






































Microsoft Word - Organizational justice


Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

10 

 

 

Original Article 

Organizational Justice and Employee’s Service Behavior in the Healthcare 

Organizations in Bangladesh: An Agenda for Research  

 

Md. Nuruzzaman 1 Md. Humayun Kabir Talukder 2, 

 

1. HRM Freelance Consultant and MPhil Researcher, Bangladesh University of Professionals, 

Dhaka; Email: zaman.sph@gmail.com, Phone: 01721786945 (Corresponding author) 

2. Professor (Curriculum Development), Centre for Medical Education, Dhaka 

 

Abstract: Bangladesh is aspiring to achieve universal health coverage by 2030. In this regard, 

quality and efficient healthcare delivery have been regarded as a major challenge. Proper 

management of employees is crucial for service organizations like healthcare because in healthcare 

employees provide life saving services which make them unique from other non-health 

professionals. They directly interface with the patients or service seekers who make evaluative 

judgment of the quality of service delivered by the employees. Therefore, it is important that 

healthcare organizations (both public and private) comprehend specific organizational factors and 

issues that influence employee’s attitudes and behaviors, which ultimately affect their service 

behaviour at work. Drawing from the organizational justice principles and other management 

theories, this article presents a conceptual framework and a set of hypotheses regarding the 

relationships among distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, employee’s 

citizenship behaviour, role prescribed behaviour and counterproductive behaviour for the healthcare 

organizations in Bangladesh. The purpose is to assist the policy makers and service providers in 

identifying desirable human resource management practices that healthcare organizations in 

Bangladesh should seek and engage in and at the same time, avoid undesirable practices in order to 

maintain optimum level of employee commitment, and citizenship behavior essential for ensuring 

quality and efficient service delivery to the communities. This article is ‘theoretical’ but it has 

practical implications for the policy makers and service providers who are directly involved with 

service delivery system. It is also expected that the paper enriches the health service delivery 

literature and also advocates focusing on justice perspectives particularly in Bangladesh. 

Key words: Organizational justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, 

employee service behavior, citizenship behavior, role prescribed behavior, counterproductive 

behavior, healthcare organization, and Bangladesh   



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

11 

 

 

Introduction: The issue of justice is a key concern to virtually all individuals across the society or 

organization1. The concept “organizational justice” has emerged and widely discussed in various 

disciplines such as Organizational Behavior, Human Resources Management (HRM), Social 

Psychology, Industrial Relations and others. Contemporary studies2 3 4 5 6 indicate that employee’s 

perception of organizational justice immensely influences his or her service behavior at work and 

hence organizational performance is affected. With this conception, this study has been planned. 

Primary aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between organizational justice (OJ) and 

employee service behavior (ESB) in the healthcare organizations of Bangladesh. To do so, HRM 

practices of the relevant organizations will be explored. This will be done through conducting 

extensive literature review. It is expected that this literature review will assist to gather in-depth 

knowledge and information to explore the mediating factors contributing to build the relationship 

between OJ and ESB and also to develop the conceptual framework of the study followed by 

development of related hypotheses.          

Background rationale: Employee’s perception of justice or the state of being just in the 

organization has been discussed for long time. All most everybody has an aversion to injustice7 8. 

This is also true for the human resource working for health or involved in delivering health services. 

Human resources for health (HRH) are the most valuable assets of any health service organization. 

In fact, health care cannot be thought without a human resource9. The unique feature of this 

resource is – they save lives, lesson sufferings of the patients and promote well being of the people. 

According to the World Health Report10, human resource is the central of every health system. It 

also suggests that “health care providers are the personification of a system’s core values – they 

heal and care for people, ease pain and suffering, prevent diseases and mitigate risk”10. Therefore, 

proper management of this resource is crucial for achieving organizational success.  But little is 

known about the state of feeling “just” among the human resources attached with the health service 

organizations. Justice literature indicates that organizational justice has significant influence on 

organizational performance as well as individual performance. Since healthcare is highly a labor 

intensive service, ensuring organizational justice is, therefore, critical to any healthcare 

organizations, in fact, any organization related with service delivery e.g. hospitality, banking, 

education and others.  
 

