International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 2 (2), December 2018 International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 110 | P a g e International Journal Human Capital Available online at Management http://journal.unj.ac.id/unj/index.php/ijhcm E-ISSN 2580-9164 Vol. 6, No. 1, June 2022, p 110-123 THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE DIMENSIONS ON AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEES’ COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR Muhammad Zakiy Sharia Economics Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta Email: muhammad.zakiy@fai.umy.ac.id Muhsin Hariyanto Sharia Economics Department, Universitas Muhammadiyah Yogyakarta Email: muhsin@umy.ac.id ABSTRACT Employees' work dynamics in companies are very diverse. Some employees have high commitments, and others are very low. Likewise, the counterproductive behavior of employees in every company is also high or low. The importance of the two factors for the continuity of company operations incites the investigation to ponder the role of the dimensions of justice on affective commitment and counterproductive work behavior of employees in Islamic Financial Institutions (LKS) in DIY. Researchers distributed questionnaires to 219 employees from several LKS in DIY with purposive sampling. The data were then analyzed through SEM-PLS, which measures the research instrument and the influence between the research variables. The results of this study indicated that only procedural and interactional justice trigger affective commitment and deviant workplace behavior, while distributive justice is unable to influence these two variables. The study contributed to LKS managers maintaining a work environment that upholds the principles of justice to increase affective commitment and minimize employees' deviant behavior. Keywords: counterproductive behavior, affective commitment, organizational justice, Islamic financial institutions, DIY Received: 2 January 2022 Accepted: 31 May 2022 Publish: 1 Juni 2022 How to Cite: Zakiy, M., Hariyanto, M (2022). THE INFLUENCE OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE DIMENSIONS ON AFFECTIVE COMMITMENT AND EMPLOYEES’ COUNTERPRODUCTIVE BEHAVIOR. International Journal of Human Capital Management, 6(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.21009/IJHCM.06.01.10 http://journal.unj.ac.id/unj/index.php/ International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 111 | P a g e INTRODUCTION Affective commitment is an essential factor that companies want their employees to have. The emotional attachment of employees to their organization gives employees more leverage in carrying out the work. Allen et al. (2016) described affective commitment as an employee's pride in the organization and willingness to exert effort for the organization. With affective commitment, the company's management benefits because employee behavior is formed based on love for the company so that employees are willing to sacrifice for the advancement of the company. Employees who have an affective commitment to the company are earnest in carrying out the tasks assigned to them because employees believe that the tasks given are steps to achieve company goals. Several previous studies have confirmed the role of affective commitment on OCB (Buch, Kuvaas and Dysvik, 2019), employee performance (Ogbonnaya, 2019; Khalid, 2020; Kim, 2020), and innovative behavior (Ogbonnaya and Messersmith, 2019). In addition to affective commitment, the researcher tried to look at the factors that the company does not expect from its employees, known as counterproductive work behavior. This behavior is undesirable because it can harm the company and have a negative influence on other employees. This employee's counterproductive work behavior is certainly based on the employee's perception of company support. Referring to the Social Exchange theory, employees will reciprocate the organization's treatment of themselves as the organization treats itself so that employees who feel aggrieved by the organization employees will perform counterproductive work behavior. Employees who feel low job satisfaction and think about leaving the company are also very likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior (Holtom, Burton and Crossley, 2012; Mai et al., 2016). Mitchell & Ambrose (2007) defined counterproductive work behavior as voluntary behavior that violates organizational norms and is detrimental to the organization and its members. Several previous studies have confirmed the negative impact of counterproductive work behaviors such as harming the organization, threatening employee welfare, increasing employee stress, financial losses to the company, and harming customers (Robinson and Bennet, 1995; Xu, Zhou and Du, 2016; Lavelle et al., 2018; Chi and Grandey, 2019). Given the importance of the variables of affective commitment and employee counterproductive work behavior, it is necessary to look at the antecedents of these variables. One of the critical factors causing affective commitment and counterproductive work behavior of employees is the perception of organizational justice felt by employees. Several previous studies have proven the vital role of organizational justice on affective commitment (Ohana, 2014; Bashir et al., 2020) and counterproductive work behavior (Lavelle et al., 2018; Rubino et al., 2018). Research by (Hadi, Tjahjono and Palupi, 2020) also explains that organizational justice has a positive effect on Pay satisfaction, Ethical decision, Job satisfaction, Affective communication, Intention to join and keep working, and Commitment. Perceptions of justice are felt by employees as a form of relationship between employees and the organization, so that perceived justice is caused by the organization's treatment of its employees. Organizational justice is also perceived differently between employees in an organization because the perceptions felt by employees of the justice provided by