Organizational Justice Effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior

Introduction

Justice and its relations in all aspects of society, including the behavior of individuals in organizations and all the consequences arising from this behavior, have recently attracted the attention of researchers. Justice has various forms and types of manifestation, and one of these forms is organizational justice. Observance of organizational justice is necessary to protect the labor rights and interests of employees, to protect their moral and physical health, which is primarily the key to the prosperity of the organization itself (Moliner, Cropanzano, & Martínez-Tur, 2017). The need for organizational justice is obvious and not in doubt, because without its availability, the implementation of other principles of social, organizational, and labor well-being, such as priority of organizational values, job satisfaction, customer satisfaction and productivity of direct contact with customers, becomes impossible.

Main body

In the modern world, in the programs of organizations, there are increasingly more new changes. The new approach, which is implemented by most modern organizations, in contrast to the traditional approach, is aimed at studying various indices, which are mainly intangible. In the administrative and managerial system, in the health care system, people’s satisfaction with state institutions is one of the main parameters in assessing and transforming the administrative system and the activities of state organizations.

One of the priority strategies of the leading organizations of the modern world is the strategy of attracting customers through high-quality satisfaction of their demand. Those organizations that instead of demanding from customers bring their interests to the forefront are gradually going bankrupt and are being removed from the field of competition. Studies show that organizational justice has a close relationship with labor productivity (Özbek, Yoldash, &·Tang, 2016). In addition, one of the most important outcomes of organizational justice is organizational citizenship behavior and its various aspects. In this regard, the consideration of the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship seems to be very relevant, especially in terms of the impact on the organizational culture as a whole and the corresponding organizational performance and the achievement of sustainable competitive advantages.

Literature Review

There are many different definitions of justice; the first definitions of justice are attributed to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Socrates said that justice is the basis of all values and benefits (Rawls, 2009). After Socrates, his disciple Plato devoted a whole chapter in his book to the problem of justice, which is considered the first study of this problem in the history of political and social thought. From the point of view of Plato, social justice exists in a society where each member engages in activities that correspond to his position and abilities; in a just person, the forces of rage and lust are under the power of the mind (Niroomand, 2013). From the point of view of Aristotle, justice is the fair relations of a person with other people who are equal with him in status and position (Moliner et al., 2017). According to Aristotle, the bulk of people embark on a revolutionary path because they feel that there is an injustice in power among themselves. From the point of view of Thomas Aquinas, real justice is possible only when the ruler gives everyone advantages in accordance with his merits (Moliner et al., 2017). In the days of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, rulers were considered subjects of social justice. In antiquity, when a polytheistic worldview prevailed, people believed that rulers, like celestial gods, had absolute power and were able to ensure social justice. Then, with the intellectual development of society, the place of cosmocentrism was gradually taken by anthropocentrism, that is, thinkers more often began to think about people and human values.

At present, the liberal theory of justice prevails in science, according to which the state should not discriminate against the equal rights of its citizens, except in cases where there are obvious functional differences between citizens (Acaray & Akturan, 2015). The liberal theory of justice focuses on the fair distribution of power in society. A radical theory of justice, such as Marxist theory, says that requirements to each person should be correspondent to the extent of his strength and ability, and everyone should be given goods according to his needs. According to this theory, the essence of justice is the equal distribution of capital. The ‘center of gravity’ in this concept is the equitable distribution of wealth. The problem of justice is complicated by the simultaneous growth of industrial production, which requires the involvement of a large number of workers (Yean & Yusof, 2016). In general, in the scientific literature, in particular philosophical, there are various interpretations of the concept of justice. For our study, such interpretations are important that justice is understood as the existence of equality, equality, justice, freedom, respect.