In Bangladesh not many studies have been conducted to investigate the relationship between 

organizational justice and employee service behaviour particularly in the public sector.  However, 

empirical experiences, study reports, evaluations, policy documents11, 12 indicate that management 

of human resources has been a challenge and a priority area of intervention of the Ministry of 

Health & Family Welfare (MOHFW). Employee retention especially in rural areas, absenteeism, 

recruitment and selection, performance appraisal, training and career development and 

compensation and benefit are the major management concerns of MOHFW and other organizations 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

12 

 

 

in the private sector. Therefore, it is important to assess and explore the state of justice as perceived 

by the employees through scientific assessment hence the study is planned.  

 

Purpose/aim of the study: The study primarily aims to develop a conceptual framework and a 

set of hypotheses based on organizational justice principles while analyzing the relationship 

between employee’s perception of organizational justice and their behaviour at work at healthcare 

organizations in Bangladesh. While going to do so, key determining factors of the concepts 

‘organizational justice’ and ‘employee’s service behaviour’ are to be identified. Later how those 

determinants affect each other will be assessed in order to establish mutual relationship.   

Methods: It is important to mention that the paper is mostly theoretical as opposed to applied 

research. A research can be defined as theoretical when: “it aims to increase understanding of 

phenomena and the relationships among key components of phenomena; and to accomplish these 

goals, researchers develop and test models reflecting the properties of the phenomena, the 

relationships among various aspects of the phenomena, and the relevant external factors”13.  

 

An extensive literature search was conducted during the period October – November 2015 for 

development of an academic research proposal for the study Master of Philosophy (MPhil) of the 

lead author.  ‘Google Scholar’, ‘Google Web’, ‘BioMedCentral Human Resources for Health’ and 

‘EBSCOhost’ search engines were used to collect peer reviewed journal articles and other academic 

publications related to the concepts ‘organizational justice’ and ‘employee service behabiour’.  In 

this study, we have developed a model and a set of hypotheses depicting the relationship between 

the concept organizational justice and employee service behaviour. Key components of those 

concepts are identified and then effect is tried to be explored. Hence, although the paper is said to 

be theoretical it, however, has practical applications for practitioners, researchers, and policy 

makers because testing the model could lead to identification of HRM best-practices that can be 

used in solving the real organizational problem of health service delivery in Bangladesh. 

 

In developing the model, we started with an extensive literature review aimed at among others 

identifying relevant variables and comprehending their interconnectedness. In this respect, we used 

Sekaran’s method14 (Figure 3) that involves identifying the dimensions (key variables) relating to a 

problem under investigation and the dimensions (variables) into measurable elements3. Through the 

review of the related literature we identified employee justice perceptions at the workplace which 

include distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice; employee’s citizenship 

behaviour, role-prescribed behavour and counterproductive behaviour as the key variables related to 

the problem effective and quality service delivery in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 

Following on this, we decomposed each of these dimension (variables) into measurable elements. 

We then linked the variables together to form an integrated model. Based on the model, we 

developed a set of hypotheses regarding the relationships among those variables. The Figure 3 is 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

13 

 

 

summary of key concepts and relationships among variables that represents the overarching 

framework of this paper. 

 

Literature review: Organizational justice- Organizational justice (OJ) got significant attention 

when Homans15 introduced the concept of distributive justice and later social scientists including 

management experts began to pay attention to this fundamental aspect of human behavior. The 

concept started getting focus in organizational behavior research with the work of the scholars like 

Blau16 and Adams17.  

Definition of organizational justice varies significantly as most of the definitions come from 

individual perceptions while looking into 

this as it refers to anyone's subjective 

perceptions of the fairness of allocations18. 

Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland19 define 

organizational justice as it is a subjective 

and descriptive concept that captures what 

individuals believe to be right, rather than 

an objective reality or a prescriptive moral 

code. It is further mentioned that it is a 

personal evaluation about the ethical and 

moral standing of managerial conduct. This 

denotes that management needs to take an 

employee’s perspective while defining 

justice.  

The authors like Bowen, Gilliland and 

Folger20 and Moorman et. al.21 have 

correlated a set of "justice principles" 

associated with fairness in HRM practices. 

