




































 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Relationship between Perceptions of Distributive 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

2 

 

 

Relationship between Perceptions of Distributive 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 establish the relationship between perceptions of 

distributive 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 results of the Pearson correlation, the study concluded that there is a 

significant relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and employee commitment 

in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: The study recommends that health 

NGO organizations promote organizational commitment by designing employment terms that 

are internally commensurate with employee‟s efforts and externally competitive. 

Keywords: perceptions, distributive 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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

3 

 

 

 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

4 

 

 

 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

5 

 

 

 

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

sought to establish the relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and employee 

commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

1.3 Research Objectives 

To establish the relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and employee 

commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

 

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 

2.1 Theoretical Review 

2.1.1 Human Resource Management Theories 

This subsection discusses Social exchange theory, Uncertainty Reduction theory and Social 

Information Processing theory are as they relate to human resource management in 

organizations. 

Social Exchange Theory 

Social exchange theory views the employment relationship as a process of resource exchange 

governed by the norm of reciprocity (Shore & Wayne, 1993; Coyle-Shapiro et al., 2004), 

encompassing both ongoing conferment of benefits and continual re-balancing of 

expectations and obligations (Coyle-Shapiro & Morrow, 2006). Perceptions of the mutual 

obligations held by the employee and the employer may be the result of formal contracts 

entailed in an employment relationship or implied by the expectations which two parties hold 

of each other (Herriot et al., 1997); the latter being captured in the concept of psychological 

contract (Rousseau, 1990, 2001). Employees reciprocate their employer, based on the extent 

to which they perceive obligations to them have been fulfilled (Coyle-Shapiro Morrow, 

2006). The more the employer fulfils obligations and meets expectations, the more employees 

feel secure and satisfied, and consequently obligated to reciprocate. Conversely, when 

employees encounter unexpected changes, the perceived reciprocal relationship may be 

breached. Such changes have become increasingly frequent as organizations respond to 

competitive pressure, adopting new forms of employment relationship (Kessler et al., 2004). 

Where these results in a sense of injustice and betrayal (Herriot et al., 1997), this can result in 

a loss of employee commitment to the organization (Guzzo et al., 1994). 

Social exchange theory argues that HRM practices contribute to positive exchange 

relationships between employee and employer. The theory postulates that when the needs of 

individual workers are considered, employees reciprocate with favourable attitudes and 

behaviour (Gould-Williams & Davies, 2005). Social exchange theory identifies trust and 

perceived organizational support as some of the mediators through which HRM induces 

favourable attitudes and work outcomes, (Meyer & Smith, 2000). According to social 

exchange theory, normative commitment is based on the norm of reciprocity where, based on 

the organization‟s actions, an employee feels that there is a particular way that he or she 

should behave (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). 

Uncertainty Reduction Theory 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

6 

 

 

 

According to the uncertainty reduction theory, uncertainty creates a feeling of vulnerability or 

anxiety that can lead to actively distorting perceptions and information. Uncertainty reduction 

theory propounds that newcomers experience high levels of uncertainty during the 

organizational entry process (Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Like any organizational members, they 

are motivated to reduce their uncertainty such that the work environment becomes more 

predictable, understandable, and ultimately controllable. Uncertainty is reduced through the 

information provided via various communication channels, notably social interactions with 

superiors and peers (Bulut & Culha, 2010). 

As uncertainty decreases, newcomers become more adept at performing their tasks, more 

satisfied with their job, and more likely to remain in their organization (Morrison, 1993). 

Socialization programs influence newcomers‟ adjustment in this regard by reducing their 

high levels of uncertainty and anxiety. Baker (1995) found that role certainty is an important 

latent factor of socialization tactics. 

Social Information Processing Theory 

According to the social information processing theory, the social environment in which 

individuals operate influences individual attitudes in organizations because the social 

environment provides a direct construction of meaning through guides to socially acceptable 

beliefs, attitudes, and needs, and acceptable reasons for action (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1997). 