the organization are different. For this reason, the increase in affective commitment and counterproductive work behavior of employees can vary within an organization. Several types of organizational justice that have been defined by experts are suspected of having a significant effect on increasing employees' affective commitment and work behavior, such as distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (Majang Palupi and Tjahjono, 2016; Lavelle et al., 2018; Bashir et al., 2020). Distributive justice refers to the fair allocation of results according to performance (Sherf, Venkataramani and Gajendran, 2016; Tamta and Rao, 2017). This justice is for someone whose work motivation is money-oriented, so companies need to pay close attention to this type of justice. This fairness is perceived by employees by comparing the income they receive with the income of their co-workers or employees in other companies with similar work positions. In addition, employees also compare the income they receive with the performance so that employees will feel unfair if the compensation given is not in accordance with their contribution. By comparing income with employee performance, the perception of distributive justice can be felt. If distributive justice is perceived as high by employees, it is possible to create an employee's affective commitment (Sahu and Pathardikar, 2014). Likewise, high distributive justice may reduce counterproductive work behavior because the company has given rights in accordance International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 112 | P a g e with the justice felt by employees (Marcano and Castaño-Collado, 2020). The second justice is procedural justice, defined as giving influence over the decision-making process and the way to appeal decisions, making decisions based on accurate and consistent data (Sherf, Venkataramani and Gajendran, 2016; Lavelle et al., 2018). This fairness shows how the company provides procedures that are in accordance with the applicable provisions for decision-making. Employees who are involved in the work and activities of the organization can feel the procedural justice that occurs in the company. Employees will perceive procedural justice given to them through work processes such as sharing authority and responsibility so that the role of leaders and organizations in improving procedural justice is needed. Employees who feel they are treated fairly by the organization will feel emotionally attached to the organization so that it is possible to create affective commitment from employees. Vice versa, employees who feel that there is no procedural justice in the organization, do not feel emotionally attached to the organization, so counterproductive work behavior may occur (Marcano and Castaño-Collado, 2020). In addition to these two justices, interactional justice is also seen as necessary in creating affective commitment and counterproductive work behavior of employees. Employees who feel they are treated fairly, such as good communication, providing clear information, and good interpersonal relationships with superiors and organization members, will create an emotional attachment for these employees. According to Tamta & Rao (2017), interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment of the person who controls the procedure in determining the outcome. Interactional justice is emerging as an essential component of managerial justice because of its prominence on the human aspect in organizational contexts. Well-cared employees will feel that they have an emotional attachment and affective commitment, leading to decreased counterproductive work behavior. The purpose of this study was to examine organizational justice perceived by the employees of Islamic banks in DIY. The justice felt by Islamic Bank employees is expected to increase affective commitment and reduce counterproductive work behavior. The selection of Islamic banks is because the industry has very good prospects in Indonesia with the Muslim majority (As’ad, 2020; Dawami, 2021; Hasan, 2021; Muchlis and Fathurrahman, 2021) and McKinsey & Company (2012) also predicted the good financial industry prospects in Indonesia, although research from (Listiono, 2020) explains that Islamic religious institutions do not affect economic growth in Indonesia. Also, Islamic banking is relatively new when compared to conventional banks, and public awareness of Islamic banks is still minimal which highly need commitment from employees in order to compete (Sheikh, 2021; Sulaiman et al., 2021). Besides, banking institutions are very vulnerable to counterproductive work behavior and fraud/deviation (Mason and Bohm, 2017). To overcome these problems, organizational justice is needed to provide facilities to employees so that they do not take actions that harm the company. LITERATURE REVIEW Social Exchange Theory explains that a person will reciprocate the treatment of others as how a person treats himself (Zakiy, 2019; Utami and Zakiy, 2020). The organizational support in the form of providing good justice will be adjusted by employees by reciprocating the treatment through increased commitment and avoiding counterproductive work behavior. On the other hand, inappropriate organizational justice is very likely to reduce employee commitment and increase counterproductive work behavior. The dynamics of diverse organizational life possibly give employees a feeling of unfairness between co-workers. In addition to the Social Exchange Theory, the fairness felt by employees is closely related to the Equity Theory, where employees will compare their work results with the work of their colleagues (inputs) linked to the income (outputs) produced by both. If the work results between the two are the same, then the income earned must be the same. If the income earned between these two individuals is different, then there is a distributive injustice that causes employees to be dissatisfied with their work. Gollwitzer et al. (2009) explained that