotional reactions to their organization which can be both positive and negative (Dutton et al., 1994).

Much of past research on organizational identification focused on the effects of its cognitive component on employees’ cooperative attitudes. The evaluative component of organizational identification has received only limited attention in previous research (Blader & Tyler, 2009). This is quite surprising, given that the impact of individuals’ social identity on their attitudes is determined largely by the extent to which their identity fosters self-esteem and contributes positively to their self-image (Blader & Tyler, 2009). Focusing on the evaluative component, therefore, appears to be critical for a better understanding of the impact of organizational identification on government employees’ cooperative attitudes.

The present study focused primarily on the role of the evaluative component of organizational identification—pride in organizational membership—as a mediator of the relationship between professional employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness and distributive fairness and their job involvement and intention to leave their current agency. Pride in organizational membership refers to employees’ evaluation of the general worth and status of their employing organization. It is an intergroup evaluative judgment that directly captures the evaluative aspect of group identification (Blader & Tyler, 2009). While making such judgments, employees generally focus on their feelings about the prototypical norms and values that define their organization (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003).

Impact of Fair Treatment on Organizational Identification

An important basis of employees’ organizational identification is their perceptions of fairness of the formal policies and procedures used in making rewards allocation decisions in the organization (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). Specifically, procedural fairness indicates employees’ status or standing in an organization, whether employees are held in high regard as organizational members in the workplace (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003; Tyler & Lind, 1992). Another important basis of employees’ organizational identification is their perception of the extent to which work-related rewards are allocated fairly in their organization (Blader & Tyler, 2009). Employees generally expect that distribution of rewards will be proportional to their work efforts (Adams, 1965). Equity in the allocation of rewards is an important source of work motivation (Greenberg, 1982; Latham & Pinder, 2005), but it may also have a symbolic value beyond its instrumental effects (Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw, 1998; Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 1996). Distributive fairness may provide information similar to that conveyed through procedural fairness. In other words, it may indicate whether employees can safely make identity-related investments in their organization (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003). Several studies found a positive linkage between procedural and distributive fairness and organizational identification (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006) in business and industry settings, but this linkage has not been tested in a government work setting. Thus, this study examined the following two hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1: Procedural fairness has a positive influence on organizational identification.

Hypothesis 2: Distributive fairness has a positive influence on organizational identification.

Impact of Organizational Identification on Job Involvement and Turnover Intention

The present study anticipated that organizational identification would have a positive influence on professional employees’ job involvement. The social identity perspective suggests that, when employees make status judgments about their organizational membership, they focus on their feelings about the prototypical characteristics that define the organization (Hogg & Terry, 2001). Positive evaluation of organizational membership increases employees’ collective self-esteem and contributes positively to their self-concept (Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). Positive assessment of organizational membership, therefore, is likely to result in the blurring of differences between employees’ personal and organization identities (Hogg & Terry, 2001). Hence, pride in organizational membership may lead employees to act in accordance with their organization’s values, beliefs, norms, and goals. Following this perspective, one might argue that, when professional employees take pride in their employing organization, they are likely to internalize the goals and values of their organization as their own which, in turn, may motivate them to become more involved in their jobs.

Hypothesis 3: Organization identification has a positive influence on job involvement.

Identification is a sociocognitive process in which individuals evaluate the status of their own group by comparing it with other groups on several value dimensions (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Tuner, 1986). Favorable intergroup comparisons² generally provide individuals with a sense of prestige and a positive social identity. In contrast, unfavorable comparisons between the in-group and out-groups provide in-group members with a sense of low prestige and a negative social identity. When a group, such as an organization, lacks a positive image, its members may attempt to disassociate themselves cognitively from that group and seek membership in a higher status group. From this perspective, when employment in a public organization helps professional employees to develop and maintain a positive social identity, they are less likely to separate themselves from that organization. Several private sector studies found a negative relation between organizational identification and turnover intention (Moura, Abrams, Retter, Gunnersdottir, & Ando, 2009; Olkkonen & Lipponen, 2006), but this research focused on the cognitive rather than the evaluative aspect of organizational identification.

Hypothesis 4: Organizational identification has a negative influence on turnover intention.

