Procedural Fairness,Public Service Motives,and Employee Work Outcomes: Evidence From Pakistani Public Service Organizations

Abstract

Studies in public administration hypothesize the direct effect of public service motivation (PSM) on employee attitudes and behavior. We examine the relationship between public employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness on job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and propose the moderating effect of PSM dimensions on the aforementioned relationships. Using a sample of 232 respondents drawn from multiple public service organizations, our findings indicate a positive relationship between procedural fairness perceptions and employee work outcomes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment). PSM dimensions of attraction to policy making (rational motive) and public interest (normative motive) moderate the relationship between procedural fairness and employee outcomes. However, their effect was significant only for individuals who experienced low levels of these motivations. The moderating effect of compassion (affective motive) was significant for individuals possessing high level of compassion. The implications and future research directions are discussed.

Keywords

procedural fairness public service motivation job satisfaction organizational commitment

Introduction

Personnel procedures are important for employees as they provide protection against arbitrary personnel decisions; thus, the effective implementation of these procedures ensures the functioning of a merit system. Public managers are increasingly concerned with the challenge of development and implementation of personnel procedures that are perceived as both accurate and equitable for the employees. The accurate and fair implementation of personnel procedures influences important work-related attitudes and behaviors, for example, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, turnover intention, and individual/organizational performance (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Simons & Roberson, 2003). Procedural fairness is considered important because it serves as a heuristic for employees to trust their organization and supervisors (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001). Research evidence suggests that people can experience dissatisfaction even with favorable outcomes when allocation of these outcomes is based on unjust procedures (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Conversely, people are willing to accept unfavorable outcomes (e.g., lower salary raise, denied promotion, or training opportunity) if the allocation is based on fair and just procedures. These arguments make procedural fairness important for public service organizations where allocation is made in a world of limited resources (Rubin, 2009).

Realizing the importance of the concept of procedural fairness in public service organizations, we see a recent surge of studies in public administration literature examining the direct relationship between procedural fairness and organizational outcomes (Choi, 2011; Feeney & Langer, 2016; Hassan, 2013; Kim & Holzer, 2016; Ko & Hur, 2014; Rubin, 2009; Rubin & Kellough, 2012; Rubin & Weinberg, 2016). Although these studies suggest that public service employees respond positively to procedural fairness, still little is known about the individual’s variability in these responses. This is the key question we aim to address in this research.

We build on public service motivation (PSM) and procedural fairness literatures to study organizational outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We argue that a variety of work-related behaviors among public servants may stem from an intrinsic need, normative pressure, and/or self-interest (Le Grand, 2003, 2010). These individual differences in terms of PSM dimensions of “attraction to policy making,” “commitment to public interest,” and “compassion” can strengthen/weaken the procedural fairness and work–outcomes relationship. We suggest that employees having high levels of “attraction to policy making” and “commitment to public interest” motives care for procedures as important means to achieve outcomes that promote their interests. Similarly, employees with high level of “compassion” carry the notion of doing more than meeting minimum job performance standards, so they will respond more favorably to procedural fairness.

While answering this question, we make significant theoretical and practical contributions to the extant literature. First, we integrated two distinct, yet related literatures on procedural fairness and PSM. This integration offers additional insights for procedural fairness and employee outcome relationships. Specifically, we take the first step in exploring the boundary conditions of procedural fairness and work–outcomes relationship in public personnel management. Second, most of the research on procedural fairness and PSM has been conducted in the West (Van der Wal, 2015). We conducted this study in a non-Western context, that is, Pakistan, where the public sector is undergoing numerous changes and emphasis is placed on emulating private sector’s best practices such as rewarding, disciplining, and terminating employees while introducing a performance-driven culture. Our findings will also add to the evidence of generalizability of existing findings on procedural fairness and PSM. Third, we conceptualized and operationalized PSM at the dimension level (i.e., attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion). Thus far, we found only one study (Taylor, 2007) that operationalized PSM at the dimensional level. The benefit of studying PSM at the dimension level is that it helps in identifying employees with different motives. Recently, Perry and Vandenabeele (2015) also stressed the need to conduct more research on the individual dimensions of PSM, because individual dimensions are important in their own right. Fourth, in practical terms, our findings will help public sector managers to understand the role of procedural fairness as an effective leadership tool that may help in motivating employees and manage the challenges of providing an equitable work environment.

Literature Review

Procedural Fairness in the Context of Public Service Organizations

Procedural fairness refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures by which organizations and supervisors make allocation decisions (Tyler, 1998). Public sector organizations are characterized by law-based procedures, impersonal rules, and imposition of due process requirements on personnel decisions. These characteristics give legitimacy to the organization and its decisions. The presence of due process requirements create disincentive for managers to discipline or terminate the poor performers. Franklin and Pagan (2006) suggested that organizations develop informal mechanisms to discipline or terminate poor performing employees, thus circumventing the rules made to protect the employees and treat them fairly. Similarly, public personnel scholars suggest that procedural requirements can make personnel decisions legally defensible but they lack sound interpersonal management (Rainey, 1997). Cooper (2000) also echoed the same concern that “management with a strong basis in due process [leads to] effective internal agency management. Clearly, organizational morale is significantly better where there is a sense that managers operate fairly” (p. 219).

In addition to legitimacy, procedural requirements may lead to negative results. Some organizational decisions are considered legally defensible but they do not advance the true purpose of public service (Rainey, 1997; Sitkin & Bies, 1994). This is actually a dilemma of the red tape where “one person’s red tape is another’s treasured procedural safeguard” (Kaufman, 1977, p. 4). Strong reliance on the fulfillment of administrative due processes acts as a major form of control but it may conflict with the goals of efficiency and effectiveness, thus affecting the morale of employees who may attribute this to procedural unfairness (Cooper, 2000). Similarly, research evidence suggests that an overreliance on meeting due process requirements is not sufficient to foster a procedurally fair work environment (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996). The compliance of multiple procedures, rules, and regulations serve as a guiding principle of administrative behavior in public organizations but the employees of these organizations often exhibit varied levels of procedural fairness perceptions (Rubin, 2009).