employees who feel injustice in the organization would be motivated to defend themselves by engaging in uncooperative behavior and hostile attitudes towards the organization. Thus, organizational justice perceived by employees is closely related to the attitude of commitment and counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 113 | P a g e Distributive justice, affective commitment, and counterproductive work behavior Cases of employee counterproductive work behavior often occur because employees feel that there is no match between work results and the income provided by the organization. This condition will indirectly give a loss to the organization because counterproductive work behavior of employees can reduce performance and affect the performance of other employees. Giving fair salary incentives by the company can make employees feel emotionally attached to the company and willing to give their best for the advancement of the company. Scheller & Harrison (2018) argued that providing incentives for work results that are in accordance with employee performance provide employee satisfaction so that employees' counterproductive work behavior can be minimized by the company. Several previous studies have proven that distributive justice can increase commitment and minimize counterproductive work behavior (Sahu and Pathardikar, 2014; Scheller and Harrison, 2018; Marcano and Castaño-Collado, 2020). Thus, the following is the first and second hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Distributive justice has a positive effect on employees' affective commitment. Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice has a negative effect on counterproductive work behavior. Procedural justice, affective commitment, and counterproductive work behavior The company's work environment greatly determines the comfort of employees' work (Kowo and Akanmu, 2021), so the need for procedural justice provided by the organization must be adequately maintained. Making fair rules, consistent policies, and not in favor of certain individuals or groups are examples to create good procedural justice in the organization. The decision-making process in the company is an essential thing that employees pay attention to while in the company. Employees who perceive that the company's decision- making process is fair will feel that the organization pays attention to employee rights so that employees' affection rises. Vice versa, counterproductive work behavior is very likely to be carried out by employees if they feel that the decision-making process carried out by the company is not in favor of them. Xiao et al. (2018) explained that low procedural fairness could lead to hostility towards the organization and reduce employee commitment so that they spend less time on their work and even commit absenteeism or theft for self-compensation. For the above reasons, the next hypotheses are: Hypothesis 3: Keadilan prosedural berpengaruh positif terhadap komitmen afektif karyawan. Hypothesis 4: Keadilan prosedural berpengaruh negatif terhadap perilaku kerja kontraproduktif karyawan. Interactional justice, affective commitment, and counterproductive work behavior Humans are social creatures who need good interactions with one another. Likewise, employees who consider the need for interaction with leaders and organization members are vital to achieving employee job satisfaction. Good interpersonal communication between leaders and employees, as well as providing clear information regarding the results of decisions made by company leaders, make employees feel close to the organization so that employees' affective commitment can be created. On the other hand, employees who feel they have been treated unfairly, provide unclear information, and have bad interpersonal relationships with company leaders are very likely to engage in counterproductive work behavior. Several previous studies have proven that interactional justice can increase affective commitment and decrease employee counterproductive work behavior (Lavelle et al., 2018; Ohana and Stinglhamber, 2019). Therefore, the subsequent hypotheses are: H5: Interactional justice has a positive effect on employees' affective commitment. H6: Interactional justice has a negative effect on employees' counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 114 | P a g e Figure 1. Research Model METHODOLOGY Sample and Procedures A total of 219 LKS employees of Bank Muamalat, BPRS Madina, Pegadaian Syariah, Asuransi Syariah Takaful Keluarga, BMT Bina Insanul Fikri, dan BMT Tamzis were treated as research samples through purposive sampling. Respondents who filled out questionnaire data online and offline were 263 employees. However, there were 44 respondents who did not complete the questionnaire and were not serious in answering the questionnaire questions, so that the final data that could be processed in this study were only 219 (83.27%). The gender of respondents was dominated by men, with 131 (59.8%) people. For their age, most of them were 21 - 30 years old, with a total of 99 people (45.2%). In the education category, undergraduate employees were the most with 149 people (68%). For the working duration, 71 respondents have worked for 3-5 years (32.4%). In the income category, the majority earned 3.1 – 5 million of 38.4%. Lastly, the majority of respondents (62) were marketing staff (28.3%). Measures To measure all variables in this study, we adopted the instruments in previous studies. Employees were asked to explain their perceptions of the research variables. The study used a 5-point Likert scale with the following scores: 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. After that, the employees answered questions related to demographics and then continued with questions about the latent variables in this study. The test continued with instrument testing and hypothesis testing using SEM-PLS. Distributive Justice Distributive justice is the allocation of fair results according to performance (Sherf, Venkataramani