This article was downloaded by: [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)]

On: 04 November 2013, At: 02:31

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

The International Journal

of Human Resource
Management
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rijh20

Modelling the role of

organizational justice:
effects on satisfaction and
unionization propensity of
Canadian
Michel Tremblay & Patrice Roussel
Published online: 09 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Michel Tremblay & Patrice Roussel (2001) Modelling
the role of organizational justice: effects on satisfaction and unionization
propensity of Canadian, The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 12:5, 717-737
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/713769672

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all
the information (the Content) contained in the publications on our
platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors
make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,
completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and
views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor
& Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities

whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in

connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Int. J. of Human Resource Management 12:5 August 2001 717737

Modelling the role of organizational

justice: effects on satisfaction and
unionization propensity of Canadian
managers

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Michel Tremblay and Patrice Roussel

Abstract This research explores the direct in uence of pay referents and procedural
justice on pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and organization satisfaction, and the
mediating role of these three aspects of satisfaction between forms of justice and
unionization propensity. To test the importance and directions of these relations, we used
a LISREL-type structural equation model. The ndings showed that the three equity
referents of organizational justice (internal, external and individual) are linked to pay
satisfaction, and that distributive justice is a better predictor of pay satisfaction than
procedural justice perceptions. In contrast, procedural justice is a better predictor of
organizational satisfaction and job satisfaction than are distributive justice perceptions.
The nal model suggests that job satisfaction and organization satisfaction signi cantly
in uence propensity to join a union compared with organizational justice perceptions.
The paper also speci es the limitations of the study and its practical implications, and
makes suggestions for future research.
Keywords Distributive justice; procedural justice; work satisfaction; unionization;
managers; compensation.

Introduction
A substantial body of literature suggests that justice is an important motivator for
working people. In eld of compensation, a growing amount of research has been
devoted to examining how people react to pay injustice in workplace. To explain these
varying reactions, two major theoretical perspectives have been proposed and
developed. Employee reactions are affected by the perceived fairness of the rewards
they receive as well as the procedures used to determine these rewards (Greenberg,
1990, 1996). Although these justice dimensions have been associated with a range of
organizational attitudes and behaviours (e.g. Folger and Konovsky, 1989), the
differential effects of distributive and procedural justice seem equivocal, and little
attention has been paid to the nature of various relationships.
Originally, work on justice focused on the consequences of fairness decision
outcomes (Greenberg, 1987). In most cases, researchers have sought to test the
foundations of Adams (1963, 1965) theory of equity and Crosbys (1976) theory of

Michel Tremblay, Full professor, Ecole

des Hautes Etudes
Commerciales de Montreal,
Canada, and senior researcher at CIRANO, 3000, chemin de la Cote-Sainte-Catherine,
Montreal, Canada, H3T 2A7, (e-mail: michel.tremblay@hec.ca). Patrice Roussel, professeur
des Universites, Universite de Toulouse 1, France, and researcher at LIRHE, Place Anatole
France, 31042, Toulouse Cedex, France (e-mail: roussel@univ-tlse1.fr).
The International Journal of Human Resource Management
ISSN 0958-5192 print/ISSN 1466-4399 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/09585190110047802

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

718

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

relative deprivation. Field research has shown that individuals who perceive their
overall situation to be equitable tend to exhibit higher levels of pay satisfaction and job
satisfaction, and adopt better work behaviour than do individuals who feel they are paid
unfairly (Sweeney et al., 1990; Berg, 1991; Witt and Nye, 1992; Agho et al., 1993;
Covin et al., 1993).
Following Goodman (1974) and Schwab and Wallace (1974), attempts were made to
de ne the role of referents in the social comparison process. Although emphasis was
placed mainly on pay satisfaction (Hills, 1980; Ronen, 1986; Scholl et al., 1987;
Berkowitz et al., 1987; Capelli and Sherer, 1988; Summers and DeNisi, 1990; Sweeney,
1990; Lee and Martin, 1991; Taylor and Vest, 1992; Blau, 1994), the role of pay
referents on other affective components was also examined (Dittrich and Carell, 1979;
Ronen, 1986; Johnson and Johnson, 1991; Roussel, 1996), along with behaviour at
work (Dittrich and Carrell, 1979; Scholl et al., 1987). These empirical studies
demonstrated that referents play a key role in understanding the attitudes and behaviour
of employees. Other advocates of distributive justice have attempted to explain the links
in the equity perception chain of consequences, and to elucidate the mediating role of
certain variables between equity perception and its presumed outcomes. For example,
Summers and Hendrix (1991) explored the mediatory role of pay satisfaction, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment and intention to leave in relation to equity
perception and staff turnover, and with respect to performance at work. Berg (1991)
studied the mediatory role of job satisfaction on intention to leave, while Ried and
McGhan (1987) examined the way in which pay satisfaction mediates job satisfaction,
and Witt and Wilson (1991) the moderating role of job satisfaction on extra-role
behaviours. Barling et al. (1992) investigated the mediatory role of extrinsic job
satisfaction between pay equity and intention to vote for a union. These authors all
observed that the relationship between justice perception and its presumed consequences is much more complex than equity theories and pay satisfaction models
would suggest.
Subsequent to research by Thibault and Walker (1975), Greenberg (1987), Sheppard
and Lewicki (1987) and Lind and Tyler (1988), it became obvious that the
understanding of justice must encompass the procedural level. These authors
contributions led to the emergence of a body of work on the in uence of distributive
justice and procedural justice on various attitudes and behaviour at work (Alexander
and Ruderman, 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Fryxell and Gordon, 1989;
Moorman, 1991; Citera et al., 1992; Dailey and Kirk, 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin,
1993; Lee, 1995; Lowe and Vodanovich, 1995; Scarpello and Jones, 1996). These
empirical studies provided substantial evidence to support the claim that human
motivation could be better understood through consideration of these two dimensions of
justice.
Although research has furthered our knowledge of the determinants of organizational
justice and its consequences in the compensation context, the role of referents and
procedural justice in the chain of attitudes and behaviours has received little attention.
To our knowledge, no study to date has tested the direct effects of pay and procedural
justice referents on satisfaction. The present research builds upon Summers and
Hendrix (1991) by exploring the direct in uence of pay referents, along with that of
procedural justice, on pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and organization satisfaction. It
also extends the study of Barling et al. (1992) by investigating the intermediary role of
pay, in addition to job and organization satisfaction, between distributive and
procedural justice and unionization propensity.

