Relationship between Perceptions of Interpersonal Justice and Employee Commitment in Health Sector Non- Governmental Organizations in Kenya Patrick M. Gichira, Dr Susan M. Were, Dr George O. Orwa European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 52 Relationship between Perceptions of Interpersonal Justice and Employee Commitment in Health Sector Non-Governmental Organizations in Kenya 1*Patrick M. Gichira *Post Graduate Student: School of Human Resources Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology 2Dr Susan M. Were Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology 2Dr George O. Orwa Lecturer, Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology Abstract Purpose: The purpose of the study was to assess the extent of the relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non- governmental organizations in Kenya. Methodology: The study adopted descriptive and correlational research designs with a statistical sample of 195 employees responsible for key result areas in 17 health sector Non- Governmental Organizations. Justice perceptions were measured using Colquitt‟s four construct model comprising of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice while organizational commitment was measured through Meyer‟s three component model comprising of affective, continuance and normative commitment. Inferential statistics comprising of correlation, multiple linear regression models and ANOVA analysis were applied `to establish the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. Qualitative data was analyzed through the use of questionnaires. Results: Based on the findings, the study concluded that interpersonal justice perceptions have a positive and significant relationship with affective, continuance and normative commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. Unique contribution to theory, practice and policy: Interpersonal justice should be promoted through treatment of employees with politeness, respect and dignity by their supervisors and other organizational leaders. This way, organizations will not only benefit from a committed workforce, but also improve employee relations and thereby minimize the consequences of retributive justice emanating from employee workplace deviance actions. Keywords: perceptions of interpersonal justice, employee commitment, health sector non- governmental organizations http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 53 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Many contemporary writings on organizations emphasize the importance of core values to the organization (Collins & Porras, 1997). Justice in terms of fair treatment of employees is identified as one of those values and fairness as one of the fundamental bases of cooperative action in organizations (Cropanzo et al, 2007). Truth telling, promise keeping, fairness, and respect for the individual are some of the key guiding principles of effective people management in organizations (Russell, 2001). Justice perceptions can influence employees‟ attitudes and behaviour for good or ill, in turn having a positive or negative impact on their performance and the organization‟s success (Baldwin, 2006). Justice is therefore a basic requirement for the effective functioning of organizations and the personal commitment of the individuals they employ (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Employee perceptions of organizational justice in terms of fair formal deci- sion-making procedures (procedural justice), fair decision outcomes (distributive justice), fair interpersonal treatment (interpersonal justice) and information sharing (informational justice) by decision makers have been found to be related to a variety of work-related attitudes and behaviors including commitment (Colquitt, et al, 2001, Al-Zu‟bi, 2010; Yucel, 2013; Akanbi & Ofoegbu, 2013). Organisational commitment is the bond employees experience with their organization (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Employees who are committed to their organisation generally feel a connection with their organization, feel that they fit in and, feel they understand the goals of the organisation (Cohen et al., 2001). The added value of such employees is that they tend to be more determined in their work, show relatively high productivity and are more proactive in offering their support (Konovsky, et al, 2000). Meyer & Allen (1997) conceptualized organizational commitment in three dimensions namely affective, continuance and normative commitments. Justice perceptions can influence employee attitudes and behaviour for good or ill, in turn having a positive or negative impact on individual, group and the entire organization‟s performance and success (Baldwin, 2006). Empirical evidence supports the notion that an employee‟s perception of organizational justice affects their attitude toward the organization (Konovsky, et al, 2000). If the perception of organizational justice is positive, individuals tend to be more satisfied and committed to their job (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). Organizational justice impacts on employees in organizations since they are the subject of work place decisions virtually every day of their organizational lives (Cohen et al., 2001). Some of these decisions deal with the salaries individuals earn, the projects or programmes they implement while others deal with work place interactions. The importance of those consequences causes individuals to judge the decision making they experience from a justice perspective (Colquitt, 2001). According to Baldwin (2006) the term organizational justice refers to the extent to which employees perceive workplace procedures, interactions, and outcomes to be fair in nature. He concluded that these perceptions can influence attitudes and behaviours of the employees. Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007) defined it as a personal evaluation about the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 54 Current literature on organizational justice identifies four different constructs; distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata- Phelan, 2005). Distributive justice is the justice of an employee which he perceives as a result of comparing the commitments he makes to his work and the outcomes of these such as rewards, duties and responsibilities, compared to the commitments the other employees make and the outcomes of them (Colquitt,2001). Procedural justice implies that, while evaluating the fairness of the organizational decisions, employees are not only interested in what these decisions are but also with the processes which determine these decisions (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Interpersonal justice refers to people‟s perceptions of the fairness of the manner in which they are treated by those in authority during the enactment of organizational procedures (Lind & Bos, 2002) while informational justice refers to people‟s perceptions of the fairness of the information used as the basis for making a decision (Gurbuz & Mert, 2009). Each of these forms of justice has been found to have different effects on employee commitment (Colquitt, et al., 2005). 1.2 Problem Statement Employees are the subject of decisions virtually every day of their organizational lives (Colquitt, 2001). In organizational settings, justice is not always administered through fair allocation of employment resources, provision of clear and adequate explanations for decisions made and employees are not always treated with dignity and respect during the implementation of policies and procedures (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Frontela, 2007). Adoption of effective human resource management (HRM) practices in many Non- Governmental organizations (NGOs) is often low in the list of management priority (Batti, 2014) because NGO organizations discourages investment in human resource capacities and staff retention measures due to the short term nature of the projects, funding constraints and subsequent short term employment practices. This in turn leads to negative justice perceptions and commitment. ( Padaki, 2007). In a study carried out by Frontela (2007) in Kenya and other developing countries, the researchers found that irrespective of the affiliation, mission, size and extent of operations, problems of low morale and low motivation of staff were prevalent in NGOs. These are all indicators of antecedents and outcomes of commitment (Wright, & Kehoe, 2008). They point to a possible absence of organizational justice and low employee commitment. Organizational justice research has predominately involved employees from Western countries, particularly the U.S. (McFarlin & Sweeney, 2001). As such, the current thinking regarding reactions to organizational justice may not generalize to employees from societies that have cultural and economic characteristics which differ significantly from those commonly found in North American and Western European societies. In addition, in their meta-analytical review of literature on commitment in organizations in the period 1988 to 2011, Iqbal et al (2012) found out that most of the research studies published was conducted at the industry or firm level as the unit of analysis. Furthermore, the organization and management of NGO sector has received relatively little attention from researchers (Lewis, 2005). There is therefore a paucity of information regarding the importance of fairness and employee reactions to organizational justice from different contexts especially Africa and http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 55 particularly the Health sector NGOs in Kenya. Given this lack of information, the study sought to assess the extent of the relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 1.3 Research Objectives To assess the extent of the relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Review 2.1.1 Organizational Justice Theories Organizational justice is conceptualized around two independent theoretical dimensions: a reactive- proactive dimension and a process-content dimension (Greenberg & Scott (1996). Table 1: Taxonomy of organizational justice theories Reactive-Proactive Dimension Content- Process Dimension Content Process Reactive Reactive Content Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) Reactive Process Procedural Justice theory (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) Proactive Proactive Content Justice judgment theory (Levental,1976,1980) Proactive Process Allocation preference theory (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980) Adapted from Greenberg (1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Reactive content theories are conceptual approaches that focus on how individuals respond to unfair treatment (Greenberg, 1987). These theories state that people will respond to unfair relationships by displaying certain negative emotions such as resentment, anger, dissatisfaction, disappointment and unhappiness (Coetzee, 2005). In an attempt to redress the experienced inequity, employees will seek restitution, engage in retaliatory behaviour or restore psychological equity by justifying the injustice or leaving the organization (Baldwin, 2006). The proactive theories focus on allocation procedures and seek to determine what procedures people will use to achieve justice. According to the proactive theories, procedures should meet the following requirements for them to be regarded as just: allow opportunities to select the decision maker, follow consistent rules, make use of accurate information, identify the structure of decision-making power, employ safeguards against bias, allow for appeals to be heard, provide opportunities for correcting procedures, meet moral and ethical standards (Coetzee, 2005). The main reactive content and reactive