and Gajendran, 2016; Tamta and Rao, 2017). The study applied four developed statement indicators (Colquitt, 2001). Some statements such as compensation describe the effort, according to the workload, according to contribution to the organization, and according to performance. An example of a statement item is “Compensation earned at work reflects the effort put in by the employee”. Procedural Justice Procedural justice is defined as giving effect to the decision-making process and the way to appeal decisions, making decisions based on accurate and consistent data (Sherf, Venkataramani and Gajendran, 2016; Lavelle et al., 2018), and measured by a 7-item statement (Colquitt, 2001). The statements consisted of consistency, free of bias, the accuracy of the information, correctness of representation, and ethics. An example of a statement item is “Employees can provide opinions or views when making a decision”. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 115 | P a g e Interactional Justice Interactional justice refers to the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment of the person who controls the procedure in determining the outcome (Tamta and Rao, 2017). The indicators in measuring interactional justice used nine indicators developed by Niehoff & Moorman, 1993. Interactional justice was measured using 9 statement items using a Likert scale. An example of a statement item was “The leader treats employees well”. Affective Commitment Meyer & Allen (1991) defined affective commitment as an employee's emotional attachment, self-identification with the organization, and involvement in the organization. To measure affective commitment, we used an 8-item statement developed by DSC (Allen & Meyer, 1990). An example of a statement item in this variable was, “I feel happy spending my career with this organization”. Counterproductive Work Behavior Counterproductive work behavior refers to intentional behavior and has a negative impact on the interests of the organization and its members (Gruys and Sackett, 2003; Lavelle et al., 2018). The measurement was through 16 statement items compiled in 4 developed dimensions (Robinson and Bennet, 1995). An example of a statement item was “I intentionally slowed down the completion of a task”. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Descriptive Statistics The average value, standard deviation, and correlation between variables could be seen in table 1. From the 5 points Likert scale, the affective commitment had a mean of 3.84, counterproductive work behavior of 1.95, distributive justice of 3.85, procedural justice of 3.94, and interactional justice of 3.94. For the correlation between variables in this study, counterproductive work behavior was negatively related to all other variables, while affective commitment was positively related to the dimension of justice. Measurement Model The validity test used confirmatory factor analysis with SEM-PLS with the loading factor of each item 0.70. In this study, the convergent validity and discriminant validity approaches were applied. For convergent validity, a loading factor of 0.70 was applied for a more convincing validity indicator. In testing the instrument, there was 1 question item that was not valid because the loading factor was less than 0.70 in CWB 1. Therefore, it was excluded. The validity test could be seen in table 2 below: Table 1. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation M SD 1 2 3 4 5 Affective commitment 3.84 0.719 Counterproductive work behavior 1.95 0.876 -0.276** Distributive justice 3.85 0.860 0.252** -0.528** Procedural justice 3.94 0.761 0.327** -0.555** 0.526** Interactional justice 3.94 0.761 0.360** -0.617** 0.631** 0.667** Note: N = 168; *p < .05, **p < .01. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 116 | P a g e To test discriminant validity, it could be seen from the cross-loading value of each variable with its constructs or by comparing the AVE roots. From the results of the discriminant validity test, the cross- loading value of each variable was greater than the loading of a variable with other variables. The measurement of discriminant validity was in table 3 below: Table 2. Factor loadings (FL), average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliabilities (CR) Construct Items FL AVE CR Affective commitment AC 1 AC 2 AC 3 AC 4 AC 5 AC 6 AC 7 AC 8 0.779 0.786 0.810 0.825 0.812 0.819 0.872 0.857 0.673 0.943 Counterproductive work behavior CWB 2 CWB 3 CWB 4 CWB 5 CWB 6 CWB 7 CWB 8 CWB 9 CWB 10 CWB 11 CWB 12 CWB 13 CWB 14 CWB 15 CWB 16 0.798 0.869 0.849 0.847 0.910 0.902 0.903 0.913 0.865 0.867 0.907 0.876 0.918 0.928 0.913 0.783 0.982 Distributive justice DJ 1 DJ 2 DJ 3 DJ 4 0,940 0,945 0,949 0,945 0.893 0.971 Procedural justice PJ 1 PJ 2 PJ 3 PJ 4 PJ 5 PJ 6 PJ 7 0.845 0.852 0.875 0.853 0.879 0.822 0.880 0.737 0.951 Interactional justice IJ 1 IJ 2 IJ 3 IJ 4 IJ 5 IJ 6 IJ 7 IJ 8 IJ 9 0.871 0.895 0.708 0.801 0.859 0.851 0.881 0.884 0.878 0.721 0.959 International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 117 | P a g e Structural Model Hypothesis testing was to answer research questions by analyzing the structural model. Structural analysis in this study could be seen from the value of standardized regression weight to explain the coefficient of influence between variables in this study. An explanation of the causal relationship was in table 4 below. From the results of hypotheses tests in table 4, the regression coefficient of the effect of distributive justice on affective commitment (β= -0.013; t= 0.151; p> 0.10) showed that distributive justice had no effect on affective commitment. The results of testing the hypothesis proved that the first hypothesis was rejected. For the second hypothesis, the regression coefficient of the effect of distributive justice had no effect on counterproductive work behavior (β= -0.151; t= 1.530; p> 0.10). Thus, the results did not support the second hypothesis in this study. Next, the regression coefficient of the