Effects of Fair Treatment on Job Involvement and Turnover Intention

When employees in government agencies perceive that their work outcomes, as well as the administrative policies and procedures leading to the decisions about those outcomes, are fair, they are likely to become more involved in their work and continue working in that agency. Though these effects, according to the group engagement model, are likely to be indirect, meaning procedural and distributive fairness perceptions are expected to enhance employees’ job involvement and lower their turnover intention through increasing their organizational identification. These indirect effects have not been thoroughly examined in previous research. Olkonnen and Lipponen (2006) have found the only existing support for the mediating role of organizational identification in the linkages between fairness perceptions and turnover intention in a sample of professional employees working in a research institute in Finland. Also, the relations between procedural and distributive fairness and job involvement have not been thoroughly examined. Neither has the role of organizational identification as a mediator in the relationship between perceptions of organizational justice and job involvement previously been investigated. Thus, the following two hypotheses were tested in the current study:

Hypothesis 5: Procedural fairness enhances job involvement and reduces turnover intention through increasing organizational identification.

Hypothesis 6: Distributive fairness enhances job involvement and reduces turnover intention through increasing organizational identification.

Job Involvement as an Antecedent of Turnover Intention

The final hypothesis that this study examined concerns the linkage between professional employees’ job involvement and their intention to leave their agency. When professionals, as well as nonprofessionals, find their work intrinsically rewarding and feel highly engaged, they are more likely to stay in that job and in that organization (Huselid & Day, 1991). In contrast, when employees do not see their job as an important part of their self-image and feel not involved in their work, they are less likely to continue doing that work and stay in that organization (Martin & Hafer, 1995). Previous research consistently has shown a moderate negative association between job involvement and turnover intention. A meta-analysis of job involvement by Brown (1996) reported a significant negative correlation between job involvement and actual turnover, based on 11 samples, and between job involvement and turnover intention, based on 23 samples. Given these results, a similar pattern of association was expected in this study:

Hypothesis 7: Job involvement has a negative influence on turnover intention.

Method of the Study

The seven research hypotheses were tested with data that were collected through an organizational survey of 764 professional employees working in 65 geographically dispersed offices of a state agency with 11 distinct divisions of operation. The agency was responsible for maintaining and administering the states’ accounting, payroll and retirement systems for public employees. The agency also was responsible for reviewing states’ contracts and conducting audits of other agencies as well as overseeing fiscal affairs of local governments (including one of the largest municipalities in the United States). This survey was conducted as part of a long-term research project undertaken by the agency with a goal of assessing and improving its work climate and increasing professional employees’ organizational identification and reducing their turnover. Data were gathered through the design and use of a unique, eight-page survey of 2614 employees in 2008. Responsibility for internal distribution and collection of surveys was assigned to division managers of the agency. Prior to distributing surveys, the division managers clearly communicated to all participants about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the complete anonymity of their responses. Altogether, 2,136 usable surveys were returned for an overall response rate of 82%; response rates by division ranged from a low of 70% to a high of 100%.

Because this study focused on the role organizational fairness plays on professional employees’ job involvement, and turnover intention, only employees belonging to occupational groups classified as professional were included in the analysis. This included respondents who identified themselves in the survey as technical and managerial employees and were at and above the salary Grade 18 and below salary Grade 27. Using these criteria, data from 764 professional employees were included in the data analyses. These employees were accountants, auditors, business analysts, lawyers, managers, and information technology specialists. Demographic data for the sample are summarized in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1.

Sample Demographics and Organizational Characteristics.

Characteristics	Percent
Ethnicity
Asian	4.7%
African American	6.5%
Hispanic	1.6%
Native American	0.5%
White	86.5%
Other	0.2%
Gender
Female	45.4%
Male	54.6%
Nature of position
Technical	85.1%
Managerial	14.9%

Table 2.

Age and Tenure of the Sample.

Measures	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	SD
Age	23	70	44.2	10.0
Years in current position	1	34	4.8	9.7
Years in agency	1	37	10.7	8.6
Years in state government	1	41	9.3	5.1

Respondents completed a 130-item survey designed in large part to examine employees’ perceptions of their work climate and work attitudes. The survey included items to assess employees’ perceptions of distributive and procedural fairness, as well as their organizational identification, job involvement, and turnover intention. In addition to the variables that were relevant for the present study, data were collected for other agency, office and individual-level variables, the analysis of which is beyond the scope of this study. Most of the survey items were measured on a 6-point (coded 1-6) strength of agreement (strongly disagree to strongly agree) or a 5-point (coded 0-4) frequency of occurrence (never to almost always) scale except for the items for distributive fairness, which are discussed below.³

This study relied on an indirect approach to measure procedural fairness. Items of an indirect measure do not explicitly focus on the fairness of a particular procedure; instead, such items focus on one or more determinants of procedural fairness, such as the Leventhal’s (1980) procedural fairness rules (Colquitt & Shaw, 2005). Six items were used to assess employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness that correspond with three of Leventhal’s (1980) six procedural fairness rules: representation (i.e., voice opportunity), bias suppression, and ethicality. Cronbach’s α for these six items was .83.