process theories in the study of organizational justice are Adams‟ Equity Theory and Thibaut and Walkers‟ Procedural Justice Theory while the main proactive content and proactive process theories of organizational justice are http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 56 Leventhal‟s justice judgment model and Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry Allocation Preference Theory. Equity Theory Adams Equity theory (1965) focuses on reactions to pay inequity as an important distributive justice predictor. It states that individuals compare the ratio of their output (rewards) and inputs (contributions that they make towards the organization) to a similar ratio of their counterparts. If their ratio is higher (which means that they are getting more rewards) it may lead to a favourable justice perception. However, employees who feel themselves to be in inequitable position try to reduce inequity by distorting inputs (reducing their contributions) or outcomes in their own minds (Cohen‐Charash & Spector, 2001). Procedural Justice Theory According to Thibaut and Walker (1975), the amount of control people have over decisions and processes influences their perceptions of fairness. Two types of control exist: Process control and decision control. Process control refers to the degree of control people have over the procedures or information used to make a decision. Decision control refers to the degree of control people have over directly determining the outcomes. This theory links people‟s concern with procedures to their desire to influence their outcomes, and thus defines procedural fairness as the level of input or participation that procedures allow in an employment relationship. This is often referred to as the voice factor. Justice Judgment Theory According to Leventhal (1980), individuals attempt to make fair allocation decisions by applying several possible allocation rules to the situations they confront. In his justice judgment theory, Leventhal describes how people proactively employ justice norms to rationalize administrative decision‐making in resource allocation and introduces six measures of procedural justice. These include consistency across people and time, free from bias, accuracy of information used in decision making, existence of some mechanism to correct flawed decisions, conforming to standards of ethics and morality and inclusion of opinion of various groups involved in the decision process. According to the model, individuals evaluate allocation procedures used by decision-makers based on the situation, in effect proactively employing various justice norms such as equity, needs, and equality (Leventhal, 1980). Skarlicki and Folger (1997), explain the consequences of procedural justice. They argue that individuals accept responsibility for their problems if they perceive that fair procedures were used to arrive at decision outcomes. However, if they perceive that procedures used by the organization are unfair, individuals may show anger and resentment and consequently enter into retaliating behaviours. According to Cropanzano et al., (2001), employee perceptions of fairness in treatment and procedures enhances their commitment and desirability of long term ongoing relationship with the organization. Also, procedural justice is expected to increase perceptions of organizational support, which, in turn, increase organizational commitment (Cropanzano et al, 2001). Allocation Preference Theory Allocation preference theory asserts that allocation procedures will be preferred to the extent that they help the allocator attain valued goals including the attainment of justice. In http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 57 particular, the theory proposes that people hold expectations that certain procedures will be differentially instrumental in meeting their goals (Greenberg, 1987). Eight procedures are identified that may help promote the attainment of justice. These include procedures that: (a) allow opportunities to select the decision making agent, (b) follow consistent rules, (c) are based on accurate information, (d) identify the structure of decision-making power, (e) employ safeguards against bias, (f) allow for appeals to be heard, (g) provide opportunities for changes to be made in procedures and, (h) are based on prevailing moral and ethical standards (Coetzee, 2005). 2.2 Empirical Review Interpersonal justice perceptions have been noted to increase individuals‟ intention to support the decisions made by authorities (Greenberg, 1993; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Because interpersonal justice emphasizes one on-one transactions, employees often seek it from their supervisors. Interpersonal justice is also determined by the formal policies and procedures of an organization. The proper enactment of work place procedures is defined by five behaviours: adequate consideration of the employee's input, suppression of personal biases, and consistent application of decision-making criteria, timely feedback and justification for a decision (Bies & Moag, 1986). These factors play an important role in affecting employees' perceptions of fairness, acceptance of decisions, and attitudes toward the organization (Korsgaard et al., 1995). Bies & Moag (1986) identified four criteria that reveal the quality of treatment of employees: appropriate justification of decisions (through genuine efforts to explain the results of decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); propriety (through absence of prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect (sincere and deferential treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks. Decision makers are said to behave in an interpersonally fair manner when they treat those affected by their decisions properly and enact decisions, policies or procedures fairly (Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Interpersonal