The organizational climate literature suggests that climate is a particularly powerful social 

mechanism through which HRM practices impact individual attitudes because climate shapes 

how employees construe the meaning of organizational practices (Ostroff & Bowen, 2000). 

Social information processing theory suggests that management practices which promote 

open communication within an organization, open access to information, and free 

information sharing, can increase affective organizational commitment (Thornhill & 

Saunders, 1996). Information sharing is suggested to have direct influence on the variables 

associated with affective commitment by enhancing trust and building employee self-worth 

and perceptions of importance (Meyer & Allen, 1997). This means that information sharing 

should promote increased perceptions of fairness on the nature of decisions and the processes 

by which decisions are made. According to Meyer and Allen (1997), both these factors have 

been associated with the development of affective commitment. 

2.1.2 Organizational Commitment Theories 

Scholars have offered many differing views and theories regarding employee commitment 

towards the employer organization. The key emerging themes indicate that in general, 

commitment is made up of investments, reciprocity, social identity, and lack of alternatives 

(Brum, 2007). The investment approach states that it is an employee‟s investment and 

anticipation of a future pay off that serves to tie them closer to the organization. Reciprocity, 

in contrast, indicates that it is the employee‟s obligation to pay off their debt to the 

organization that will lead to greater commitment (Barrett & O‟Connell, 2001). The 

identification argument specifies that commitment can grow as a result of an employee‟s 

social identity becoming increasingly embedded in their employment (Blau & Boal, 1987). 

Lastly, the lack of alternatives element states that the more specific an employee‟s skills 

become to a particular organization the less likely they will leave (Scholl, 1981). 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

7 

 

 

 

The main theories on organizational commitment relevant to the study are Side Bet theory, 

Theory of Reciprocity and Meyer & Allen‟s Three-Component Model of Organizational 

Commitment. 

Side- Bet Theory 

According to Becker‟s side bet theory, the relationship between an employee and the 

organization is founded on behaviours bounded by a contract of economic gains. Employees 

are committed to the organization because they have some hidden vested investments or side- 

bets. These side-bets are valued by the individual because of the accrual of certain costs that 

render disengagement difficult. Becker argued that over a period of time certain costs accrue 

that make it more difficult for the person to disengage from a consistent pattern of activity, 

namely, maintaining membership in the organization. Accordingly, the threat of losing these 

investments, along with a perceived lack of alternatives to replace or make up for their loss, 

commits the person to the organization (Griffin & Hepburn, 2005). 

Becker went on to clarify that side bets can be centred on time, effort, pay, benefits, and so 

on. The greater the investment in any of these “side bets”, the more likely the employee will 

remain with an organization. Due to the perceived cost of leaving being too high, side bets 

can serve to actually increase the employee‟s intent to remain in an organization (Liou & 

Nyhan, 1994). 

Several elements must exist in order for commitment to be achieved through a “side bet”. 

One such element is that the individual is aware that a “side bet” was made. Another is that 

the choices that were made regarding a particular decision have an effect on other potential 

decisions. The “side bet” philosophy states that an investment is made today with the 

expectation that the benefit will be achieved at some future point (Scholl, 1981). 

Theory of Reciprocity 

Employees have specific desires and expectations. When an organization seeks to meet and 

exceed these desires and expectations through reciprocity, then the likelihood of improving 

commitment is enhanced. The premise behind reciprocity is that an employee will help the 

organization because the organization helped them. Under the norm of reciprocity, employees 

with strong perceptions of organizational support would therefore feel obligated to repay the 

organization in terms of organizational commitment (Steers, 1977). Brum (2007) argues that 

employees may view some human resource outcomes as a “gift”. Training is one such 

practice that employees may view as a “gift”. The result of this “gift” is that employees exert 

more effort, become more productive, and have a greater sense of debt to the organization. 

The “gift” also has the potential to make employees feel like “insiders” into the organization. 