Procedural Fairness and Work-Related Outcomes

Theoretical and empirical reasoning inform that procedural fairness matters to individuals due to economic and/or relational motives. The enactment of fair procedures enhances employee cooperation toward organizational goals not just because of the expectation of economic or instrumental benefits but relational concerns also dominate their reactions. Procedural fairness information conveys a sense of standing and status in the organization (De Cremer & Van Vugt, 1999; Van Knippenberg, 2000). High procedural fairness shapes employees’ identification, which makes employees live by the group norms and values, making organization an important aspect of their own self-definition (Ashforth, 1998; Hogg & Terry, 2000).

Procedural fairness can affect a multitude of work-related outcomes. For instance, the empirical evidence demonstrates the impact of procedural fairness on job satisfaction (Choi, 2011; Rubin, 2009), organizational identification (Blader & Tyler, 2009; Tyler & Degoey, 1995), job involvement (Inoue, Tsurugani, Nishikitani, & Yano, 2010), satisfaction with supervisors (Kurland & Egan, 1999), intrinsic motivation (Oh & Lewis, 2009), turnover intention, and managerial trustworthiness (Cropanzano & Randall, 1993; Folger & Konovsky, 1989;McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). For the current study, we examine the relationship of procedural fairness with job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Job satisfaction is an appraisal of an individual’s work experiences, and it is important as it predicts individual employee’s performance (Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006; Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001; Spector, 1997), turnover intention, and absenteeism (Griffeth & Hom, 2001; Spector, 1997; Tett & Meyer, 1993). Organizational commitment is defined as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p. 27).

Employees care for fairness of procedures because they consider procedures important in determining their outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). The group value model of procedural justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Tyler & Lind, 1992) has been used to explain the relationship between procedural fairness and work-related outcomes. The group value model suggests that relational elements of fair procedures (e.g., consistency, unbiasedness, etc.) enhance group identification beliefs, which in turn influence employee attitudes and behaviors (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Fair organizational policies and procedures lead to stronger employee commitment to organizations and satisfaction with their jobs (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993; Lind & Tyler, 1988; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). In contrast, unfairness in the procedures may lead to decreased commitment and job satisfaction (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Pearce, Ramirez, & Branyiczki, 2001). Hence, we make the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1a: Perceptions of procedural justice are positively related to job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 1b: Perceptions of procedural justice are positively related to organizational commitment.

PSM

PSM is considered a broad and multifaceted concept developed by Perry and Wise (1990). PSM is defined as “an individual’s predisposition to respond to motives grounded primarily or uniquely in public institutions” (Perry & Wise, 1990, p. 368). Drawing on the framework developed by Knoke and Wright-Isak (1982), Perry and Wise (1990) suggested that an individual’s PSM can be attributed to a mixture of rational, normative, and affective motives, and combination of these motives will vary at different points in an individual’s lifetime, depending on the environmental and personal factors. Rational motives involve actions that serve to maximize an individual’s self-interest. PSM dimension of attraction to policy making captures rational motives where individuals engage in actions that display self-importance, need for power, and self-esteem (Wise, 2000). Thus, individuals attracted toward policy making may be satisfying personal needs while serving social interests.

Normative motives are based on social values and norms of what is proper and appropriate, and it combines the notions of volunteerism and collectivism represented as internalized social norms (Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982). PSM dimension of commitment to public interest draws on normative motives and includes actions where individuals display desire to serve the public interest and express a sense of duty and loyalty to the public service (Brewer, Selden, & Facer, 2000; Perry & Wise, 1990). Affective motives are actions that are characterized by a desire and willingness to help others, and include altruistic, empathy, emotional, and other prosocial motivations (Brewer et al., 2000). According to Perry and Wise (1990), the PSM dimension of compassion captures public sector employees’ patriotism of benevolence explained as love for all people within political boundaries (Perry, 1996).

Perry (1997) translated the theory of PSM into a measurement scale suggesting four dimensions: (a) attraction to policy making, (b) commitment to the public interest, (c) compassion, and (d) self-sacrifice. According to Perry, the first, second, and third subscales measure rational, normative, and affective motives, respectively. He suggested an additional dimension of “self-sacrifice” based on this conviction that this motive is frequently associated with public service. Self-sacrifice refers to the willingness to forego financial and personal rewards for the intangible rewards derived through serving society.

Le Grand’s (2003) “knaves” and “knights” akin to the dimensions of PSM also provide distinctions in orientations of individuals providing public service. Knaves are individuals who are self-interested people driven to help others provided they are able to further their private interests. Knights are individuals who undertake activities to benefit others without considering their own personal gain. Le Grand suggested that altruistic motives exist in various forms such as compassion, duty, or a desire to conform. Similarly, Brewer et al. (2000) also suggested that people who are driven to perform public service possess a mixture of motives, and different groups of people are distinguished by a distinct orientation toward performing public service. They identified four conceptions of PSM: samaritans, communitarian, patriots, and humanitarians. Brewer et al. not only confirmed the multidimensional aspect of PSM but also suggested that these motives can jointly operate in diverse ways to contribute to multiple perspectives in performing public service.

Based on existing theoretical and empirical evidence, it is apparent that PSM is a mixture of motives that drives an individual to engage in actions that benefit society. Individuals having similar levels of PSM can hold very different views about the ways and means of serving public interest.

Our study focuses on Perry and Wise’s (1990) conceptualization of PSM. The construct of PSM embeds motivation in organizations in a larger context, and proposes the contextual dependence of motivation (Perry & Porter, 1982; Rainey, 1979, 1983). Rainey (1979, 1983) and Perry and Porter (1982) suggested the role of institutions on individual’s motivations and reactions.