The concept of “organizational justice” was first used in its modern meaning by Greenberg. In 1970, Fernandez and Voml, referring to Greenberg, note that organizational justice is a fair attitude of the head of the organization to all members of his working team (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). Greenberg emphasizes that justice can be perceived differently from the position of leadership and members of the work collective, sometimes even in the opposite manner. For example, the same level of wages or social benefits that seems fair to management can be perceived by workers as fairly unfair (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2005). According to Greenberg (2005), the organization’s employees take this issue very seriously. By comparing the volume of work and working time, the level of wages and benefits, they establish how fair the management’s attitude towards them is.

The roots of organizational justice are in theories of social exchange and group values. These theories substantiate the idea of the importance of justice for individuals. The theory of group values and the model of group relations were introduced by Daniel and Taylor. According to this theory, the long-term relationships of staff with managers represent an indicator of their fairness. It is because if someone from the organization’s employees feels or experiences injustice, he immediately seeks to rectify the situation to restore it (Daniel and Taylor as cited in Yean & Yusof, 2016).

Organizational justice is manifested in the form of fair behavior and relationships between team members, as well as in relation to the team and its individual members to other organizations and their employees. This view is particularly supported by representatives of the philosophical concept of justice. In particular, John Rawls sees the fundamental principle of real justice precisely in its organizational form. In other words, according to Rawls, the main subject of justice is represented by social processes and institutions (Rawls, 2005). On the other hand, organizations today are the most important institutions in society, and they reflect the real state of it. Rawls (2005) also believes that justice today is firmly rooted in most aspects of human life; justice is the first virtue of social institutions, just like truth is the first virtue of thought systems.

Studies show that the principle of justice plays a very important role in organizational life. Fair, equal and mutually beneficial cooperation of employees of organizations has a beneficial effect on all aspects of the spiritual and material life of employees, cleans their social behavior from vices and activates their labor activity (Lyons & Scott, 2012). On the other hand, those who feel a lack of justice begin to experience emotional dissonance and stress, their level of commitment to organizational values gradually decreases, as a result of which they can even commit immoral and inappropriate deeds (Mahmoudi et al., 2017). Therefore, the problem of justice is directly related to the problem of the survival and development of the organization.

Three types of organizational justice are distinguished in the scientific literature: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interaction justice (Lilly, 2015). The presence of these types of organizational justice contributes to the stable growth of a sense of collectivism within the organization, labor and social satisfaction, as well as customer satisfaction by the organization and strengthening the organization’s contacts with them (Jafari & Bidarian, 2012). Researchers’ attention was primarily drawn to distributive justice. It is present in the distribution by the management of the results of organizational cooperation between working personnel. If the remuneration received is low, does not satisfy the demands or expectations of employees, they experience stress and a feeling of frustration, they have a reduced interest in work, and can commit immoral acts, attempt to increase their remuneration illegally ‑ through the theft of products, materials, tools, or information. According to most researchers, distributive justice is vital both for the whole society as a whole and for each organization in particular (Jafari & Bidarian, 2012).

Aristotle also emphasized the need for distributive justice. As it is known, in his writings, he devoted considerable attention to explaining the need to create fair laws, as well as laws that regulate and control the process of implementing distributive justice in social cooperation and exchange. As John Rawls (2005) emphasizes, factors such as social status, family, and nationality should not influence distributive justice, should not give any advantages in distributing the profit or benefit that the organization achieved through the joint efforts of its staff. It should be noted that distributive justice is not limited only to the sphere of distribution of payments, but also covers a wide range of organizational consequences, such as remuneration, punishment, work planning, talent management, performance evaluation, etc.

Another type of organizational justice is procedural justice or the justice of a reward distribution system. It is connected with official policies, decisions and methods by which the process of distribution of achieved results is regulated. It is also important for strengthening social and organizational justice. The theory of procedural justice assumes that when two workers with equal results of work receive unequal salaries, the worker who received less sees the reason for this injustice not in the organization as a whole, but in the policy of distribution of wages and benefits prevailing in the organization, therefore, he seeks to correct this policy (Acaray & Akturan, 2015).