effect of procedural justice on affective commitment (β = 0.163; t = 1.752; p <0.10) proved that procedural justice had a positive effect on affective commitment. The results of testing the hypothesis provide support for the third hypothesis. Thus, the higher the procedural justice perceived by LKS employees in Yogyakarta also led to higher affective commitment. For the fourth hypothesis, the regression coefficient of procedural justice had a negative effect on counterproductive work behavior (β= -0.361; t= 3.043; p<0.010). The results of the hypothesis testing supported the fourth hypothesis. Consequently, the higher the procedural justice perceived by LKS employees in Yogyakarta caused lower counterproductive work behavior. Table 3. Discriminant Validity Variable AC DWB DJ PJ IJ AC 0.821 CWB -0.375 0.885 DJ 0.314 -0.573 0.945 PJ 0.410 -0.681 0.586 0.858 IJ 0.460 -0.681 0.662 0.728 0.849 Table 4. Hypotheses Tests Hypothesis Independent variables → Dependent variables Std. Beta T-value P-value Decision H1 Distributive justice Affective commitment -0.013 0.151 0.880 Rejected H2 Distributive justice Counterproductive behavior -0.151 1.530 0.126 Rejected H3 Procedural justice Affective commitment 0.163 1.752 0.080* Supported H4 Procedural justice Counterproductive behavior -0.361 3.043 0.002*** Supported H5 Interactional justice Affective commitment 0.350 3.539 0.000*** Supported H6 Interactional justice Counterproductive behavior -0.318 2.332 0.020** Supported * P≤0,10 **P ≤ 0,05; *** P≤0,001 International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 118 | P a g e Figure 2. Path Coefficient Inner Model For the following hypothesis, the regression coefficient of the effect of procedural justice positively affected affective commitment (β = 0.350; t = 3.539; p <0.010). The results of testing the hypothesis supported the fifth hypothesis. Thus, the higher the interactional justice felt by LKS employees in Yogyakarta, the higher the employee's affective commitment. For the sixth hypothesis, the regression coefficient of the effect of procedural justice on counterproductive work behavior (β= -0.318; t= 2.332; p<0.050) proved that interactional justice had a negative effect on counterproductive work behavior. The results of hypothesis testing supported the sixth hypothesis. Also, the higher the interactional justice felt by LKS employees in Yogyakarta, the lower the counterproductive work behavior. The testing of the first hypothesis indicated that distributive justice has no effect on the affective commitment of LKS employees in Yogyakarta. Accordingly, the provision of organizational obligations to employees, such as compensation, was not able to have an impact on employee commitment. The rejection of the first hypothesis was because the provision of compensation had been given by the company as the company's obligation to fulfill the employee's rights. Thus, employees considered compensation as something done by the company not to increase their affective commitment. Second, Cognitive Evaluation Theory explained that intrinsic motivation would weaken if employees are given extrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Koh, Lee and Joshi, 2019). Giving fair compensation from the company is extrinsic motivation, while the employee's affective commitment to the company is intrinsic, so the size of the compensation given does not affect the employee's sense of emotional attachment to the organization. In line with the statement of Malhotra et al., (2007) that intrinsic reward is a stronger determinant of affective commitment than extrinsic reward. Testing the second hypothesis in this study indicated that distributive justice had no effect on counterproductive work behavior. In other words, the compensation provided by the company did not have an impact on the counterproductive work behavior of employees in LKS. This second hypothesis was not supported by several reasons. First, counterproductive work behavior mostly occurred due to employee internal attitudes and morals (Lavelle et al., 2018). Hence the compensation provided by the company cannot change a person's characteristics. If the employee has a good personality, then the employee will maximize his performance regardless of the compensation given to him. Likewise, in contrast to the high and low compensation given to employees with bad personalities, counterproductive International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 119 | P a g e work behavior will still occur. Second, counterproductive work behavior is largely determined by job satisfaction that comes from intrinsic instead of extrinsic motivation, so that extrinsic compensation is not able to have an impact on employees' counterproductive work behavior. This opinion is in line with the Two Factor Theory by Herzberg that job satisfaction can be formed from intrinsic motivation, not hygiene factors classified as extrinsic motivation (Scheller and Harrison, 2018). The results of testing the third hypothesis in this study emphasized that procedural justice had a positive effect on affective commitment. The provision of procedural justice within the company, such as clarity in decision making, fair regulation for employees, will increase the employee's affective commitment. Employees who experience the impact of company decisions will judge whether the decisions made are in accordance with expectations and fulfill the rights of employee justice so that these employees will feel connected to the organization. These results support the Social Exchange Theory, which explains that employees will increase their affective commitment if the employee feels that the policies made by the organization are fair to them. These results are also in line with research by (Outlaw et al., 2019) that procedural justice can increase employee affective commitment. The fairness of procedural outcomes can be evaluated from many aspects of procedural justice, such as the selection of decision-makers, appeal procedures, and methodologies