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

719

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

To test the importance and direction of these various relations, we used structural
equation modelling. The initial hypothesized model, formulated from the hypotheses
presented after Figure 1, presents all the associations tested. This type of model
represents the hypothetical causal relations between latent variables, and allows
inference rather than demonstration of causality (Brannick, 1995), according to the
three main conditions de ned by James et al. (in Kelloway, 1995): a) association, b)
isolation (the inclusion of all relevant predictors) and c) the establishment of causal
direction. If the conditions for causal inference are not met, only a reliable association
between the independent and dependent variables can be inferred. This is the case of
our model which represents a set of hypothetical relations deriving exclusively from a
review of the empirical and theoretical literature. Consequently, some explanatory
variables and causal directions could be ignored. The study is therefore
con rmatory.
Distributive justice and its consequences
Distributive justice theory has sought to understand and explain how individuals react
to an unfair distribution of rewards and resources (Greenberg, 1990). The explanatory
approach cited most often is Adams theory of equity (1963, 1965). Accordingly,
individuals calculate their own ratio by comparing their contributions with their

Figure 1 Initial research model

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

720

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

outcomes, and then do the same for other individuals, known as referents. However,
little is known about the issue of social comparison, especially with respect to the
choice of referents (Pinder, 1984; Scholl et al., 1987; Tremblay et al., 1997). Although
a number of taxonomies of referents have been proposed, a great deal of evidence has
been found to suggest that people base their equity perceptions on more than one
referent (Finn and Lee, 1972; Goodman, 1974; Dyer and Theriault, 1976; Dittrich and
Carrell, 1979; Hills, 1980; Lee and Martin, 1991). Our research uses the common
classi cation of social referents found in the literature on organizational justice
(Greenberg, 1996) and compensation (Milkovich and Newman, 1993; Hills et al., 1994,
etc.). Three classes of referents have been identi ed and largely used by compensation
practitioners: internal, external and individual referents. Internal equity refers to
comparisons with other people holding comparable or different jobs within the same
organization. External equity relates to comparisons with people holding jobs outside
the organization, whereas individual equity implies comparisons based on the
individuals own contributions, results or past experience.
The relationship between justice perception and pay satisfaction is probably that
which has most intrigued researchers. The ndings reveal a clear link between
distributive justice and pay satisfaction (Oldham et al., 1986; Sweeney, 1990; Sweeney
et al., 1990; Summers and DeNisi, 1990; Summers and Hendrix, 1991). Sweeney
(1990), using three random samples of workers from different companies, showed that
perceived equity was a better predictor of pay satisfaction than pay level. Summers and
Hendrix (1991), in explanatory research, found that distributive justice perception was
the best indicator of pay satisfaction. However, in both cases the authors used overall
measures of equity perception, and were consequently unable to assess the unique
contribution of each of these referents. Pay satisfaction convincingly varies according to
the level of referents (Dyer and Theriault, 1976; Goodman, 1974; Summers and DeNisi,
1990; Sweeney et al., 1990). When employees perceive that their pay is higher than pay
referents, their pay satisfaction increase. However, support for a signi cantly positive
relationship between pay referent and pay level satisfaction has been inconsistent (Blau,
1994), together with ndings on the relative in uence of speci c referents on pay
satisfaction. Some studies found that internal and external referents can have a positive
impact on pay satisfaction (Ronen, 1986; Blau, 1994). Other researchers have suggested
that internal comparisons are more likely to lead to pay satisfaction than external
comparisons (Finn and Lee, 1972; Hills, 1980; Capelli and Sherer, 1988; Taylor and
Vest, 1992). Strong evidence also suggests that external referents in uence pay
satisfaction more than internal comparisons (Dreher, 1981; Scholl et al., 1987; Das and
Bhadury, 1997; Tremblay et al., 2000). Some studies found that individual referents
may be more strongly related to pay satisfaction than external (Taylor and Vest, 1992)
or internal comparisons (Scholl et al., 1987). The literature points to a consistent
positive relationship between distributive justice perceptions and pay satisfaction.
However, in the absence of stronger evidence of the relative importance of pay referents
on pay satisfaction, it may be worth investigating the role of comparisons more
extensively. We therefore propose the following general hypothesis:
H1:

Internal, individual and external perceptions of equity are positively associated

with pay satisfaction.

Researchers have pointed out that justice perception may in uence aspects other than
compensation. Agho et al. (1993), Berg (1991) and Witt and Nye (1992) identi ed a
positive relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction. In their explana-

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

721

tory studies, Summers and Hendrix (1991) and Moorman (1991) emphasized the
contribution of distributive justice to job satisfaction. Research that speci cally
evaluated the impact of referents on job satisfaction showed that satisfaction was
in uenced more by internal equity than by external equity perceptions (Dittrich and
Carrell, 1979; Covin et al., 1993). Yet Ronen (1986) and more recently Tremblay et al.
(2000) failed to nd a signi cant relationship between the pay referents studied and job
satisfaction. These inconsistent results suggest that pay referents play a minor role in
job satisfaction.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

H2:

Pay comparisons (internal, individual and external) are not signi cantly related
to job satisfaction.

In contrast with job satisfaction, the in uence of distributive justice on organization

satisfaction has received very little attention in the literature. Alexander and Ruderman
(1987) found that distributive justice perception was signi cantly linked to con dence
in management. However, the in uence of referents on organization satisfaction is not
well established. Ronen (1986) observed that external comparisons were linked more
closely to company satisfaction than are internal comparisons, whereas Tremblay et al.
(2000) found that internal and individual comparisons were more strongly related to
organization satisfaction than were outside comparisons. Given that policies governing
compensation distribution, e.g. pay market position, pay structure and size of pay
increase, are determined mainly by senior management, perceived pay inequities would
most probably be ascribed to organizational decision makers. However, there is very
little evidence to support the importance of any particular referent. We therefore
propose the following explanatory hypothesis:
H3:

Internal, individual and external perceptions of equity are positively associated

with organizational satisfaction.

Procedural justice and its consequences

To understand individual reactions to unfair treatment, it is worth considering a second
dimension of organizational justice: procedural justice. This term refers to the
perception of justice in decision-making procedures (Folger and Greenberg, 1985). Two
procedural elements appear to be relevant from the compensation standpoint, i.e. degree
of control over the process leading to pay-related decisions and degree of control over
compensation decisions. Some authors have shown that control over the process
produces a stronger sense of procedural justice and more positive attitudes towards
outcomes and the organization (Tyler et al., 1985). In the eld of compensation,
Scarpello and Jones (1996), using agency theory as a theoretical framework, suggested
that these positive results may be explained by the fact that fair compensation
procedures may act as mechanisms that align the interests of agents with those of the
principal.
The independence of the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice has
been examined on several occasions. Individuals are apparently able to distinguish
between the two forms (Thibault and Walker, 1975; Sheppard and Lewicki, 1987). In
addition, each form has its own consequences (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Lind
and Tyler, 1988; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Moorman, 1991; Dailey and Kirk, 1992;
Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993; Lee, 1995; Scarpello and Jones, 1996; Tremblay et al.,
2000). In fact, many of these authors have observed that distributive justice is a better
predictor of individual attitudes, whereas procedural justice is a better predictor of

722

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

organizational attitudes. The hypothesis that distributive justice is a better predictor of

pay satisfaction than procedural justice has been widely supported in the literature
(Weiner, 1980; Konovsky et al., 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989; Miceli et al., 1991;
Citera et al., 1992; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993; Roussel, 1996; Scarpello and Jones,
1996; Tremblay et al., 2000). This does not necessarily imply that procedural justice
does not have a positive impact on pay satisfaction. For example, Folger and Konovsky
(1989) and Tremblay et al. (2000) found that procedural justice may have a signi cant
and independent in uence on pay satisfaction, compared with distributive justice. We
can therefore propose the following two hypotheses:
H4a:

Procedural justice
satisfaction.

perceptions

are

positively

associated

with

pay

H4b:

Distributive justice perceptions are more closely associated with pay

satisfaction than are procedural justice perceptions.

Given the preceding argument that procedural justice has a greater in uence on
attitudes towards the organization, we can expect that procedural justice will be more
closely related to organizational satisfaction. In the compensation context, Alexander
and Ruderman (1987), Folger and Konovsky (1989) and Scarpello and Jones (1996)
observed such a relationship. They found that con dence in management and
supervision were explained more strongly by procedural justice than by distributive
justice. However, Tremblay et al., (2000) failed to support the same relationship
pattern. They observed that distributive justice was a more powerful predictor of
company satisfaction than procedural justice. The evidence suggests the following
hypotheses:
H5a:

Procedural justice perceptions are positively associated with organizational

satisfaction.