An “insider” is likely to be more committed and devoted to the organization and the idea of 

“gift” and “insider” parallels closely to the concept of reciprocity (Brum, 2007). 

Meyer & Allen Multi-Dimension Theory 

This theory proposes that organizational commitment is experienced by an employee as three 

simultaneous mind-sets encompassing affective, normative, and continuance organizational 

commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1990). The three forms of organizational commitment are 

characterized by three different mindsets – desire, obligation, and cost. According to the 

model, employees with a strong affective commitment stay because they want to, those with 

strong normative commitment stay because they feel they ought to, and those with strong 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

8 

 

 

 

continuance commitment stay because they have to do so (Jaros, 1997). The three-component 

conceptualization of organizational commitment is currently regarded as the dominant model 

in organizational commitment research (Solinger, 2008). 

2.2 Empirical Review 

Distributive justice has been found to be related to work outcomes such as organizational 

commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The pioneering research on distributive 

justice involved studying members of the U.S. army during World War II (Mayer, 2009). In 

examining survey data collected from the troops it was observed that soldiers' attitudes were 

influenced more not by objective outcomes received but rather by the relative level of their 

outcomes compared to others in their unit. Indeed, it was observed that members of Air Corps 

had less favorable perceptions about promotion opportunities compared to other units‟ 

members despite the fact that they had a much higher chance of being promoted than did 

members of those other units. After examining the results more closely, it became clear that 

Air Corps individuals compared themselves to other members of their unit as opposed to 

individuals in other units with lower promotion rates. This finding supports Adams‟ theory of 

equity which postulates that outcomes are not satisfying or unsatisfying in and of themselves 

but rather the comparison of one's own outcomes to others' outcomes is what matters most. 

Studies have also identified other standards to determine distributive justice (Colquitt, 2001). 

For example, Leventhal (1976) proposed a different conceptualization of equity standard and 

suggested that equity occurs when an individual‟s rewards/benefits are commensurate with 

his or her contributions. In other words, an individual will perceive an outcome to be fair if 

the benefits of the outcome are commensurate with his or her inputs or costs. Leventhal‟s 

equity standard has been applied in various studies in the justice literature (Sweeney & 

McFarlin, 1993; Colquitt, 2001). Examining the influence of pay on productivity in a 

corporate setting, Cowherd & Levine (1992), also confirmed that increasing pay can serve as 

a motivational drive to improve product quality. In another study, Greenberg (1988) studied 

managers who were temporarily moved to offices with higher or lower status than their 

positions actually warranted. Similar to the effect of pay found by Cowherd and Levine 

(1992), the managers who moved to higher‐status offices raised performance, whereas those 

moved to lower‐status offices became less productive. When the managers were returned to 

an office matching to their status, the gains and losses in performance disappeared. This 

finding illustrates that employees are sensitive to, pass justice judgement and react on the 

fairness by which resources are distributed at the work place. 

Arif Hassan (2002) investigated the role played by justice perceptions promoting employee 

commitment to the organization. Using a sample of 181 middle and lower level managers 

from the banking and finance, production and manufacturing, and service sectors, he 

hypothesized that both internal and external equity perceptions are positively related to 

commitment. The study findings indicated that both distributive and procedural justice factors 

made significant contributions to employees' organizational commitment. Akanbi et al., 

(2013) examined the role of organizational justice on organizational commitment in a 

multinational organization in Nigeria. The objectives of the study were to ascertain the 

significant difference between procedural justice and perceived organizational commitment, 

and also to examine the significant relationship between distributive justice and perceived 

organizational commitment. The study results indicated that organizational justice as 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

9 

 

 

Employee Commitment 

 Affective 
 Continuance 

 Normative 

Distributive Justice 

 Equity 

 Equality 

 Need 

 

measured by procedural justice and distributive justice can have a significant impact on the 

organizational commitment of employees. 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

10 

 

 

 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

11 

 

 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

12 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

13 

 

 

 

 

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 

Distributive justice is concerned with the reality that not all workers are treated alike and the 

allocation of outcomes is differentiated in the workplace. On average, respondents‟ level of 

agreement with perceptions on distributive justice falls under the “to a great extent” level of 

agreement. The findings are given below. 

