Colakoglu, Culha & Atay (2010) indicated that perceived organizational support have a great positive impact on job satisfaction, normative, affective and constant commitment; job satisfaction have a great positive impact on affective normative and constant commitment accordingly. Additional to this, job satisfaction also play mediating role amongst organizational perceived support and organizational commitment.
Concluding from the Brazil cultural values and theory of social identity, Casper, Harris, Bianco & Wayne (2011) revealed that the association of two directions the conflict between work & family such as the interference of work in the family commitment and vise-versa, and supervisor perceived support with affective and constant organizational
…show more content…
Study revealed that there interpersonal trust have positive impact on organizational commitment and co-worker support, however, the organizations support have positive relationship only with co-worker support.
Wang (2014) conducted research study to examine the co-relation between perceived supervisor support and organizational citizenship behavior while considering organizational commitment is mediating variable. Study revealed that the existence of supervisor support enhance organizational citizenship behavior and this possibility greatly exist, via employees job satisfaction and organizational commitments. The association among perceived supervisor support and organizational commitment have greatly exist in the employees for long period of
…show more content…
Distributive Justice which is referred as the fairness of outcomes in distributions or allocations (Adams, 1965), Procedural Justice is referred to as the fairness of the procedures or the means used to determine the outcomes (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and a third type is Interactional Justice which is deemed to be an extension of procedural justice.
Distributive Justice. Distributive justice was the only type of organizational justice till 1975. Based on Adam’s equity theory (1965), distributive justice was referred to as the people’s perceptions of fairness of the outcomes they receive relative to their contributions and also to the outcomes and contributions of others. Outcomes like pay or performance appraisal were noted by the employees and efforts that were made. Distributive justice focuses on outcomes, when unfairness is seen regarding any outcome, it affects the emotions of the employees.
Procedural Justice. It refers to “the perceived fairness of the process or procedures used to determine organizational outcomes” (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Individuals in organizations want to control what happens to them and also the procedures used to make decisions so that to know their worth in an organization. It relates to the fairness of the procedures used by an organization in allocating and distributing rewards and the voice given to employees in the distribution process (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998; Colquitt,
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
Moral rightness and fairness are two alternate ways of saying justice. Justice is defined in a legal dictionary on law.com as “a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.” There are many different opinions on the law and justice systems in America, many of which are not particularly positive. Law.com also states, one problem can be found in the attorneys, judges, and legislators, as they tend to get caught up more in the procedure than actually achieving justice for the people. While others say that our law system is not interested in finding out the truth, but more criticisms can also be seen in Herman Melville’s story, “Bartleby, the Scrivener.” Melville
Sheppard, B.H., Lewicki, R.J. & Minton, J.W. (1992). Organizational Justice: The Search for Fairness in the Workplace. New York: Lexington Books.
Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (2011, January 15). Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved February 4, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine
Wealth inequality relates to race, gender, and access to health care as there are many wealth and income disparities among these groups of individuals. Justice, efficiency and liberty are the primary moral values when discussing economics and ethics. For example, a free-market system can be efficient because it creates maximizing profits, but can be immoral if it impedes on the liberties of individuals in a society. An economic system that produces an equal distribution of wealth, however, can be immoral as well, if it restricts liberties. Distributive justice, is a term used to describe how goods are apportioned among individuals. There are two fundamental types of distributive justice interpreted by philosophers; procedural justice and end-state distributive justice.
In correlating the scores from the Self-Assessment Exercise located on pages 58-59 of our text book I have discovered that the fairness for which I score my place of work, and the organization for which I work, the highest is in fact Interpersonal Justice; for which my combines score totaled 13 out of a possible 15. This places Interpersonal justice at a very high overall level of perceived justice for me. And I can think of many reason ranging from the broad to the personal, and from the historic to the current, which all could be contributors to my having this perception.
Justice claim-making argue how things ought to be. The first type of justice claim-making is distributive and there are three dimensions of distributive which are, vulnerability, need, and responsibility. The concepts of distributive justice are significant to environmental justice claim-making. The second type is procedural justice, where procedures and decisions are being made whenever there is an act of participation in decision-making for a fair process. The last type is justice as recognition, it is often social categorizations as to who is respected and valued or recognized and who is
The are certain words in the English language that are extremely difficult to define therefore to give them meaning, is to enter a fierce debate among thinkers. How does one define a word that is so abstract and whose definition and purpose varies so extensively from nation to nation, language to language, and person to person? One can only hope to grasp the concept of such words, before another person comes up with a slightly more adequate definition than the one currently leading the pack. The reason the definition these words vary as much as they do is simply because their meanings are bottom-line based on opinion. One of these such words is justice. However, many would agree that justice requires a form of equilibrium where every bad action has a reaction, people follow agreed upon rules and laws that are absent of bias towards any particular group, and that these rules as well as justice itself must be moral-based whether religious or natural.
Allen,N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990) `The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization' Journal of occupational Psychology in L. Fulop and S. Linstead, Management: A Critical Text, Macmillan, South Yarra, 1999, pp 259
The Fairness or Justice Approach: the decision progress should treats everyone the same unless there is a justifiable reason not to, and does not show favoritism or discrimination;
Michael W. Morris& Kwok Leung, “Justice For All? Progress in Research On Cultural Variation in the Psychology of Distributive and Procedural Justice” Applied Psychology; An International Review, Vol. 49, 1999.
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice would have something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.
“An eight-item scale was found to be a reliable measure to assess organizational identification of employees in organizations. In confirmatory factor analyses, organizational commitment and identification were proven to be correlated but empirically distinctive. According to the theoretical arguments, the empirical distinctiveness refers to the fact that organizational identification is a merge of personal-self with organizational-self whereas commitment is more an attitude that ties employees to their organization. Affective commitment and organizational identification are related substantially in the present study as well as in the previous work of Mael and Tetrick (1992) or Van Knippenberg & Sleebos,” (unpubl. data, 2001).
Justice can be defined as, valuing the diversity and challenging the injustice in society while human rights refer to, benefits an individual enjoys by virtual of being a human being. Justice is said to exist when all citizens share a general humanity and, therefore, experience equitable treatment, fair community resource sharing and human right support. According to justice citizens are not supposed to be discriminated, nor their well being or welfare prejudiced or constrained on the lines of gender, religion, age, belief, race, political affiliation and even sexuality.
Organizational commitment is the strength of an individual’s identification with an organization. There are three kinds of organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. Affective commitment is an employee’s intention to remain in an organization because of a strong desire to do so. Continuance commitment is and employee’s tendency to remain in an organization because he or she cannot afford to leave. Lastly, normative commitment is the perceived obligation to remain in an organization (Nelson & Quick, 2013, pg. 62).