H5b:

Procedural justice perceptions are more closely associated with organizational

satisfaction than are distributive justice perceptions.

Employees who perceive procedural justice should judge their jobs more favourably.
Accordingly, individuals who consider that they are in a situation of sub-equity have
two options: they can decrease their contributions (input) or attempt to increase their
outcomes. Hills et al. (1994) reported that the reduced contributions may assume
several forms: arriving late, taking long breaks, taking all possible sick leave, etc. This
option can be considered the behavioural expression of high job dissatisfaction. The
other option appears more positive, in that individuals can enhance their outcomes by
requesting a wage increase, a promotion or better bene ts and working conditions. The
underlying assumption here is that, for these outcomes to be achieved, procedural
justice must exist within the organization; for example, employees must be able to
in uence the outcomes by participating in decision making, or to le claims (voice). In
these cases, the individuals job satisfaction can be enhanced and in uenced by
procedural justice. Alexander and Ruderman (1987) found that procedural fairness
accounted for signi cantly more variance than distributive fairness in job satisfaction.
However, this relationship is not fully supported. Dailey and Kirk (1992) and Lowe and
Vodanovich (1995) found that job satisfaction was in uenced solely by distributive
justice perceptions, whereas Tremblay et al. (2000) predicated that procedural and

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

723

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

distributive justice account for the same proportion of variance in job satisfaction.
These contradictory results can be explained in part by the fact that the researchers used
global measures, rather than focusing on multifaceted measures of justice and
satisfaction. Overall, however, the research seems to argue in favour of the following
hypotheses:
H6a:

Procedural justice
satisfaction.

perceptions

are

positively

associated

with

job

H6b:

Procedural justice perceptions are more closely associated with job satisfaction than are distributive justice perceptions.

The mediating role of satisfaction between justice perceptions and unionization

propensity
Comprehensive models have been proposed to explain the antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions. More speci cally, these models have examined the
role of organizational justice and satisfaction in prediction of several behavioural
outcomes. Summers and Hendrix (1991) found that distributive justice had only an
indirect effect on turnover, through pay satisfaction, job satisfaction and organizational
commitment. Martin and Bennett (1996) found that procedural fairness, rather than
distributive fairness or job satisfaction, was a direct cause of organizational commitment, whereas Moorman (1991) demonstrated that perception of procedural justice, but
not distributive justice, had a signi cant direct effect on citizenship behaviours, and this
link was stronger than that between job satisfaction and outcome. Nonetheless,
empirical research as a whole has yielded mixed conclusions. Some studies suggest that
organizational justice perceptions have a direct effect on attitudes and behaviours, and
the link seems to be stronger than that between antecedents (e.g. pay and job
satisfaction) and behaviour. Other authors conclude that justice perceptions have only
an indirect effect on behaviour, via certain antecedents (e.g. job or pay satisfaction).
The role of organizational justice and satisfaction therefore needs to be explored
more fully. To our knowledge, no research to date has tested the effect of distributive
justice and procedural justice on attitudes towards unionization in the compensation
context. Lawler (1971) and Barling et al. (1992), among other authors, suggested that
salary inequity may in uence the desire to join a union owing to pay dissatisfaction.
Heneman and Sandver (1983) found that the level of satisfaction explained between 25
and 50 per cent of the variation in employees voting behaviour. Two aspects of
satisfaction have been particularly studied: satisfaction with working conditions
(economic and extrinsic) and satisfaction with the employment context (non-economic
and intrinsic). Dissatisfaction with pay, employee bene ts and job security was found to
be associated more closely with the desire to join or form a union than dissatisfaction
with the employment context (Allen and Keaveny, 1983; Brett, 1980). In contrast, other
studies have shown that dissatisfaction with the employment context may be closely
linked to the desire to join a union (Kochan, 1979; Maxey and Mohrman, 1980;
DeCotiis and Le Louarn, 1981; Hammer and Berman, 1981; Youngblood et al., 1984;
Deshpande and Fiorito, 1989). Accordingly, satisfaction with the supervisor, job,
career, participatory structures and in uence on decision making have been identi ed as
job context factors most strongly related to the desire to join a union. Although Weiner
(1980) found that procedural justice had a greater in uence on the attitude towards
unionization than distributive justice, the unionization literature suggests that the
intention to join a union is affected more strongly by pay satisfaction, job satisfaction

724

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

and organization satisfaction than by justice perception. Therefore, we propose the

following general hypotheses:
H7a:

Procedural justice perceptions are more closely associated with unionization

propensity than are distributive justice perceptions.

H7b:

Pay satisfaction, organization satisfaction and job satisfaction are more

closely associated with unionization propensity than are distributive and
procedural justice.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

In uence of pay satisfaction on other work-related attitudes

Theoretical models such as those of Lawler (1971) and Deckop (1992) suggest that pay
satisfaction may have an in uence over a variety of work attitudes and behaviour.
However, relatively few studies have examined the relationship between pay satisfaction and attitudes towards work. Empirical evidence suggests that pay satisfaction can
affect employment and job satisfaction (Ried and McGhan, 1987; Summers and
Hendrix, 1991; Covin et al., 1993; Roussel, 1996; Tremblay et al., 1999) and
satisfaction with the organization and with supervision (Covin et al., 1993; Tremblay et
al., 2000). A study of Canadian organizations found that job satisfaction accounted for
signi cantly more variance than did pay satisfaction in explanation of company
satisfaction (Tremblay et al., 2000). Findings suggest that pay satisfaction seems to be
related more strongly to job satisfaction, and that job satisfaction seems to be more
closely linked to organization satisfaction than pay satisfaction. We consequently
propose the following hypothesis:
H8:

Pay satisfaction is more closely associated with job satisfaction, whereas job
satisfaction is more strongly associated with organization satisfaction.

Methodology
Population
This research is part of a wider study of work managers in Canadian organizations. Data
were collected from three large industrial sectors of the Quebec economy: pulp and
paper; consumer services, speci cally food services; and the public sector. This choice
was motivated by the number and diversity of managerial jobs and the varying sizes and
geographical locations of these organizations. The questionnaires were distributed to
managers at all levels, from rst-line supervisors to top executives. Given the linguistic
and cultural diversity of the study population, surveys were developed in both French
and English. The sample consists of 3,067 managers from forty-one establishments and
associations. The response rate varied between 23 per cent and 80 per cent, according
to the organization. Given the exhaustive nature of the questionnaire (over twenty
pages), these response rates are understandable. Furthermore, despite modest response
rates, the large sample of managers who participated in this study (over 3,000) make it
representative of the managerial population from these three industrial sectors (in terms
of sex, age, etc.). The vast majority of respondents were men (83 per cent), Frenchspeaking (89 per cent) and had a direct supervisory role (90 per cent). On average, the
respondents were 42 years old, had twenty-two years of experience in the work market
and sixteen years seniority in their organization. More than half (52.5 per cent) have a
university degree.

