




































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship between Perceptions of Interpersonal Justice 

and Employee Commitment in Health Sector Non- 

Governmental Organizations in Kenya 

 

Patrick M. Gichira, Dr Susan M. Were, Dr George O. Orwa 



European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

52 

 

 

Relationship between Perceptions of Interpersonal Justice and 

Employee Commitment in Health Sector Non-Governmental 

Organizations in Kenya 

 

1*Patrick M. Gichira 

*Post Graduate Student: School of Human Resources 

Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology 

2Dr Susan M. Were 

Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology 

2Dr George O. Orwa 

Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology 

 

Abstract 

Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the extent of the relationship between 

perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non- 

governmental organizations in Kenya. 

Methodology: The study adopted descriptive and correlational research designs with a 

statistical sample of 195 employees responsible for key result areas in 17 health sector Non- 

Governmental Organizations. Justice perceptions were measured using Colquitt‟s four 

construct model comprising of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational 

justice while organizational commitment was measured through Meyer‟s three component 

model comprising of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Inferential statistics 

comprising of correlation, multiple linear regression models and ANOVA analysis were 

applied `to establish the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. 

Qualitative data was analyzed through the use of questionnaires. 

Results: Based on the findings, the study concluded that interpersonal justice perceptions 

have a positive and significant relationship with affective, continuance and normative 

commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: Interpersonal justice should be 

promoted through treatment of employees with politeness, respect and dignity by their 

supervisors and other organizational leaders. This way, organizations will not only benefit 

from a committed workforce, but also improve employee relations and thereby minimize the 

consequences of retributive justice emanating from employee workplace deviance actions. 

Keywords: perceptions of interpersonal justice, employee commitment, health sector non- 

governmental organizations 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

53 

 

 

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background of the Study 

Many contemporary writings on organizations emphasize the importance of core values to the 

organization (Collins & Porras, 1997). Justice in terms of fair treatment of employees is 

identified as one of those values and fairness as one of the fundamental bases of cooperative 

action in organizations (Cropanzo et al, 2007). Truth telling, promise keeping, fairness, and 

respect for the individual are some of the key guiding principles of effective people 

management in organizations (Russell, 2001). 

Justice perceptions can influence employees‟ attitudes and behaviour for good or ill, in turn 

having a positive or negative impact on their performance and the organization‟s success 

(Baldwin, 2006). Justice is therefore a basic requirement for the effective functioning of 

organizations and the personal commitment of the individuals they employ (McFarlin & 

Sweeney, 1992). Employee perceptions of organizational justice in terms of fair formal deci- 

sion-making procedures (procedural justice), fair decision outcomes (distributive justice), fair 

interpersonal treatment (interpersonal justice) and information sharing (informational justice) 

by decision makers have been found to be related to a variety of work-related attitudes and 

behaviors including commitment (Colquitt, et al, 2001, Al-Zu‟bi, 2010; Yucel, 2013; Akanbi 

& Ofoegbu, 2013). 

Organisational commitment is the bond employees experience with their organization (Folger 

& Cropanzano, 1998). Employees who are committed to their organisation generally feel a 

connection with their organization, feel that they fit in and, feel they understand the goals of 

the organisation (Cohen et al., 2001). The added value of such employees is that they tend to 

be more determined in their work, show relatively high productivity and are more proactive 

in offering their support (Konovsky, et al, 2000). Meyer & Allen (1997) conceptualized 

organizational commitment in three dimensions namely affective, continuance and normative 

commitments. 

Justice perceptions can influence employee attitudes and behaviour for good or ill, in turn 

having a positive or negative impact on individual, group and the entire organization‟s 

performance and success (Baldwin, 2006). Empirical evidence supports the notion that an 

employee‟s perception of organizational justice affects their attitude toward the organization 

(Konovsky, et al, 2000). If the perception of organizational justice is positive, individuals 

tend to be more satisfied and committed to their job (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). 

Organizational justice impacts on employees in organizations since they are the subject of 

work place decisions virtually every day of their organizational lives (Cohen et al., 2001). 

Some of these decisions deal with the salaries individuals earn, the projects or programmes 

they implement while others deal with work place interactions. The importance of those 

consequences causes individuals to judge the decision making they experience from a justice 

perspective (Colquitt, 2001). According to Baldwin (2006) the term organizational justice 

refers to the extent to which employees perceive workplace procedures, interactions, and 

outcomes to be fair in nature. He concluded that these perceptions can influence attitudes and 

behaviours of the employees. Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007) defined it as a 

personal evaluation about the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

54 

 

 

 

Current literature on organizational justice identifies four different constructs; distributive 

justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquitt, 

Greenberg, & Zapata- Phelan, 2005). Distributive justice is the justice of an employee which 

he perceives as a result of comparing the commitments he makes to his work and the 

outcomes of these such as rewards, duties and responsibilities, compared to the commitments 

the other employees make and the outcomes of them (Colquitt,2001). 