fairness perceptions have been shown to affect individuals‟ attitudes and behaviours (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Verbal and passive forms of aggression, such as yelling, bullying, and humiliation have a negative impact on peoples‟ perceived justice, (Gurbuz & Mert, 2009). Interpersonal justice therefore demonstrates the extent to which people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of procedures or outcome determination (Colquitt, 2001). Research has shown that people experiencing positive interpersonal fairness treatment tend to accept unpleasant outcomes as being fair and hold positive feelings about their supervisors (Cohen- Charash & Spector, 2001). Importantly, such individuals are less inclined to sue their former employers on the grounds of wrongful termination than those who believe they were treated in an opposite manner (Greenberg, 1987). An empirical study by Skarlicki and Latham (1996) found that when union leaders were trained to behave more justly by providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with courtesy and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more supportive and cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. In his empirical study (Greenberg, 1993) found that pay cut decisions were accompanied by lower rates of company theft and turnover when they were explained in details and in a respectful way. Taxpayers http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 58 Employee Commitment  Affective  Continuance  Normative Interpersonal Justice  Dignity  Respect  Courtesy were found to be more compliant with tax laws when they felt they were treated fairly and respectfully by the tax authority (Wenzel, 2006). 2.3 Conceptual Framework Figure 1: Conceptual Framework 3.0 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study adopted descriptive and correlation research design. The study population was 17 Nairobi based health sector NGOs registered with HENNET while the target population was 497 employees with supervisory responsibilities. The sampling frame for this study comprised of 85 health sector non-governmental organizations based within Nairobi County and its environs. The register of Health Sector NGOs maintained by Health NGOs Network Secretariat (HENNET) was used to randomly generate the study sample. The study adopted stratified sampling technique due to homogeneity of the population. Based on the nature of the study population, proportionate stratified sampling was used to establish the number of respondents from each of the 17 HENNET member NGOs headquartered in Nairobi. The study sought to measure employee perceptions using a five point multiple choice ordinal Likert rating scale measurement. Primary data was collected using self-administered questionnaires. The raw data collected using questionnaires were edited and coded for analysis using IBM Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0. The study‟s likert-type data was described and analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics comprising of correlation and linear regression. Findings on quantitative data were presented using statistical techniques such as tables, pie charts and bar graphs. Qualitative data was presented descriptively. 4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 4.1 Response Rate The study conducted a survey using a self-administrated questionnaire which was administered to 195 sampled respondents. 131 valid questionnaires were returned representing a response rate of 67 percent. A response rate of above 50% is considered adequate in social science research (Mugenda & Mugenda, 2008; Babbie, 2002). The study‟s response rate of 67% was therefore considered adequate for analysis and conclusion. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 59 Table 2: Response Rate Total number of questionnaires distributed Total number of valid questionnaires returned Response rate (%) 195 131 67 4.2 Demographic Characteristics 4.2.1 Gender of Respondents The gender of the respondents is presented in figure 2 of the 131 valid responses, 53 percent of the respondents were male while 47 percent were female. This suggests that the study solicited information from a gender balanced perspective. According to Kothari (2008) a ratio of at least 1:2 in either gender representation in a study is representative enough. Figure 2: Gender of Respondents 4.2.2 Response by Job Category The study targeted various categories of employees as shown on table 3. From the demographic data, 14% were administrative staff, 29% programme staff, 22% adviser/professional staff, 29% manager level, and 5% director level staff. Table 3: Response by Job Category Employee Category Frequency Percentage (%) Administrative Assistant 18 14 Programme staff 37 29 Adviser/Professional 29 22 Manager 37 29 Director 6 5 Total 127 100 4.2.3 Response by Number of Staff Supervised During the study, it was found out that staffs responsible for key performance results in this sector do not necessarily have other employees reporting to them due to the nature of the organization structures applied or the way work arrangements are designed with outsourcing Female 47% Male 53% http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 60 5 and above 23% None or indirect 33% 3-5 employees 23% 1-3 employess 21% being a key element. Those without internal supervisory responsibilities but responsible for key result areas were reported to have quality assurance, oversight or technical backstopping responsibilities over outsourced activities. As shown on figure 3, 33% of the respondents reported that they had no direct supervisory responsibilities, 21% supervised more than five employees while another 23% supervised three to five employees and another 5% more than 5 employees. Figure 3 Number of Staff Supervise 4.2.4 Response by Period Worked with Current Employer In terms of length of service (table 4), 37% of the respondents indicated that they have worked for the current organization for a period not exceeding two years, 28% for up to four years, 22% for up to 6 years while only 12% had worked with the same organization for a period in excess of six years. This finding is in line with the project based nature of employment in the NGO sector where employment duration is tied to project or funding cycles (NGO Bureau, 1999). Table 0: Response by Period Worked With Current Employer Period worked Frequency Percentage (%) 0-2 years 49 37 3-4 years 36 28 5-6 years 29 22 7-8 years 4 3 9-10 years 5 4 10 or more years 8 6 Total 131 100 4.2.5 Response by Age Figure 4 shows the age distribution in the sample size. Five percent of the respondents were aged 25 years or less, 29% were aged between 26-30 years, 40% between 31-40 years, 19% between 41-50 and 7 percentages between 51-60 years. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 61 Figure 4: Response by Age 4.2.6 Response by Level of Education Majority of the respondents (46 %) were either first degree holders or hold professional qualifications; 34% hold a post graduate degree; 18% are diploma holders and two percent were of secondary education level. Figure 5: Response by Level of Education 4.2.7 Response by Type of Employment As shown in figure 5 majority of the respondents (83%) were employed on term contract basis while 17% had open ended contracts. This employment practice would appear to be in line with the project nature of work in the development sector (Lewis & Kanji, 2009). 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 25 or less years 26-30 years 31-40 years 41-50 years 51-60 years YEARS Secondary school Diploma Post graduate (Masters) 34% 2% 18% Degree/Professional qualification 46% Fr eq u en cy ( % ) http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 62 Figure 6: Response by Type of Employment Results shows that project and management level staff (25.4% and 24.6% respectively comprised of the highest number of employees employed on contract terms. 4.3 Descriptive Statistics Individuals working in organizations expect supervisors to extend equal treatment to all members. They seek fair interaction with the organization. Supervisors or allocators, who treat some with respect and others with disrespect, are not perceived as fair. Table 5: Perceptions on Interpersonal Justice Interpersonal Justice Very little extent (%) Little extent (%) Some extent (%) Great extent (%) Very great extent (%) Total (%) Have been treated in a polite manner 1 8 11 54 26 100 Have been treated with dignity 2 7 12 56 23 100 Have been treated with respect 0 11 11 53 25 100 Supervisor has refrained from making improper remarks or comments 0 12 21 42 25 100 Average % 1 10 14 51 25 100 Respondents‟ perceptions on interpersonal justice fall under the “to a great extent” level of agreement. 54% of the respondents agreed that to a great extent, they are treated in a polite manner by their supervisor; treated with dignity (56%), treated with respect (53%), treated without improper remarks or comments (42%). This finding supports Konovsky (2000) who identified derogatory judgments, deception, and invasion of privacy, inconsiderate or abusive actions, public criticism, and coercion as the key factors indicating the absence of interpersonal injustice. Open ended contract 17% Fixed contract 83% http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 63 4.4 Inferential Statistics 4.4.1 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Affective Commitment This section presented the findings of the relationship between constructs of interpersonal justice perception and affective commitment. The study employed the use of linear regression model to ascertain this relationship. Table 6: Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .183a .033 .002 .967 a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect b. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index The model summary results revealed that improper remarks perception, dignity perception, polite manner perception and respect accounted for only 3.3% of the variation in affective commitment. The ANOVA results further showed that the variables used in the model were not significant predictors of affective commitment. Table 7: ANOVA-Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Affective Commitment Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 4.019 4 1.005 1.073 .373b Residual 116.068 124 .936 Total 120.087 128 a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 64 Table 8: Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) 1.670 .412 4.056 .000 Polite manner .125 .247 .113 .505 .614 .155 6.435 Dignity -.031 .257 -.028 -.119 .906 .144 6.944 Respect .024 .299 .022 .080 .937 .104 9.660 Improper remarks .086 .136 .087 .636 .526 .417 2.395 a. Dependent Variable: Affective Commitment Index The findings in Table 8 show that improper remarks perception, dignity perception and polite manner perception had a positive but an insignificant relationship with affective commitment. Skarlicki and Latham (1996) found that when union leaders were trained to behave more justly by providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with courtesy and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more supportive and cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. 4.4.2 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Continuance Commitment The study intended to investigate the effects of improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite manner perception on continuance commitment. The relationship was tested using a linear regression model. Table 9: Model summary- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .176a .031 .000 1.032 a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect b. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index The R-Sqaure from the model was 0.031 which imply that the independent variables in this model accounted for 3.1% of the variations in the continuance commitment. These findings imply that there is a very weak association between interpersonal justice constructs and continuance commitment. The F-statistics, results further indicate that the model used to link interpersonal justice perceptions and continuance commitment was statistically insignificant. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 65 Therefore, this implies that improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite manner perception were not good predictors of continuance commitment. Table 10: ANOVA- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 4.239 4 1.060 .995 .413b Residual 132.042 124 1.065 Total 136.281 128 a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Index b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks , dignity, polite manner, respect Table 11: Coefficients- Interpersonal Justice on Continuance Commitment Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) 2.178 .439 4.962 .000 Polite manner -.164 .264 -.139 -.621 .535 .155 6.435 Dignity .080 .275 .068 .293 .770 .144 6.944 Respect .318 .319 .274 .997 .321 .104 9.660 Improper remarks -.231 .145 -.218 - 1.597 .113 .417 2.395 a. Dependent Variable: Continuance Commitment Index The findings in Table 11 indicate that improper remarks, dignity, respect and polite manner had an insignificant relationship with continuance commitment. These findings imply that polite manners perception negatively affects continuance commitment, similarly, improper remarks negatively affects continuance commitment though these relationships were statistically insignificant. The finding of this study contradicts Bies & Moag (1986) who identified four criteria that reveal the quality of treatment of employees: appropriate justification of decisions (through genuine efforts to explain the results of decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); propriety (through absence of prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect (sincere and differential treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 66 Colquitt (2001) also revealed that interpersonal justice demonstrates the extent to which people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of procedures or outcome determination. 4.4.3 Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perceptions on Normative Commitment The study further assessed the effects of interpersonal justice perceptions on normative commitment. A regression model was adopted to ascertain the relationship. Table 12: Model summary- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .367a .135 .106 .781 a. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks, dignity, polite manner, respect, b. Dependent Variable: Normative Index The model summary results indicate that interpersonal justice perceptions constructs accounted for 13.5% of the variations in normative commitment. The ANOVA results also show that the independent variables were good predictors of normative commitment. Table 13: ANOVA- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 1 Regression 11.564 4 2.891 3.79 .006b Residual 74.379 122 .610 Total 85.942 126 a. Dependent Variable: Normative Commitment Index b. Predictors: (Constant), improper remarks, dignity, polite manner, respect http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 67 Table 14: Coefficients- Interpersonal Justice on Normative Commitment Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Collinearity Statistics B Std. Error Beta Tolerance VIF (Constant) 1.428 .333 4.01 .000 Polite manner .216 .200 .231 1.32 0.019 .155 6.455 Dignity .117 .208 .125 0.69 0.492 .144 6.960 Respect -.050 .243 -.054 - 0.25 0.801 .103 9.754 Remarks .077 .113 .091 0.79 0.042 .400 2.501 The test on the beta coefficients of the resulting model shows that, the constant α= 1.428, (p<0.05) with the procedural constructs; remarks (β1=0.077, p < 0.05), dignity (β2=0. 117, p > 0.05), polite manner (β3=0. 216, p < 0.05) and respect (β4=-0.050, p > 0.05). These findings imply that polite manner and remarks were found to have a positive and significant relationship with normative commitment. Respect and dignity were found to have insignificant relationship with normative commitment. The finding of this study concurs with Bies & Moag (1986) who identified four criteria that reveal the quality of treatment of employees: appropriate justification of decisions (through genuine efforts to explain the results of decisions); honesty (through avoidance of deception); propriety (through absence of prejudicial statements and inappropriate questions); and respect (sincere and differential treatment of individuals as well as the absence of personal attacks Colquitt (2001) also revealed that interpersonal justice demonstrates the extent to which people are treated with graciousness, poise and esteem by those involved in the execution of procedures or outcome determination. 4.4.4 Overall Influence of Interpersonal Justice Perception on Organizational Commitment The study conducted an assessment to establish the overall effects of interpersonal justice perception on organizational commitment. The results are presented in tables below. Table 15: Overall Model Summary Model Summary 1 R .247a R Square 0.061 Adjusted R Square 0.054 Std. Error of the Estimate 0.58665 F-Statistics 8.343 (p-0.005) http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 68 The model summary result show that interpersonal justice perception constructs accounted for 6.1% of the variation in organisational commitment. F-statistics show the model adopted to link the interpersonal justice perceptions and organisational commitment was significant hence the variables were good predictors of organisational commitment. Table 16: Overall Regression Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 2.075 0.247 8.4 0 Interpersonal justice 0.179 0.062 0.247 2.888 0.005 