The third kind of organizational justice is the fairness of interaction; this is a form of justice that is supported by management and distributed among working personnel. It considers the relationship between individuals in the organization, in particular, the interaction between the administration and employees (MacKenzie et al., 2011). The importance of fair interaction consists in the fact that if it is absent, an employee who feels injustice is most likely to show a negative attitude and dissatisfaction with the administration, and this is only part of the position and reaction of the employee who seeks to restore justice.

The analysis of theories of organizational justice shows that the presence of justice in all forms of its manifestation positively affects the productivity of organizational cooperation, and strengthens the sense of collectivism and organizational morality, the sense of job satisfaction and the social behavior of each employee. To confirm this opinion, some evidence can be given below.

Job satisfaction means that a person is satisfied with his work, treats it well and carries out his work plan with enthusiasm. In their research, MacKenzie, Podsakoff, and Podsakoff (2011) argue that procedural fairness and fairness of interaction positively affect the growth of work satisfaction. Li, Liang, and Crant (2010) also indicate that there is an inextricable and interdependent relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. An employee who has a developed sense of teamwork and organizational commitment conscientiously fulfills his duties. One can even say that he carries out his duties voluntarily, without prior guidance or coercion. Greenberg in his work (2005) proves the relationship between the level of organizational justice, on the one hand, and the level of organizational commitment and the conscientious employees’ fulfillment of their official duties, on the other.

In some concepts of organizational justice, there is the concept of “organizational identity,” which refers to the value and mental criteria of an employee in an organization. Thus, Moliner et al. (2017), referring to the study of this phenomenon in a number of Dutch organizations, note that the leaders of organizations, implementing the principles of organizational justice, thereby strengthened and increased trust between the two sides, that is, they established mutually beneficial communication with the working personnel of their organizations.

Organizational justice stimulates employee productivity. In his work, Demir (2015) concludes that procedural fairness and job satisfaction have the greatest impact on the process of fulfilling obligations, ensuring the enthusiasm and effective work of the staff. The results of conversations with 296 representatives of Tehran organizations administrations, noted by Demir, also confirm the theory of organizational justice.

All interviewed administrators argued that equitable methods of organization and evaluation of labor are the guarantee of the organization’s prosperity. This gives employees a feeling of satisfaction with work and fair distribution of labor income, and also positively affects the quality of products and services, as a result of which the circle of customers expands (Demir, 2015). However, all these components are part of general justice; especially, distributive justice has a direct relationship with social justice. Studies show that social justice, as well as distributive justice (in relation to employees), is important to ensure a fair relationship between intra-organizational functions and the relationship between administration and staff (Lilly, 2015). Psychological research has shown that interaction is judged fair if certain standards are followed. The organizational specificity of these norms is described in the Colquitt model, which identifies four aspects of justice: distributional, procedural, interpersonal, and informational (Podsakoff et al., 2018):

1. Distributive justice ‑ the justice of the outcome of the interaction. Three basic norms correspond to it:

   • Impartiality (reward depending on the amount of work done);
   • Distribution by effort (reward depending on the efforts made);
   • Distribution by abilities (reward depending on abilities).
2. Procedural justice refers to the organization of the interaction process. Seven norms correspond to it:

   • Control over the process (all interested parties have the right to vote);
   • Control over the result (the opportunity for participants in the interaction to influence its outcome);
   • Uniformity (similarity of the interaction procedure in different situations and in relation to different people);
   • Neutralization of prejudices (independence of the outcome from the prejudices of the “third-party”);
   • Accuracy and completeness of information transfer (the ability to collect accurate and complete information);
   • Appeal (the ability to correct incorrect decisions);
   • Ethics (compliance of the interaction with ethical standards).
3. Interpersonal justice is associated with an assessment of how to deal with participants in the interaction. Two norms correspond to it:

   • Courtesy (polite treatment that excludes rude remarks);
   • Respect (respectful attitude, allowing participants to maintain self-esteem).
4. Information justice is determined by the degree to which participants are informed about the decision-making procedure. Five norms correspond to it: honesty in relations with participants in the interaction; completeness of explanation; clarity of explanation; timeliness of explanations; taking into account the individual characteristics of participants, in particular, their needs, emotional state, and so on.

