Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
1, pp.
1Ai14
THE ROLE OF
NONINSTRUMENTAL JUSTICE AND AGE
IN PREDICTING ORGANIZATIONAL
COMMITMENT
Evidence from Malaysia Aizzat Mohd.
Nasurdin The purpose of this paper is to determine the influence of the noninstrumental component of procedural justice on organizational commitment and whether this relationship is moderated by Regression analysis on a sample of 161 employees revealed that noninstrumental procedural justice had a significant effect on organizational commitment.
The hypothesis concerning the role of age as a moderator was not supported.
Implications for managerial practice and future research are discussed.
Keywords: age.
Augroup-valueAy model.
Malaysia.
organizational commitment Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business.
January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
Introduction In todayAos competitive business climate, the ability to provide distinctive products and services has become the key proposition for an organization.
Service organizations, in particular, can outperform their competitors by providing high quality services to their customers.
To do so, many service businesses, which are labor-intensive in nature (Bowen et al.
, require capable, dedicated, and loyal employees, who are willing to make value-added contributions for the benefit of the firm.
Furthermore, it has been suggested that since committed employees are believed to devote more of their time, energy, and talents to the organization, they are more likely to be better service-oriented performers (Pitt et al.
Hence, understanding the determinants of employeesAo commitment to their organizations is important.
Although there have been several studies on organizational commitment within the Malaysian context .
or instance.
Ismail Choo 1994.
Mat-Zin 1996.
Lian Guang 1998.
Abd.
Wahab 2001.
Munthe 2.
, none have focused on the role of noninstrumental procedural justice as its predictor.
Additionally, age has not been examined as a moderator in the relationship between the predictor variables and commitment.
Therefore, the two objectives of this study are: first, to examine the effect of noninstrumental procedural justice on organizational commitment, and second, to explore the possible role of age in moderating the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and commitment.
Review of Literature Noninstrumental Procedural Justice and Organizational Commitment Procedural justice refers to a personAos evaluation about the fairness of the process of making outcome allocation decisions (Greenberg 1.
Specifically, procedural justice reflects the extent to which an individual perceive that outcome allocation decisions have been fairly made according to the organizationAos formal procedures and from the treatment given by the authorities in enacting those procedures (Moorman 1.
Lind and Tyler .
suggested that there are two distinct sets of concerns associated with procedural justice.
The first concern is known as the instrumental component, which reflects the types of formal procedures used to make outcome allocation decisions.
These procedures not only offer employees control over the outcomes they will receive but help ensure that the outcomes obtained are fair.
Hence, in an organization, the use of fair decisionmaking procedures will reassure its members that their interests will be protected and advanced as long as they maintain their membership status.
Over time, members are likely to feel proud of their institution, which in turn, may motivate them to adopt a Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
favorable attitude toward the organization that is responsible in mandating these procedures.
The second concern is called the noninstrumental .
component, which relates to the interpersonal treatment given by organizational authorities.
The Augroup-valueAy model developed by Lind and Tyler .
is associated with this particular aspect of procedural justice.
According to the AugroupvalueAy model (Lind and Tyler 1.
, fair treatment received from decisionmakers implies that the individual is a respected, valued, and worthy member of the institution.
These feelings of respect, worth, and favorable social standing experienced by organizational members may stimulate them to adopt a positive attitude toward the institution (Tyler 1.
Explanations by earlier researchers seem to suggest that the noninstrumental component of procedural justice plays a major role in affecting employee attitudes.
For instance.
Konovsky and Pugh .
noted that treating employees fairly would affect their higher-level motives such as commitment to the organization because fair treatment indicates that the authority within the organization respect the rights and dignity of each employee.
Given that employees are inclined to take the actions by agents of the organization as actions of the organization itself (Levinson 1.
, employees that see themselves as having received fair treatment may reciprocate (Gouldner 1.
within the context of social exchange (Blau 1.
by being more committed to the organization.
Similarly Brewer and Kramer .
argued that fair treatment .
on-instrumental procedural justic.
by organizational authorities should lead employees to feel respected.
In turn, they are more likely to be loyal to the organization and more willing to identify with, and internalize the values of the organization.
Using Lind and TylerAos .
Augroup-valueAy model of procedural justice.
Tyler et al.
argued that members who have been treated fairly by organizational authorities will feel respected, more proud of their membership, and experience higher self-esteem.
As such, they are likely to be more committed to remain with the organization.
