Relationship between

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE
and

ORGANIZATIONAL ENGAGEMENT
in Public Sector Banks of Pakistan :
Mediating Role of

WORK ENGAGEMENT
MUHAMMAD SAJID
Government College University Faisalabad

Research Objectives
To study whether there is any interrelationship
between three dimensions of Organizational
Justice.
To explore whether Distributive Justice,
Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice are
positively
related
to
Organizational
Engagement.
Whether three dimensions of Organizational
Justice
are
significantly
related
to
Organizational Engagement mediated by Work
Engagement.

Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study is to explore whether perceptions of
Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice are related
to Organizational Engagement mediated by Work Engagement.
Methodology: A survey of 124 respondents from different public sector
banks in Pakistan (offices at Faisalabad) has been conducted. Data were
accumulated through questionnaire and analyzed on SPSS (v.20).
Results: Findings show that all three dimensions of organizational justice
predict the positive relationship with Organizational Engagement
significantly through mediation of Work Engagement. .
Implications: The study reveals how organizational justice affects the
employee engagement and depicts how organizational engagement and
work engagements can be improved through implementation of
organizational justice practices in the Public Sector Banks in Pakistan.

Conceptual Framework
Distribut
ive
Justice

Procedur
al justice

Interacti
onal
Justice

Work
Engage
ment

Organizati
onal

Engagem
ent

Organizational Justice
Three Dimensions
justice

of

Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice

organizational

Distributive Justice
Based on Equity Theory (Adams 1965)
Perceptions of individuals on the degree
to which rewards are distributed in
equitable, just and fair manner. (Niehoff and
Moorman 1993)

Distributive Justice exists when there is

equality between following
Expectations about rewards
Inputs at work place
Actual distribution of rewards

Procedural Justice
Fairness
issues
concerning
the
methods,
mechanisms,
and
processes
used
to
determine
outcomes (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998, p. 26)
Fairness, just and equitable rules and
regulations
followed
by
the
organization
in
deciding
and
determining
the
outcomes/benefits/rewards
of
employees in the organizations.

Interactional Justice
This dimension suggested by Bies and
Moag (1986).
Employees assign full focus and attention
on how respectfully and with dignity they
are treated by their colleagues, seniors,
supervisors etc. (Crow et al., 2012)
What is the quality of processes regarding
treatment of individuals and extent to
which outcomes are explained to them.

Employee Engagement
Two
Dimensions
Engagement

of

Employee

Work Engagement (Mediator in this study)

Organizational Engagement
this study)

(Dependent in

Work Engagement
A positive, fulfilling, work-related
state of mind that is characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption
(Schaufeli, 2002; Schaufeli and Bakker, 2010)

Basically a relationship or bond

between the employee and the work
role he is performing.
A state of mind of the employee that
is associated with vigor, dedication
and absorption.

Organizational Engagement
Involvement and strong association
of
the
employees
with
their
organization because they take a lot
of pride and honor for having
association with the organization and
being part of it Saks (2006)
It is all about attitude of the
employees and sense of attachment
to their organization.

Theorization of the Study

Equity Theory (Adams, 1965) argues that
social
behaviors
conditioned
by
the
distribution of outcomes. Individuals compare
their outcome/ input ratio to that of some
relevant person. Any imbalance in ratios
creates a sense of distress.
Social Exchange Theory (Blau, 1964)
suggests, employees consider their workplace
as social market-place where they are
interested to obtain favorable return on their
investment.

Hypotheses (Alternate)
H1a. There is a positive relationship between distributive justice and
Organizational engagement.
OE=f (DJ), OE= a+b1DJ+e
H1b. The relationship between distributive justice and
engagement is mediated by work engagement.
OE= F (DJ, WE), OE= A+b1DJ+b2WE+e

organizational

H2a. There is a positive relationship between procedural justice and

Organizational engagement.
OE=f (PJ), OE=a+b1PJ+e
H2b. The relationship between procedural justice and
engagement is mediated by work engagement.
OE= F (PJ, WE), OE= A+b1DJ+b2WE+e

organizational

H3a. There is a positive relationship between interactional justice and

Organizational engagement.
OE=f (IJ), OE=a+ b1IJ+e
H3b. The relationship between Interactional justice and organizational
engagement is mediated by work engagement.
OE= F (IJ, WE), OE= A+b1IJ+b2WE+e

Methodology
Population: Public Sector Banks in Pakistan having their
Branch offices in Faisalabad.
Sampling Technique: Non probability convenience
sampling
Sample Units: The study has been conducted on the
managerial and front level employees of public sector
banks
Sample Size: Initially 150, but reduced to 124
Response rate: 130 questionnaires received out of 150
delivered i.e., 87%.
Survey Method: Questionnaire
Data Analysis: Regression analysis on IBM SPSS (v.20)
and mediation effect on Sobel simple Mediation Model

Measures
Criterion Variable-OE: 6 items scale as
suggested by Saks (2006) is used to
measure the Organizational Engagement.
Internal consistency and validity with the
Cronbach's alpha scores are .87.
Mediating Variable-WE: 9 items scale as
suggested by Schaufeli et al. (2002) is used
to measure Work Engagement. Cronbach
alpha score .91

Measures
Predictor Variables:
Distributive Justice: 6-items scale suggested
by James L. Price (2000) to measure the
Distributional Justice. Cronbach alpha score .62
Procedural Justice: 6 items scale suggested
by James L. Price (2000) is used to measure
Procedural Justice. Cronbach alpha score .76
Interactional Justice: 9 items scale as
suggested by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) is
used to measure the Interactional Justice.
Cronbach alpha score .81

Analysis
Demographic Profile

Gender

Female; 26%

Male; 74%

Demographic Analysis Continued

Age of Respondents
40
35
30
25

Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
Less than 3 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16 years or above

Demographic Analysis Continued

Marital Status
Married

Unmarried

29%

71%

Demographic Analysis Continued

Experience in the Banking Sector

40
35
30
25

Frequency

20
15
10
5
0
Less than 3 years

3-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16 years or above

Mean, S.D., Correlation and Reliability

Matrix

Variables

Mea
n

S.D
.