As a rule, this model is used to assess the fairness of the procedures that include employees of organizations: hiring, certification, distribution of bonuses, promotion, dismissal, etc. Compliance with the norms of justice in the organization’s work leads to a number of positive cognitive, affective, motivational and behavioral consequences, including high self-efficiency of employees, their satisfaction with work, lowering the level of stress, emotional burnout, etc.

An assessment of the fairness of organizational interaction affects the attitude of employees towards themselves, colleagues, the leader, work and the organization as a whole. In particular, the more people give justice to what is happening in the organization, the more positively they treat their colleagues, the more they trust the leader and are committed to the organization, the higher their self-efficacy (Cohen et al., 2012). Due to this, a high assessment of equity enhances the citizenship behavior of employees.

The next organizational factor is communication between employees: the more intensely personal and business communication is, the more often employees help each other, the more often they engage in citizenship behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2018). Unfortunately, it is not yet known which “first-order” factors mediate the impact of communication. However, psychological research conducted outside the organizational context suggests that this role can be played by the attitude towards colleagues and the organization.

Another factor is the work that employees do. The most important parameters, in this case, are the ability to control what is happening, the complexity and variety of skills, as well as the degree of coordination of efforts necessary to solve the problem. In particular, citizenship behavior is more often demonstrated by those employees who can control various aspects of their life in the organization, for example, have the opportunity to take initiative in their work, participate in management, or regulate how the organization uses their personal data (Cohen et al., 2012). In addition, people are more likely to exhibit citizenship behavior if the work requires a small amount of relatively simple skills from each of them, but at the same time coordination of efforts (Cohen et al., 2012). The impact of job characteristics is mediated by employee self-efficacy. The lack of control, as well as the need for complex and diverse skills, reduces the self-efficacy of employees, which, in turn, reduces the intensity of citizenship behavior. It is also interesting that different forms of citizenship behavior depend on different factors. For example, employee’ emotions have a greater impact on citizenship behavior towards colleagues, and his/her perceptions (for example, fairness assessment) ‑ on citizenship behavior in relation to organization and attitude towards colleagues and organization.

Assessment of the fairness of interaction in an organization is determined by a number of factors. They can be divided into three groups: characteristics of the organization as a whole, the management process in it, and individual characteristics of employees. Organization characteristics attract the least attention of researchers, since these factors are specific to organizational interaction and do not play a role in other areas. The study of the features of the management process is also not yet widespread. This group of studies includes leadership style ‑ authoritarian or democratic, which also determines the degree of influence of equity in organizational interaction on employee behavior. All identified factors, as a rule, are considered as intermediaries between individual norms of justice, assessment of interaction, as well as the state and behavior of employees (Podsakoff et al., 2018). However, one can assume that they have a direct impact on the assessment of the fairness of organizational interaction.

The dependence of the quality of work on the observance of justice was noted by Leventhal, who paid great attention to the norms of impartiality and distribution of effort. He believed that these norms increase the productivity of individual work in the long run (Leventhal as cited in Yean & Yusof, 2016). However, if it is a task that requires cooperation or a quick but short-term increase in productivity, the impartiality norm may be violated in favor of equality or distribution according to needs. Modern research shows that the quality of work depends on both distributive and procedural justice. Perhaps this is because employees are not always able to accurately assess the fairness of the outcome and make judgments based on the interaction process.