In organizational research, measures of distributive fairness typically focus on employees’ perceptions of equity in the allocation of work-related rewards (Colquitt, 2001). Distributive fairness in this study was measured with three items that specifically focus on perceptions of equity in the allocation of work-related rewards among employees. These three items were measured on a 6-point (coded 0-5) level of fairness scale (not fair at all to very fair). The reliability coefficient (i.e., Cronbach’s α) for these three items was .74.

Organizational identification was measured with three items that focused on the evaluative aspect of organizational identification. These items are similar to items previously used by Tyler and Blader (2000) to measure pride in group membership. The reliability coefficient for these three items was high (Cronbach’s α = .84). Job involvement was measured with three items that focus on the degree to which employees’ are engaged in their jobs or find carrying out their jobs in the present work environment as engaging (Paullay et al., 1994). Recent studies in public management have used similar items to measure employee job involvement (Hassan & Rohrbaugh, 2011; Word & Park, 2009). Cronbach’s α for these three items was .71. Further, turnover intention was measured with three items based on a measure developed by Sager, Griffeth, and Hom (1998). Cronbach’s α for these three items was .75.

Results

Psychometric Properties of the Measures

Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to assess convergent and discriminant validities of the five measures. Table 3 summarizes CFA results for the full measurement model. As shown in Table 3, all of the scale items were found to have statistically significant factor loadings (p < .05) for their respective latent constructs (λ values ranged from .54 to .93). Furthermore, the composite reliabilities for all five factors were above the minimum threshold value of .70 and the variance extracted estimates were very close to or higher than the recommended 50% value. Three of the four fit indices obtained from the CFA results indicated that the measurement model provided a good fit to the data (CFI = .97, NNFI = .96, RMSEA=.04). Only the maximum likelihood chi-square was inconsistent with a good model fit (χ² = 287.26, df = 125, p < .05). However, the lack of fit found by the chi-square test was not of particular concern because this index is sensitive to sample size,⁴ with larger samples inflating the chi-square and decreasing the likelihood of achieving a good model fit (Kline, 1998).

Table 3.

Properties of the Full Measurement Model.

Constructs and Indicators	Standardized Factor Loadings	Indicator Reliability	Composite Reliability	Variance Extracted Estimates
Procedural Fairness			.83	.45
Upper level managers are courteousto employees	.70*	.49
Employees are treated fairly	.78*	.61
Employees are encouraged to raise issues and concerns at work	.65*	.42
Important decisions are made top down without any consultation (R)	.60*	.36
Personnel decisions are influenced by factors like ethnicity, age, or genderof employees (R)	.54*	.30
Assignments are given on the basis of favoritism without regard to merit (R)	.74*	.55
Distributive Fairness			.77	.55
How fair and equitable do you consider promotion examinations to be?	.67*	.45
How fair and equitable do you consider career opportunities to be?	.93*	.86
How fair and equitable do you consider training opportunities to be?	.54*	.30
Organizational Identification			.84	.64
I speak positively about this organization to outsiders	.79*	.63
Iam embarrassed to say that I work in this organization (R)	.70*	.79
Iam proud to tell others that I am part of this organization	.89*	.78
Job Involvement			.71	.46
It is hard for me to get very involved in my current job (R)	.61*	.37
At the end of the day, I feel good about the work I do in this organization	.59*	.35
Time seems to drag while I am on the job (R)	.81*	.65
Turnover Intention			.76	.52
Iplan to be working here three years from now (R)	.56*	.31
Iwould quit this organization tomorrow if it were possible	.79*	.62
Ithink about getting a different job outside this organization	.79*	.62

Note: Model Fit Statistics: χ²(125) = 287.26, p<.05, CFI= .97, NNFI/TLI = .96 and RMSEA = .04.

p < .05.

Results of Univariate and Bivariate Analyses

Table 3 reports the univariate and bivariate statistics for the five measures used in the present study. The potential range of values for each scale varied depending on the number of items or questions used to create each measure. Distributions for four of the five measures were somewhat negatively skewed, with a greater number of respondents reporting a relatively high degree of procedural and distributive fairness, organizational identification, and job involvement. Further, the distribution of the measurements of turnover intention was positively skewed with a greater number of professional employees reporting a relatively low level intention to leave their organization. Although composite scores for all five measures were either positively or negatively skewed, the differences between the average scores and the scale midpoints were not very large. Further, the standard deviations for all of the measures were relatively high, indicating adequate variability in the data sufficient for further analysis.