Procedural justice implies that, while evaluating the fairness of the organizational decisions, 

employees are not only interested in what these decisions are but also with the processes 

which determine these decisions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Interpersonal justice refers to 

people‟s perceptions of the fairness of the manner in which they are treated by those in 

authority during the enactment of organizational procedures (Lind & Bos, 2002) while 

informational justice refers to people‟s perceptions of the fairness of the information used as 

the basis for making a decision (Gurbuz & Mert, 2009). Each of these forms of justice has 

been found to have different effects on employee commitment (Colquitt, et al., 2005). 

1.2 Problem Statement 

Employees are the subject of decisions virtually every day of their organizational lives 

(Colquitt, 2001). In organizational settings, justice is not always administered through fair 

allocation of employment resources, provision of clear and adequate explanations for 

decisions made and employees are not always treated with dignity and respect during the 

implementation of policies and procedures (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Frontela, 

2007). 

Adoption of effective human resource management (HRM) practices in many Non- 

Governmental organizations (NGOs) is often low in the list of management priority (Batti, 

2014) because NGO organizations discourages investment in human resource capacities and 

staff retention measures due to the short term nature of the projects, funding constraints and 

subsequent short term employment practices. This in turn leads to negative justice 

perceptions and commitment. ( Padaki, 2007). 

In a study carried out by Frontela (2007) in Kenya and other developing countries, the 

researchers found that irrespective of the affiliation, mission, size and extent of operations, 

problems of low morale and low motivation of staff were prevalent in NGOs. These are all 

indicators of antecedents and outcomes of commitment (Wright, & Kehoe, 2008). They point 

to a possible absence of organizational justice and low employee commitment. 

Organizational justice research has predominately involved employees from Western 

countries, particularly the U.S. (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2001). As such, the current thinking 

regarding reactions to organizational justice may not generalize to employees from societies 

that have cultural and economic characteristics which differ significantly from those 

commonly found in North American and Western European societies. In addition, in their 

meta-analytical review of literature on commitment in organizations in the period 1988 to 

2011, Iqbal et al (2012) found out that most of the research studies published was conducted 

at the industry or firm level as the unit of analysis. Furthermore, the organization and 

management of NGO sector has received relatively little attention from researchers (Lewis, 

2005). There is therefore a paucity of information regarding the importance of fairness and 

employee reactions to organizational justice from different contexts especially Africa and 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

55 

 

 

 

particularly the Health sector NGOs in Kenya. Given this lack of information, the study 

sought to assess the extent of the relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice 

and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

1.3 Research Objectives 

To assess the extent of the relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and 

employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

 

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 Theoretical Review 

2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theories 

Organizational justice is conceptualized around two independent theoretical dimensions: a 

reactive- proactive dimension and a process-content dimension (Greenberg & Scott (1996). 

Table 1: Taxonomy of organizational justice theories 
 

Reactive-Proactive 

Dimension 

 Content- Process Dimension  

Content Process 

Reactive Reactive Content 

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) 

Reactive Process 

Procedural Justice theory 

(Thibaut & Walker, 1975) 

Proactive Proactive Content 

Justice judgment theory 

(Levental,1976,1980) 

Proactive Process 

Allocation preference theory 

(Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 
1980) 

Adapted from Greenberg (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. 

Reactive content theories are conceptual approaches that focus on how individuals respond to 

unfair treatment (Greenberg, 1987). These theories state that people will respond to unfair 

relationships by displaying certain negative emotions such as resentment, anger, 

dissatisfaction, disappointment and unhappiness (Coetzee, 2005). In an attempt to redress the 

experienced inequity, employees will seek restitution, engage in retaliatory behaviour or 

restore psychological equity by justifying the injustice or leaving the organization (Baldwin, 

2006). The proactive theories focus on allocation procedures and seek to determine what 

procedures people will use to achieve justice. According to the proactive theories, procedures 

should meet the following requirements for them to be regarded as just: allow opportunities 

to select the decision maker, follow consistent rules, make use of accurate information, 

identify the structure of decision-making power, employ safeguards against bias, allow for 

appeals to be heard, provide opportunities for correcting procedures, meet moral and ethical 

standards (Coetzee, 2005). 

The main reactive content and reactive process theories in the study of organizational justice 

are Adams‟ Equity Theory and Thibaut and Walkers‟ Procedural Justice Theory while the 

main  proactive  content  and  proactive  process  theories  of  organizational  justice  are 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

56 

 

 

 

Leventhal‟s justice judgment model and Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry Allocation Preference 

Theory. 