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

725

Measuring instruments

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

The questionnaire includes scales designed to measure eight latent variables: internal,
individual and external equity for distributive justice and procedural justice (independent variables), pay, organizational and job satisfaction (intermediary variables), and
unionization propensity (dependent variable).
Distributive justice Distributive justice was broken down into justice based on
internal, external and individual equity. Perceptions of these three forms of distributive
justice were measured using the same types of question, based on Goodman (1974). In
questions on referents, respondents were asked to situate their pay on a seven-point
scale from: 2 3 (considerably less) to 1 3 (considerably more), where 0 represented
equity, 2 3 represented extreme negative inequity and 1 3 represented extreme positive
inequity. A typical question was: Compared to your subordinates and given the type of
work they do, do you think your pay is . . .? To measure the facets of distributive
justice, we grouped the questions together according to the form of justice to which
they referred. Internal equity was measured as the average of the answers to the
items comparing respondents with subordinates, colleagues and shop oor employees
(a 5 0.73). External equity was measured by a single item: Compared to the people
with whom you compare yourself outside the organization, and given the type of work
they do, do you think . . .? Individual equity was measured using three items related to
the requirements of the job (dif culties and responsibilities), perceived performance and
skills (a 5 0.90). It was read on the same scale as internal equity.
Procedural justice Perceived procedural justice in pay allocation was measured using
two items re ecting the level of participation in decision making regarding pay policies
and in appraisal of individual performance. Respondents were asked to indicate the
extent to which they were involved in these decisions, using a ve-point scale:
1 5 others make the decision, 3 5 equal contribution to the decision-making process,
5 5 the decision is entirely mine. As was the case for distributive justice, the mean of
the answers to the two items was taken as the measure of perceived procedural justice
(a 5 0.77).
Satisfaction Satisfaction with the organization (a 5 0.82), with pay (a 5 0.72) and
with the job itself (a 5 0.81) was measured using Warr and Routledges (1969)
Managerial Scale. The alpha coef cients of reliability that we obtained compare very
well with those observed by these researchers. The stability and validity of this
instrument has been demonstrated by Jung et al. (1986). In addition, this instrument of
measure is very well adapted to a sample of managers.
Unionization propensity Propensity to join a union was measured using a Guttmantype scale comprising the following seven items: (1) I would object if my friends took
public membership in an association for managers; (2) If the managers in my
organization formed an association, I would accept it; (3) I would be willing to join an
association for managers; (4) I would be in favour of unionizing the managers of my
organization; (5) I would work hard for the unionization of the managers in my
organization; (6) If a union were formed, I would be among the rst to sign up and pay
my dues; (7) I would be willing to be an of cer of such a union. Responses were coded
in binary fashion, with no receiving a score of 1 and yes a score of 2, so that the
scale of intensity ranged from 7 (no propensity to support unionization) to 14 (strong

726

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

propensity to support unionization). The instrument exhibited a coef cient of

reproducibility of 0.84. Guttman de ned this index as a measure of the extent to which
a respondents scale score is a predictor of ones response pattern (in Nie et al., 1975:
533).

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Statistical analyses
The data gathered from the questionnaires returned have been analysed with a structural
equation model under LISREL VII. The hypothesis testing (Figure 2) is based on the
evaluation of the reliability of the association between several latent variables. The
hypothesis is con rmed if the structural coef cient is deemed to be signi cant, i.e. if
Students t test exceeds, plus or minus two, precisely 1 /2 1.96 at the alpha level of
0.05 (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1989).
As for the measurement model that links the latent variables to their indicators (or
observed variables), by convention the former are represented with circles and the latter
with rectangles. The indicators are measured by the items of the questionnaire, which
have been grouped to establish mean type scores. This allows limiting of the number of
indicators to adjust the model to the data according to the recommended approximate
threshold of thirty indicators, which should not be exceeded (Joreskog and Sorbom,
1989).

Figure 2 Final research model

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

727

Furthermore, the evaluation of the t of the model to the data is founded on the
indices proposed by LISREL VII. For the x 2 of the nal model adjusted to the degree
of freedom (x 2/df), a ratio of 5, not to be exceeded, is the most exible norm, whereas
the most rigorous criteria have been set at three, even two (Pedhazur and Schmelkin,
1991). In terms of the goodness of t index (GFI) and the adjusted goodness of t index
(AGFI), the norms to be exceeded are 0.90 for the GFI and 0.80 for the AGF1 (Joreskog
and Sorbom, 1989). Norms of 0.80 are occasionally applied to these two indices (Hart,
1994). As for the root mean square residual (RMR or RMSR), the maximum threshold
is 0.05 when correlation matrices are analysed and 2.58 for covariance matrices
(Pedhazur and Schmelkin, 1991). Our research corresponds to the latter case.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Results
The means, standard deviations and correlations between the variables are shown in
Table 1. Table 1 reveals that no serious multicollinearity was observed between the
latent variables (r , 0.70). Correlations greater than 0.70 apply solely to indicators that
measure the same construct, that is a single latent variable. They con rm the high
reliability of internal coherence observed for each of the scales of distributive justice.
The intercorrelations between the three distributive justice constructs reveal correlation
indices that vary between 0.66 and 0.71. This indicates a conceptual overlapping of the
various facets of distributive justice also observed with other measuring instruments in
exploratory and con rmatory research (Igalens and Roussel, 1998).
Figure 2 presents the nal model. Only the signi cant results are presented (Figure 2
and Table 2). The results show that the four explanatory variables for distributive
justice and procedural justice are positively associated with pay satisfaction, con rming
hypotheses 1 and 4a. Yet it is mainly the external (g 42 5 0.167) and individual (g 43
5 0.253) referents of pay that are most closely linked to the dependent variable under
study. The in uence of internal equity, although signi cant, appears weak in our model
of pay satisfaction (g 41 5 0.098). Procedural justice was found to be the organizational
justice variable least strongly associated with pay satisfaction (g 44 5 0.059). This
result supports hypothesis 4b, as it is quite apparent that distributive justice (internal,
individual and external) is a better predictor of pay satisfaction than is procedural
justice.
No signi cant association was found between the three referents of pay and
satisfaction with the job and organization. Hypothesis 2 is consequently supported, but
not hypothesis contrast, procedural justice plays a signi cant role in satisfaction with
both the company (g 24 5 0.325) and the job (g 14 5 0.233). Hypotheses 5a and 6a are
thus con rmed. In addition, the relations verify hypotheses 5b and 6b, whereby
procedural justice is a better predictor of company satisfaction and job satisfaction
than distributive justice of pay. Nonetheless, these interesting results must be
relativized. Satisfaction with the organization is moderately explained by the model
(R2(h 2) 5 0.244), whereas job satisfaction is only weakly so (R2(h 1) 5 0.053).
Regarding unionization propensity, the model fails to explain this variable (R2(h 3 5
0.063). Hypothesis 7a, which suggests that the perceptions of procedural justice are
better predictors of unionization propensity than distributive justice, is not supported.
The model reveals that satisfaction with the company (b 32 5 2 0.844) and job
satisfaction (b 31 5 2 0.262) are negatively associated with unionization propensity. If
pay satisfaction is also negatively associated with unionization propensity (b 34 5
2 0.283), the weakness of the coef cient of determination R2(h 3) of the structural
equation and of the correlation between these two variables (r 5 2 .07, p , .01) leads

Y1

Y2

Y3

Y4

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

X8

X9

* p, 0.05 ** p, 0.01

Y1 Job satisfaction (satistra)