In one statistical study, about 700 people were interviewed to assess equity (justice). The results of a study of the opinions expressed by people on this issue show that inequality in organizations can be manifested or felt by employees even in the smallest and daily actions of administrators (MacKenzie et al., 2011). Subsequently, regular observation of these “minor” injustices committed daily by the administration is quite capable of leading employees to the idea of a larger injustice in the organization. All this, ultimately, leads to deterioration and demoralization of relations between employees and the administration, to a drop in feelings of mutual trust, and level of commitment and engagement.

In addition to productivity, justice affects the nature of communication: it becomes more intense, friendly, and cooperative. So, the higher the employees evaluate the fairness of the interaction, the more ready they are to continue it: they refuse to change jobs, plan to build a career within the organization, even if it experiences economic difficulties (Mahmoudi et al., 2017). Along with this, organizational justice determines the friendliness/aggressiveness of communication. The higher the employees evaluate the current interaction, the more friendly they communicate with colleagues and subordinates, the less often they insult and try to take revenge (Mahmoudi et al., 2017); the more often they choose constructive behavioral strategies in conflict, less often demonstrate destructive and deviant behavior (Lilly, 2015). In general, the fairness of the interaction increases the cohesion of the groups.

In addition, the higher the employees apply justice to the interaction, the less selfishly they behave, the fewer efforts they make to gain power, the less often they participate in litigation with the organization and the require less compensation from it (Lilly, 2015). Moreover, employees who highly value the fairness of business communication tend to join forces to achieve a common goal: they are less likely to demonstrate social laziness; more often they choose cooperation as opposed to the competition (Moliner et al., 2017). Finally, the higher the employee’s assessment of the interaction within the organization, the more he/she is ready to help or seek help, the more often they demonstrate civic behavior in relation to the organization (organizational citizenship behavior) (Moliner et al., 2017). Under the citizenship behavior, one should understand the actions of employees that are not part of their official duties, for which there is no separate material reward, but which are aimed at the benefit of the organization, support its psychological and social functioning and thereby increase its effectiveness.

A variety of actions fall under the definition described above, which is why some experts identify qualitatively different forms of citizenship behavior. The first detailed classification was proposed by Organ, who described five forms of citizenship activity in the organization: 1) altruism (helping colleagues); 2) conscientiousness (compliance with the organization’s standards, compliance with its policies and existing procedures); 3) “sports” behavior (sportsmanship) ‑ (overcoming the obstacles that stand in the way of an employee); 4) courtesy (courtesy and respect towards colleagues); 5) citizenship virtue (participation in social events that benefit the organization) (Moliner et al., 2017). Subsequently, Williams and Anderson divided these forms of citizenship behavior into two groups: behavior in relation to employees (altruism and courtesy), on the one hand, and in relation to the organization (good faith, sporting behavior and citizenship virtue), on the other (Williams and Anderson as cited in Moliner et al., 2017). Somewhat later, Moon and colleagues introduced the second classification criterion (Moon as cited in Moliner et al., 2017). In addition to focusing on employees or an organization, they shared various forms of citizenship behavior aimed at maintaining the existing order (developing existing procedures and processes) or promoting change.

The positive influence of citizenship behavior on work efficiency is especially pronounced when employees feel control of what is happening, believe that they can take the initiative, and when work requires coordination of efforts (Ozer, 2011). In these conditions, citizenship engagement provides mutual assistance and improves performance. This is only possible with an appropriate level of organizational justice.

Trying to answer the question of why do employees of the organization carry out citizenship behavior, specialists turn to models of helping behavior and identify two types of motivation. According to supporters of altruistic motivation, a person helps others, wanting to improve their situation, i.e., does not seek to derive personal benefit from his behavior (Jafari & Bidarian, 2012). This means that employees carry out citizenship behavior for the success of colleagues and the prosperity of the organization as a whole. Proponents of selfish motivation believe that a person helps others to achieve personal goals. The theoretical basis of this idea is the non-behavioral theory of social exchange. It is based on the model of the “egoist-man,” who before committing any act evaluates the possible costs and rewards. Entering into communication, he tries to make an equivalent exchange with a partner. Moreover, he can operate with material (in the broad sense of the word) and psychological (positive attitude) resources (Lilly, 2015). In accordance with the theory of social exchange, a person provides assistance if the internal or external material or psychological reward exceeds the possible costs (Jafari & Bidarian, 2012). With regard to citizenship behavior in the organization, this means that employees carry out additional activity based on the respect of colleagues and the leader or material incentives.