Equity Theory 

Adams Equity theory (1965) focuses on reactions to pay inequity as an important distributive 

justice predictor. It states that individuals compare the ratio of their output (rewards) and 

inputs (contributions that they make towards the organization) to a similar ratio of their 

counterparts. If their ratio is higher (which means that they are getting more rewards) it may 

lead to a favourable justice perception. However, employees who feel themselves to be in 

inequitable position try to reduce inequity by distorting inputs (reducing their contributions) 

or outcomes in their own minds (Cohen‐Charash & Spector, 2001). 

Procedural Justice Theory 

According to Thibaut and Walker (1975), the amount of control people have over decisions 

and processes influences their perceptions of fairness. Two types of control exist: Process 

control and decision control. Process control refers to the degree of control people have over 

the procedures or information used to make a decision. Decision control refers to the degree 

of control people have over directly determining the outcomes. This theory links people‟s 

concern with procedures to their desire to influence their outcomes, and thus defines 

procedural fairness as the level of input or participation that procedures allow in an 

employment relationship. This is often referred to as the voice factor. 

Justice Judgment Theory 

According to Leventhal (1980), individuals attempt to make fair allocation decisions by 

applying several possible allocation rules to the situations they confront. In his justice 

judgment theory, Leventhal describes how people proactively employ justice norms to 

rationalize administrative decision‐making in resource allocation and introduces six measures 

of procedural justice. These include consistency across people and time, free from bias, 

accuracy of information used in decision making, existence of some mechanism to correct 

flawed decisions, conforming to standards of ethics and morality and inclusion of opinion of 

various groups involved in the decision process. 

According to the model, individuals evaluate allocation procedures used by decision-makers 

based on the situation, in effect proactively employing various justice norms such as equity, 

needs, and equality (Leventhal, 1980). Skarlicki and Folger (1997), explain the consequences 

of procedural justice. They argue that individuals accept responsibility for their problems if 

they perceive that fair procedures were used to arrive at decision outcomes. However, if they 

perceive that procedures used by the organization are unfair, individuals may show anger and 

resentment and consequently enter into retaliating behaviours. According to Cropanzano et 

al., (2001), employee perceptions of fairness in treatment and procedures enhances their 

commitment and desirability of long term ongoing relationship with the organization. Also, 

procedural justice is expected to increase perceptions of organizational support, which, in 

turn, increase organizational commitment (Cropanzano et al, 2001). 

Allocation Preference Theory 

Allocation preference theory asserts that allocation procedures will be preferred to the extent 

that they help the allocator attain valued goals including the attainment of justice. In 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

57 

 

 

 

particular, the theory proposes that people hold expectations that certain procedures will be 

differentially instrumental in meeting their goals (Greenberg, 1987). Eight procedures are 

identified that may help promote the attainment of justice. These include procedures that: (a) 

allow opportunities to select the decision making agent, (b) follow consistent rules, (c) are 

based on accurate information, (d) identify the structure of decision-making power, (e) 

employ safeguards against bias, (f) allow for appeals to be heard, (g) provide opportunities 

for changes to be made in procedures and, (h) are based on prevailing moral and ethical 

standards (Coetzee, 2005). 

2.2 Empirical Review 

Interpersonal justice perceptions have been noted to increase individuals‟ intention to support 

the decisions made by authorities (Greenberg, 1993; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Because 

interpersonal justice emphasizes one on-one transactions, employees often seek it from their 

supervisors. Interpersonal justice is also determined by the formal policies and procedures of 

an organization. The proper enactment of work place procedures is defined by five 

behaviours: adequate consideration of the employee's input, suppression of personal biases, 

and consistent application of decision-making criteria, timely feedback and justification for a 

decision (Bies & Moag, 1986). These factors play an important role in affecting employees' 

perceptions of fairness, acceptance of decisions, and attitudes toward the organization 

(Korsgaard et al., 1995). 

Bies & Moag (1986) identified four criteria that reveal the quality of treatment of employees: 

appropriate justification of decisions (through genuine efforts to explain the results of 

decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); propriety (through absence of 

prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect (sincere and deferential 

treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks. Decision makers are said 

to behave in an interpersonally fair manner when they treat those affected by their decisions 

properly and enact decisions, policies or procedures fairly (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). 

Interpersonal fairness perceptions have been shown to affect individuals‟ attitudes and 

behaviours (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Verbal and passive forms of aggression, such 

as yelling, bullying, and humiliation have a negative impact on peoples‟ perceived justice, 

(Gurbuz & Mert, 2009). Interpersonal justice therefore demonstrates the extent to which 

people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of 

procedures or outcome determination (Colquitt, 2001). 