1.00
Y2 Organization satisfaction (satisent)
.46** 1.00
Y3 Intention to join a union (intsynd) 2 .15** 2 .23** 1.00
Y4 Pay satisfaction (satisrem)
.14**
.11** 2 .07** 1.00
X1 salvsub (internal equity)
.06** 2 .14** 2 .08** .20** 1.00
X2 salvasco (internal equity)
.03
2 .16**
.08** .18** .69** 1.00
X3 salvsyn (internal equity)
.04* 2 .15**
.09** .18** .82** .70** 1.00
X4 salvex (external equity)
.03
2 .15**
.09** .30** .66** .68** .68** 1.00
X5 salcomp (individual equity)
.07** 2 .11**
.08** .26** .68** .67** .69** .70** 1.00
X6 salvsre (individual equity)
.04* 2 .12**
.08** .27** .67** .66** .68** .70** .85** 1.00
X7 salvspo (individual equity)
.03
2 .13**
.08** .30** .68** .66** .69** .71** .81** .84** 1.00
X8 jusremu (pay process justice)
.05** 2 .08**
.05** .09** .52** .52** .51** .49** .49** .48** .48** 1.00
X9 juseva (appraisal process justice)
.19**
.26** 2 .01
.12** .08** .03
.05*
.10** .11** .08** .09** .43** 1.00
Mean
2.67
2.33
10.86
2.32
2.39
1.86
2.45
1.93
1.69
1.69
1.76
1.24
1.69
Standard deviation
.37
.49
1.90
.49
.85
.61
.84
.76
.69
.71
.77
.64
.83

Variables

Table 1 Matrix of correlations, means and standard deviations

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

728
The International Journal of Human Resource Management

6.091
3.172
14.797
12.580
9.557
10.872
3.128
2.290
6.454
25.174
2 2.584
2 10.874
2 3.657

t-value
0.136
0.062
0.264
0.289
0.186
0.196
0.060
0.036
0.115
0.417
2 0.051
2 0.220
2 0.072

Standardized
est.

44

(y)

33

(y)

22

(y)

11

(y)

94

(x)

84

(x)

73

(x)

63

(x)

53

(x)

42

(x)

31

(x)

21

(x)

(x)

11

1.000a
0.300
0.931
1.000a
1.000a
1.105
1.135
1.000a
2.699
1.000a
1.000a
1.000a
1.000a

0.000a
15.779
27.900
0.000a
0.000a
49.644
47.411
0.000a
9.361
0.000a
0.000a
0.000a
0.000a

0.674
0.202
0.627
0.765
0.555
0.613
0.630
0.297
0.800
0.371
0.493
1.895
0.486

x and y measurement models

Standardized
Parameters Estimate t-value
est.

Note
a
These parameters are set at 1.000 to establish a measurement scale. The t values of these paremeters cannot be calculated and are set at 0.000.

DI
x 2/dl

0.098
0.155
0.167
0.253
0.233
0.325
0.383
0.059
0.088
0.554
2 0.262
2 0.844
2 0.283
0.053
0.244
0.063
0.320
0.99
0.98
0.01
291.00
51
5.71

41

internal equity pay satisfaction

intention to join a union
32 external equity
g 42 external equity
pay satisfaction
g 43 individual equity
pay satisfaction
g 14 process justice
job satisfaction
g 24 process justice
organization satisfaction
g 34 process justice
intention to join a union
g 44 process justice
pay satisfaction
b 14 pay satisfaction
job satisfaction
b 21 job satisfaction
organization satisfaction
b 31 job satisfaction
intention to join a union
b 32 organization satisfaction
intention to join a union
b 34 pay satisfaction
intention to join a union
R2 (h 1) job satisfaction
R2 (h 2) organization satisfaction
R2 (h 3) intention to join a union
R2 (h 4) pay satisfaction
GFI
AGFI
RMR

Estimate

Parameters

Structural model

Table 2 Estimates of causal relationship parameters and adjustment indexes

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

729

730

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

us to conclude that hypothesis 7b is only partially con rmed. Finally, the data suggest
that company satisfaction is the best predictor of unionization propensity. Job
satisfaction and pay satisfaction are moderately associated with unionization
propensity.
Regarding relationships between satisfaction variables, the structural model suggests
the existence of two signi cant relationships. First, job satisfaction is positively and
signi cantly related to organization satisfaction (b 21 5 .554). Second, we found a
positive and signi cant link between pay satisfaction and job satisfaction (b 14 5 0.088).
However, our results show that the link between pay and job satisfaction is much
weaker than the one between job and organization satisfaction Thus, hypothesis 8 is
supported.
Discussion
The goal of this research was, rst, to examine the differential effect of procedural
justice and distributive justice (broken down into internal, external and individual
equity) on three facets of satisfaction (with pay, job and organization) and, second, to
explore the relationship between organizational justice perception, facets of satisfaction
and unionization propensity. The nal model (Figure 2) shows that the three equity
referents of organizational justice are linked to pay satisfaction, and that distributive
justice is a better predictor of pay satisfaction than are procedural justice perceptions. In
contrast, procedural justice is more strongly related with organization satisfaction and
job satisfaction than are distributive justice perceptions. Moreover, the nal model
suggests that job satisfaction and organization satisfaction play a more signi cant role
in unionization propensity than do organizational justice perceptions.
The differential effects of organizational justice
Our results, in a French-Canadian cultural context, support previous research ndings
(Lind and Tyler, 1988; Folger and Konovsky, 1987; Citera et al., 1992; Sweeney and
McFarlin, 1993; Scarpello and Jones, 1996) that distributive justice perceptions provide
a better explanation of pay satisfaction and that procedural justice plays a more
important role than distributive justice does in organization satisfaction and job
satisfaction. The higher the managers fairness perception of comparison levels, the
more satis ed they are with their pay, regardless of which procedure produces the
results. Similarly to Alexander and Ruderman (1987), we observed a strong link
between procedural justice and job satisfaction. Our study suggests that the in uence of
procedural justice is not restricted to satisfaction with the organization or institution; it
can also make the job itself more satisfying. The managers behave as though they
consider organizational justice to be part of their job. To explain the in uence of
procedural justice, the role of its indicators should not be overlooked. In the present
study, two components of procedural justice were examined: participation in decisions
relating to pay policies and participation in performance appraisal decisions. The
correlations show that participation in performance appraisal is more closely associated
with the three facets of satisfaction than is participation in decisions related to pay. Our
results support Greenbergs (1996) assertion that some decisions and procedures are
more important than others in the evaluation of procedural justice. Giving employees
the opportunity to express their opinions in the performance appraisal process may
increase their feeling of control over the job, the impression that they can in uence their
supervisors judgement, and that they have some power in pay decisions. However,