PSM as a Moderator of Fairness–Outcomes Relationship

Although work behavior has many origins depending on the distinct motivational processes, an individual’s self-concept (e.g., values and identity) serves as a filter, which guides the display of certain processes. Perry (2000) suggested that the presence of a self-regulatory effect (Bandura, 1977, 1986) can guide an individual’s attitude or behavior. Logic of consequence or logic of appropriateness can be followed depending on the self-regulatory process. Logic of consequence dictates that an individual would weigh costs and benefits of each action to determine the utility in traditional ways. Logic of appropriateness suggests that people adopt different actions depending on how consistent they are according to their self-concepts, morals, or values. Similarly, Grusec (1992) noted “People do not behave like weather vanes, constantly shifting their behavior in accord with momentary influences; rather they hold to ideological positions in spite of a changing situation” (p. 782).

We argue that individuals having high levels of PSM dimensions of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest draw on rational and normative motivations of public service and follow the logic of appropriateness, and individuals having high levels of PSM dimension of compassion focus on affective motive and follow the logic of consequences. Empirical evidence suggests that employees’ individual differences significantly affect their reactions to fairness (Greenberg, 1990; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Public employees who possess high levels of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest generally have the ability to cope with the situational constraints inherent in the public sector environment (e.g., unfairness, bureaucratic constraints). The morality of rule-following behavior dominates without any desire for working beyond the contract (Gawthrop, 1984). These individuals may follow the procedural rules and requirements prescribed but never engage in affective emotion for the clients they are supposed to serve. These employees value their membership in their organizations not only because of their identification with their organizations, but their membership provides them a mechanism to validate and reinforce the appropriateness of their beliefs and behaviors (Brockner, Tyler, & Cooper-Schneider, 1992). Drawing on the self-interest/instrumental model of procedural justice, we expect that employees having high levels of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest care for procedures as important means to achieve outcomes. Thus, we expect these individuals consider public service as part of their self-concept, and their commitment and satisfaction do not vary in response to situational constraints (e.g., procedural injustice). Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2a: The relationship of procedural fairness with (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational commitment will be stronger for those employees having low levels of attraction to policy making as compared with high levels of attraction to policy making.

Hypothesis 2b: The relationship of procedural fairness with (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational commitment will be stronger for those employees having low levels of commitment to public interest as compared with high levels of commitment to public interest.

PSM dimension of compassion captures affective motives, where individual’s actions represent emotional responses to various social contexts, and these responses are partly influenced by their work environment. Wise (2000) suggested that situational factors play a role in explaining when individual public service motives surface or affect the workplace outcomes. According to Tyler and Lind’s (1992) group value model, the desire for fairness is a consequence of our socialization in groups, and individuals adopt values of fairness that transcend personal interests. Because the procedural fairness carries the relational information, a fair work environment is directly relevant for maintaining and/or increasing employees’ enthusiasm, self-esteem, commitment, satisfaction, performance, and motivation (Lynggaard, Pedersen, & Andersen, 2018; Williams, 2001). Individuals having high levels of PSM dimension of compassion carry affective motives, they believe in doing more than meeting minimum job performance standards, and organizational fairness helps such individuals in achieving their objectives. We argue that employees’ perception of their environment interact with PSM dimension of compassion, and positively influences organizational-relevant attitudes. Thus, we hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 3: The relationship of procedural fairness with (a) job satisfaction and (b) organizational commitment will be stronger for those employees having high level of compassion as compared with those having low levels of compassion.

Figure 1 represents the path diagram of our hypothesized model.

Figure 1.

Model of hypothesized relationships.

Data and Method

Sample

We administered a self-reported questionnaire to public service employees (N = 331) who participated in a human resource management (HRM) training program conducted at a university in Pakistan in 2013.¹ Participation was voluntary, with a response rate of 70% (N = 232). These respondents were chosen to create a diverse sample of participants representing a broad range of governmental occupations and localities. The following public sector occupations were represented: social workers, education experts, librarians, engineers, community workers, and management analysts. The sample was demographically diverse by their age, gender, educational attainment, and hierarchical level (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Description of Survey Sample and Control Variables (N = 232).

	Frequency	Percentage
Education level
Did not complete high school	0	0
High school diploma	0	0
Some college/associate degree/technical certificate	3	1.3
Bachelor’s degree	62	26.7
Master’s degree or higher	167	72.0
Gender
Male	161	69.4
Female	71	30.6
Age
25-30 years	86	37.1
31-35 years	66	28.4
36-40 years	26	11.2
41-45 years	18	7.8
46-50 years	13	5.6
51 years and above	23	9.9
Hierarchical level
Entry level	57	24.6
Middle level	119	51.3
Senior level	56	24.1
Work experience in public service
Less than 5 years	138	59.5
6-10 years	44	19.0
11-15 years	9	3.9
More than 15 years	41	17.7
Sector
Public sector	103	44
Nonprofit sector	129	56

Table 1 depicts that 44% of respondents are from public sector and 56% from nonprofit organizations. One fourth (24.6%) of the respondents are entry-level workers, 51.3% are middle-level managers, and 24.1% are senior-level managers. Gender composition is 69.4% males and 30.6% females. More than one third (37.1%) respondents are in the age bracket of 25 to 30 years, 28.4% are in the age group of 31 to 35 years, and 11.2% are between 36 and 40 years. Majority (72%) of respondents have master’s degree, more than a quarter (26.7%) have bachelor’s degree, and 1.3% have some college certificate.