Research has shown that people experiencing positive interpersonal fairness treatment tend to 

accept unpleasant outcomes as being fair and hold positive feelings about their supervisors 

(Cohen- Charash & Spector, 2001). Importantly, such individuals are less inclined to sue their 

former employers on the grounds of wrongful termination than those who believe they were 

treated in an opposite manner (Greenberg, 1987). An empirical study by Skarlicki and 

Latham (1996) found that when union leaders were trained to behave more justly by 

providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with courtesy 

and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more supportive and 

cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. In his empirical study 

(Greenberg, 1993) found that pay cut decisions were accompanied by lower rates of company 

theft and turnover when they were explained in details and in a respectful way. Taxpayers 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

58 

 

 

Employee Commitment 

 Affective 
 Continuance 

 Normative 

Interpersonal Justice 

 Dignity 
 Respect 

 Courtesy 

 

were found to be more compliant with tax laws when they felt they were treated fairly and 

respectfully by the tax authority (Wenzel, 2006). 

2.3 Conceptual Framework 

 

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 

 

3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

The study adopted descriptive and correlation research design. The study population was 17 

Nairobi based health sector NGOs registered with HENNET while the target population was 

497 employees with supervisory responsibilities. The sampling frame for this study 

comprised of 85 health sector non-governmental organizations based within Nairobi County 

and its environs. The register of Health Sector NGOs maintained by Health NGOs Network 

Secretariat (HENNET) was used to randomly generate the study sample. The study adopted 

stratified sampling technique due to homogeneity of the population. Based on the nature of 

the study population, proportionate stratified sampling was used to establish the number of 

respondents from each of the 17 HENNET member NGOs headquartered in Nairobi. The 

study sought to measure employee perceptions using a five point multiple choice ordinal 

Likert rating scale measurement. Primary data was collected using self-administered 

questionnaires. The raw data collected using questionnaires were edited and coded for 

analysis using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0. The study‟s 

likert-type data was described and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics 

comprising of correlation and linear regression. Findings on quantitative data were presented 

using statistical techniques such as tables, pie charts and bar graphs. Qualitative data was 

presented descriptively. 

 

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 

4.1 Response Rate 

The study conducted a survey using a self-administrated questionnaire which was 

administered to 195 sampled respondents. 131 valid questionnaires were returned 

representing a response rate of 67 percent. A response rate of above 50% is considered 

adequate in social science research (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2008; Babbie, 2002). The study‟s 

response rate of 67% was therefore considered adequate for analysis and conclusion. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

59 

 

 

 

Table 2: Response Rate 
 

Total number of 

questionnaires distributed 

Total number of valid 

questionnaires returned 

Response rate (%) 

 
195 

 
131 

 
67 

4.2 Demographic Characteristics 

4.2.1 Gender of Respondents 

The gender of the respondents is presented in figure 2 of the 131 valid responses, 53 percent 

of the respondents were male while 47 percent were female. This suggests that the study 

solicited information from a gender balanced perspective. According to Kothari (2008) a ratio 

of at least 1:2 in either gender representation in a study is representative enough. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2: Gender of Respondents 

4.2.2 Response by Job Category 

The study targeted various categories of employees as shown on table 3. From the 

demographic data, 14% were administrative staff, 29% programme staff, 22% 

adviser/professional staff, 29% manager level, and 5% director level staff. 

Table 3: Response by Job Category 
 

Employee Category Frequency Percentage (%) 

Administrative Assistant 18 14 

Programme staff 37 29 

Adviser/Professional 29 22 

Manager 37 29 

Director 6 5 

Total 127 100 

4.2.3 Response by Number of Staff Supervised 

During the study, it was found out that staffs responsible for key performance results in this 

sector do not necessarily have other employees reporting to them due to the nature of the 

organization structures applied or the way work arrangements are designed with outsourcing 

Female 
47% Male 

53% 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

60 

 

 

5 and above 
23% None or indirect 

33% 

3-5 employees 
23% 1-3 employess 

21% 

 

being a key element. Those without internal supervisory responsibilities but responsible for 

key result areas were reported to have quality assurance, oversight or technical backstopping 

responsibilities over outsourced activities. 

As shown on figure 3, 33% of the respondents reported that they had no direct supervisory 

responsibilities, 21% supervised more than five employees while another 23% supervised 

three to five employees and another 5% more than 5 employees. 
 