Table 5: Perceptions on Distributive Justice 
 

 

Distributive Justice 

Very 

little 

extent 

(%) 

Little 

extent 

(%) 

Some 

extent 

(%) 

Great 

extent 

(%) 

Very 

Great 

extent 

(%) 

Total 

(%) 

Decision made by employer reflect work 
effort 

8 10 34 38 10 100 

Decision outcome appropriate/ in line 
with responsibilities 

6 10 35 44 5 100 

Outcome reflect contribution by 
employee 

6 13 33 42 6 100 

Outcome based on performance 9 12 39 34 6 100 

Average % 7 11 35 40 7 100 

As shown on table 5, majority of respondents indicated that distributive decisions made by 

the employer organization reflected their work efforts to a great extent (38%); decision 

outcome were appropriate or in line with responsibilities (44%); outcome reflect employee 

contribution to the organization (42%). However, (39%) indicated that given their 

performance, the outcome was only justified to some extent. 

These  findings  support  the  view  that  employee  are  concerned  with 

whether or not they received their just share in the work place and justice perceptions can be 

based on the organization‟s adherence to distributive justice rules of equity, equality, or need 

(Greenberg, 1996). 

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, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

14 

 

 

 

4.4 Inferential Statistics 

4.4.1 Influence of Distributive Justice Perceptions on Affective Commitment 

The study tested the influence of distributive justice perceptions on employee commitment in 

Health Sector non- governmental organizations in Kenya using regression analysis. 

Employee commitment was measured using three forms: affective commitment, continuance 

commitment and normative commitment. 

Table 6: Model Summary for Distributive Justice and Affective Commitment 
 

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

 .287 .083 .053 .943 

a. Predictors: (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, Outcome 

Contribution, outcome Justification 

b. Dependent Variable: Affective Index 

The summary above indicates that perception of distributive justice account for 8% of the 

variation in affective commitment. In statistics significance testing the p-value indicates the 

level of relation of the independent variable to the dependent variable. If the significance 

number found is less than the critical value also known as the probability value (p) which is 

statistically set at 0.05, then the conclusion would be that the model is significant in 

explaining the relationship; else the model would be regarded as non-significant. 

Table 7 provides the results on the analysis of the variance (ANOVA). The results indicate 

that the model was statistically significant. Further, the results imply that the independent 

variables are good predictors of sales revenue. This was supported by an F statistic of 2.789 

and the reported p value (0.029) which was less than the conventional probability of 0.05 

significance level. 

Table 7: ANOVA for Distributive Justice and Affective Commitment 
 

Model  Sum of 

Squares 

df Mean 

Square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 9.911 4 2.478 2.789 .029b 

 Residual 110.176 124 .889   

 Total 120.087 128    

a. Dependent Variable: Affective Index 

b. Predictors: (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, Outcome 

Contribution, outcome Justification 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significance_testing


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

15 

 

 

 

Table 8: Coefficients for Distributive Justice and Affective Commitment 
 

Model Unstandardize 

d Coefficients 

Standardize 

d 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 
B Std. 

Error 

Beta 
  

Toleranc 

e 

VIF 

(Constant) 1.487 .322 
 

4.61 

3 

.000 
  

Employer 
Decision 

.152 .116 .165 1.31 

6 

.191 .472 2.11 

7 

Outcome 

Appropriatenes 

s 

-.009 .153 -.009 -.061 .952 .326 3.06 

5 

Outcome 

Contribution 

.026 .161 .026 .159 .874 .277 3.61 

2 

Outcome 
Justification 

.131 .152 .137 .860 .039 

2 

.289 3.45 

6 

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

1.487, with the distributive constructs; employer decision (β1=0.152, p > 0.05), outcome 

appropriateness (β1=-0.009, p > 0.05), outcome contribution (β1=0.026, p > 0.05) and 

outcome justification (β1= 0.131, p < 0.05). These findings imply that most the constructs 

measuring distributive justice had an insignificant relationship with affective commitment. 