of gathering information for making decisions (Qureshi et al., 2017). For this reason, employees need to have clarity about the reasons for making decisions in an organization that has an impact on them. The results on the fourth hypothesis in this study indicated that procedural justice negatively affected counterproductive work behavior. Consequently, the decision-making process perceived by employees as fulfilling the principles of fairness may weaken counterproductive work behavior instead. Lavelle et al. (2018) explained that low organizational justice could increase counterproductive work behavior for both supervisors and organizations. Limited information of individuals in responding to organizational policies forces them to evaluate justice subjectively (Tjahjono, Fachrunnisa and Palupi, 2019). Counterproductive work behavior is detrimental to the organization and other employees (Baer et al., 2018), so companies need to minimize this by increasing procedural justice. This study is in line with previous research, which explains that organizational justice can induce positive emotions that increase employees' willingness to engage in OCB, and injustice in organizations can worsen counterproductive work behavior (Baer et al., 2018; Rubino et al., 2018). Marcano & Castaño-Collado (2020) also stated that procedural justice is closely related to employee counterproductive work behavior. For the fifth hypothesis, interactional justice brought a positive effect on affective commitment. The provision of interactional justice in the company, such as communication and providing good information to employees, could increase the affective commitment of employees. Interpersonal communication is crucial in an organization so that employees feel valued and have clarity in doing their work. In addition, the provision of information provided to all employees can reduce disinformation that may affect employee compliance so that employees perceive the organization to support and appreciate it and will have an impact on employee commitment. These results also supported the Social Exchange Theory, which explains that company support for employees in the form of providing good justice will be interpreted by employees by increasing a sense of belonging to the organization (Outlaw et al., 2019). Consequently, interactional justice emphasizes humanity (Tamta and Rao, 2017; De Backer et al., 2020), so it is possible to explain the emotional attachment of employees to the organization. Lastly, the results of statistical testing supported the sixth hypothesis that interactional justice had a negative effect on counterproductive work behavior. Interpersonal injustice is very likely creating employee hatred in the organization, which can increase counterproductive behavior. Companies that pay personal attention to employees make employees feel that the organization cares so that employees are reluctant to engage in counterproductive behavior within the organization. These results were in line with the empirical research conducted by Wang et al. (2012) that interactional justice could affect counterproductive behavior. Interactional justice is more prominent than the other two justices because it describes the behavior of employees when they feel fairness in the organization (Qin et al., 2018). Therefore, the low interactional justice is very likely to be seen by the organization with the increasing counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 120 | P a g e CONCLUSION Justice in the organization should be fairly distributed for all employees so that employees can increase affective commitment and minimize counterproductive behavior. This study succeeded in proving the role of procedural and interactional justice in increasing affective commitment and reducing the counterproductive behavior of employees in LKS in Yogyakarta. However, distributive justice could not affect the affective commitment or counterproductive behavior of employees. This research had also succeeded in strengthening the Social Exchange Theory, which scientists widely used to predict individual behavior in organizations. Finally, this research was able to contribute to LKS managers in Yogyakarta for organizational management. This research has succeeded in making several contributions to LKS managers so that they can be applied to increase affective commitment and reduce employees' counterproductive work behavior. Procedural justice needs to be considered by managers because the results of this study may increase affective commitment and reduce counterproductive behavior. Managers can make policies that benefit all parties, including employees, not only concerned with organizational goals without considering employee goals. In addition, managers also need to pay attention to interactional justice in order to increase employee affective commitment and reduce counterproductive behavior. This can be done by providing clear information to employees and paying attention to the rights of employees in the organization. This research is inseparable from several weaknesses found during the research and is expected to be a reference for further research. First, the selection of counterproductive behavior variables is very likely to bias because the measurements are self-reported, which allows respondents to answer according to subjective norms applied in their environment. Researchers had tried to minimize this by presenting this study only for academic purposes and not reported individually but collectively. Further research needs to add confirmation to colleagues and organizations regarding cases that occur in the organization. Second, mediating variables are required for this study, such as job satisfaction, to explain the indirect effect between distributive justice on affective commitment and counterproductive work behavior. REFERENCES Allen, D. G., Peltokorpi, V. and Rubenstein, A. L. (2016) ‘When “embedded” means “stuck”: Moderating effects of job embeddedness in adverse work environments.’