The quality of data is ensured by checking whether assumptions of normality are upheld. All variables are within the suggested range of skewness and kurtosis (−2 and +2; George & Mallery, 2010; Lee, Benoit-Bryan, & Johnson, 2012). Test of multicollinearity is a necessary requirement for testing moderation (Hayduk, 1987). The multicollinearity diagnostics (e.g., tolerance statistics and variance inflation factor [VIF] statistics are below 5) do not suggest any problem in our data set and all bivariate correlations are less than .7 (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11
Dependent variables
1. Job satisfaction	3.32	0.89	(.72)
2. Affective commitment	3.58	0.91	.40**	(.83)
Independent variables
3. Procedural fairness	3.11	0.98	.36**	.32**	(.86)
Public service motivation
4. Attraction to policy making	2.76	1.01	.04	.01	.15*	(.85)
5. Commitment to public interest	4.20	0.58	−.06	.12	.01	.07	(.79)
6. Compassion	3.93	0.61	.02	.13	.08	.21**	.54**	(.73)
Control variables
7. Gender^a	1.30	0.46	−.07	−.04	.01	−.20**	−.10	−.12
8. Age^b	2.46	1.63	.14*	.09	.12	.10	.12	.08	−.26**
9. Educational level^c	2.70	0.48	.01	−.06	−.06	−.03	−.01	.07	.02	−.11
10. Hierarchical level^d	1.99	0.69	.14*	.09	.12	−.04	.13*	.06	−.13*	.44**	.12
11. Organizational tenure^e	1.79	1.14	.07	−.01	−.03	.11	.07	−.05	−.12	.70**	−.17**	.34**	—

Note. N = 232, Cronbach’s α coefficients are displayed on the diagonal.

Gender: 1 = male, 2 = female.

Age: 1 = 25-30 years, 2 = 31-35 years, 3 = 36-40 years, 4 = 41-45 years, 5 = 46-50 years, 6 = 51 years and above.

Education level: 1 = some college degree, 2 = bachelor’s, 3 = master’s or higher.

Hierarchical level: 1 = entry level, 2 = middle level, 3 = senior level.

Organizational tenure: 1 = less than 5 years, 2 = 6-10 years, 3 = 11-15 years, 4 = more than 15 years.

p < .05. **p < .01.

Measures

Four categories of variables are measured. First group represents the independent variable (procedural fairness). Second group represents moderator variables, which consists of three dimensions of PSM (attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion). Third group includes dependent variables (job satisfaction and organizational commitment), and fourth category includes demographic variables as controls. All measures are assessed using response options on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The appendix provides a description of items and variables included in the study.

Procedural fairness

Four-item measures of procedural fairness adapted from Colquitt et al. (2001) were used to assess the procedural fairness perceptions.² The coefficient of reliability for this scale is .86.

PSM

PSM dimensions are measured using 11 items of Perry (1996). Results of confirmatory factor analysis confirm the three-factor structure for the PSM measure. Self-sacrifice and compassion dimensions were categorized as a single factor. Two items formed the “attraction to policy making” dimension (α = .85), two items from the “self-sacrifice” dimension and three items from the compassion dimension were categorized as “compassion” dimension (α = .72), and four items formed the “commitment to public interest” dimension (α = .79).

Job satisfaction

Five-item measures of Hackman and Oldham (1975) and Brewer and Selden (1998) were used. The scale focuses on overall job satisfaction. The Cronbach’s alpha reliability estimate is .72.

Organizational commitment

Four items from Meyer and Allen’s Affective Commitment Scale (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer, Allen, & Smith, 1993) are used. The coefficient of reliability for this scale is .83.

Control variables

Recognizing previous findings (Bright, 2008; Houston, 2000; Lewis & Frank, 2002; Pandey & Stazyk, 2008; Perry, 1997) regarding the impact of demographic variables on PSM and work attitudes, several sociodemographic individual-level variables (e.g., gender, education, hierarchical level, sector of employment, and organizational tenure) are used as controls to test their impact on employees’ attitudes.

Results

Hierarchical regression analysis is used to test our hypotheses. We hypothesize the direct effect of procedural fairness and moderating effects of PSM dimensions (attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion) on employee attitudes (job satisfaction and organizational commitment). The proposed hypotheses are tested in three models: Model 1 tests the direct effects of control variables and procedural fairness on employee attitudes; Model 2 examines the direct effects of PSM dimensions (attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion); and Model 3 tests the moderating effect of interaction terms of procedural fairness and PSM dimensions (attraction to policy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion). Following the precedence of earlier research, mean centering of the variables is used to test the moderation hypotheses (Aiken & West, 1991).

The descriptive statistics and correlations among the study variables are shown in Table 2. Only one of PSM dimensions correlated at .5 or higher but there are none greater than .54. The mean of PSM dimension of commitment to public interest is higher (4.20) as compared with PSM dimensions of compassion (3.93) and attraction to policy making (2.76) motives. Procedural fairness is positively associated with both outcome variables (job satisfaction and commitment) with pairwise correlation ranging from .32 to .37 (p < .01). No significant correlation is found among PSM dimensions and outcome variables.

Table 3 presents the regression results. F test in Models Ia and IIa shows that the effects of control variables and procedural fairness on job satisfaction and commitment are significant. The direct effects of procedural fairness on job satisfaction (β = .33, p < .01, R² = .15) and organizational commitment (β = .27, p < .01, R² = .12) are observed. These results confirm the hypothesized relationships between procedural fairness and employee attitudes. Employees endorsing higher levels of procedural fairness perceptions are more likely to show significantly higher levels of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Thus, Hypotheses 1a and 1b are supported. Models Ib and IIb show the independent effect of PSM dimensions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The direct effect of these dimensions is not significant.

Table 3.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Relationship Between Procedural Fairness, PSM Dimensions (Rational, Normative, Affective) Interaction, and Employee Attitudes.