At the same time, the conducted studies do not make it possible to draw an unambiguous conclusion about the relative importance of the egoistic and altruistic motivation for citizenship behavior. The results of some studies speak in favor of altruistic motivation, while others ‑ in favor of selfish one (Demir, 2015). However, studies of a general theoretical plan aimed at finding the relationship between organizational justice and corporate citizenship behavior were practically not conducted. These phenomena are considered separately from each other, while their direct relationship can be assumed.

The rationale of the Study and Hypotheses

The above literature review indicates the need to consider organizational justice as a factor of citizenship behavior in an organization, within the framework of the theory of organizational behavior and a systemic approach. We formulate the hypothesis of the study as follows: organizational justice is a catalyst for enhancing the role of citizenship behavior in the organization in achieving and maintaining the synergy effect in the organizational system.

In this regard, the aim of the study is to analyze the systemic relationship between organizational justice and the level of organizational citizenship behavior as factors in achieving a synergistic effect in an organization in the form of creating sustainable competitive advantages. Within the framework of this goal, the following tasks can be defined:

• To conduct theoretical analysis and comparison of the concepts of organizational justice and organizational citizenship;
• To explore the factors of perception of justice in the organization;
• To clarify the concept of organizational and citizenship behavior of employees, identify the main forms of manifestation of organizational and citizenship behavior and its results
• To propose a matrix of criteria for evaluating organizational justice
• To build a theoretical model that reflects the mechanism of citizenship organizational behavior depending on the availability, type, and level of organizational justice
• To study the mechanism of influence of organizational citizenship behavior on achieving a synergistic effect in the organization.

Methodology

The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is fundamental and applied research in the field of enterprise management efficiency and organizational behavior, as well as general systems theory. The study involves the use of a qualitative research methodology within the framework of the constructivist paradigm, which allows for relativistic ontology (recognition of many local, socioculturally constructed realities as existing), subjective epistemology, mainly a qualitative methodology, and pursues the goals of social criticism, reflection and transformation of various social formations and human life. The constructivist paradigm corresponds to the modern approach to the value of scientific knowledge, recognizing scientific knowledge only as instrumental value, seeing in it only a means of transforming and improving certain aspects of human life or social institutions (Denicolo, 2016). This seems important due to the fact that the conclusions presented in this paper can be used to further develop the concept of organizational and civic behavior as a kind of social behavior, to develop the relevant areas in the field of management sociology, personnel management, and employee motivation (in terms of determining factors defining the labor behavior of individuals in social organizations).

The main methods used in the study are the following: analysis, synthesis, classification, methods of system and comparative analysis. To collect sociological information, interview methods and secondary analysis of previously conducted studies on this issue are used; interviews will be conducted using open-ended questions. The composition of the respondents will include both ordinary employees of business organizations and representatives of line, middle and senior management; the estimated sample size is 40 people. It is assumed that including employees from different organizational levels will allow receiving a deeper understanding of organizational justice practices from different perspectives. The list of questions is presented below.

1. How could you describe organizational justice and its components?
2. Do you think organizational justice has an impact on organizational performance? If so, what is the impact and how it is realized?
3. Do you think compliance with the rules of justice in the organization leads to the raise of commitment and engagement of employees?
4. What factors, in your opinion, should be included in the assessment of interaction justice in the organization?
5. How do you understand corporate citizenship?
6. How do you understand organizational citizenship behavior and its relation to organizational justice?
7. Do you think organizational citizenship has an impact on building competitive advantages? If so, in what way?