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

731

individual in uence on other pay policies, e.g. salary structure and market position,
appears to be more limited.
Regarding salary referents, the results suggest that individual equity and external
equity are more strongly associated with pay satisfaction than is internal equity.
Compared with other employee categories, managers tend to be more mobile in their
careers and willing to be paid according to their skills or performance. This may explain
why their satisfaction is linked more strongly to individual equity and external equity
rather than internal equity. Our results are consistent with research showing that salary
referents play a signi cant role in pay satisfaction (Goodman, 1974; Dyer and Theriault,
1976), and that not all referents have the same in uence on pay satisfaction (Taylor and
Vest, 1992; Blau, 1994; Roussel, 1996; Das and Bhadury, 1997; Tremblay et al., 2000).
Moreover, the ndings underline the need for organizations to introduce compensation
practices and procedures aimed at fostering internal, external and individual equity
(Milkovich and Newman, 1993; Scarpello and Jones, 1996).
Our nal model did not support Dailey and Kirks (1992) ndings that distributive
justice is a more powerful predictor of job satisfaction than procedural justice.
Conceptual differences between their research and ours may explain this divergence. In
their study, the main criterion was job satisfaction, whereas ours emphasized pay
satisfaction. Moreover, their measures of organizational justice were associated with the
performance appraisal context, and did not take into account the compensation context.
These differences underline the need to interpret organizational justice contextually
(Greenberg, 1996). In effect, the causal relationships hypothesized are unlikely to be the
same for all reward situations.
Organizational justice perceptions and unionization propensity
The structural equation model has highlighted the associations between organizational
justice variables and unionization propensity. The con rmatory analysis reveals the
weakness of the predictive power of organizational justice pay dimensions. Johnson and
Johnson (1991) reached comparable conclusions, in that they failed to nd a link
between pay equity perception and commitment to a union. As Barling et al. (1992)
observed, organizational justice has only an indirect effect on unionization propensity.
Its in uence appears to be exercised via organizational satisfaction, job satisfaction and,
to a lesser extent, pay satisfaction. If the negative relationship observed between pay
satisfaction and unionization propensity is conformed to our hypothesis and literature,
the positive relationships between external equity, procedural justice and unionization
propensity are more dif cult to explain. For external equity perceptions, it is possible
that some managers may perceive unionization as superior to individual in uence for
maintaining their advantageous pay position vis-`a-vis the market. A careful inspection
of data shows that older, less educated and plateaued managers were signi cantly more
positive regarding unionization. We may speculate that their individual bargaining
power regarding their pay, inside and outside the work market, is lower than that of
their counterparts. For these less powerful managers, unions are perceived as a
preferred voice instrument to express and protect their advantageous working
conditions relative to the external market.
The positive relationship between procedural justice and unionization propensity is
more dif cult to explain. Conceivably, the more organizations give employees
opportunities to in uence compensation decision making, the more compensation issues
become important, and the more employees perceive, over time, the limits of their
individual power or in uence on pay procedures. Personal in uence on the process,

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

732

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

despite its positive effects, may become insuf cient if outcomes are not commensurate
with individual investments in procedures, or if procedures fail to satisfy the majority
of employees. As suggested by group-value theory, several non-control issues, such as
neutrality of decision-making procedure, trust in decision makers and social standing,
may have a more powerful in uence on judgements of procedural justice than control
issues (Tyler, 1989). Violation of these procedural components may reduce the longterm affective membership relationship with the organization, and increase the need for
af liation with another group. Unions are thus perceived as a powerful instrument for
obtaining better or fairer interpersonal treatment. This surprising positive association
between structural aspects of procedural justice and unionization propensity suggests
that the in uence of procedural justice cannot be fully understood if the role of social
aspects is not taken into account.
Our ndings also suggest that intention to join a union is in uenced not solely by pay
or extrinsic satisfaction. In this respect, although administered to a sample of Canadian
managers, our research supports numerous earlier studies, conducted among various
populations (e.g. blue, pink and white collar), which have shown that satisfaction with
intrinsic factors is a more powerful predictor of unionization propensity than with
extrinsic satisfaction factors (Kochan, 1979; DeCotiis and LeLouarn, 1981; Hammer
and Berman, 1981; Youngblood et al., 1984).
It is interesting to note that the chain of relationships observed in our research is
somewhat similar to that reported by Summers and Hendrix (1991) and Barling et al.
(1992). We observed a relationship between equity perception and pay satisfaction, and
an association between the latter and job satisfaction, organization satisfaction and
unionization propensity. However, neither Summers and Hendrix nor Barling et al.
tested the in uence of procedural justice in their respective models. Our nal model
suggests a causal chain from procedural justice to job satisfaction organization
satisfaction and unionization propensity.
Conclusion
This research is, to our knowledge, the rst to have used an explanatory-type model to
test the in uence of organizational justice on satisfaction and unionization propensity.
At the theoretical level, it supports the idea that the concept of organizational justice
includes two broad dimensions: distributive and procedural. Individuals seem predisposed to react in different ways when the two forms of justice are violated. This allows
us to predict more accurately the consequences of compliance with standards of justice
applied in organizations. We have shown that procedural justice in a reward context
seems to in uence a broader set of attitudes than does distributive justice. In addition,
our research suggests that the relationship between organizational justice and behaviours at work may be more fully understood and explained if we take into account
employees attitudes towards speci c and broad aspects related to their work.
Although this research in a Canadian context produced some interesting results and
corroborated many earlier studies in the eld, it nonetheless has certain limitations.
First, all the data were obtained by means of a single questionnaire on a single occasion,
and common variance risks are certainly present. Second, external equity was measured
using just one item, and procedural justice using two. Third, only the organizational
(internal and individual) and market (external) referents were assessed for distributive
justice even though, as Blau (1994) pointed out, other categories of relevant referents
exist. Finally, organizational justice and satisfaction are necessary but insuf cient
factors in the prediction of employees propensity to join a union. Other factors, such

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

733

as general (e.g. union power) and speci c (e.g. union instrumentality) attitudes towards
unions can play critical roles (Barling et al., 1992; Deshpande and Fiorito, 1989).
Further research in this area is needed. Research similar to ours, but using different
sub-populations, such as that examined by Witt and Nye (1992), Scarpello and Jones
(1996) and Sweeney and McFarlin (1997), would be extremely useful. For example, it
would be interesting to examine whether men react in the same way as women, whether
employees in the public and private sectors respond in similar ways and if workers
share the perceptions of managers. More detailed research could also examine some of
the intermediary variables between justice and attitude indicators in an analysis of the
effects of justice on behaviours. It would be interesting to study other behaviours
affected by organizational justice, such as performance, loyalty, absenteeism, staff
turnover and their antecedents. This research considered only one dimension of
compensation: pay level. According to the compensation models of Heneman and
Schwab (1985) and Miceli and Lane (1991), there are at least four separate components
to compensation, including employee bene ts. Employee bene t satisfaction has yet to
receive attention from researchers. Studies of exible bene t plans suggest that this
aspect may be interesting from the organizational justice standpoint (Tremblay et al.,
1998). Leventhal (1980) also highlighted the fact that individuals use rules other than
equity to bring about justice. It would be interesting to examine the role of the concepts
of equality and need in the distributive justice model. While this study investigated
procedural justice using two indicators, this form of justice, like distributive justice,
may well comprise at least three facets, as proposed by Scarpello and Jones (1996),
namely 1) job analysis and job evaluation, 2) the wage survey process and 3)
performance appraisal and pay increases. These three aspects correspond to internal
equity, external equity and individual equity. It would be useful, as Blau (1994) did for
distributive justice, to test the in uence of the importance and level of procedural
justice of several facets of procedural justice on work attitudes and behaviours.
Moreover, the intriguing positive in uence of procedural justice on unionization
propensity justi es further investigation. It may be interesting to evaluate how the
subjects of procedures (e.g. compensation, performance appraisal), the content of
procedures (e.g. on process or decision making) and the degree of control exert an
individual and interactive in uence on work attitudes and behaviours.
This has practical implications for decision makers in the eld of compensation. In
modern compensation policies, managers are more frequently called upon to evaluate
their employees and colleagues. Management by objectives and performance appraisal
techniques are increasingly used by managers in organizations. Communication of
methods used to determine salary increases and individual and group incentives,
feedback on performance, justi cation of rewards accorded and involvement of
employees in the performance appraisal process are merely a few examples of tasks that
are incumbent on line managers. Managers have a dual role in procedural justice: while
they are evaluators and implementers of the procedures, they are also those evaluated.
Awareness of the relevance of procedural justice in the distribution of rewards is
growing, in part owing to the advent of innovative pay programmes based on skill
acquisition (skill-based pay), on team performance (team rewards or gain sharing), and
on company performance (pro t sharing). These programmes draw on numerous
procedures that reinforce the relevance of the procedural fairness. However, fair
procedures alone will not generate the expected behaviours and attitudes if the
employees do not recognize them as being fair. Participation in and communication
regarding procedures are therefore crucial in the quest for justice in the workplace. In
addition, organizations may nd it nancially advantageous to manage procedural