Prior studies on the relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment have looked at the combined effects of instrumental and noninstrumental components of procedural justice on commitment .
or example.
Folger and Konovsky 1989.
McFarlin and Sweeney 1992.
Sweeney and McFarlin 1993.
Martin and Bennett 1.
These studies, however, have failed to differentiate the effects of the two components of procedural justice except for that carried out by Robbins et al.
The findings from Robbins et al.
Aos .
investigation indicate that the noninstrumental component was able to explain a larger proportion of the variance in organizational commitment compared to the instrumental Furthermore, this posi3 Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business.
January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
tive noninstrumental procedural justice-commitment linkage is deemed highly plausible within the Malaysian setting based on the argument put forth by Lind et al.
According to Lind et al.
, the relational aspect of procedural justice is important to people residing in cultures that have been ranked high on HofstedeAos .
power distance dimension.
Lind et al.
argued that in such societies, people tend to worry more whether others .
uch as superior.
are benevolently disposed toward them.
At the workplace, polite and kind treatment accorded by superiors toward their subordinates will have a positive influence on the work attitudes and behaviors of the latter.
Given that respect for oneAos dignity, synonymous with the act of Aupreserving faceAy (Abdullah 1.
, is a highly regarded value within the Malaysian culture (Sendut 1991.
Abdullah 1.
, it seems highly probable that perceptions of fair treatment by organizational authorities .
oninstrumental procedural justic.
will have a positive impact on employeesAo commitment to their organization.
Age as a Moderator between Noninstrumental Procedural Justice and Organizational Commitment Age has been shown to be a predictor of organizational commitment for a number of reasons.
First, as workers grow older, alternative employment options generally decrease, making their current jobs more attrac4 tive (Mathieu and Zajac 1.
Second, older employees may be more committed to their organization because they have a stronger investment in the organization and experience a longer history with the organization compared to the younger ones (Dunham et al.
However, rather than expecting a main independent effect for age, it may be more reasonable to view age as a moderator in the relationship between the noninstrumental component of procedural justice and organizational commitment.
In order to explain why the effect of noninstrumental procedural justice on organizational commitment will be stronger among older workers than younger workers, one may need to observe how older and younger workers differ in their interpersonal orientations.
According to Kegan .
, older adults tend to operate more in terms of internal standards of meeting mutual and moral obligations and less likely to be concern with instrumental issues compared to young adults.
people grow older, their competence in interacting with the environment and feelings of responsibility are likely to increase (Staub 1.
In organizational settings, older workers have higher needs for affiliation and lower needs for achievement (Doering et al.
This behavioral pattern is consistent with the suggestion made by Maslow .
that middle age is devoted to the fulfillment of social Past scholars .
or instance.
Stevens-Long 1979.
Schulz and Ewen Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
added that close friendship is highly valued by older adults because of its ability to provide the necessary psychological and emotional support for the latter to cope with various adverse life events.
According to Balfour and Weschsler .
, older employees who have been with the organization for a long time are likely to view the organization as a source of social satisfaction due to the strong social ties that have been established with other members.
Respectful treatment provides evidence that the organizationAos authorities value subordinates and regard them as having high social standing (Tyler 1.
When older employees believe themselves to be accepted and valued members of the organization, they are more inclined to identify themselves with that institution, which in turn, lead to higher commitment.
Hence, it can be posited that noninstrumental procedural justice may be stronger in influencing organizational commitment among older employees than younger Younger workers, on the other hand, are more inclined to place emphasis on instrumental concerns as opposed to older ones.
This suggestion is in tandem with MaslowAos .
argument that young adulthood is consumed by the need for economic security.
Hall and Nougaim .
contended that the primary concern among young employees in the early stage of their career life is getting established with and accepted by the organization.
Anxiety over their ability to live up to job expectations is likely to prompt young recruits to attach themselves to significant others who can furnish them with guidance (Schacter Once their needs for guidance and security have been gratified, commitment among younger personnel is likely to increase (Etzioni 1.
Given that the social relationships at the workplace among younger employees may have an underlying instrumental motive, it can be conjectured that fair interpersonal treatment by managers may have a lesser impact on their commitment to the organization.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses Conceptualization of Variables Based on the discussion made in the literature review section, the criterion variable for this study is organizational commitment.
The predictor variable is noninstrumental procedural justice whilst age acts as a moderator.
The relationships between the study variables are depicted in Figure 1.