Processing the results of the interview will be carried out according to the method of content analysis. Using content analysis, the researcher establishes not only the characteristics of the sources, but also the features of the entire communication process: social orientations and settings of the communicator (content creator), as well as values and norms (Krippendorf, 2018). The non-quantitative content analysis selected for the purposes of this study is based on a non-frequency model of text content (in this case, only the presence of an element of text content is recorded ‑ an indicator corresponding to the content category, and quantitative measures are not used). Such an approach, similar to the approach of a grounded theory, makes it possible to identify types of qualitative content models (regardless of the frequency of occurrence of each type).

The content analysis does not negate the need for the usual (i.e., meaning) analysis of documents. The first complement the second, and their combination deepens the understanding of the meaning of any text. Content analysis allows finding in the document what escapes the surface gaze in its traditional study, but that has important social meaning. The fundamental difference between these methods of analysis lies in the pronounced severity, formalization, systematization of content analysis. It is aimed at developing a quantitative description of the semantic and symbolic content of the document, at fixing its objective features and counting the latter. In addition, content analysis differs from all other methods of studying documents in that it allows “entering” the contents of the document into a social context, to interpret it both as a manifestation and as an assessment of social life.

Formalization, systematization and rigor of content analysis are manifested in the following. Before directly analyzing the text of the document, the researcher determines the categories of analysis, i.e., key concepts (semantic units) available in the text and corresponding to those definitions and their empirical indicators that are recorded in the research program. It is advisable to avoid extremes. If too general (abstract) concepts are taken as categories of analysis, this will predetermine the superficiality of the analysis of the text, and will not allow delving into its content.

References

Acaray, A., & Akturan, A. (2015). The relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and organizational silence. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 472-482.

Cohen, A., Ben-Tura, E., & Vashdi, D. R. (2012). The relationship between social exchange variables, OCB, and performance. What happens when you consider group characteristics? Personnel Review, 41, 705-731.

Denicolo, P. (2016). Constructivist approaches and research methods: A practical guide to exploring personal meanings. SAGE Publications.

Demir, K. (2015). The effect of organizational justice and perceived organizational support on organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of organizational identification. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 131-148.

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Psychology Press, 2005.

Jafari, P. & Bidarian, S. (2012). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1815-1820.

Krippendorf, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications.

Li, N., Liang, J., Crant, J. M. (2010). The role of proactive personality in job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: a relational perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 395-404.

Lilly, J. (2015). The impact of justice type on organizational citizenship behavior: Do outcome favorability and leader behavior matter? Current Psychology, 34, 26-49.

Lyons, B.J., Scott, B.A. (2012). Integrating social exchange and affective explanations for the receipt of help and harm: A social network approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 66-79.

MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: do challenge-oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organizations bottom line? Personnel Psychology, 64, 559-592.

Mahmoudi, S., Hassani, M., & Aghlmand, S. (2017). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior among nurses (examining the mediating role of organizational commitment, organizational trust, and job satisfaction. Patient Safety and Quality Improvement, 5(2), 513-520.

Moliner, C., Cropanzano, R., & Martínez-Tur, V. (2017). Organizational justice. Routledge.

Niroomand, N. (2013). Organizational citizenship behavior: Cultural and hierarchical differences among University employees. LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.

Özbek, M. F., Yoldash, M. A. &·Tang, T. (2016). Theory of justice, OCB, and individualism: Kyrgyz citizens. Journal of Business Ethics, 137, 365-382.

Ozer, M. (2011). A moderated mediation model of the relationship between organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 1328-1336.

Podsakoff, M. MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. (2018). The Oxford handbook of organizational citizenship behavior. Oxford University Press.

Rawls, J. (2009). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press.

Yean, T., & Yusof, A. (2016). Organizational justice: A conceptual discussion. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 798-803.