Three types of principles are proposed such 

as: distributive, procedural, interactional 

justice.  

Distributive justice: Distributive justice is called the first component of justice principles. It is 

concerned with the reality that all employees are not treated in the same way as allocation of 

outcomes is differentiated in the workplace22. Employees are concerned whether they receive the 

just share or not17. Sometimes things are distributively just when the most qualified person gets 

promoted. But sometimes it goes in an unusual way as someone is promoted due to the political 

relations with the higher management. Adam’s equity theory17 has a significant contribution on 

distributive justice. According to the equity theory, people are interested in how much they get 

Table 1: Component of organizational justice 

 

Source: Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland19 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

14 

 

 

relative to how much they contribute. One must work harder in order to be equitable. Cropanzano19 

et al. identified three allocation rules that can lead to distribute justice if they are applied 

appropriately: equality (to each the same), equity (to each in accordance with contribution), and like 

no other person (need) 19. Equity tends to provide individual rewards for high performance, whereas 

equality tends to build esprit de corps among teammates. These rules embark on Aristotle’s famous 

dictum that all men wish to be treated like all other people (equality), like some other people 

(equity), and like no other person (need)19.   
 

Procedural justice: Procedural justice is the process by which outcomes are allocated but not 

specifically the outcomes themselves 19. The key message of this principle is that everybody is 

equal in front of law or rules and its process. A justified process is one that is applied consistently to 

all, free of bias, accurate, representative of relevant stakeholders, correctable, and consistent with 

ethical norms and values. Further, just decisions are those that result from fair procedures. The most 

influential of early procedural justice researchers were Thibault and Walker who examined 

perceptions of justice in dispute resolution23. Procedural justice research has resulted in vast 

evidence that decision control (authority to make a decision) is an important contributor to 

perceptions of justice. People are more likely to perceive that a decision is fair if they feel they have 

had a voice or a sense of process control (opportunity to influence the decision maker) and people 

are more likely to accept unfavourable outcomes when they perceive that the process of arriving at 

the decision was fair24 25 26 27. These findings suggest that employees are not simply looking for 

favorable outcomes in decisions; they expect fair procedures in decision making. 
 

Interactional justice: According to Cropanzano et al. and Folger and Cropanzano, interactional 

justice refers to how one person treats another19, 25. Interactional justice is associated with 

communication and interpersonal treatment. Informational justice is the result of open and honest 

clarifications and explanations as well as adequate justification of actions18. Pursuing perceptions of 

informational justice could prove to be difficult in the context of talent management, as the majority 

of organizations do not inform their employees about talent management practices18, 28, 29. This is 

related with organization’s recruitment and selection strategies including succession planning.  
 

There is another kind of interactional justice which is about interpersonal justice. It refers to the 

respect and dignity with which one treats another19. In healthcare organization it has an immense 

implication. In healthcare, not a single category of health professionals provide or responsible for 

providing care to the patients. There are more than one such as physician, senior physician, nurse, 

technologist, pharmacist, cleaning staff and other support staff. For workplace productivity and 

smooth functioning of the organization there is a need to respect each and acknowledgement to each 

other contribution.      

Understanding the concept ‘employee service behaviour’: Several authors have taken the effort 

to define employee service behaviour (ESB)30 31 32. Zerbe, Dobni & Harel have conceptualised 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

15 

 

 

service behaviour as ‘the nature and content of the interpersonal interaction between the service 

providers and the customers’31. Simply we can say that the behaviour that is showed by the 

employee towards the customer during interaction in job can be stated as employee service 

behaviour (ESB).  Behaviour could be either positive or negative, both have consequences on 

organizational performance. Obviously, there is no doubt, in any service organisation ESB refers to 

the positive behaviour towards service seeker or customers.  In a study conducted by Zerbe Dobni 

& Harel it is found that the degree of positive behaviour employees showed towards passengers 

(happy, pleased) was strongly related to airline passenger satisfaction with customer service 

provided both by the airline and individual employee31.  Moreover, Browning has stated that service 

oriented behaviour focuses on people’s needs and taking action, often beyond the call of duty, to 

meet those needs, which refers to extra role service behaviour32.  Considerably Tsaur and Lin have 

defined ESB into two categories; “extra-role” service behaviour, which is also known as citizenship 

behaviour (CZB) and “role-prescribed” behaviour (RPB)33.  This definition is consistent with that 

pro-social service behaviour in the organisational behaviour literatures34. 