Figure 3 Number of Staff Supervise 

4.2.4 Response by Period Worked with Current Employer 

In terms of length of service (table 4), 37% of the respondents indicated that they have 

worked for the current organization for a period not exceeding two years, 28% for up to four 

years, 22% for up to 6 years while only 12% had worked with the same organization for a 

period in excess of six years. This finding is in line with the project based nature of 

employment in the NGO sector where employment duration is tied to project or funding 

cycles (NGO Bureau, 1999). 

Table 0: Response by Period Worked With Current Employer 
 

Period worked Frequency Percentage (%) 

0-2 years 49 37 

3-4 years 36 28 

5-6 years 29 22 

7-8 years 4 3 

9-10 years 5 4 

10 or more years 8 6 

Total 131 100 

4.2.5 Response by Age 

Figure 4 shows the age distribution in the sample size. Five percent of the respondents were 

aged 25 years or less, 29% were aged between 26-30 years, 40% between 31-40 years, 19% 

between 41-50 and 7 percentages between 51-60 years. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

61 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 4: Response by Age 

4.2.6 Response by Level of Education 

Majority of the respondents (46 %) were either first degree holders or hold professional 

qualifications; 34% hold a post graduate degree; 18% are diploma holders and two percent 

were of secondary education level. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 5: Response by Level of Education 

4.2.7 Response by Type of Employment 

As shown in figure 5 majority of the respondents (83%) were employed on term contract 

basis while 17% had open ended contracts. This employment practice would appear to be in 

line with the project nature of work in the development sector (Lewis & Kanji, 2009). 

60 
50 
40 
30 
20 
10 

0 

25 or less 
years 

26-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years 

YEARS 

Secondary school Diploma 

Post graduate 
(Masters) 

34% 

2% 18% 

Degree/Professional 
qualification 

46% 

Fr
eq

u
en

cy
 (

%
) 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

62 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6: Response by Type of Employment 

Results shows that project and management level staff (25.4% and 24.6% respectively 

comprised of the highest number of employees employed on contract terms. 

4.3 Descriptive Statistics 

Individuals working in organizations expect supervisors to extend equal treatment to all 

members. They seek fair interaction with the organization. Supervisors or allocators, who 

treat some with respect and others with disrespect, are not perceived as fair. 

Table 5: Perceptions on Interpersonal Justice 
 

 

 
Interpersonal Justice 

Very 

little 

extent 
(%) 

Little 

extent 
(%) 

Some 

extent 
(%) 

Great 

extent 
(%) 

Very 

great 

extent 
(%) 

Total 

(%) 

Have been treated in a polite 
manner 

1 8 11 54 26 100 

Have been treated with dignity 2 7 12 56 23 100 

Have been treated with respect 0 11 11 53 25 100 

Supervisor has refrained from 

making improper remarks or 

comments 

0 12 21 42 25 100 

Average % 1 10 14 51 25 100 

Respondents‟ perceptions on interpersonal justice fall under the “to a great extent” level of 

agreement. 54% of the respondents agreed that to a great extent, they are treated in a polite 

manner by their supervisor; treated with dignity (56%), treated with respect (53%), treated 

without improper remarks or comments (42%). 

This finding supports Konovsky (2000) who identified derogatory judgments, deception, and 

invasion of privacy, inconsiderate or abusive actions, public criticism, and coercion as the 

key factors indicating the absence of interpersonal injustice. 

Open ended 
contract 

17% 
 
 

 
Fixed contract 

83% 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

63 

 

 

 

4.4 Inferential Statistics 

4.4.1 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Affective Commitment 

This section presented the findings of the relationship between constructs of interpersonal 

justice perception and affective commitment. The study employed the use of linear regression 

model to ascertain this relationship. 

Table 6: Model Summary 
 

Model R R Square Adjusted R 

Square 

Std. Error of the Estimate 

1 .183a .033 .002 .967 

a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect 

b. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index 

 

 

The model summary results revealed that improper remarks perception, dignity perception, 

polite manner perception and respect accounted for only 3.3% of the variation in affective 

commitment. The ANOVA results further showed that the variables used in the model were 

not significant predictors of affective commitment. 

Table 7: ANOVA-Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Affective Commitment 
 

Model Sum of Squares df Mean 

Square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 4.019 4 1.005 1.073 .373b 

 
Residual 116.068 124 .936 

 

 
Total 120.087 128 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index 
 

b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect  

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

64 

 

 

 

Table 8: Coefficients 
 

Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 

 
B Std. 

Error 

Beta 
  

Tolerance VIF 

(Constant) 1.670 .412  4.056 .000   

Polite manner .125 .247 .113 .505 .614 .155 6.435 

Dignity -.031 .257 -.028 -.119 .906 .144 6.944 

Respect .024 .299 .022 .080 .937 .104 9.660 

Improper 

remarks 

.086 .136 .087 .636 .526 .417 2.395 

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index     

The findings in Table 8 show that improper remarks perception, dignity perception and polite 

manner perception had a positive but an insignificant relationship with affective commitment. 