Only outcome justification had a significant relationship with affective commitment. 

The above findings are inconsistent with Arif Hassan (2002) who investigated the role played 

by justice perceptions promoting employee commitment to the organization using a sample of 

181 middle and lower level managers from the banking and finance, production and 

manufacturing, and service sectors. The study findings indicated that both distributive and 

procedural justice factors made significant contributions to employees' organizational 

commitment. 

On the other hand, Akanbi et al., (2013) also examined the role of organizational justice on 

organizational commitment in a multinational organization in Nigeria. The study results 

indicated that organizational justice as measured by procedural justice and distributive justice 

can have a significant impact on the organizational commitment of employees. Since 

previous study reviewed in the literature used different constructs to measure distributive 

justice, this study concludes that there is positive but insignificant relationship between 

distributive justice and affective commitment. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

16 

 

 

 

4.4.2 Influence of Distributive Justice Perceptions on Continuance Commitment 

The study also sought to find out whether perception of distributive justice had significant 

relationship with continuance commitment. The study adopted linear regression model to 

ascertain this relationship. 

Table 9: Model Summary-Distributive Justice and Continuance Commitment 
 

Model R R Square Adjusted R 

Square 

Std. Error of the 

Estimate 

1 .143 .020 -.011 1.045 

a. Predictors: (Constant), (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, 

Outcome Contribution, outcome Justification 

b. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index 

The results of the model summary indicate that the perception of distributive justice account 

for a very small variation in continuance commitment. The perception of distributive justice 

explains only 2% of the variation in continuance commitment. 

The ANOVA results shows that the statistic, F = 0.644, p>0.05 indicates that the distributive 

justice construct is not significant in explaining for variations in continuance commitment. 

Table 10: ANOVA for Distributive Justice and Continuance Commitment 
 

Model  Sum of 

Squares 

df Mean 

Square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 2.815 4 .704 .644 .632b 

 Residual 135.450 124 1.092   

 Total 138.265 128    

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index 

b. Predictors: (Constant), (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, 

Outcome Contribution, outcome Justification 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

17 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 11: Coefficients for Distributive Justice and Continuance Commitment 
 

Model Unstandardize 

d Coefficients 

Standardize 

d 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 B Std. 

Erro 

r 

Beta   Toleranc 

e 

VIF 

(Constant) 1.944 .357  5.44 

0 

.00 

0 

  

Employer 

Decision 

.056 .128 .056 .436 .66 

4 

.472 2.11 

7 

Outcome 

Appropriatenes 

s 

.204 .170 .186 1.19 

9 

.23 

3 

.326 3.06 

5 

Outcome 

Contribution 

-.049 .178 -.046 -.273 .78 

5 

.277 3.61 

2 

Outcome 

Justification 

-.134 .169 -.131 -.790 .43 

1 

.289 3.45 

6 

a. Dependent Variable: Continuance commitment Index    

The regression results indicate that all the constructs under perception of distributive justice 

were insignificant predictors of continuance commitment. They had p-values of greater than 

the level of significance adopted for this study which was 0.05. 

The findings of this study failed to support those of Raza et al., (2013) who found that justice 

perceptions positively relate with organizational commitment and the fairness process used in 

the allocation of rewards also makes the employees more committed to the organization. The 

researchers observed that organizational justice is a fundamental variable that plays a major 

role in organizational commitment and it should be improved day by day. The findings also 

contradicts the findings of Akanbi & Ofoegbu (2013) in Nigeria, who found that 

organizational justice as measured by procedural justice and distributive justice can have a 

significant impact on employee organizational commitment. The study established that there 

was a significant relationship between perceived distributive justice and organizational 

commitment. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

18 

 

 

 

4.4.3 Influence of Distributive Justice Perceptions on Normative Commitment 

The study also investigated the relationship between the distributive justice perceptions and 

Normative commitment. A regression analysis was conducted to ascertain this relationship. 