Distributive Justice

3.22

.64

(0.619
)

Procedural Justice

3.19

.77

.886**

(0.764
)

Interactional Justice

3.47

.59

.688**

.664**

(0.805)

Work Engagement

3.55

.72

.701**

.642**

.742**

(0.90
9)

.754**

.694**

.740**

.805**

Organizational
Engagement

** p < .01

* p < .05

3.30

0.7
4

(0.869
)

Regression Analysis
OEa
Variables
Predictor
Distributive Justice

Model 1

Model 2

0.435**(0.07
0.878 (0.069)
9)
**

Mediator
0.557**(0.06
9)

Work Engagement

Overall R
Overall R2
Overall Model F
R2

0.754
0.569
161.064**

** p < .01 * p < .05

Dependent variable: Organizational Engagement
a
Entries are unstandardized coefficients, and values in parentheses are standard errors.

0.848
0.719
154.662**
0.15

Sobel Testa
Indirect Effect and Significance Using Normal
Distribution

Value

SE

Effect 0.4431 0.0688

LL95CI

UL95CI

Sig(two
)

0.3082

0.5779

6.4402

0.0000

Dependent: Organizational Engagement; Independent: Distributive Justice;

Mediating: Work Engagement
a

Regression Analysis
OEa
Variables
Predictor
Procedural Justice

Model 1

Model 2

0.292**(0.06
0.671 (0.063)
3)
**

Mediator
0.627**(0.06
6)

Work Engagement

Overall R
Overall R2
Overall Model F
R2

0.694
0.482
113.330**

** p < .01 * p < .05

Dependent variable: Organizational Engagement
a
Entries are unstandardized coefficients, and values in parentheses are standard errors.

0.837
0.701
142.073**
0.219

Sobel Testa
Indirect Effect and Significance Using Normal
Distribution

Value

SE

Effect 0.3797 0.0576

LL95CI

UL95CI

Sig(two
)

0.2667

0.4926

6.5862

0.0000

Dependent: Organizational Engagement; Independent: Procedural Justice;

Mediating: Work Engagement
a

Regression Analysis
OEa
Variables
Predictor
Interactional Justice

Model 1

Model 2

0.936 (0.077)

0.403**(0.09
5)

**

Mediator
0.583**(0.07
7)

Work Engagement

Overall R
Overall R2
Overall Model F
R2

0.740
0.548
148.000**

** p < .01 * p < .05

Dependent variable: Organizational Engagement
a
Entries are unstandardized coefficients, and values in parentheses are standard errors.

0.833
0.693
136.874**
0.145

Sobel Testa
Indirect Effect and Significance Using Normal
Distribution

Value

SE

Effect 0.5336 0.0831

LL95CI

UL95CI

Sig(two
)

0.3708

0.6964

6.4234

0.0000

Dependent: Organizational Engagement; Independent: Interactional Justice;

Mediating: Work Engagement
a

Results - Regression
Organizational Engagement was regressed separately
on each dimension of Organizational Justice.
Independent Variable was entered in the first block
whereas independent variable and mediator was
entered jointly in the second block.
As shown in the Regression Analysis Table (Model 1), the
each dimension of organizational justice is significantly
related to Organizational engagement.
Regression Analysis (Model 2) explains the changes in
the coeffients and overall values of R, R 2 and f. It has
been found that after inclusion mediator, the model has
improved significantly which supports our hypotheses.
(p .001).

Results Sobel (Mediation)

The collected data has also been analyzed on
Sobel Simple Mediation Model to check the
total direct & indirect effect sizes
Each dimension of Organizational justice has
been entered separately in the software and
their indirect effect have been given in the
table above.
The tables (Regression-Sobel) depict that the
indirect effects have been shown as highly
significant for all the predictor variables which
supports our hypotheses. (p .001).

Discussion on Results
The research paper studies the relationship of three
dimensions of Organizational justice i.e., procedural
justice, distributive justice and interactional justice
with
organizational
engagement
and
work
engagement through a mediation model.
The results show that the perception of
organizational justice in the minds of employees
increases the sense of ownership of their job roles
and association of organization.
When employees assume that all decisions made
by their supervisors are fair and just, their level of
organizational engagement increases.

Discussion on Results Continued..

Perceptions of employees about presence

of
established
rules,
policies
and
procedures helps in increasing the prestige
employees feel being part of the
organization.
Results show that the perceptions of
employees that they are being treated
with dignity and respect, their level of
Work Engagement and Organizational
Engagement improves significantly.

Conclusion
By ensuring all the three dimensions of
organizational justice, the organization can
improve the work & organizational engagement
of the employees.
In the public sector banks, it is of utmost
importance that in order to meet the challenges
posed by private banks, organizational justice
can improve employee loyalities.
The increase in Organizational and Work
engagements, the overall performance of the
organization improves considerably due to
increased productivity.

Limitation

Sample taken only from Faisalabad

Convenient Sampling

Future Research
Organizational justice relationship with
Organizational Citizenship behavior,
Employee
Commitment
and
Psychological Contracts of Librarians