Behavioural Scientists and Management Experts identified another type of behaviour which is 

called “Counterproductive Bevaiour (CPB)”. CPB goes against the goals and objectives of 

organizations36. The authors Rotundo and Spector describe the individual and environmental factors 

that increase the likelihood of 'CPB', which include interpersonal conflict amongst employees; job 

insecurity; and perceptions of organizational injustice35. 

Figure 1: Describing employee service behaviour 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citizenship behaviour: Citizenship behaviour (CZB) refers to the discretionary behaviour of 

contact employees in serving the recipients that extends beyond formal role requirements34. To 

perform CZB, employees always need to take extra responsibilities on behalf of the organisation. 

These responsibilities usually cannot be classified in the job description. This is particularly true for 

healthcare organizations.  They seem to be the stakeholders of the organisation as they hold the 

ownership of their jobs.  It is the organisation who will provide ownership to the employees.  The 

most popular definition of citizenship behaviour is given by Organ37; “… discretionary behaviours 

that are not directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system and that, in the aggregate, 

 

Employee service behaviour 

Citizenship behaviour 

Counterproductive behaviour 

Role-prescribed service behaviour 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

16 

 

 

promote the effective functioning of the organisation.” He identified five major types of 

organizational citizenship behviours (OCBs): altruism (discretionary behaviours related to help a 

specific other person with an organization); conscientiousness (discretionary behaviours that go 

well beyond the minimum role requirements of the organization); sportsmanship (willingness to 

avoid complaining, petty grievances, railing against real or imagined slights or alike)37; courtesy 

(i.e. willingness to prevent work-related problems with others from occurring); civic virtue 

(willingness to participate in, is involved in, or is concerned about the organization). 

Role-prescribed service behaviour: ‘‘Role-prescribed’’ service behaviour refers to expected 

employees behaviour that may derive from implicit norms in the workplace or from explicit 

obligations as specified in organizational documents such as job descriptions (cited in Tsaur and 

Lin33).  For example, hotels like Holiday Inn monitor role-prescribed service behaviour such as 

greeting the customer by name, answering the phone within three rings, and making a personal 

pledge to a customer that a request will be handled33.  Marketing studies reinforce the importance of 

similar behaviours for customer service quality perceptions38. 

Counterproductive behaviour: There are three types of work behaviour identified (Figure 2) and 

counter-productive behaviour (CPB) is one of them. CPB upholds the various acts which include: 

rumours among co-workers, absenteeism, stealing, sabotage of co-workers, theft, refusing to 

cooperate, withholding of efforts of the coworkers, physical assault, withdrawal, and lying against 

your co-workers39. 
 

However, Spector et al.36 identified five primary categories of counterproductive work behaviors: 

sabotage (i.e., wasting materials/supplies, damaging equipment/property, destroying the atmosphere 

of the office); withdrawal (i.e., absenteeism, tardiness, leaving work early, taking excessive or long 

breaks); production deviance (i.e., doing work incorrectly or slowly, failing to follow instructions); 

abuse (i.e., making offensive comments, starting arguments or making rude gestures, threatening or 

harming others, disrespecting privacy); and theft (i.e., taking items from office or employees, 

incorrectly reporting hours worked). We will consider Spector’s classification of CPB in this study. 

 

Why employees care about justice: A good number of studies has been conducted to investigate 

why employee look for justice at workplace. However, justice or fairness is a common concern to 

all including employee. The extent employees perceive their work environment as unfair, they may 

develop negative attitudes and emotions such as job dissatisfaction, anger, frustration, and mistrust, 

leading to deviant behaviour against the organization and other employees40 . Cropanzano and his 

colleagues19 discussed this issue in their article published in the peer reviewed journal “Academy of 

Management”. They mentioned about three reasons for which people matter justice.  