Table 12: Model Summary for Distributive Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

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

1 .411a .169 .141 .764 

a. Predictors: (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, Outcome Contribution, 

outcome Justification 

b. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Index 

The results of the model summary above indicate that contrasts of distributive justice 

perceptions adopted in this study account for 16.9% of the variations in normative 

commitment. The statistic, F = 6.191, p< 0.05 indicates that the distributive justice constructs 

are signifcants factors in explaining the variations in the normative commitment. 

Table 13: ANOVA-Distributive Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

Model 
 

Sum of Squares df Mean 

Square 

F Sig. 

1 Regression 14.469 4 3.617 6.191 .000b 

 Residual 71.280 122 .584   

 Total 85.749 126    

a. Dependent Variable: Normative Index 

b. Predictors: (Constant), Employer Decision, Outcome Appropriateness, Outcome Contribution, 

outcome Justification 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

19 

 

 

 

Table 14: Coefficients- Distributive Justice on Normative Commitment 
 

Model Unstandardized 

Coefficients 

Standardized 

Coefficients 

t Sig. Collinearity 

Statistics 

 
B Std. 

Error 

Beta 
  

Tolerance VIF 

(Constant) 1.703 .262  6.500 .000   

Employer 

Decision 

.235 .094 .300 2.490 .014 .468 2.136 

Outcome 

Appropriateness 

-.121 .125 -.141 -.973 .333 .325 3.073 

Outcome 

Contribution, 

.132 .131 .158 1.005 .317 .275 3.633 

Outcome 

Justification 

.098 .125 .121 .784 .0435 .286 3.492 

 

However, the test on the beta coefficients of the resulting model shows that, employer 

decision (β1=0.235, p < 0.05), outcome appropriateness (β1=-0.121, p > 0.05), outcome 

contribution (β1=0.132, p > 0.05) and outcome justification (β1= 0.098, p < 0.05). Employee 

decisions and outcome justification had a significant relationship with normative. Outcome 

appropriateness and outcome contribution had insignificant relationship with normative 

commitment. 

4.4.4 Overall Influence of Distributive Justice on Organizational Commitment 

The results presented in table 15 show the fitness of regression model adopted in explaining 

the study phenomena. The results indicate that distributive justice explained 8.5% of 

organizational commitment. 

Table 16 provides the results on the analysis of the variance (ANOVA). The results indicate 

that the overall model was statistically significant. Further, the results imply that the 

independent variable was a good predictor of organisational commitment. This was supported 

by an F statistic of 11.784 and the reported p value (0.001) which was less than the 

conventional probability of 0.05 significance level. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

20 

 

 

 

Table 15: Overall Model Summary 
 

Model Summary  

R .291a 

R Square 0.085 

Adjusted R Square 0.078 

Std. Error of the Estimate 0.57995 

F-Statistics 11.784(p-0.001) 

Table 16: Overall of Coefficients 
 

 B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 

 

(Constant) 
 

2.118 
 

0.196 

 
 

10.786 
 

0 

 
Distributive Justice Perception 

 
0.199 

 
0.058 

 
0.291 

 
3.433 

 
0.001 

a Dependent Variable: overall Organisation committment    

The regression results above show that distributive justice perception is a significant predictor 

of organisational commitment (B=0.199, p=0.001). This implies that a change of 0.199 units 

in distributive justice will cause a unit change in organisational commitment. 