All ten correlations among the five measures were moderate and statistically significant (p < .05). The highest observed correlation was between job involvement and turnover intention (r = –.60) and the lowest was between distributive fairness and job involvement (r = .37). The median correlation between study measures was .50. This indicates that, on average, the variance typically shared between two measures was limited to one quarter of the total variance, and no measure shared more than 36% of the variance with any other measure. Nevertheless, a considerable degree of interrelatedness between the study measures was expected with four hypothesized direct relationships, as well as the corresponding indirect relationships.⁵

Results of Structural Equation Modeling

The seven research hypotheses were tested with structural equation modeling (SEM) using AMOS. The fit indices obtained from SEM results indicated that the structural model provided good fit to the data (χ² = 320.68, df = 129, p < .05, CFI = .97, NNFI/TLI = .96, and RMSEA = .05).⁶ Figure 1 presents summary results of the structural model as standardized regression coefficients. As shown in Figure 1, the t statistics for path coefficients for all of the direct relationships were statistically significant (p < .05) and in the predicted direction. As anticipated, procedural fairness was found to have a strong positive effect on organizational identification (β =.60). Similarly, professional employees who reported that organizational rewards were fairly distributed showed a greater sense of identification with their organization (β =.16). When taken together, procedural and distributive fairness explained half of the variance in organizational identification. The results indicated that professional employees who strongly identified with their organization also felt highly involved in their work (β =.56). They also were more inclined in continuing their work (β = –.33) than those who weakly identified with their organization. Further, employees who felt highly involved in their work were less likely to leave their agency (β = –.42). These findings supported Hypotheses 1 through 4 and Hypothesis 7.

Figure 1.

Results of the final structural model.

To assess whether organizational identification mediated the effects of procedural and distributive fairness on job involvement and turnover intention, an additional structural model was run. This structural model incorporated both the direct and indirect paths to test the mediation effects specified in hypotheses five and six. Specifically, four additional direct paths were added to the full mediation model (shown as dotted arrows in Figure 1).⁷ Sobel’s Z statistic (1982) for each indirect path coefficient was calculated to determine whether the indirect effects were statistically significant. The significance (or nonsignificance) of the direct paths in the additional structural model was used as a basis to determine whether there was full versus partial mediation. Table 5 presents indirect effects of procedural and distributive fairness through organizational identification on job involvement and turnover intention.

Table 4.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlation Coefficients.^a

Measures	Means	SD	1	2	3	4	5
1. Procedural fairness	24.68	5.89	(.83)
2. Distributive fairness	11.77	3.17	.59^*	(.74)
3. Organizational identification	15.28	2.82	.59^*	.47^*	(.84)
4. Job involvement	13.76	2.93	.39^*	.37^*	.47^*	(.71)
5. Turnover intention	7.37	3.90	−.53^*	−.47^*	−.60^*	−.57^*	(.75)

Cronbach’s α for the five measures are shown in parentheses.

p < .05.

Table 5.

Coefficients for the Standardized Indirect Effects.

Paths	Indirect Effects
Procedural Fairness → Organizational Identification → Job Involvement	.34* (6.58)
Procedural Fairness → Organizational Identification → Turnover Intention	−.20* (4.65)
Distributive Fairness → Organizational Identification → Job Involvement	.09* (2.80)
Distributive Fairness → Organizational Identification → Turnover Intention	−.05* (2.57)
Distributive Fairness → Job Involvement → Turnover Intention	−.06* (2.74)
Organizational Identification → Job Involvement → Turnover Intention	−.24* (5.90)

Note: Sobel’s Z statistics are shown in parentheses next to the indirect effects.

p < .05.

Organizational identification was found to fully mediate the effect of procedural fairness on job involvement. As shown in Table 5, the coefficient for the indirect path connecting procedural fairness with job involvement through organizational identification was significant (Sobel’s Z = 6.58, p < .05), whereas the coefficient for the direct path was not significant (see Figure 1). In addition, the effect of procedural fairness on turnover intention was partially mediated by organizational identification. The coefficient for the indirect path connecting procedural fairness with turnover intention through organizational identification was statistically significant (Sobel’s Z = 4.65, p < .05). Procedural fairness also was found to have a direct influence on turnover intention (β = –.16, p < .05). These results supported Hypothesis 5.