Variables	Job satisfaction (Model I)			Affective commitment (Model II)
Variables	Model Ia	Model Ib	Model Ic	Model IIa	Model IIb	Model IIc
Step 1: Control variables
Gender	−.09 (0.12)	−.12 (0.13)	−.14 (0.12)	−.04 (0.13)	−.03 (0.13)	−.08 (0.13)
Age	.02 (0.05)	.02 (0.05)	.02 (0.05)	.04 (0.05)	.04 (0.05)	.04 (0.05)
Tenure	.04 (0.07)	.04 (0.07)	.04 (0.07)	−.07 (0.07)	−.05 (0.07)	−.06 (0.07)
Education	.05(0.12)	.05 (0.12)	.05 (0.12)	−.08 (0.12)	−.09 (0.12)	−.08 (0.12)
Hierarchical level	.08 (0.09)	.08 (0.09)	.09 (0.09)	.07 (0.09)	.05 (0.09)	.04 (0.09)
Sector of employment	−.03 (0.11)	−.02 (0.11)	−.06 (0.11)	.11 (0.12)	.09 (0.11)	.12 (0.11)
Procedural fairness	.33** (0.06)	.33** (0.06)	.33** (0.06)	.27** (0.06)	.28** (0.06)	.26** (0.06)
Step II
Attraction to policy making (Rational)		−.03 (0.05)	−.03 (0.06)		−.04 (0.06)	−.06 (0.06)
Commitment to public interest (normative)		−.17 (0.12)	−.24^† (0.12)		.11 (0.12)	.05 (0.12)
Compassion (affective)		.07 (0.11)	.09 (0.11)		.08 (0.11)	.15 (0.11)
Step III: Interaction
Procedural Justice × Rational			−.17** (0.06)			.06 (0.06)
Procedural Justice × Normative			−.10 (0.11)			−.25* (0.11)
Procedural Justice × Affective			.11 (0.12)			.28* (0.12)
R ²	.15**	.16	.19*	.12**	.13	.16*
ΔR²	.15**	.01	.03*	.12**	.01	.03*
Overall F	5.75**	4.26**	4.03**	4.21**	3.32**	3.28**

Note. Values are unstandardized betas and values in parentheses are standard errors. N = 232. PSM = public service motivation.

†

p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01.

The results of interaction hypotheses are presented in Table 3 (Models Ic and IIc). The statistical evidence partially supports Hypothesis 2a, where the interaction term between procedural fairness and attraction to policy making is statistically significant in predicting job satisfaction (β = −.17, p < .01), whereas the interaction effects for organizational commitment are not significant. The significant moderating effect of attraction to policy making on the relationship between procedural fairness and job satisfaction is shown in Figure 2. Simple slope test reveals that the effect is significant for both high and low levels of attraction to policy making, but the strength of the relationship is stronger for low levels of attraction to policy making.

Figure 2.

Interaction of procedural fairness and attraction to policy making in predicting job satisfaction.

Hypothesis 2b proposes the moderating effect of PSM dimension of commitment to public interest on the relationship between procedural fairness and employee attitudes (job satisfaction and commitment). In Table 3, Models Ic and IIc show that the interaction term between procedural fairness and commitment to public interest is statistically significant only in predicting organizational commitment (β = −.25, p < .05), whereas no significant effect is observed for job satisfaction. The simple slope analysis reveals that the effect of procedural fairness on organizational commitment is significant only for those having low level of commitment to public interest, which supports Hypothesis 2b (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Interaction of procedural fairness and commitment to public interest in predicting organizational commitment.

Hypothesis 3 with regard to the moderating effect of PSM dimension of compassion on the relationship between procedural fairness and employee attitudes (job satisfaction and commitment) is partially supported. The interaction term between procedural fairness and compassion is statistically significant in predicting organizational commitment (β = .28, p < .05). The effect on job satisfaction is not significant. Simple slope test demonstrates that moderating effect of compassion on the relationship between procedural fairness and organizational commitment is significant for high level of compassion (see Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Interaction of procedural fairness and compassion in predicting organizational commitment.

Discussion and Conclusion

Overall, the results provide considerable support for the direct effect of procedural fairness on employee attitudes of job satisfaction and commitment. Drawing on group value model of procedural fairness (Lind & Tyler, 1988) and social exchange perspective (Blau, 1964), our results confirm the fact that people react to fairness because not only of instrumental/economic needs but also rather concerns for procedural fairness rest on relational needs. Our findings replicate existing research on the relationship between procedural justice and employee outcomes of satisfaction and commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Rubin, 2009).

The interaction of procedural fairness with PSM dimensions had a significant effect on employee satisfaction and organizational commitment. The direction of these interactions supported the hypothesized relationships. For individuals having high level of PSM dimension of compassion, the stronger effect of procedural fairness on commitment was observed. These findings can be explained in light of assumptions of the group value model of justice (Lind & Tyler, 1988), which suggests that some individuals consider justice as “a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and for personal satisfaction of these individuals” (Greenberg, 1990, p. 399). Individuals with high levels of PSM dimension of compassion carry high levels of affective motive and employees with low levels of rational and normative motives consider fair organizational policies important for public service and, thus, maintain higher levels of positive attitude under fair conditions as compared with those having low affective motives and high rational and normative motives.

In other words, our findings suggest a profile of employees for whom the concerns for procedural fairness are more salient. Thus, we can speculate that for employees having high levels of PSM dimensions of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest carry high rational and normative motives, the concern for fairness is not observable in these individuals. These findings could suggest that high levels of PSM dimensions (attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest) enhance the likelihood that such individuals will see procedural requirements/rules as legitimate in their intent, and their association with their organization are not affective in nature and their attitudes (satisfaction and commitment) do not correlate with their justice judgments (Buchanan, 1975).