734

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

justice. As Martin and Bennett (1996) point out, the economic costs of acting in a
procedurally fair manner are minimal in comparison with distributive fairness. Union
movements and employers must be aware that pay satisfaction is not necessary the only,
or even the principal, trigger of interest in unionization. Middle and junior managers
who are dissatis ed with their job content, who perceive that their organizations
decision-making processes are unfair and who have little trust in key decision makers
can become good candidates for unionization, as their loyalty and commitment decline
signi cantly.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

References
Adams, J.S. (1963) Toward an Understanding of Inequity . Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology , 67: 42236.
Adams, J.S. (1965) Inequity in Social Exchange. In Berkowitz, L. (ed.) Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, New York: Academic Press, pp. 26799.
Agho, A.O., Mueller, C.W. and Price, J.L. (1993) Determinants of Employee Job Satisfaction :
An Empirical Test of a Causal Model. Human Relations, 46(8): 100727.
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987) The Role of Procedural and Distributive Justice in
Organizational Behavior, Social Justice Research, 1, 140120.
Allen, R.E. and Keaveny, T.J. (1983) Correlates of University Faculty Interest in Unionization:
A Replication and Extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 5828.
Barling, J., Fullagar, C. and Kelloway, E.K. (1992) The Union & Its Members: A Psychologica l
Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 251.
Berg, T.R. (1991) The Importance of Equity Perception and Job Satisfaction in Predicting
Employee Intent to Stay at Television Stations, Group and Organization Studies, 16(3):
26884.
Berkowitz, L., Fraser, C., Treasure, P. and Cochran, S. (1987) Pay, Equity, Job Grati cations and
Comparisons in Pay Satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4): 54451.
Blau, G. (1994) Testing the Effect of Level and Importance of Pay Referents on Pay Level
Satisfaction. Human Relations, 47(10): 125168.
Brannick, M.T. (1995) Critical Comments on Applying Covariance Structure Modelling,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(2): 20113.
Brett, J.M. (1980) Why Employees Want Unions. Organizational Dynamics, Spring: 4759.
Capelli, P. and Sherer, P.D. (1988) Satisfaction: Market Wages & Labor Relations: An Airline
Study. Industrial Relations, 27(1): 5672.
Carrell, M.R. and Dittrich, J.E. (1987) Equity Theory: the Recent Literature, Methodologica l
Considerations, and New Directions, Academy of Management Review, 3: 20210.
Citera, M., Bishop, R. and Selvara, J. (1992) Perceived Fairness and Post-Acquisitio n
Organizational Commitment and Pay Satisfaction. Paper presented at the 1992 meeting of
Academy of Management, Las Vegas.
Covin, T.J., Kolenko, T.A., Sightler, K.V. and Tudor, K.R. (1993) Pay and Organizationa l
Effectiveness: Empirical Evidence and Implications for Management Consultants . Academy of
Management Best Papers Proceedings 1993, 53rd Annual Meeting, Atlanta, pp. 1859.
Crosby, F. (1976) A Model of Egoistical Relative Deprivation , Psychological Review, 83:
85113.
Dailey, R.C. and Kirk, D.J. (1992) Distributive and Procedural Justice as Antecedent of Job
Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover. Human Relations, 45(3): 30517.
Das, P. and Bhadury, B. (1997) Pay Satisfaction of R&D Personnel in Manufacturin g
Organizations: The Role of Career Comparison Process. The Journal of High Technology
Management Research, 8(2): 17186.
Deckop, J.R. (1992) Organizational and Career Pay Satisfaction . Human Resources Management, 2: 11529.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

735

Decotiis, T.S. and LeLouarn, J.Y. (1981) A Predictive Study of Voting Behavior in a
Representation Election Using Union Instrumentality and Work Perceptions. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 27(1): 10318.
Deshpande, S.P. and Fiorito, J. (1989) Speci c and General Beliefs in Union Voting Models,
Academy of Management Journal, 32(4): 88397.
Dittrich, J.E. and Carrell, M.R. (1979) Organizational Equity Perceptions, Employee Job
Satisfaction, and Department Absence and Turnover Rates. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 24: 2940.
Dreher, G.F. (1981) Predicting the Salary Satisfaction of Exempt Employees. Personnel
Psychology , 61: 57989.
Dyer, L. and Theriault, R. (1976) The Determinants of Pay Satisfaction, Journal of Applied
Psychology , 61: 596604.
Finn, R.H. and Lee, S.M. (1972) Salary Equity: Its Determinants, Analysis and Correlates.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 56: 28392.
Folger, R. and Greenberg, J. (1985) Procedural Justice: An Interpretative Analysis of Personnel
System. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 3: 14383.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989) Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on
Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions, Academy of Management Journal, 32(1): 11530.
Fryxell, G.E. and Gordon, M.E. (1985) Workplace Justice and Job Satisfaction as Predictors of
Satisfaction with Union and Management, Academy of Management Journal, 32(4):
85166.
Goodman, P.S. (1974) An Examination of Referents Used in the Evaluation of Pay.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12: 17095.
Greenberg, J. (1987) A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories, Academy of Management
Review, 12(1): 922.
Greenberg, J. (1990) Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16(2): 399432.
Greenberg, J. (1996) The Quest for Job Justice on the Job. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hammer, T.H. and Berman, M. (1981) The Role of Noneconomic Factor in Faculty Union
Voting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(4): 6771.
Hart, P.M. (1994) Teacher Quality of Work Life: Integrating Work Experiences, Psychologica l
Distress and Morale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 67(2):
10932.
Heneman III, H.G. and Sandver, M. (1983) Predicting the Outcome of Union Certi cation
Elections: A Review of the Literature. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 36: 53759.
Heneman III, H.G. and Schwab, D.P. (1985) Pay Satisfaction: Its Multidimensional Nature and
Measurement . International Journal of Psychology, 20: 12941.
Hills, F.S. (1980) The Relevant Other in Pay Comparisons. Industrial Relations, 19(3):
34551.
Hills, F.S., Bergmann, T. and Scarpello, V. (1994) Compensation Decision Making. New York:
Dryden Press.
Hoyle, R.H. and Panter, A.T. (1995) Writing about Structural Equation Models. In Hoyle, R.H.
(ed.) Structural Equation Modelling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 15876.
Igalens, J. and Roussel, P. (1998) Methodes de Recherche en Gestion des Ressources Humaines.
Paris: Economica.
Johnson, W.R. and Johnson, G.J. (1991) The Effects of Equity Perceptions on Union and
Company Commitment. Journal of Collective Negotiation s, 20(3): 23544.
Joreskog, K.G. and Sorbom, D. (1989) Lisrel 7: A Guide to the Program and Application s.
Chicago: SPSS.
Jung, K.G., Dalessio, A. and Johnson, S.N. (1986) Stability of the Factors Structure of the Job
Descriptive Index. Academy of Management Journal, 29(3): 60916.
Kelloway, E.K. (1995) Structural Equation Modelling in Perspective , Journal of Organizationa l
Behavior, 16(2): 21524.
Kochan, T.A. (1979) How American Workers View Labor Unions. Monthly Labor Review, 102:
2331.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