Empirical support also was found for Hypothesis 6. The coefficient for the indirect path from distributive fairness to job involvement through organizational identification was statistically significant (Sobel’s Z = 2.80, p < .05), as was the coefficient for the direct path from distributive fairness to job involvement (β = .14, p < .05). Thus, organizational identification partially mediated the effect of distributive fairness on professional employees’ job involvement. Organizational identification also was found to partially mediate the effect of distributive fairness on turnover intention. As indicated in Table 5, the coefficient for the indirect path from distributive fairness to turnover intention through organizational identification was statistically significant (Sobel’s Z = 2.57, p < .05). Distributive fairness also was found to have a direct influence on turnover intention (β = –.10, p < .05).

Discussion and Conclusion

Limitations of the Study

Before discussing the implications of this study, it is important noting its limitations. Although a temporal relationship was assumed in the structural path model, the data used to test this model were collected at a single point in time. Cross-sectional studies such as this one, of course, are unable to demonstrate causality. Hence, examining the hypothesized linkages with a longitudinal design will lend better support for the causal connections implied by the theoretical framework. In addition, the research model was tested with data collected from professional employees working in a large agency in state government. Although this organization was charged with diverse public responsibilities and was widely dispersed geographically, the results reported here may have somewhat limited generalizability. Thus, additional empirical tests of the findings with samples taken from a broader range of public agencies and geographic areas would provide external validity for the hypothesized research model.

The sole use of self-report measures was another noteworthy limitation of the current study. Self-reported data from a single source such as an interview protocol or a questionnaire are vulnerable to common method bias (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). In brief, the measurement of multiple variables through a common method may overestimate the actual magnitude of their interrelations due to the contribution of a pattern of response covariance evoked solely by use of one assessment form. Self-reports in organizational research, for example, may induce patterns of response set such as social desirability, acquiescence, or deviation that can increase observed correlations between measures.

Statistical remedies for common method bias remain problematic (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). A variety of nonstatistical procedures were introduced in the design of the study to reduce potential common method bias. Anonymity of response was assured repeatedly in all correspondence and evidenced in every aspect of data collection. Surveys were completed at different times and in multiple office locations. Further, the particular items used in the present study were interspersed widely over seven pages and nine distinct sections within the larger 130-item questionnaire. These items also were almost evenly split in the directionality of their wording (i.e., both positive and negative). Varied response formats were presented. The results produced some evidence that the design procedures may have been at least somewhat effective. For example, bivariate analysis indicated that variance shared on average between two measures was limited to one quarter of the total variance, despite an expectation of a high degree of relatedness between the measures. These steps successfully attenuated, if not eliminated, common method bias in the results. Nevertheless, a longitudinal design and data from multiple sources are needed to fully test the hypothesized linkages.

This study examined the evaluative aspect of organizational identification as a mediator of the effects of organizational fairness perceptions on professional employees’ job involvement and their turnover intention. But research has shown that the cognitive aspect of organizational identification also plays an important role in shaping employees’ cooperative attitudes and behaviors (Riketta, 2005; Ashforth et al., 2008). Hence, it would be important to examine the roles of both cognitive and evaluative components of organizational identification while assessing the effects of fairness perceptions on public employees’ work attitudes and behaviors. In addition, to assess fully the theoretical impact of this research, alternative mediators, for example, trust in management, need to be examined in future.

Implications for Research and Practice

Despite the limitations, the findings of this study can be considered noteworthy in several ways. The results indicated that perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness play an important role in enhancing job involvement and lowering turnover intention of professional employees working in a government agency. These findings are consistent with recent research that provided evidence about the beneficial impacts that organizational fairness perceptions have on employees in government agencies (Choi, 2011; Kim & Rubyanti, 2011; Rubin, 2009, 2011). This study also provided new insight about the underlying process through which fairness perceptions lead to positive outcomes and prevent negative organizational consequences. Consistent with the group engagement theory (Tyler & Blader, 2000, 2003), organizational identification in this study was found to mediate the effects of procedural and distributive fairness on professional employees’ job involvement and their turnover intention.

The results also indicated that organizational identification is an important determinant of involvement and retention of professional employees working in government. This finding suggest that, when professional employees take pride in their employing agency, differences between their own and their agency’s identities become blurred and they internalize values and goals of their agency as their own. This, in turn, motivates professional employees to become more involved in their work and remain in their agency. This finding may also be seen as consistent with prior research that has shown that congruence of public employees’ own and their organizations’ values is an important factor in their willingness to continue their work in their organization (Bright, 2008; Moynihan & Pandey, 2008).