Our findings regarding the differential moderating effects of PSM dimensions confirm the predictions of earlier research. Perry (1997) found significant differences in the influence of independent variables on four dimensions of PSM. Taylor (2007) demonstrated that, when analyzed simultaneously, certain PSM dimensions had stronger influence on work outcomes. Moynihan and Pandey (2007) found that red tape is negatively related to rational dimension, but not to normative dimension, whereas reform orientation and hierarchical authority are positively related to normative motive but not to rational dimension. Thus, our findings support the fact that PSM dimensions may have different characteristics and theoretical backgrounds, which may lead to different antecedents and consequences of PSM dimensions (Kim & Vandenabeele, 2010).

Our findings further suggest that PSM does not serve as panacea in all kinds of public service environments. However, empirical evidence suggests that individuals possessing high PSM are more tolerant of bureaucratic constraints (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). These findings have considered PSM as a single dimension, without separating the effects of each dimension; thus, the findings could be considered too broad. The organizational realities such as red tape and unfairness may alienate the highly motivated individuals (Quratulain & Khan, 2015a, 2015b), and the relationship could be driven by a single dimension such as affective motive. Ritz, Brewer, and Neumann (2016) also suggested that research on PSM is predominately optimistic; the more nuanced understanding of the phenomena is missing.

According to our findings, managing and improving procedural fairness may help improve employees’ job satisfaction and commitment. Maintaining procedural fairness in personnel decisions (appraisal systems, reward, promotion, etc.) is not an easy task. Working under resource-constrained environments, public mangers often feel pressure not to give high ratings to too many employees (Davidson, 2009). Subjectivity in performance measurement (Berman, West, Maurice, & Richter, 2002) and lack of skill or training in personnel procedures are some of the obstacles (Berman, Bowman, West, & Van Wart, 2010; Mani, 2002). Our findings suggest that not all employees respond to procedural unfairness in a similar manner. Employees having high rational and normative motives follow the logic of appropriateness or rule-governed behavior. Motivated toward public service, these employees do not change their job attitudes in response to situational constraints (e.g., unfairness). These employees demonstrate the attitudes and behaviors, which are consistent with their internal standards. Following Schwartz’s (1983) obligation-based motivation, we suggest that public service employees having high levels of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest are likely to be motivated by fulfilling obligations, obeying rules, and maintaining trust. Thus, public service organizations that attract members with high levels of these motivations are likely to be less dependent on utilitarian incentives to maintain positive employee attitudes and performance.

We also find interesting results based on compassion, procedural justice, and job satisfaction. Employees with high levels of compassion are those who are willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that is normally expected to help the greater good of the organization. Our results indicate that employees scoring higher on compassion dimension and procedural fairness have higher organizational commitment. In other words, our findings suggest that procedural unfairness can frustrate those employees who have high levels of affective motive. PSM dimension of compassion represents affective component and emotional state. Frederickson and Hart (1985) explained this as an emotional response to humankind, which includes the willingness to sacrifice for others. Perry and Wise (1990) considered this as the least important component of PSM, and our findings also suggest that people high on affective motive behave differently than those who possess high dimensions of attraction to policy making and commitment to public interest. Public managers can try to minimize the procedural constraints by empowering employees, fostering professional growth, and decentralizing the decision-making authority. Such prescriptions have shown a positive relationship with PSM (Naff & Crum, 1999). Our findings have implications for both public and nonprofit sector organizations. We controlled sector of employment in statistical analysis, we did not find any significant differences between the public and nonprofit sectors, thus, suggesting convergence between the two sectors.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

As with a majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to limitations. First, our study is correlational in nature, and consequently, the results cannot indicate causality. Longitudinal research design could provide a more definite direction of the influence of procedural fairness on employee outcomes. Second, all the variables were measured with self-reported survey measures. Consequently, observed relationships may have been artificially inflated as a result of respondents’ tendencies to respond in a consistent manner. However, more recent meta-analytic research on this issue indicates that this problem continues to be commonly cited and the magnitude of the inflation of relationships may be overestimated (Crampton & Wagner, 1994). As for our reliance on self-ratings, we contend that the type of attitudes studied in this research can best be measured through self-reporting. However, the presence of significant interaction terms gave us confidence that common method bias may not be a serious problem in our data (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010). Third, our choice of convenience sample is a limitation as specific characteristics of the sample may inhibit the generalizability of our findings. Fourth, our results show that our independent variables explain a weak variance of the dependent variable. Therefore, this study might have ignored some important variables such as subjective assessment of HRM practices (e.g., satisfaction with pay and appraisal) and some other dispositional variables (e.g., positive/negative affectivity, mood, personality characteristics) that would offer additional explanations for these dependent variables. Future research can identify other predictors and outcomes of employees’ job satisfaction and commitment.

Footnotes

Appendix

Description of the Variables and Items.

Variables	Items
PSM
Attraction to policy making	1. I’m very interested in politics. 2. I like to discuss political subjects.
Commitment to public interest	1. It is important for me to contribute to the common good. 2. I consider public service my civic duty. 3. Meaningful public service is very important to me. 4. I would prefer seeing public officials do what is best for the whole community, even if it harms my interest.
Compassion	1. Most social programs are too vital to do without. 2. I’m often reminded by daily events how dependent we are on one another. 3. I’m highly moved by the plight of underprivileged.
Self-sacrifice	1. I am one of those rare people who would risk personal loss to help someone else. 2. I think people should give back to society more than they get from it.
Job satisfaction	1. I frequently think of quitting this job (R). 2. Generally speaking, I am very satisfied with this job. 3. Most people on this job are very satisfied with the job.
Affective commitment	1. I’m willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that is normally expected to help this organization to be successful. 2. I am glad that I chose this organization to work for over others I was considering at the time I joined. 3. I tell my friends and others that this organization is a great place to work. 4. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations for which to work.
Procedural justice	1. The procedures used to determine outcomes (salary increment, promotion, fringe benefits, etc.) have been applied consistently. 2. The procedures used to determine outcomes (salary increment, promotion, fringe benefits, etc.) have been free of bias. 3. The procedures used to determine outcomes (salary increment, promotion, fringe benefits, etc.) have been based on accurate information. 4. The procedures used to determine outcomes (salary increment, promotion, fringe benefits, etc.) are ethically and morally acceptable.