a Dependent Variable: overall commitment The results of the regression analysis show that interpersonal justice perceptions had a significant relationship with organisational commitment (B=0.179, p=0.005). this implies that an increase in interpersonal justice perception of 0.179 units will cause a unit increase in organisational commitment. This finding concurs with Greenberg (1993) who noted that individuals are less inclined to sue their former employers on the grounds of wrongful termination than those who believe they were treated in an opposite manner. Skarlicki and Latham (1996) also found that when union leaders were trained to behave more justly by providing explanations and apologies and treating people they were overseeing with courtesy and respect, the individuals who reported to the trained leaders were more supportive and cooperative than individuals working under untrained union leaders. On the other hand, Bies and Shapiro (1987) found out that people who received negative outcomes such as being turned down for a job were more likely to accept those results as fair when a reasonable explanation was offered than when no such explanations were provided 4.4.5 Hypothesis Testing The null hypothesis that; there is no statistically significant relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya was rejected at 0.05 significance level. Therefore, this study concluded that there is statistically significant relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and employee commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. The optimal model was; Organisational Commitment =2.075+0.179 (interpersonal justice perceptions) + ℮ 5.0 DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1 Discussion Interpersonal justice focuses on the conduct of those who enforce the procedures, such as whether they are respectful and polite to those affected by the procedures (Wenzel, 2005). Interpersonal justice refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment employees receive when procedures are implemented (Greenberg, 1993). Interpersonal justice deals with whether and how employees are treated with politeness, dignity and respect by those who execute procedures and outcome distribution details in a respectful and proper manner, and justified decisions using honest and truthful information. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 69 Descriptive analysis of perceptions of interpersonal justice showed that employees are to a great extent concerned with the interpersonal treatment that they experience at the work place. Correlation and regression analysis showed significant levels of relationship between interpersonal justice perceptions and commitment. The results of the study showed that interpersonal justice perceptions positively influence affective and normative commitment. Based on these findings, it can be argued that fair treatment by organizational leaders during the enactment of decisions creates a closer, open ended social exchange relationship. Employees who perceive that they have been interpersonally fairly treated will feel obligated to repay their supervisor or organisation through increased commitment. 5.2 Conclusions Based on the findings, the study concluded that interpersonal justice perceptions have a positive and significant relationship with affective, continuance and normative commitment in health sector non-governmental organizations in Kenya. 5.3 Recommendations Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which employees are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes. Given the same outcomes and procedures, when employees are treated with dignity and respect, their interpersonal justice perception is likely be higher than when they are treated rudely and with disrespect. Employees seek interpersonal justice through justification, truthfulness, respect and propriety. Extant literature shows that the undervaluing of unjust treatment of interpersonal nature may cause anger, discontent and resentment in an organizational context. Perceived interpersonal injustice has also been associated with work place deviance. Workplace deviance represents voluntary and intentional action that is counter to organizational norms and harmful to organizational functioning. Examples of workplace deviance include withholding effort, theft, insubordination, physical aggression, and verbal abuse. Day-to-day, interpersonal encounters are frequent in organizations. The findings from the study showed that though positive, interpersonal justice has a low explanatory power on affective and normative commitment and none on continuance commitment. This finding indicates that there is a need to promote interpersonal justice amongst health NGOs. Interpersonal justice should therefore be promoted through treatment of employees with politeness, respect and dignity by their supervisors and other organizational leaders. This way, organizations will not only benefit from a committed workforce, but also improve employee relations and thereby minimize the consequences of retributive justice emanating from employee workplace deviance actions. 5.4 Areas for Further Research There is a need to undertake further studies in order to widen the generalizability of the findings and also establish reasons for the variations in the findings on the low influence of justice perceptions in the NGO sector in Kenya compared to the strong influence reported in studies conducted in other sectors in the rest of the world. Such studies are also likely to identify what are, if any, the other factors which influence employee commitment in the NGO sector. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 70 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). „Inequity in social exchange‟. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Academic Press, 2, 267–99. Akanbi, P.A., & Ofoegbu, O.E. (2013). Impact of perceived organizational justice on organizational commitment of a food and beverage firm in Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3 (14), 207-218 Bartlett, K. (2001). The relationship between training and organizational commitment: A study in the health care field. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(4), 335- 352. Batti, R.C.(2014). Human Resource Management Challenges Facing Local NGOs. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2 (4). Bayer, L. (2009). The investment model and organizational commitment: Predicting workplace behaviours. Haverford: Haverford College. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 33-42. Berg, B. (2001). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (4th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for justice. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 43–55 Blau, G. J., & Boal, K. B. (1987). Conceptualizing how job involvement and organizational commitment affect turnover and absenteeism. The Academy of Management Review, 12(2): 288-300. Brown, M.W & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, editors. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage; 1993. pp. 136–162. Browning, V. (2006). The relationship between HRM practices and service behaviour in South African service organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 17, 1321-1338. Brum, S. (2007). What impact does training have on employee commitment and employee turnover? University of Rhode Island. Schmidt Labor Research Center Seminar Research Series. Buchanan, B., (1974). Building organizational commitment: The socialization of managers in work organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 533-546 http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 71 Bulut, C & Culha, O (2010). The effects of organizational training on organizational commitment. International Journal of Training and Development, 14(4), 309-322. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1733320 Caldwell, D.F., Chatmun, J. A. & O‟ReiIIy C. A. (1990). Building organizational commitment: A multifirm study. Journal of Occupational Psychology. 63, 245-261 Cascio, W. F. (2003). Changes in workers, work, and organizations. In W. Borman, R. Klimoski, & D. Ilgen (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, volume 12: Industrial and organizational psychology: 401-422. New York: John Wiley. Chang, E. (2005). Employees‟ overall perception of HRM effectiveness. Human Relations, 58(4), 523-544. citizenship behaviour within a labour union: A test of organizational justice theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,161-9. Clason, D. L., & Dormody, T. J. (1994). Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35(4), 31- 35. Coetzee, M. (2005). The fairness of affirmative action: An organizational justice perspective. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. E. (2001). „The role of justice in organizations: a meta- analysis‟. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of the literature. Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 159-200. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113– 152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.). The handbook of organizational justice (3–56). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee theft as a social exchange process. Research in Organizational Behaviour, 18, 111-156. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ http://ssrn.com/abstract%3D1733320 European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 72 Greenberg, J., & Wiethoff, C. (2001). Organizational justice as proaction and reaction: Implications for research and application. Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Griffin, M.L. & Hepburn, J. (2005). Side-bets and reciprocity as determinants of organizational commitment among correctional officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33 (6), 611-625. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 105-117 Kothari, C, R. (2008). Research methodology, methods and techniques. (2nd Ed.). New Delhi: New Age International. Kumar, R, (2005) Research Methodology-A Step-by-Step Guide for Beginners,(2nd.ed.),Singapore, Pearson Education. Lamba, S. & Coudhary, N. (2013). Impact of HRM practices on organizational commitment of employees. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 2 (4). Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Gergen, K. J, Greenberg, M. S. & Willis, R. H. (Eds.), Social Exchange: Advances in theory and research, New York: Plenum. 27– 55. Minbaeva, D. B. (2005). HRM practices and MNC knowledge transfer. Personal Review, Vol.34, (1): 125-144. Mitchell, T. R., Holtom, B. C., Lee, T. W., Sablynski, C. J., & Erez, M. (2001). Why people stay: Using job embeddedness to predict voluntary turnover. The Academy of Management Journal, 44 (6), 1102-1121 Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,(6), 845-855. Quarles R. (1994). An examination of promotion opportunities and evaluation criteria as mechanism for affecting internal auditor commitment, job satisfaction and turnover intentions Journal of Managerial Issues 6: 176 194 Raza, K., Adnan R., Nosheen, Qadir., M., & Rana, A. (2013). Relationship between distributive justice, procedural justice and organizational commitment: An empirical analysis on public sector of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 16, 878-883. http://www.ajpojournals.org/ European Journal of Human Resource ISSN 2520-4697 (Online) Vol.1, Issue 1 No.1, pp51-73, 2017 www.ajpojournals.org 73 Rodgers, J. L. and Nicewander, W. A. (1988). Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. American Statistician, 42, 59-66. Rubin A. and Babbie, E. 2010. Essential Research Methods for Social Work. 2nd ed. Belmont (Calif.): Brooks/Cole: Cengage Learning. Solinger, O., Van Olffen, W. & Roe, R.A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (1), 70-83. http://www.ajpojournals.org/