An interesting result of this research was that perception of procedural fairness had a stronger effect than distributive fairness on all three outcomes: organizational identification, job involvement and turnover intention. This finding raises an important question: Why do public employees seem to value procedural fairness more than they value distributive fairness? One reason may be that procedural fairness (or unfairness) evokes stronger emotional responses from employees about their job and organization than distributive fairness. Several studies have found that procedural fairness has a stronger influence on employees’ overall feelings about their organization (e.g., organizational commitment and trust in management), while distributive fairness has a stronger effect on employees’ satisfaction with specific outcomes such as pay and promotion (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992). This may suggest that, when employees make judgments about procedural fairness, they tend to take a long-term perspective about their engagement in the organization, whereas when they make judgments about distributive fairness, they may focus primarily on fulfilling their utilitarian needs.

Another, and perhaps more plausible, explanation is that formal procedures, in addition to ensuring fair allocation of organizational rewards, have noninstrumental benefits such as conveying regard for employees’ dignity and self-respect (De Cremer & Sedikides, 2008). Specifically, fair procedures symbolically communicate to employees about the extent to which they are held in high regard in their organization (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Blader, 2000). Research has shown that employees tend to pay more attention to key aspects of procedural fairness (e.g., whether they can voice their concerns or influence the decision-making process) when they receive undesirable outcomes in the workplace (De Cremer et al., 2010). This issue may be particularly relevant in government organizations where allocating organizational rewards strictly based on employee inputs (e.g., level of effort, education, and experience) is difficult due to scarcity of financial resources or institutional constraints. In such a context, one would expect employees to become highly sensitive about procedural fairness as they strive to make sense of their worth as organizational members. The more public employees perceive procedural fairness to be high, the more likely they are to infer that they are valued by their organization and show positive work attitudes (De Cremer et al., 2010; Folger & Konovsky, 1989) such as a high level of organizational identification and job involvement and a low level of turnover intention.

The implications of public employees attending more towards procedural rather than distributive fairness may be seen as far reaching. Over the past two decades, considerable pressure has been placed upon public agencies to change organizational processes and adopt management practices popular in the private sector to make them more efficient and responsive to citizens’ needs (Nigro & Kellough, 2008). Some of these reform efforts, under the banner of performance improvements (Hays & Sowa, 2006; Van Ryzin, 2011), have sought to change, or even eliminate, employee procedural due process rights in favor of greater flexibility, efficiency, and responsiveness of public agencies (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009). Proponents of such reform initiatives argue that procedures for selecting, rewarding and disciplining government employees are overly burdensome, costly, and restrictive (Rubin, 2009). However, the results of this research and other studies (Battaglio & Condrey, 2009; Rubin, 2009; Van Ryzin, 2011) indicate that certain procedures matter a great deal to employees in government agencies. The results also highlight potential negative consequences of changing procedures that may be viewed as unfair or unjust (e.g., eliminating employee access to grievance and appeals procedures): decline in organizational identification, job involvement, and increase in employee turnover.

The results of this study do not necessarily imply that distributive fairness is unimportant to public employees. As indicated in this study, distributive fairness also plays a significant role in enhancing professional employees’ organizational identification and job involvement and reducing their turnover intention. Government agencies, therefore, should pay greater attention to developing specific human resource policies that ensure equitable distribution of rewards and resources among employees. However, any such initiative would need to be implemented with great care and guidance. Distributing organizational rewards among employees based on their efforts is likely to have a positive impact on their work involvement and performance (Greenberg, 1982; Latham & Pinder, 2005). But relying on the equity principle alone may not be adequate for increasing an agency’s performance, because it requires one to differentiate between organizational members, thereby undermining harmony and interpersonal cooperation in work groups (Leventhal, 1976).

The results of this study also offer practical insight about how to increase professional employees’ job involvement and lessen their intention to leave their agencies. As indicated by the results, fostering organizational identification would be an effective strategy to increase employees’ job involvement and lower their intention to leave their agency. Specifically, to foster employees’ organizational identification, managers in government agencies should place a considerable effort in institutionalizing fair decision-making processes. Managers in public agencies can play an active role in establishing a fair work climate by making job related decisions about subordinates in a visibly impartial manner. Managers can also increase their subordinates’ perception of organizational fairness by providing them with opportunities to voice their concerns, consulting them before making decisions that can affect their work, ensuring consistency in decision-making processes, and making decisions based on accurate and timely information. Further, managers should treat their subordinates with dignity and respect while implementing formal procedures to enhance their perceptions of organizational fairness.