Note. PSM = public service motivation.

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 Biographies

Samina Quratulain is an assistant professor in College of Business Administration at University of Sharjah. Her research interests include employee–organization exchange relationships, public service motivation, reciprocity norms and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Abdul Karim Khan is an assistant professor in College of Business and Economics at United Arab Emirates University. His research interests include organizational justice, emotion of envy, counterproductive work behaviours, and abusive supervision.

Meghna Sabharwal is an associate professor in the Public Affairs Program at the University of Texas at Dallas where she teaches human resource management. Her research interests are focused on workforce policy as it relates to job satisfaction, productivity, and diversity.

References

Aiken

L. S.

West

S. G.

(1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Alexander

Ruderman

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

Ashforth

B. E.

(1998). Becoming: How does the process of identification unfold? In Whetten

D. A.

Godfrey

P. C.

(Eds.), Identity in organizations: Building theory through conversations (pp. 213-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Berman

E. M.

Bowman

J. S.

West

J. P.

Van Wart

M. R.

(2010). Human resource management in public services: Paradoxes, processes, and problems (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Berman

E. M.

West

J. P.

Maurice

Richter

(2002). Workplace relations: Friendship patterns and consequences (according to managers). Public Administration Review, 62, 217-230.

Blader

S. L.

Tyler

T. R.

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

Blau

M. P.

(1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

10.

Brewer

G. A.

Selden

S. C.

(1998). Whistle blowers in the Federal Civil Service: New evidence of the public service ethic. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8, 413-439.

11.

Brewer

S. C.

Selden

R. L.

Facer

I. I.

(2000). Individual conceptions of public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 60, 3254-3264.

12.

Bright

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

13.

Brockner

Ackerman

Fairchild

(2001). When do elements of procedural fairness make a difference? A classification of moderating influences. In Greenberg

Cropanzano

(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 179-212). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

14.

Brockner

Tyler

T. R.

Cooper-Schneider

(1992). The influence of prior commitment to an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: The higher they are, the harder they fall. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 241-261.

15.

Buchanan

(1975). Red tape and the service ethic. Administration and Society, 6, 423-444.

16.

Choi

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

17.

Cohen-Charash

Spector

(2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.

18.

Colquitt

J. A.

Conlon

D. E.

Wesson

M. J.

Porter

C. O.

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.

19.

Cooper

(2000). Public law and public administration (3rd ed.). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock Publishers.

20.

Crampton

S. M.

Wagner

J. A.

(1994). Percept-percept inflation in micro organizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.

21.

Cropanzano

Randall

(1993). Injustice and work behavior: A historical review. In Cropanzano

(Ed.), Justice in the workplace:Approaching fairness in human resource management. (pp. 1-20). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

22.

Davidson

(2009, March 20). Agencies are encouraged to expedite hiring. Washington Post, p. D5.

23.

De Cremer

Van Vugt

. (1999). Social identification effects in social dilemmas: A transformation of motives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 871-893.

24.

Feeney

M. K.

Langer

(2016). Getting ahead in the public sector: Perceptions of managers in U.S. municipalities. The American Review of Public Administration, 46, 683-699.

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.

Franklin

Pagan

(2006). Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26, 52-73.

27.

Frederickson

H. G.

Hart

D. K.

(1985). The public service and the patriotism of benevolence. Public Administration Review, 45, 547-553.

28.

Gawthrop

L. C.

(1984). Public service and democracy: Ethical imperatives for the 21st century (Public Administration and Public Policy). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

29.

George

Mallery

(2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.

30.

Greenberg

(1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432.

31.

Griffeth

R. W.

Hom

P. W.

(2001). Retaining valued employees. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Grusec

J. E.

(1992). Social learning theory and development psychology: The legacies of Robert Sears and Albert Bandura. Developmental Psychology, 28, 776-786.

33.

Hackman

J. R.

Oldham

G. R.

(1975). Development of the job diagnostic survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.

34.

Harrison

D. A.

Newman

D. A.

Roth

P. L.

(2006). How important are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisons of integrative behavioural outcomes and time sequences. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 305-325.

35.

Hassan

(2013). Does fair treatment in the workplace matter? An assessment of organizational fairness and employee outcomes in government. The American Review of Public Administration, 43, 539-557.

36.

Hayduk

L. A.

(1987). Structural equations modeling with Lisrel. Research in Nursing & Health, 11, 352-353.

37.

Hogg

M. A.

Terry

D. J.

(2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25, 121-140.

38.

Houston

D. J.

(2000). Public-service motivation: A multivariate test. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 713-727.

39.

Inoue

Tsurugani

Nishikitani

Yano

(2010). Effort-reward imbalance and its association with health among permanent and fixed-term workers. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 4, 7-21.

40.

Judge

T. A.

Thoresen

C. J.

Bono

J. E.

Patton

G. K.

(2001). The job satisfaction–job performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 376-407.

41.

Kaufman

(1977). Red tape, its origins, uses and abuses. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

42.

Kim

Vandenabeele

(2010). A strategy for building public service motivation research internationally. Public Administration Review, 70, 701-709.

43.

Kim

Holzer

(2016). Public employees and performance appraisal: A study of antecedents to employees’ perception of the process. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 36, 31-56.

44.

Kim

W. C.

Mauborgne

R. A.

(1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals’ corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-526.

45.

Knoke

Wright-Isak

(1982). Individual motives and organizational incentive systems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 1, 209-254.

46.

Hur

(2014). The impact of employee benefits, procedural justice, and managerial trustworthiness on work attitudes: Integrated understanding based on social exchange theory. Public Administration Review, 74, 176-187.