From the model portrayed in Figure 1, two main hypotheses were postulated as follows:
H1: Noninstrumental procedural justice will be positively related to organizational commitment.
H2: The positive relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and organizational commitment will be stronger for older employees than younger employees.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business.
January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
Figure 1.
Research Framework Independent Variable AA Noninstrumental Procedural Justice Dependent Variable Organizational Commitment Moderating Variable Age Methodology Subjects Participants in the study consisted of nonsupervisory hotel employees working in the state of Penang.
Malaysia.
A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed with the help of hotel Respondents were given two weeks to answer the questionnaires.
At the end of the stated period, 161 responses were obtained representing a response rate of about 64.
4 percent.
The sample consisted of 92 males .
1%) and 69 .
9%) females.
Sixty-four percent .
%) of the sample were married.
In terms of ethnicity, the sample consisted of Malays .
6%).
Indians .
3%), and Chinese .
4%).
Almost all .
3%) of the sample had MCE and below as their entry qualification.
The mean age, organizational tenure, and job tenure for the sample were 32.
74 years, 51 years, and 5.
67 years respectively.
Measurement The predictor variable consisted of the noninstrumental component of procedural justice.
An index was developed using 6 items adopted from Niehoff and Moorman .
Responses to the items were made on a 7point scale .
= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agre.
All items were summed and divided by 6 to arrive at a summary indicator of an employeeAos judgment about noninstrumental procedural justice.
Higher mean scores were indicative of greater perceptions of this relational component of procedural justice.
The criterion variable in this study is organizational commitment as measured by the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (Mowday et al.
Responses to the items were made on a 7-point scale .
= strongly disagree to 7 = strongly Several items were negatively phrased and had to be reverse-coded.
Results were subsequently summed and divided by 15 to arrive at a summary indicator of an employeeAos commitment to the organization.
Higher mean scores were indicative of greater Age is the moderating Although data for age is continuous in nature, this variable had to be further regrouped in the statistical Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
analysis into two categories .
ld and young employee.
Younger workers are those whose age is less than 35 years whereas older ones are those whose age is 35 years or more.
This categorization is consistent with earlier studies on life career stage models .
uch as Hall 1976.
Wagner and Rush .
oninstrumental procedural justice x ag.
was loaded into the equation.
Age is said to moderate the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and organizational commitment if the interaction term was found to be significant.
Method of Analyzes Table intercorrelations of the study variables.
As seen from Table 1, the coefficients of PearsonAos correlations were wide-ranging (-0.
005 to 0.
across all variables for the sample involved.
These coefficients indicate that significant associations exist between certain demographic factors .
amely marital status, age, job tenure, and organizational tenur.
and organizational commitment.
Noninstrumental procedural justice was positively and significantly correlated with commitment.
The reliability coefficients a .
for the noninstrumental procedural justice and organizational commitment instruments were 0.
80 and 89 respectively, which exceeded NunallyAos .
minimum level of The means and standard deviations of the study variables are depicted in Table 2.
From Table 2, it can be observed that the mean value for noninstrumental procedural justice was 08 with a standard deviation of 0.
The mean score for organizational commitment was 5.
39 with a standard deviation of 0.
Table 3 portrays the results of the The two hypotheses were tested using hierarchical regression (Cohen and Cohen 1.
Following previous researchers (Hrebiniak and Alutto Angle and Perry 1983.
Mathieu and Zajac 1990.
Steinhaus and Perry Balfour and Weschler 1996.
Sweeney and McFarlin 1.
, six personal variables .
ender, marital status, race, educational level, job tenure, and organizational tenur.
were statistically controlled to reduce the possibility of spurious relationships based on unmeasured variables.
Since gender, marital status, race, educational level were categorical in nature, these variables were initially dummycoded.
In testing the first hypothesis, control variables were entered in the first step, followed by the main effects of noninstrumental procedural justice and age .
s an independent variabl.
in the second step.
The significance of the R2 change was assessed using the F test and the betas were interpreted based on the significance of the tvalues.
To test the second hypothesis, an additional step was undertaken where the interaction term Results Qual.
Age Job Tenure Org.
Tenure 409 ** 346 ** 605 ** 217 ** 238 ** 558 ** Figure in parentheses represents the reliability coefficients.
**p < 0.
*p < 0.
Qual.
236 **
Organizational Commitment Race 2
226 **
Race 1 Noninstru.
M/Status Gender Variables Table 1.