Skarlicki and Latham (1996) found that when union leaders were trained to behave more 

justly by providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with 

courtesy and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more 

supportive and cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. 

4.4.2 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Continuance Commitment 

The study intended to investigate the effects of improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite 

manner perception on continuance commitment. The relationship was tested using a linear 

regression model. 

Table 9: Model summary- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment 
 

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 

1 .176a .031 .000 1.032 

a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect 

b. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index 

The R-Sqaure from the model was 0.031 which imply that the independent variables in this 

model accounted for 3.1% of the variations in the continuance commitment. These findings 

imply that there is a very weak association between interpersonal justice constructs and 

continuance commitment. The F-statistics, results further indicate that the model used to link 

interpersonal justice perceptions and continuance commitment was statistically insignificant. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

65 

 

 

 

Therefore, this implies that improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite manner perception 

were not good predictors of continuance commitment. 

Table 10: ANOVA- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment 
 

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 

1 Regression 4.239 4 1.060 .995 .413b 

 
Residual 132.042 124 1.065 

 

 
Total 136.281 128 

 

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Index 
 

b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect  

Table 11: Coefficients- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment 
 

Model Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 

 B Std. 

Error 

Beta   Tolerance VIF 

(Constant) 2.178 .439  4.962 .000   

Polite manner -.164 .264 -.139 -.621 .535 .155 6.435 

Dignity .080 .275 .068 .293 .770 .144 6.944 

Respect .318 .319 .274 .997 .321 .104 9.660 

Improper 

remarks 

-.231 .145 -.218 - 

1.597 

.113 .417 2.395 

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index     

The findings in Table 11 indicate that improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite manner 

had an insignificant relationship with continuance commitment. These findings imply that 

polite manners perception negatively affects continuance commitment, similarly, improper 

remarks negatively affects continuance commitment though these relationships were 

statistically insignificant. 

The finding of this study contradicts Bies & Moag (1986) who identified four criteria that 

reveal the quality of treatment of employees: appropriate justification of decisions (through 

genuine efforts to explain the results of decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); 

propriety (through absence of prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect 

(sincere and differential treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

66 

 

 

 

Colquitt (2001) also revealed that interpersonal justice demonstrates the extent to which 

people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of 

procedures or outcome determination. 

4.4.3 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Normative Commitment 

The study further assessed the effects of interpersonal justice perceptions on normative 

commitment. A regression model was adopted to ascertain the relationship. 

Table 12: Model summary- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 

1 .367a .135 .106 .781 

a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks, dignity, polite manner, respect, 

b. Dependent Variable: Normative Index 

The model summary results indicate that interpersonal justice perceptions constructs 

accounted for 13.5% of the variations in normative commitment. The ANOVA results also 

show that the independent variables were good predictors of normative commitment. 

Table 13: ANOVA- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

Model 
 

Sum of 

Squares 

df Mean 

Square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 11.564 4 2.891 3.79 .006b 

 
Residual 74.379 122 .610 

  

 
Total 85.942 126 

   

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Index 

b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks, dignity, polite manner, respect 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

67 

 

 

 

Table 14: Coefficients- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

Model Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 
B Std. 

Error 

Beta 
  

Tolerance VIF 

(Constant) 1.428 .333  4.01 .000   

Polite manner .216 .200 .231 1.32 0.019 .155 6.455 

Dignity .117 .208 .125 0.69 0.492 .144 6.960 

Respect -.050 .243 -.054 - 

0.25 
0.801 

.103 9.754 

Remarks .077 .113 .091 0.79 0.042 .400 2.501 

The test on the beta coefficients of the resulting model shows that, the constant α= 1.428, 

(p<0.05) with the procedural constructs; remarks (β1=0.077, p < 0.05), dignity (β2=0. 117, p 

> 0.05), polite manner (β3=0. 216, p < 0.05) and respect (β4=-0.050, p > 0.05). These 

findings imply that polite manner and remarks were found to have a positive and significant 

relationship with normative commitment. Respect and dignity were found to have 

insignificant relationship with normative commitment. 

The finding of this study concurs with Bies & Moag (1986) who identified four criteria that 

reveal the quality of treatment of employees: appropriate justification of decisions (through 

genuine efforts to explain the results of decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); 

propriety (through absence of prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect 

(sincere and differential treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks 

Colquitt (2001) also revealed that interpersonal justice demonstrates the extent to which 

people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of 

procedures or outcome determination. 