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(12), pp. 1670–1686. doi: 10.1037/apl0000134. Allen, N. J. and Meyer, J. P. (1990) ‘The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization’, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), pp. 1–18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x. As’ad, S. (2020) ‘Sharia Bank Marketing Communication Strategies in Increasing Brand Awareness (Study on Islamic Bank in Yogyakarta City)’, Afkaruna, 16(2). De Backer, M. et al. (2020) ‘Should team coaches care about justice? Perceived justice mediates the relation between coaches’ autonomy support and athletes’ satisfaction and self-rated progression’, International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching. doi: 10.1177/1747954120952571. Baer, M. D. et al. (2018) ‘The benefits and burdens of organizational reputation for employee well-being: A conservation of resources approach’, Personnel Psychology, 71(4), pp. 571–595. doi: 10.1111/peps.12276. Bashir, M. S. et al. (2020) ‘Moderated Mediation Between Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment: The Role of Procedural Justice and Career Growth Opportunities’, SAGE Open, 10(2), pp. 1–19. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/215824402093333. Buch, R., Kuvaas, B. and Dysvik, A. (2019) ‘The role of other orientation in reactions to social and economic leader–member exchange relationships’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(3), pp. 296–310. doi: 10.1002/job.2329. Budiman, A. et al. (2012) The new Indonesian consumer, McKinsey&Company. International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 121 | P a g e Chi, N. W. and Grandey, A. A. (2019) ‘Emotional Labor Predicts Service Performance Depending on Activation and Inhibition Regulatory Fit’, Journal of Management, 45(2), pp. 673–700. doi: 10.1177/0149206316672530. Colquitt, J. A. (2001) ‘On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), pp. 386–400. doi: 10.1037/0021- 9010.86.3.386. Dawami, Q. (2021) ‘Factors Determining the Successful Performance of Baitul Maal Wat Tamwil in Wonosobo’, International Journal of Islamic Economics and Finance (IJIEF), 4(1), pp. 79– 100. doi: 10.18196/ijief.v4i1.10484. Gollwitzer, M. et al. (2009) ‘Why and when justice sensitivity leads to pro- and antisocial behavior’, Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), pp. 999–1005. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2009.07.003. Gruys, M. L. and Sackett, P. R. (2003) ‘Investigating the Dimensionality of Counterproductive Work Behavior’, International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), pp. 30–42. doi: 10.1111/1468-2389.00224. Hadi, S., Tjahjono, H. K. and Palupi, M. (2020) ‘Study of organizational justice in smes and positive consequences: Systematic review’, International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3), pp. 4717–4730. Hasan, Z. (2021) ‘Making Indonesia as Integrated Halal Zone and World Halal Sector Hub Through the Implementation of Halal Supply Chain’, Journal of Islamic Economic and Business Research, 1(1), pp. 1–14. doi: 10.18196/jiebr.v1i1.11529. Holtom, B. C., Burton, J. P. and Crossley, C. D. (2012) ‘How negative affectivity moderates the relationship between shocks, embeddedness and worker behaviors’, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(2), pp. 434–443. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.006. Khalid, K. (2020) ‘The Impact of Managerial Support on the Association Between Pay Satisfaction, Continuance and Affective Commitment, and Employee Task Performance’, SAGE Open, 10(1). doi: 10.1177/2158244020914591. Kim, B.-J. (2020) ‘Unstable Jobs Harm Performance: The Importance of Psychological Safety and Organizational Commitment in Employees’, SAGE Open, 10(2), p. 215824402092061. doi: 10.1177/2158244020920617. Koh, D., Lee, K. and Joshi, K. (2019) ‘Transformational leadership and creativity: A meta-analytic review and identification of an integrated model’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(6), pp. 625–650. doi: 10.1002/job.2355. Kowo, S. A. and Akanmu, P. M. (2021) ‘The Efficacy of Entrepreneurship Orientation on SMEs’ Performance’, Journal of Islamic Economic and Business Research, 1(1), pp. 40–58. doi: 10.18196/jiebr.v1i1.11616. Lavelle, J. J. et al. (2018) ‘Multifoci effects of injustice on counterproductive work behaviors and the moderating roles of symbolization and victim sensitivity’, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(8), pp. 1022–1039. doi: 10.1002/job.2280. Listiono (2020) ‘The Impact of Religious Institutions on Economic Growth in Indonesia : Evidence from Selected Province’, Afkaruna, 16(1), pp. 40–58. doi: 10.18196/aiijis.2020.0112.40-57. Mai, K. M. et al. (2016) ‘Examining the effects of turnover intentions on organizational citizenship behaviors and deviance behaviors: A psychological contract approach.’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(8), pp. 1067–1081. doi: 10.1037/apl0000115. Majang Palupi and Tjahjono, H. K. (2016) ‘A Model of Religiousity and Organizational Justice: The Impact on Commitment and Dysfunctional Behavior’, Proceedings of The 27 International Business Information management Asociation Conference., (May), pp. 1781–1790. Malhotra, N., Budhwar, P. and Prowse, P. (2007) ‘Linking rewards to commitment: an empirical investigation of four UK call centres’, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(12), pp. 2095–2128. doi: 10.1080/09585190701695267. Marcano, B. and Castaño-Collado, G. (2020) ‘Application of the Measure of Peer Justice Climate to a Multiethnic Sample’, SAGE Open, 10(1), p. 215824401989882. doi: 10.1177/2158244019898828. Mason, S. and Bohm, N. (2017) ‘Banking and fraud’, Computer Law & Security Review, 33(2), pp. 237– International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 122 | P a g e 241. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2016.11.018. Meyer, J. P. and Allen, N. J. (1991) ‘A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment’, Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), pp. 61–89. doi: 10.1016/1053- 4822(91)90011-Z. Mitchell, M. S. and Ambrose, M. L. (2007) ‘Abusive supervision and workplace deviance and the moderating effects of negative reciprocity beliefs.’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), pp. 1159–1168. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.1159. Muchlis, Z. and Fathurrahman, A. (2021) ‘Profit and Risk for Property Business Using Sharia and Conventional System: A Comparative Analysis’, Afkaruna: Indonesian Interdisciplinary Journal of Islamic Studies, 17(1). doi: 10.18196/afkaruna.v17i1.11325. Niehoff, B. P. and Moorman, R. H. (1993) ‘Justice as mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and OCB’, Academy of Management journal, 36(3), pp. 527–556. Ogbonnaya, C. (2019) ‘Exploring possible trade-offs between organisational performance and employee well-being: The role of teamwork practices’, Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), pp. 451–468. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12238. Ogbonnaya, C. and Messersmith, J. (2019) ‘Employee performance, well-being, and differential effects of human resource management subdimensions: Mutual gains or conflicting outcomes?’, Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), pp. 509–526. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12203. Ohana, M. (2014) ‘A multilevel study of the relationship between organizational justice and affective commitment’, Personnel Review, 43(5), pp. 654–671. doi: 10.1108/PR-05-2013-0073. Ohana, M. and Stinglhamber, F. (2019) ‘Co-workers’ voice climate and affective commitment towards the team: A test of mediation and moderation’, Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), pp. 395–412. doi: 10.1111/1748-8583.12232. Outlaw, R. et al. (2019) ‘How fair versus how long: An integrative theory-based examination of procedural justice and procedural timeliness’, Personnel Psychology, 72(3), pp. 361–391. doi: 10.1111/peps.12309. Qin, X. et al. (2018) ‘Considering self-interests and symbolism together: How instrumental and value- expressive motives interact to influence supervisors’ justice behavior’, Personnel Psychology, 71(2), pp. 225–253. doi: 10.1111/peps.12253. Qureshi, H. et al. (2017) ‘Organisational justice’s relationship with job satisfaction and organisational commitment among Indian police’, The Police Journal: Theory, Practice and Principles, 90(1), pp. 3–23. doi: 10.1177/0032258x16662684. Robinson, S. L. and Bennet, R. J. (1995) ‘a Typology of Deviant Workplace Behaviors: a Multidimensional Scaling Study.’, Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), pp. 555–572. doi: 10.2307/256693. Rubino, C. et al. (2018) ‘And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment’, Personnel Psychology, 71(4), pp. 519–544. doi: 10.1111/peps.12274. Ryan, R. M. and Deci, E. L. (2000) ‘Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.’, American Psychologist, 55(1), pp. 68–78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. Sahu, S. and Pathardikar, A. D. (2014) ‘Job Cognition and Justice Influencing Organizational Attachment’, SAGE Open, 4(1), pp. 1–12. doi: 10.1177/2158244014524210. Scheller, E. M. and Harrison, W. (2018) ‘Ignorance Is Bliss, or Is It? The Effects of Pay Transparency, Informational Justice and Distributive Justice on Pay Satisfaction and Affective Commitment’, Compensation & Benefits Review, 50(2), pp. 65–81. doi: 10.1177/0886368719833215. Sheikh, I. A. (2021) ‘Prospects for Interest-Free Micro Finance in India: An Empirical Study’, Journal of Islamic Economic and Business Research, 1(1), pp. 15–39. doi: 10.18196/jiebr.v1i1.11578. Sherf, E., Venkataramani, V. and Gajendran, R. S. (2016) ‘Too Busy to Be Fair ? The Effect of Workload and Rewards on Managers ’ Justice Rule Adherence University of Maryland College Park , MD , United States Phone : 301-405-9631’, Academy of Management Journal. Sulaiman, S. M. et al. (2021) ‘Mediating Role of Customer Satisfaction between Service Quality and Customer Loyalty with Non-Interest Bank in Nigeria’, International Journal of Islamic International Journal of Human Capital Management, Vol. 6 (1), June 2022 123 | P a g e Economics and Finance (IJIEF), 4(1), pp. 1–30. doi: 10.18196/ijief.v4i1.10424. Tamta, V. and Rao, M. K. (2017) ‘Linking Emotional Intelligence to Knowledge Sharing Behaviour: Organizational Justice and Work Engagement as Mediators’, Global Business Review, 18(6), pp. 1580–1596. doi: 10.1177/0972150917713087. Tjahjono, H. K., Fachrunnisa, O. and Palupi, M. (2019) ‘Configuration of organisational justice and social capital: their impact on satisfaction and commitment’, International Journal of Business Excellence, 17(3), p. 336. doi: 10.1504/IJBEX.2019.097957. Utami, V. P. and Zakiy, M. (2020) ‘Linking Leader Member Exchange and Person Supervisor Fit With Employee Performance: The Mediating Role of Employee Work Engagement’, Journal of Leadership in Organizations, 2(2), pp. 121–137. Wang, W. et al. (2012) ‘Abusive supervision and workplace deviance: the mediating role of interactional justice and the moderating role of power distance’, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), pp. 43–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7941.2011.00004.x. Xiao, Z., Wu, D. and Liao, Z. (2018) ‘Job Insecurity and Workplace Deviance: The Moderating Role of Locus of Control’, Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 46(10), pp. 1673–1686. doi: 10.2224/sbp.7160. Xu, D., Zhou, K. Z. and Du, F. (2016) ‘Deviant versus Aspirational Risk Taking: The Effects of Performance Feedback on Bribery Expenditure and R&D Intensity Journal: Academy of Management Journal Deviant versus Aspirational Risk Taking: The Effects of Performance Feedback on Bribery Expenditur’, Academy of Management Journal. Zakiy, M. (2019) ‘The Moderating Effect Of Switching Cost On The Influence Of Price And Service Quality Towards Switching Intention’, 353(IcoSIHESS), pp. 161–167. doi: 10.2991/icosihess-19.2019.27.