Meyer and Allen created this model for two reasons: Mercurio extended this model by reviewing the empirical and theoretical studies on organizational commitment.
Overview[ edit ] Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. The four proposed components are distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice.
Corporate social responsibility[ edit ] A concept related to organizational justice is corporate social responsibility CSR.
Organizational justice generally refers to perceptions of fairness in treatment of individuals internal to that organization while corporate social responsibility focuses on the fairness of treatment of entities external to the organization. Corporate social responsibility refers to a mechanism by which businesses monitor and regulate their performance in line with moral and societal standards such that it has positive influences on all of its stakeholders Carroll, Thus, CSR involves organizations going above and beyond what is moral or ethical and behaving in ways that benefit members of society in general.
Inputs refer to what a person perceives to contribute e.
Types[ edit ] Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice which includes informational and interpersonal justice. Distributive[ edit ] Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources.
The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible e. Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied Adams, Procedural[ edit ] Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes.
When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced Leventhal, A construct validation study by Colquitt suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: Interpersonal justice "reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes".
Informational justice "focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion".
Proposed models[ edit ] Three different models have been proposed to explain the structure of organizational justice perceptions including a two factor model, a three factor model, and a four factor model. Many researchers have studied organizational justice in terms of the three factor model e. Greenberg proposed a two-factor model and Sweeney and McFarlin found support for a two-factor model composed of distributive and procedural justice.
Through the use of structural equation modelingSweeney and McFarlin found that distributive justice was related to outcomes that are person-level e.
The accuracy of the two-factor model was challenged by studies that suggested a third factor interactional justice may be involved. Bies and Moag argue that interactional justice is distinct from procedural justice because it represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment whereas procedural justice represents the processes that were used to arrive at the decision outcomes.
Colquitt demonstrated that a four-factor model including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice fit the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Thus, rather than focus on justice as the three or four factor component model, Byrne suggested that employees personify the organization and they distinguish between whether they feel the organization or supervisor have treated them fairly interactionaluse fair procedures proceduralor allocate rewards or assignments fairly distributive justice.
A number of researchers used this model exploring the possibility that justice is more than just 3 or 4 factors e.Jun 17, · The impact of HR practices on HR outcomes and organizational outcomes proved substantially larger than their impact on financial outcomes.
Furthermore, with respect to HR and organizational outcomes, the hypotheses concerning the full mediating effect of . 1. To establish the effect of monetary rewards on performance of KCB employees in Migori County.
2. To establish the effect of job enrichment on performance of KCB employees in Migori County. 3. To determine the effect of training on performance of KCB employees in Migori County.
4. Islamic Banking Context: The Role of Organizational Culture as a Mediator positively related with employees’ performance. Employees Organizational Culture and Organizational Commitment Organizational culture acts as an important predictor in.
performance of commercial banks is influenced by bank-specific factors and industry specific factors, locally very few studies have been done to determine the key factors that influence the financial performance of commercial banks.
Employee performance is the combined result of effort, ability, and perception of tasks (Platt, ). Employees‟ performance is imperative for organizational outcomes and success.
Many factors influence employee performance; and workplace environment factors stands out . Transactional, Participative, Supportive And Instrumental) On Organizational Performance Of Select Banking Organizations In Jammu and Kashmir, India.
At The Same Time, The Secondary Objective Of This Research Impact Of Leadership Styles On Organizational Performance.