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/