Long-range benefit: People are usually contracted in the organization for quite a long period of 

time. Consequently, they assess the present work climate how they are likely to be treated over 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

17 

 

 

time19. A just organization helps to make this prediction easy. Appropriate personnel policies signal 

that things are likely to work out eventually.  Cropanzano and his colleagues suggest that justice 

provides us with more certainty regarding our future benefits. People want fairness because fairness 

provides things they like. 
 

Social Considerations: People wish to be accepted and valued by important others while not being 

exploited or harmed by the powerful decision makers19. The justified treatment tells us that we are 

respected and esteemed by the larger group. This sense of belongingness is important to us even 

apart from the economic benefits it can bring. 
 

Ethical considerations: People also care about justice because they believe it is the morally 

appropriate way others should be treated26. Ethical practice creates tension upon the employees as 

soon as they observe within the organization and they are more likely to take considerable risks in 

the hopes of extracting retribution40. In the follow through, injustice may spread ill consequences19.  
 

The need to promote employee service behaviour in healthcare organizations: Health 

human resources are engaged in providing life saving services and also reducing ailment of the 

patients10. Patient’s satisfactions and continuous improvement of service quality as well as timely 

service delivery are the key focuses of healthcare organizations41. Since employees are the key 

service providers they are the key concerns of the organization. World Health Report10 identified 

four dimensions of health workforce/employee’s performance which are such as: availability, 

productivity, competency, and responsiveness. Availability encompasses distribution of the 

employees and their timely attendance at the workplaces. Competency denotes the combination of 

knowledge, skills and behaviours. Responsiveness encompasses that people are treated decently, 

regardless of whether or not their health improves or who they are. Finally productivity indicates 

maximum utilization of existing resources and reduction of time wasting 10. All of those dimensions 

urge for promotion of employee service behaviour at the workplace.  

Moreover, organisations are continuously focusing on improving service quality for several reasons: 

(a) there are pressures from outsider competitors and stakeholders; (b) customers are increasingly 

willing to take services elsewhere if they are dissatisfied with service quality30; finally (c) 

organisations all over the world normally keep trying to improve service quality to keep up with the 

changing pattern of taste and demands of service recipients30. For many manufactured goods, 

quality can be evaluated against objective internally defined criteria. This is not the case for 

healthcare services, because of its intangibility, inseparability, heterogeneity and perishability 

natures of quality.   

The literature on services management has not addressed in any systematic framework the specific 

types of behaviours that are required for service excellence30.  Moreover, organisations may not 

want to specify fully all of the service-oriented behaviours, which employees should display at 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

18 

 

 

work.  As doing so may reduce employees' intrinsic motivation42 and may limit flexibility in the 

face of unforeseen contingencies.  As Katz43 in 1964 argued, “an organisation which depends solely 

upon its blue-prints of prescribed behaviour is a very fragile social system”. He argued that 

organisations must leave some things unspecified so that employees can appropriately deal with 

unexpected contingencies30.  If they can perform their functions properly it is an advantage, but if 

they perform poorly, it is not favourable to the organisation.  So employees need to have some 

rights or capabilities to show extra care or to react positively to the customers/service recipients to 

satisfy their needs.   

Research gaps: In the secondary literature the concept organizational justice is well discussed and 

it is not a new concept and its determining components are also referred by many authors in several 

journals. In the review of literature, importance of OJ is discussed and described and its determining 

factors are identified and explained how OJ contributes to organizational performance and also its 

sustainability. It is also described why employees are concerned about justice and how OJ impact 

on their work behaviour which ultimately affect on achieving organizational outcomes. 

Theoretically the concept OJ is supported by various literature17 44.  But a gap has been observed 

how OJ principles affect the work behaviour of the employees in healthcare organizations 

particularly in Bangladesh. In fact no study has been found available in the public domain on the 

issue of OJ and employee’s work behaviour realizing that healthcare organizations in Bangladesh 

are suffering from various work-related challenges such as absenteeism, lack of productivity, 

inefficiency in resource utilization, high turnover in the private sector and others, which is a priority 

concern of this study.   
 