Intercorrelations of Study Variables 209 ** 439 ** 928 ** 399 ** 268 ** 622 ** 538 ** 290 ** 818 ** 387 ** 397 ** Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business.
January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
Table 2.
Descriptive Statistics of the Study Variables Variable Mean Std.
Dev.
Noninstrumental Procedural Justice Organizational Commitment Table 3.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis Organizational Commitment Variables Step 1 Control Variables Gender Organizational Tenure Job Tenure Marital Status Race 1 Race 2 Qualification 1 Qualification 2 Step 2 Main Variables Noninstrumental Procedural Justice Age .
oung=0,old=.
Step 3 Interaction Age X Noninstrumental Procedural Justice Beta Change in R2 F change 22 ** 96 ** 614 ** 218 ** **p < 0.
*p < 0.
wo-taile.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business.
January-April 2005.
Vol.
No.
three-step hierarchical regression analysis with commitment as the dependent variable.
As shown in Table 3, the personal variables was able to 2 percent (R2 = 0.
of the variance in organizational commitment.
All the control variables did not have any influence on organizational commitment except for organizational tenure .
eta = 0.
281, p < On adding the main effects of noninstrumental procedural justice and age, the change in R2 increased to The change in R2 was found to be significant indicating that both noninstrumental procedural justice and age .
s an independent variabl.
contributed uniquely to the variance in organizational commitment.
The value of the beta coefficient for the noninstrumental component .
eta = 614, p < 0.
indicated that this variable had a significant and positive effect on commitment.
This result provided support for the first hypothesis.
When the interaction term was entered, the R2 value rose to 0.
The change in R2 .
was significant suggesting that the inclusion of the interaction term did explain an 6 percent of the variance in organizational commitment.
The beta coefficient .
eta =- 0.
995, p < .
was found to be significant.
Hence, age did moderate the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and commitment.
Surprisingly, based on the age coding stated earlier, the pattern of this interaction indicated that the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and commitment was stronger among younger employees as opposed to older ones.
This finding did not support the second hypothesis.
Discussion and Conclusion The results obtained in this study showed that noninstrumental procedural justice is an important determinant of employeesAo commitment in Malaysia.
This result is consistent with those discovered by Robbins et .
Fair treatment by organizational authorities indicates that the employing organization respect the rights and dignity of its employees.
Since relationships are highly personalized in Malaysia, and the preservation of AufaceAy or dignity is regarded as one of the most central cultural value (Sendut 1.
, fair treatment by superiors would induce employees to reciprocate by being more committed to the organization.
This is in tandem with the Augroup-valueAy interpretation of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler 1.
, social exchange (Blau 1.
, and the norm of reciprocity (Gouldner The findings obtained, however, demonstrated that the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and organizational commitment was found to be stronger among younger employees instead of the older This lack of support for a stronger noninstrumental procedural justice and commitment for older workers may be related to the sample.
First, the pro- Aizzat AiThe Role of Noninstrumental Justice and Age in .
portion of older employees in this sample was much smaller .
than younger employees .
0%).
Therefore, the strength of the relationship between noninstrumental procedural justice and commitment among older employees may have been attenuated.
Second, older workers sampled in this research are those who have been in the organization for a long period of time.
Thus, it is highly likely that their commitment to the organization may be attributed to their strong investment in the organization (Mathieu and Zajac 1.
Hence, the effect of fair interpersonal treatment by organizational authorities on the commitment of older employees may no longer be salient.
From the practical viewpoint, managers responsible in supervising employees particularly the younger ones need to focus their attention on the relational aspect of procedural justice.
To promote younger employeesAo commitment to the organization, managers must treat them with politeness, respect, kindness, and consideration.
To do so, managers need to be trained in the use of interpersonal or AuhumanAy skills.
The results of the present study are tempered with certain limitations.
First, the use of cross-sectional data in the present study limits inferences with regards to causality between components of procedural justice and organizational commitment.
The use of a longitudinal approach would improve the ability to make causal statements.
Second, given that social exchange (Blau 1.
is one of the motivational bases for organizational commitment, reciprocal causation should be acknowledged.
It is possible that the level of organizational commitment experienced by employees could affect their judgments about fair procedures .
nstrumental procedural justic.
, fair treatment .
oninstrumental procedural justic.
, or both, instead of the other way around.
Future research may need to focus on the causal direction of the link between these Third, there may a number of individual, occupational, organizational, and cultural elements that are likely to affect workersAo concerns with procedural justice.
Future researchers interested in this area should try to explore these factors.
References