4.4.4 Overall Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perception on Organizational 

Commitment 

The study conducted an assessment to establish the overall effects of interpersonal justice 

perception on organizational commitment. The results are presented in tables below. 

Table 15: Overall Model Summary 
 

Model Summary 1 

R .247a 

R Square 0.061 

Adjusted R Square 0.054 

Std. Error of the Estimate 0.58665 

F-Statistics 8.343 (p-0.005) 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

68 

 

 

 

The model summary result show that interpersonal justice perception constructs accounted 

for 6.1% of the variation in organisational commitment. F-statistics show the model adopted 

to link the interpersonal justice perceptions and organisational commitment was significant 

hence the variables were good predictors of organisational commitment. 

Table 16: Overall Regression Coefficients 
 

 B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

(Constant) 2.075 0.247 
 

8.4 0 

Interpersonal justice 0.179 0.062 0.247 2.888 0.005 

a Dependent Variable: overall commitment    

The results of the regression analysis show that interpersonal justice perceptions had a 

significant relationship with organisational commitment (B=0.179, p=0.005). this implies that 

an increase in interpersonal justice perception of 0.179 units will cause a unit increase in 

organisational commitment. This finding concurs with Greenberg (1993) who noted that 

individuals are less inclined to sue their former employers on the grounds of wrongful 

termination than those who believe they were treated in an opposite manner. 

Skarlicki and Latham (1996) also found that when union leaders were trained to behave more 

justly by providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with 

courtesy and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more 

supportive and cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. On the 

other hand, Bies and Shapiro (1987) found out that people who received negative outcomes 

such as being turned down for a job were more likely to accept those results as fair when a 

reasonable explanation was offered than when no such explanations were provided 

4.4.5 Hypothesis Testing 

The null hypothesis that; there is no statistically significant relationship between perceptions 

of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental 

organizations in Kenya was rejected at 0.05 significance level. Therefore, this study 

concluded that there is statistically significant relationship between perceptions of 

interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental 

organizations in Kenya. The optimal model was; 

Organisational Commitment =2.075+0.179 (interpersonal justice perceptions) + ℮ 

 

5.0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 Discussion 

Interpersonal justice focuses on the conduct of those who enforce the procedures, such as 

whether they are respectful and polite to those affected by the procedures (Wenzel, 2005). 

Interpersonal justice refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment employees receive when 

procedures are implemented (Greenberg, 1993). Interpersonal justice deals with whether and 

how employees are treated with politeness, dignity and respect by those who execute 

procedures and outcome distribution details in a respectful and proper manner, and justified 

decisions using honest and truthful information. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

69 

 

 

 

Descriptive analysis of perceptions of interpersonal justice showed that employees are to a 

great extent concerned with the interpersonal treatment that they experience at the work 

place. Correlation and regression analysis showed significant levels of relationship between 

interpersonal justice perceptions and commitment. The results of the study showed that 

interpersonal justice perceptions positively influence affective and normative commitment. 

Based on these findings, it can be argued that fair treatment by organizational leaders during 

the enactment of decisions creates a closer, open ended social exchange relationship. 

Employees who perceive that they have been interpersonally fairly treated will feel obligated 

to repay their supervisor or organisation through increased commitment. 

5.2 Conclusions 

Based on the findings, the study concluded that interpersonal justice perceptions have a 

positive and significant relationship with affective, continuance and normative commitment 

in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

5.3 Recommendations 

Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which employees are treated with politeness, 

dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or 

determining outcomes. Given the same outcomes and procedures, when employees are 

treated with dignity and respect, their interpersonal justice perception is likely be higher than 

when they are treated rudely and with disrespect. Employees seek interpersonal justice 

through justification, truthfulness, respect and propriety. 

Extant literature shows that the undervaluing of unjust treatment of interpersonal nature may 

cause anger, discontent and resentment in an organizational context. Perceived interpersonal 

injustice has also been associated with work place deviance. Workplace deviance represents 

voluntary and intentional action that is counter to organizational norms and harmful to 

organizational functioning. Examples of workplace deviance include withholding effort, 

theft, insubordination, physical aggression, and verbal abuse. 

Day-to-day, interpersonal encounters are frequent in organizations. The findings from the study 

showed that though positive, interpersonal justice has a low explanatory power on affective 

and normative commitment and none on continuance commitment. This finding indicates that 

there is a need to promote interpersonal justice amongst health NGOs. 

Interpersonal justice should therefore be promoted through treatment of employees with 

politeness, respect and dignity by their supervisors and other organizational leaders. This 

way, organizations will not only benefit from a committed workforce, but also improve 

employee relations and thereby minimize the consequences of retributive justice emanating 

from employee workplace deviance actions. 