47.

Kurland

N. B.

Egan

T. D.

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

48.

Lee

Benoit-Bryan

Johnson

T. P.

(2012). Survey research in public administration: Assessing mainstream journals with a total survey error framework. Public Administration Review, 72, 87-97.

49.

Le Grand

. (2003). Motivation, agency and public policy: Of Knights and Knaves, Pawns and Queens. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

50.

Le Grand

. (2010). Knights and knaves return: Public service motivation and the delivery of public services. International Public Management Journal, 13, 56-71.

51.

Lewis

G. B.

Frank

S. A.

(2002). Who wants to work for government? Public Administration Review, 62, 395-404.

52.

Lind

E. A.

Tyler

T. R.

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

53.

Lynggaard

Pedersen

M. J.

Andersen

L. B.

(2018). Exploring the context dependency of the PSM–performance relationship. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 38, 332-54.

54.

Mani

B. G.

(2002). Performance appraisal systems, productivity, and motivation: A case study. Public Personnel Management, 31, 141-159.

55.

McFarlin

Sweeney

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

56.

Meyer

Allen

N. J.

(1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research, and application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

57.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

Smith

(1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.

58.

Mowday

R. T.

Porter

L. W.

Steers

R. M.

(1982). Employee-organization linkages: The psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover. New York, NY: Academic Press.

59.

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.

60.

Naff

K. C.

Crum

(1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 5-16.

61.

S. S.

Lewis

G. B.

(2009). Can performance appraisal systems inspire intrinsically motivated employees? Review of Public Personnel Administration, 29, 158-167.

62.

Pandey

S. J.

Stazyk

E. C.

(2008). Antecedents and correlates of public service motivation. In Perry

J. L.

Hondeghem

(Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service (pp. 101-117). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

63.

Pearce

J. L.

Ramirez

R. R.

Branyiczki

(2001). Leadership and the pursuit of status: Effects of globalization and economic transformation. Advances in Global Leadership, 2, 153-178.

64.

Perry

J. L.

(1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6, 5-22.

65.

Perry

J. L.

(1997). Antecedents of public service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 7, 181-197.

66.

Perry

J. L.

(2000). Bringing society in: Toward a theory of public-service motivation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2, 471-488.

67.

Perry

J. L.

Porter

L. W.

(1982). Factors affecting the context for motivation in public organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 7, 89-98.

68.

Perry

J. L.

Vandenabeele

(2015). Public service motivation research: Achievements, challenges, and future directions. Public Administration Review, 75, 692-699.

69.

Perry

J. L.

Wise

L. R.

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

70.

Quratulain

Khan

A. K.

(2015a). How does employees’ public service motivation get affected? A conditional process analysis of the effects of person-job fit and work pressure. Public Personnel Management, 44, 266-289.

71.

Quratulain

Khan

A. K.

(2015b). Red tape, resigned satisfaction, public service motivation, and negative employee attitudes and behaviors: Testing a model of moderated mediation. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 307-332.

72.

Rainey

H. G.

(1979). Perceptions of incentives in business and government: Implications for civil service reform. Public Administration Review, 39, 440-448.

73.

Rainey

H. G.

(1983). Public agencies and private firms: Incentive structures, goals, and individual roles. Administration and Society, 15, 207-242.

74.

Rainey

H. G.

(1997). The how much process is due debate: Legal and managerial perspectives. In Cooper

Newland

(Eds.), Handbook of public law and administration (pp. 237-253). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

75.

Ritz

Brewer

G. A.

Neumann

(2016). Public service motivation: A systematic literature review and outlook. Public Administration Review, 76, 414-436.

76.

Rubin

E. V.

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

77.

Rubin

E. V.

Kellough

E. J.

(2012). Does civil service reform affect behavior? Linking alternative personnel systems, perceptions of procedural justice, and complaints. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22, 121-141.

78.

Rubin

E. V.

Weinberg

S. E.

(2016). Does changing the rules really matter? Assessing procedural justice perceptions under civil service reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 26, 129-141.

79.

Schwartz

H. S.

(1983). A theory of Deontic work motivation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19, 204-214.

80.

Siemsen

Roth

Oliveira

(2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 456-476.

81.

Simons

Roberson

(2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 432-443.

82.

Sitkin

S. B.

Bies

R. J.

(1994). The legalization of organizations: A multi-theoretical perspective. In Sitkin

S. B.

Bies

R. J.

(Eds.), The legalistic organization (pp. 19-52). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

83.

Skarlicki

Latham

(1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of the organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 161-169.

84.

Spector

(1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, cause and consequences. London, England: Sage.

85.

Taylor

(2007). The impact of public service motives on work outcomes in Australia: A comparative multi-dimensional analysis. Public Administration, 4, 931-959.

86.

Tett

R. P.

Meyer

J. P.

(1993). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analyses based on meta-analytic findings. Personal Psychology, 46, 259-293.

87.

Thibaut

Walker

(1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

88.

Tyler

T. R.

(1998). Public mistrust of the law: A political perspective. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 66, 847-876.

89.

Tyler

T. R.

Degoey

(1995). Collective restraint in a social dilemma situation: The influence of procedural justice and community identification on the empowerment and legitimacy of authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 482-497.

90.

Tyler

T. R.

Lind

E. A.

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

91.

Van der Wal

. (2015). “All quiet on the non-Western front?” A review of public service motivation scholarship in non-Western contexts. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration, 37, 69-86.

92.

Van Knippenberg

. (2000). Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 357-371.

93.

Williams

(2001). Perceptions and performance: The Australian public service experience. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 67, 49-64.

94.

Wise

L. R.

(2000). The public service culture. In Stillman

R. J.

, II. (Ed.), Public administration: Concepts and cases (pp. 342-353). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.