Conceptual framework: Based on the literature review the key words or concepts can be 

identified such as organizational justice (OJ), employee service behaviour (ESB) and healthcare 

organization. Each of the concepts can be broken down into its determining factors. OJ has its three 

forms i.e. distributive justice (DJ), procedural justice (PJ), interactional justice (IJ). ESB is 

described by three determining factors which are such as citizenship behaviour (CZB), role-

prescribed behaviour (RPB), and counterproductive behaviour (CPB). If all key concepts and 

variables are put together and relationship is established in order to assess associated impact the 

conceptual framework can be drawn like this (Figure 2).   
 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

19 

 

 

 

 

Developing hypothesis: Considering the context of Bangladesh and literature review following 

hypotheses can be framed: 

H1: There is a relationship between organizational justice and employee’s service behaviour in the 

healthcare organizations in Bangladesh 

Distributive justice and employee’s service behaviour 

H2: Perception of distributive justice is positively related with employee’s citizenship behaviour in 

the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 

H3: Perception of distributive justice is positively related with employee’s role-prescribed 

behaviour in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh 

H4: Perception of distributive justice is negatively related with employee’s counterproductive 

behaviour in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 

Procedural justice and employee’s service behaviour 

H5: Perception of procedural justice is positively related with employee’s citizenship behaviour in 

the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 

H6: Perception of procedural justice is positively related with employee’s role-prescribed behaviour 

in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 

H7: Perception of procedural justice is negatively related with employee’s counterproductive 

behaviour in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh.  

Interactional justice and employee’s service behavior 

H8: Perception of interactional justice is positively related with employee’s citizenship behavior in 

the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

20 

 

 

H9: Perception of interactional justice is positively related with employee’s role-prescribed 

behavior in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh 

H10: Perception of interactional justice is negatively related with employee’s counterproductive 

behavior in the healthcare organizations in Bangladesh. 
 

Figure 3: Conceptual framework of the study 

 

Figure 3 denotes the relationship between the determining factors of two concepts OJ and ESB. DJ 

is described by three factors i.e. equity, equality and need. PJ is described by six factors i.e. 

consistency, unbiased, accuracy, representativeness, correction and ethics. IJ is described by two 

factors i.e. informational and interpersonal. On the other hand, RPB is prescribed by one factor i.e. 

behavior according to job description; CZB is symbolized by helping attitudes and CPB is 

prescribed by five factors i.e. sabotage, withdrawal, production deviance, abuse and theft. Now the 

study aims to explore how justice-determining factors correlate with the ESB determining factors, 

more specifically whether the relationship between OJ and ESB is positively or negatively 

correlated with an example of healthcare organizations in Bangladesh.     

Conclusion: The literature review suggests that perception of organizational justice (OJ) has an 

impact on employee service behaviour (ESB), which ultimately affects organizational performance. 

Since healthcare is a specialized field and multiple categories of staff work together, application of 

justice theories and principles are not significantly tested in the healthcare organizations particularly 

in Bangladesh. This study has been guided by an extensive literature review and proposed to apply 

as well as verify the justice principles in the healthcare context in Bangladesh as healthcare 

organizations are suffering from various employee’s performance related problems and challenges 

both at public and private sectors and affecting healthcare delivery system of the country resulting 

inefficiencies, poor customer/patient satisfaction and low level of service quality. Going to do so 

this study has proposed a conceptual framework, which establishes the relationship between the 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

21 

 

 

components of OJ and the components of ESB to show how they affect each other positively or 

negatively. This relation leaves policy implications in order to strengthening justice framework at 

organization level. 

Recommendations: The study is important for a number of reasons but the most important reason 

is that it promotes organizational performance and provides the organizations the strengths to 

maintain sustainability/competitive advantage. It is expected that the study will introduce the 

concept OJ to the policy makers, health managers, researchers and academicians who are concerned 

about the performance of healthcare organizations where performance of the health personnel is an 

issue of attention.  