5.4 Areas for Further Research 

There is a need to undertake further studies in order to widen the generalizability of the 

findings and also establish reasons for the variations in the findings on the low influence of 

justice perceptions in the NGO sector in Kenya compared to the strong influence reported in 

studies conducted in other sectors in the rest of the world. Such studies are also likely to 

identify what are, if any, the other factors which influence employee commitment in the NGO 

sector. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

70 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Adams, J. S. (1965). „Inequity in social exchange‟. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in 

Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 2, 267–99. 

Akanbi, P.A., & Ofoegbu, O.E. (2013). Impact of perceived organizational justice on 

organizational commitment of a food and beverage firm in Nigeria. International 

Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3 (14), 207-218 

Bartlett, K. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A 

study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335- 

352. 

Batti,  R.C.(2014).  Human  Resource  Management  Challenges  Facing  Local  NGOs. 

Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (4). 

Bayer, L. (2009). The investment model and organizational commitment: Predicting 

workplace behaviours. Haverford: Haverford College. 

Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 

66, 33-42. 

Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th Ed.). Boston: 

Pearson Education. 

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for justice. In 

B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI 

Press, 43–55 

Blau, G. J., & Boal, K. B. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational 

commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. The Academy of Management Review, 

12(2): 288-300. 

Brown, M.W & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, 

Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. 

pp. 136–162. 

Browning, V. (2006). The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in 

South African service organizations. International Journal of Human Resource 

Management, 17, 1321-1338. 

Brum, S. (2007). What impact does training have on employee commitment and employee 

turnover? University of Rhode Island. Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar 

Research Series. 

Buchanan, B., (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in 

work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

71 

 

 

 

Bulut, C & Culha, O (2010). The effects of organizational training on organizational 

commitment. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4), 309-322. 

Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1733320 

Caldwell, D.F., Chatmun, J. A. & O‟ReiIIy C. A. (1990). Building organizational 

commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63, 245-261 

Cascio, W. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In W. Borman, R. 

Klimoski, & D. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, volume 12: Industrial and 

organizational psychology: 401-422. New York: John Wiley. 

Chang, E. (2005). Employees‟ overall perception of HRM effectiveness. Human Relations, 

58(4), 523-544. 

citizenship behaviour within a labour union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal 

of Applied Psychology, 81,161-9. 

Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type 

items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31- 35. 

Coetzee, M. (2005). The fairness of affirmative action: An organizational justice perspective. 

Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria. 

Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E. (2001). „The role of justice in organizations: a meta- 

analysis‟. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. 

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation 

of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. 

Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state 

of the literature. Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 159-200. 

Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. 

Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113– 

152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the 

millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. 

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? 

A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). The handbook of 

organizational justice (3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? 

Employee theft as a social exchange process. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 

18, 111-156. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/
http://ssrn.com/abstract%3D1733320


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

72 

 

 

 

Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). Organizational justice as proaction and reaction: 

Implications for research and application. Justice in the workplace: From theory to 

practice, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 

Griffin, M.L. & Hepburn, J. (2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of 

organizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 

33 (6), 611-625. 

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In 

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand 

Oaks, CA: Sage. 105-117 

Kothari, C, R. (2008). Research methodology, methods and techniques. (2nd Ed.). New 

Delhi: New Age International. 

Kumar, R, (2005) Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for 

Beginners,(2nd.ed.),Singapore, Pearson Education. 

Lamba, S. & Coudhary, N. (2013). Impact of HRM practices on organizational commitment 

of employees. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 2 

(4). 

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J, 

Greenberg, M. S. & Willis, R. H. (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in theory and 

research, New York: Plenum. 27– 55. 

Minbaeva, D. B. (2005). HRM practices and MNC knowledge transfer. Personal Review, 

Vol.34, (1): 125-144. 

Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people 

stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy of 

Management Journal, 44 (6), 1102-1121 

Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational 

citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? 

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,(6), 845-855. 

Quarles R. (1994). An examination of promotion opportunities and evaluation criteria as 

mechanism for affecting internal auditor commitment, job satisfaction and turnover 

intentions Journal of Managerial Issues 6: 176 194 

Raza, K., Adnan R., Nosheen, Qadir., M., & Rana, A. (2013). Relationship between 

distributive justice, procedural justice and organizational commitment: An empirical 

analysis on public sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 16, 

878-883. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 

www.ajpojournals.org 

73 

 

 

 

Rodgers, J. L. and Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation 

coefficient. American Statistician, 42, 59-66. 

Rubin A. and Babbie, E. 2010. Essential Research Methods for Social Work. 2nd ed. Belmont 

(Calif.): Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning. 

Solinger, O., Van Olffen, W. & Roe, R.A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of 

organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), 70-83. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/