In conclusion, fairness is not simply a moral consideration in the design and operation of government organizations. The roots of the principle may be normative, but the impact of its application can materially affect the day-to-day functioning of government organizations. As indicated by the current study, perceptions of procedural and distributive fairness strongly influence organizational identification, job involvement and turnover intention of public employees. These results, on the whole, suggest that any efforts to drastically change personnel rules and procedures in government agencies should be carefully considered for their potential effects on employee morale and performance.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Trevor Brown (OSU), John Rohrbaugh (SUNY), Craig Boardman (OSU), Bradley Wright (GSU), and the four anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions on this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

Author Biography

Shahidul Hassan currently serves as an assistant professor in the John Glenn School of Public Affairs at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. from the Rockefeller College at the University at Albany (SUNY). His research focuses on the role of leadership and management practices on motivation, commitment and performance of public sector employees.

References

Adams

J. S.

(1965). Inequity in social exchange. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 267-299). New York, NY: Academic Press.

Alexander

Ruderman

(1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 117-198.

Ashforth

B. E.

Harrison

S. H.

Corley

K. G.

(2008). Identification in organizations: An examination of four fundamental questions. Journal of Management, 34, 325-374.

Ashforth

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and organizations. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20-39.

Barnard

(1938). The function of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Battaglio

P. R.

Condrey

S. E.

(2009). Reforming public management: Analyzing the impact of public service reform on organizational and managerial trust. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 689-707.

Bies

R. J.

(2000). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 85-108). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

(2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445-464.

Bright

(2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference in job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees? American Review of Public Administration, 38, 149-166.

10.

Brown

R. L.

(1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4, 142-156.

11.

Brown

S. P.

(1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235-255.

12.

Campbell

D. T.

Fiske

D. W.

(1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix, Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.

13.

Choi

(2011). Organizational justice and employee work attitudes: The federal case. American Review of Public Administration, 41, 185-204

14.

Clotfelter

C. T.

Ladd

H. F.

Vigdor

J. L.

(2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41, 778-820.

15.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organization Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 278-321.

16.

Colquitt

J. A.

(2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400.

17.

Colquitt

J. A.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O. L. H.

Conlon

D. E.

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.

18.

Colquitt

J. A.

Greenberg

Zapata-Phelan

C. P.

(2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In Greenberg

Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice. (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Colquitt

J. A.

Shaw

J. C.

(2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In Greenberg

Colquitt

J. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113-155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

20.

Cremer

J. B.

Fishman

Van Dijke

Van Olfen

Mayer

D. M.

(2010). When do procedural fairness and outcome fairness interact to influence employees’ work attitudes and behaviors? The moderating effect of uncertainty. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 291-304.

21.

Dehart-Davis

Pandey

S. K.

(2005). Red tape and public employees: Does perceived rule dysfunction alienate managers? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 133-148.

22.

Diefendorff

J. M.

Brown

D. J.

Kamin

A. M.

Lord

R. G.

(2002). Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 93-108.

23.

Ellemers

Kortekaas

Ouwerkerk

J. W.

(1999). Self-categorization, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 371-389.

24.

Emmert

M. A.

Taher

W. A.

(1992). Public sector professionals: Effects of public sector jobs on motivation, job satisfaction, and work involvement. American Review of Public Administration, 22, 37-48

25.

Folger

Konovsky

M. A.

(1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

26.

Greenberg

(1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations. In Greenberg

Cohen

R. L.

(Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior (pp. 389-435). New York, NY: Academic Press.

27.

Hassan

Rohrbaugh

(2011). The role of psychological climate on public sector employees’ affective commitment: An empirical assessment for three occupational groups. International Public Management Journal, 14, 27-62

28.

Hays

S. W.

Sowa

J. E.

(2006). A broader look at the ‘‘accountability’’ movement: Some grim realities. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 102-117.

29.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. E.

(2001). Social identity theory and organizational processes. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

30.

Huselid

M. A.

Day

N. A.

(1991). Organizational commitment, job involvement, and turnover: A substantive and methodological analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 380-391

31.

Jenkins

D. G.

Mitra

Gupta

Shaw

J. D.

(1998). Are financial incentives related to performance? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.

32.

Kanungo

(1982). Work alienation: An integrative approach. New York, NY: Praeger.

33.