There are some recommendations, which can be proposed. Firstly, OJ should be taken into account 

while making employee decisions. To support this, justice culture can be advocated to be created at 

organizational level; secondly, organizations should take into account counterproductive behaviours 

of the employees and to do so regular monitoring and supervisory systems should be strengthened; 

thirdly, both equity and equality principles should be taken into consideration while distributing 

organizational outcomes and benefits; Fourthly, interactional justice principles should be 

strengthened and put into place to promote trust and confidence at organization.  Fifth and finally 

but not the least, justice audit should be introduced on regular basis at organization level. 

Limitations: The major limitation of this study is that it is still in development phase. Validity test 

of the conceptual model is yet to be conducted. Sample design and data collection are the key 

activities, which are also considered as challenges`. Finance and manpower allocation is also an 

issue for consideration given that it is an academic study. A vital component of the framework is 

not taken into account in the study, which is “human resource management practice” (HRM). HRM 

is the mediating factor by which organization and employee interacts each other.     

 

Conflict of interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests.  
 

References: 

1. Tsai MC. (2012). “An Empirical Study of the Conceptualization of Overall Organizational 

Justice and Its Relationship with Psychological Empowerment, Organizational Commitment and 

Turnover Intention in Higher Education”. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy, University of 

Washinton; 

2. Salwa AM. (2014) Organizational Justice, Selection, Optimization with Compensation, and 

Nurses' Work Abilitty. The Scientific World Journal 2014; volume No 2014, 1-7    

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/757425; , Article ID 757425; 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

22 

 

 

3. Moghimi SM, Kazemi M, Samiie S. Studying the Relationship between Organizational Justice 

and Employees’ Quality of Work Life in Public Organizations: A Case Study of Qom Province. 

Iranian Journal of Management Studies 2013; 6(1):117-143. 

4. M. P. Leiter and C. Maslach, (2009) “Nurse turnover: the mediating role of burnout,” Journal of 

Nursing Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 331–339 

5. J. H. Karriker and M. L. Williams, (2009), “Organizational justice and organizational 

citizenship behavior: a mediated multifoci model,” Journal of Management, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 

112–135; 

6. McCardle, J. G, (2007), “Organizational justice and workplace deviance: the role of 

organizational structure, powerlessness and information salience”, Doctor of Philosophy 

Dissertation, the College of Business Administration at the University of Central Florida, 

Orlando, Florida; 

7. Bowen, D. E., Gilliland, S., and Folger, R., (1999), “HRM and Service Fairness: How being 

Fair with Employees Spills Over to Customers”, Organizational Dynamics, Winter; 

8. Norman, M. D., (1986), “Discretionary Justice: Decision Making in a State Juvenile Parole 

Board”, Juvenile and Family Court Journal, Volume 37, Issue 1, pages 19–25; 

9. GHWA (2014), “No Health without a Health Workforce”, Global Health Workforce Alliance 

(GHWA)/WHO, Geneva 

10. The World Health Report: working together for health published by World Health Organization, 

Head Quarter, Geneva. Available at http://www.who.int/whr/2006/en/ (accessed November 14, 

2015); 

11. National Health Policy, 2011, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of 

Bangladesh; 

12. Health, Population, Nutrition Sector Development Program 2011-2016, Published by Planning 

Wing, Ministry of health & Family Welfare, Govt. of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh; 

13. Van Scotter JR, Culligan PE (2003), “The value of theoretical research and applied research for 

the hospitality industry”, Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administrative Quarterly, 44(2): 14-27 

14. Sekaran U (1992). Research methods for business: A skill building approach. 2nd (edn.), New 

York: Wiley. 

15. Homans, G. (1961), “Social Behavior”, New York: Harcourt, Brace & World; 

16. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange And Power In Social Life. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 

17. Adams J (1963), “Towards an understanding of inequity”. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 67: 422-

436; 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

23 

 

 

18. Gelens et al. (2013), “The role of perceived organizational justice in shaping the outcomes of 

talent management: A research agenda”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 23, pp. 