736

The International Journal of Human Resource Management

Konovsky, M.A., Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1987) Relative Effects of Procedural and
Distributive Justice on Employee Attitudes. Representative Research in Social Psychology,
17(1): 1523.
Lawler III, E.E. (1971) Pay and Organizational Effectiveness: A Psychological View. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Lee, C. (1995) Prosocial Organizational Behaviors: The Roles of Workplace Justice, Achievement Sriving, and Pay Satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(2): 197206.
Lee, R.T. and Martin, J.E. (1991) Internal and External Referents as Predictors of Pay
Satisfaction among Employees in a Two-tier Wage Setting. Journal of Occupationa l
Psychology , 64: 5766.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980) What Should Be Done With Equity Theory. In Gergen, K.J., Greenberg,
M.S. and Willis, R.H. (eds) Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. New York:
Plenum, pp. 2755.
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York:
Plenum, p. 267.
Lowe, R.H. and Vodanovich, S.J. (1995) A Field Study of Distributive and Procedural Justice as
Predictors of Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(1): 99114.
Martin, C.L. and Bennett, N. (1996) The Role of Justice Judgements in Explaining the
Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment. Group & Organization Management, 21(1): 84104.
Maxey, C. and Mohrman, S. (1980) Worker Attitudes Toward Unions: a Study Integratin g
Industrial Relations and Organizational Behavior Perspective, Proceedings of thirty-third
Annual Meeting Industrial Relations Research Association Series, p. 32633.
Miceli, M.P. and Lane, M.C. (1991) Antecedents of Pay Satisfaction: A Review and Extension.
In Rowland, K.M. and Ferris, G.R. (eds) Research in Personnel and Human Resources
Management Vol. 9. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 235309.
Miceli, M.P., Jung, I., Near, J.P. and Greenberger, D.B. (1991) Predictors and Outcomes of
Reactions to Pay-for-Performance Plans, Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4): 50852.
Milkovich, G.T. and Newman, J.M. (1993) Compensation, 4th edn. Homewood, IL: BPI
Irwin.
Moorman, R.H. (1991) Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizationa l
Citizenship Behavior: Do Fairness Perceptions In uence Employee Citizenship?. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 76(6): 84555.
Nie, H.N., Bent, D.H. and Hull, C.H. (1975) Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, 2nd edn.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Oldham, G.R. et al. (1986) Relations between Job Facet Comparisons and Employee Reactions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38(1): 2847.
Pedhazur, E.J. and Schmelkin, L. (1991) Measurement, Design, and Analysis: An Integrate d
Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Pinder, C. (1984) Work Motivation: Theory, Issues and Applications. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman.
Premack, S.L. (1984) Predicting of Employee Unionization from Knowledge of Job Satisfaction :
A Meta-Analytic Investigation . Academy of Management Proceedings, 44th Annual Meeting,
Boston, pp. 27983.
Ried, D.L. and McGhan, F. (1987) An Equity Model of Staff Pharmacists Job Satisfaction ,
Journal of Pharmaceutical Marketing & Management, 1(3): 323.
Ronen, S. (1986) Equity Perception in Multiple Comparison: A Field Study, Human Relations,
39(4): 33346.
Roussel, P. (1996) Remuneration, Motivation et Satisfaction au travail. Paris: Economica.
Scarpello, V. and Jones, F.F. (1996) Why Justice Matters in Compensation Decision Making,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17: 28599.
Scholl, R.W., Cooper, E.A. and McKenna, J.F. (1987) Referent Selection in Determining Equity
Perceptions: Differential Effects on Behavioral and Attitudinal Outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 40: 11324.

Downloaded by [INASP - Pakistan (PERI)] at 02:31 04 November 2013

Tremblay and Roussel: The role of organizational justice

737

Schumacker, J.E. and Lomax, R.G. (1996) A Beginners Guide to Structural Equation Modelling,
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Schwab, D.P. and Wallace, M.J. (1974) Correlates of Employee Satisfaction with Pay, Industrial
Relations 13(1): 7889.
Sheppard, B.H. and Lewicki, R.J. (1987) Toward General Principles of Managerial Fairness,
Social Justice Research, 1(2): 16176.
Summers, T.P. and DeNisi, A.S. (1990) In Search of Adams Other: Reexamination of Referents
Used in the Evaluation of Pay, Human Relations, 43(6): 497511.
Summers, T.P and Hendrix, W.H. (1991) Modelling the Role of Pay Equity Perceptions: A Field
Study, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 64: 14557.
Sweeney, P.D. (1990) Distributive Justice and Pay Satisfaction: A Field Test of an Equity Theory
Prediction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 4(3): 32941.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1993) Workers Evaluation of the Ends and the Means:
An Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55: 2349.
Sweeney, P.D. and McFarlin, D.B. (1997) Process and Outcomes: Gender Differences in
Assessment of Justice. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 18: 8398.
Sweeney, P.D., McFarlin, D.B. and Inderrienden, E.J. (1990) Using Relative Deprivation Theory
to Explain Satisfaction with Income and Pay Level: A Multistudy Examination. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(2): 42336.
Taylor, G.T. and Vest, M.J. (1992) Pay Comparisons and Pay Satisfaction among Public Sector
Employees. Public Personnel Management, 21(4): 44554.
Thibault, J. and Walker, L. (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum. p. 145.
Tremblay, M., St-Onge, S. and Toulouse, J.M. (1997) Determinants of Salary Referents
Relevance: A Field Study of Managers, Journal of Business and Psychology, 11(4):
46384.
Tremblay, M., Sire, B. and Pelchat, A. (1998) A Study of the Determinants and of the Impact of
Flexibility on Employee Bene t Satisfaction, Human Relations, 51(5): 66788.
Tremblay, M., Sire, B. and Balkin, D. (2000) The Role of Organizational Justice in Pay and
Employee Bene t Satisfaction, and its Effects on Work Attitudes, Group & Organizatio n
Management, 25(3): 26990.
Tyler, T. (1989) The Psychology of Procedural Justice: A Test of the Group-Value Model,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5): 8308.
Tyler, R., Rasinski, K. and McGraw, K. (1985) The In uence of Perceived Injustice on Support
for Political Authorities , Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15: 70025.
Warr, P.B. and Routledge, T. (1969) An Opinion Scale for the Study of Managers Job
Satisfaction, Occupational Psychology, 43: 95109.
Weiner, N. (1980) Determinants and Behavioral Consequences of Pay Satisfaction: A
Comparison of Two Models, Personnel Psychology, 33(4): 74158.
Witt, A.L. and Nye, L.G. (1992) Gender and the Relationship Between Perceived Fairness of Pay
or Promotion and Job Satisfaction, Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(7): 91017.
Witt, A.L. and Wilson, J.W. (1991) Moderating Effect of Job Satisfaction on the Relationship s
Between Equity and Extra-role Behaviors, Journal of Social Psychology, 13(2): 24752.
Youngblood, S., Mobley, W.H. and Denisi, A.S. (1984) The Impact of Work Environment
Instrumentality Beliefs, Perceived Labor Union Image and Subjective Norms on Union Voting
Intentions , Academy of Management Journal, 27(3): 57690.