Kim

S. E.

Rubianty

(2011). Perceived fairness of performance appraisals in federal government: Does it matter? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 329-348

34.

Kline

R. B.

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

35.

Kurland

N. B.

Egan

T. D.

(1999). Public v. private perceptions of formalization, outcome and justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9, 437-458.

36.

Latham

G. P.

Pinder

C. C.

(2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516

37.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In Gergen

K. G.

Greenbers

M. S.

Willis

R. H.

(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York, NY: Plenum.

38.

Leventhal

G. S.

(1976). Fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut

J. W.

Spence

J. T.

Carson

R. C.

(Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211-239). Morristown: General Learning Press.

39.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

(1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

40.

Lodahl

T. M

Kejner

(1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24-33.

41.

Martin

T. A.

Hafer

J. C.

(1995). The multiplicative interaction effects of job involvement and organizational commitment on the turnover intentions of full- and part-time employees. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 46, 310-331

42.

McFarlin

D. B.

Sweeney

P. D.

(1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35:626-637

43.

Moura

G. R.

Abrams

Retter

Gunnarsdottir

Ando

(2009). Identification as an organizational anchor: How identification and job satisfaction combine to predict turnover intention. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 540-557.

44.

Moynihan

D. P.

Herd

(2010). Red tape and democracy: How rules affect citizenship rights. American Review of Public Administration, 46, 654-670.

45.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2007). Finding workable levers over work motivation: Comparing job satisfaction, job involvement, and organizational commitment. Administration and Society, 39, 803-832.

46.

Moynihan

D. P.

Pandey

S. K.

(2008). The ties that bind: Social networks, person-organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18, 205-227.

47.

Nigro

L. G.

Kellough

J. E.

(2008). Personnel reform in the states: A look at progress fifteen years after the Winter Commission. Public Administration Review, 68, 50-57

48.

Olkkonen

M.-E.

Lipponen

(2006). Relationships between organizational justice, identification with organization and work unit, and group related outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 202-215.

49.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

(1990). The motivational base for public service. Public Administration Review, 50, 367-373.

50.

Paullay

I. M.

Alliger

G. M.

Stone-Romero

E. F.

(1994). Construct validation of two instruments designed to measure job involvement and work centrality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 224-228.

51.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J.-Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.

52.

Porter

L. W.

Bigley

G. A.

Steers

R. M.

(1996). Motivation and work behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

53.

Riketta

(2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 66, 358-384.

54.

Rubin

E. V.

(2011). Exploring the link between procedural fairness and union membership in the federal government. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 31, 128-142

55.

Rubin

E. V.

(2009). The role of procedural justice in public personnel management: Empirical results from the Department of Defense. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19, 125-143.

56.

Sager

J. K.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hom

P. W.

(1998). A comparison of structural models representing turnover cognitions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 254-273.

57.

Shaw

J. D.

Delery

J. E.

Gupta

(2005). Alternative conceptualizations of the relationship between voluntary turnover and organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 50-68.

58.

Sobel

M. E.

(1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In Leinhardt

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290-312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association

59.

Tajfel

(1972). Social categorization (English translation of “La cat6gorisation sociale”). In Moscovici

(Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale (pp. 272-302). Paris, France: Larousse.

60.

Tajfel

(1978). The achievement of group identification. In Tajfel

(Ed.), Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 77-98). London, UK: Academic Press.

61.

Tajfel

(1982). Social psychology and intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1-39.

62.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel

Austin

W. G.

(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.

63.

Thibaut

J. W.

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

64.

Turner

J. C.

(1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In Lawler

E. J.

(Ed.), Advances in group processes (pp. 77-121). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

65.

Tyler

T. R.

(2006). Legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400.

66.

Tyler

T. R.

Bies

R. J.

(1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In Carroll

J. S.

(Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational setting (pp. 77-98). Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

67.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity, and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

68.

Tyler

T. R.

Blader

S. L.

(2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349-361.

69.

Tyler

T. R.

Degoey

(1995). Collective restraint in social dilemmas: Procedural justice and social identification effects on support for authorities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.

70.

Tyler

T. R.

Huo

Y. J.

(2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. N.Y.: Russell-Sage.

71.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

(1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191.

72.

Van

Gregg

(2011). Outcomes, process and trust of civil servants. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21,745-760.

73.

Waldo

(1948). The administrative state: A study of political theory of public administration. New York, NY: Ronald Press.

74.

Word

Park

S. M.

(2009). Working across the divide: Job involvement in the public and non-profit sectors. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 103-133.