341–353; 

19. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D E., and Gilliland, S W. (2007), “The Management of Organizational 

Justice”, The Academy of Management, November, 2007; 

20. Bowen, David E.; Gilliland, Stephen W.; and Folger, Robart. 1999. “HRM and service fairness: 

How being fair with employees spills over to customers”. Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27(3), 

7-23; 

21. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational 

support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship 

behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351–357; 

22. Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). “The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-

Analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Vol. 86, No. 2, pp. 278–

321; 

23. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). “Procedural justice: A psychological analysis”. Hillsdale, 

NJ: Erlbaum; 

24. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through 

the maze”. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and 

organizational psychology, Vol. 12, pp. 317–372; 

25. Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). “Organizational justice and human resource 

management”, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 

26. Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. D., Robinson, T. (1983). “Relative deprivation and procedural 

justifications”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 45(2), Aug 1983, 268-273; 

27. Greenberg, J. (2010). Managing behavior in organizations (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New 

Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall; 

28. Dries, N., & Pepermans, R. (2009). “Effects of the high potential label on performance, career 

success and commitment: A matter of communication?” In N. Dries, & R. Pepermans (Eds.), 

“Different ladder, different story? Dissecting the talent management paradox within the 

framework of the postmodern career”. Dissertation submitted to obtain the degree of Doctor in 

Psychological Sciences. (pp. 199–235). Brussels, Belgium; 

29. Fresina, A. J. (1987). “The identification and development of high potential managers: A 

benchmarking report on midsized and Fortune 500 companies in all major industries”. Palatine, 

IL: Executive Knowledge works;  

30. Morrison, E. W. (1996). “Organizational citizenship behavior as a critical link between HRM 

practices and service quality”, Human Resource Management, 35(4), 493–512; 



Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2015; 6(3):10-24 
 

 

24 

 

 

31. Zerbe, W.J., D. Dobni, and G.H. Harel. (1998). “Promoting Employee Service Behaviour: The 

Role of Perceptions of Human Resource Management Practices and Service Culture”, Canadian 

Journal of Administrative Science; 

32. Browning, V. (1998). “Creating service excellence through Human Resource Management 

practices”, South African Journal of Business Management, 29(4), 135-141; 

33. Tsaur, S.H. and Lin, Y.C. (2004), “Promoting service quality in tourist hotels: role of HRM 

practices and service behaviour”, Tourism Management, Vol. 25, pp.471-481; 

34. Bettencourt, L. and Brown, S.W. (1997), “Contact employee relationships among workplace 

fairness, Job Satisfaction and Pro-social service behaviour”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 13 No. 

17, pp. 9-62 

35. Rotundo, M. and Spector, P. (2015), “Leadership and Managing People”, Harvard Business 

Review, https://hbr.org/product/counterproductive-work-behaviour-101/an/ROT139-PDF-ENG 

(Accessed on November 15, 2015); 

36. Spector, P. E.; Fox, S. Penney; L. M. Bruursema; Goh, A. and Kessler, S. (2006) “The 

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal?”, 

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68 (2006) 446–460; 

37. Organ D.W. (1998), “Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome”. 

Lenxington, MA: Lexington Books;  

38. Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry LL (1988). “SERVQUAL: a multiple item scale for 

measuring consumer perceptions of service quality”, Journal of Retailing. 64: 12-37; 

39. Anjum and Pervez (2013) in Oge G., M., Ifeanyi E., O., Charles Gozie, A. (2015); “Examining 

the link between organizational justice and counterproductive work behaviour”, Journal of 

Business & Management Studies, 1(1)1-10; 

40. Folger, R., & Sarlicki, D. P. 1998. “When tough times make tough bosses: Managerial 

distancing as a function of layoff blame”, Academy of Management Journal, 41: 79-87; 

41. WHO (2000), “The world health report 2000 - Health systems: improving performance”, World 

Health Organization, Geneva;  

42. Kohn, A. (1993). “Punished by Rewards: the Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, 

Praise, and Other Bribes”. Boston: Houghton Mifflin;  

43. Katz, D. (1964), “The motivational basis of organizational behavior”, Behavioral Science. 

Vol.9, pp.131-146;  

44. Dzansi, D. Y. and Dzansi, L. W.(2010), “Understanding the Impact of human resource  

management practices on municipal service delivery in South Africa: An organizational  justice 

approach”, African Journal of Business Management, Vol. 4 (6), pp. 995-1005 