The above findings are consistent with Arif Hassan (2002) who investigated the role played 

by justice perceptions promoting employee commitment to the organization using a sample of 

181 middle and lower level managers from the banking and finance, production and 

manufacturing, and service sectors. The study findings indicated that both distributive and 

procedural justice factors made significant contributions to employees' organizational 

commitment. 

On the other hand, Akanbi et al., (2013) also examined the role of organizational justice on 

organizational commitment in a multinational organization in Nigeria. The study results 

indicated that organizational justice as measured by procedural justice and distributive justice 

can have a significant impact on the organizational commitment of employees. The findings 

of this study support those of Raza et al., (2013) who found that justice perceptions positively 

relate with organizational commitment and the fairness process used in the allocation of 

rewards also makes the employees more committed to the organization. 

The researchers observed that organizational justice is a fundamental variable that plays a 

major role in organizational commitment and it should be improved day by day. The findings 

also concurs the findings of Akanbi & Ofoegbu (2013) in Nigeria, who found that 

organizational justice as measured by procedural justice and distributive justice can have a 

significant impact on employee organizational commitment. The study established that there 

was a significant relationship between perceived distributive justice and organizational 

commitment. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

21 

 

 

 

4.4.5 Hypothesis testing 

The study sought to test the null hypothesis that; H0: There is no statistically significant 

relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and employee commitment in health 

sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. Since the p-value was <0.05, we reject the 

null hypothesis, therefore distributive justice perceptions significantly affects organisational 

commitment. The optimal model was 

Organisational Commitment =2.118 +0.199 (distributive justice perception) + ℮ 

 

5.0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

5.1 Discussion 

In the study, distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of one's outcomes. When a 

reward is allocated or a decision is made, people often make a judgment whether or not the 

outcome was fair. Work place distributive justice judgment is usually made with respect to 

some referent standard (Greenberg, 1990). The study results showed that distributive justice 

perceptions have a moderate influence on affective and normative commitment but none on 

continuance commitment. 

The study findings indicate that for a majority of the study respondents, distributive decisions 

made by their employer reflected their work efforts. They also viewed the outcome of such 

decisions as appropriate and reflective of their contributions and also justifiably in line with 

their performance. These findings support the equity theory of organizational justice. 

Distributive justice was highly correlated with affective and normative commitment. 

Regression analysis supported the study hypotheses that distributive justice has an influence 

on organizational commitment. 

Previous findings have shown that employees in Europe and the US prefer allocation 

decisions based on proportional contributions, thus the equity rule is the most prevalent there 

(Chen, 1995). In contrast, equality appeared to be more important for many employees in the 

health NGO sector where employees received a consolidated salary with no reward for 

performance. As a result, equality, rather than equity was a more important rule as it is said to 

build teamwork. This is consistent with research by Tyler et al. (1998) and Colquitt and 

Jackson (2006) who studied a team context in the US and found that equality emerged as an 

important rule. 

5.2 Conclusions 

Based on the results of the Pearson correlation, the study concluded that there is a significant 

relationship between perceptions of distributive justice and employee commitment in health 

sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 

5.3 Recommendations 

The study recommends that health NGO organizations promote organizational commitment 

by designing employment terms that are internally commensurate with employee‟s efforts 

and externally competitive. These include establishing clear pay rules establishing the degree 

to which one is paid fairly relative to co-workers, and the degree to which pay raises and 

promotions are fairly administered, pay levels demonstrating that salaries paid are fair 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

22 

 

 

 

compared to those paid outside the organization and fair pay administration where 

supervisors are perceived to be fair in executing rules for raises and promotions. When 

employees have favourable distributive justice perceptions, they are likely to have more 

positive emotions and more favorable attitudes and behaviours directed toward the 

organization that has provided the outcomes. 

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. 

 

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. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

23 

 

 

 

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 

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. 

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


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

24 

 

 

 

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. 

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. 

http://www.ajpojournals.org/


European Journal of Human Resource 

ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) 

Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp1-25, 2016 

www.ajpojournals.org 

25 

 

 

 

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. 

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/

