Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333 - 360 Journal homepage: w.
edu/jeb ISSN 1979-6471 E-ISSN 2528-0147 Organizational justice perception of Indonesia civil servants, does it Hety Budiyantia.
Shine Pintor Patirob.
Nurmanc Universitas Negeri Makassar, hety.
budiyanti@unm.
BPSDM Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah, batikpakuan@gmail.
Universitas Negeri Makassar, nurmann@gmail.
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 29-06-2018 Revised 27-11-2018 Accepted 11-12-2018 Kata Kunci:
keadilan organisasional, emosi positif, kepuasan kerja.
SEM Keywords:
organizational justice, emotion, job satisfaction.
SEM
ABSTRAK
Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji pengaruh keadilan organisasi terhadap emosi positip pegawai negeri sipil di Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan dan Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah yang berdampak pada kepuasan kerja.
Keadilan organisasi meliputi keadilan distributif, keadilan presedural, dan keadilan interaksional.
Kontribusi penelitian ini adalah memberikan petunjuk kepada para pegawai negeri sipil di tingkat pimpinan dalam merancang suatu bentuk keadilan yang mampu membentuk emosi positif yang berdampak pada kepuasan kerja bawahannya.
Responden dalam penelitian ini adalah pegawai negeri sipil yang berada di lingkungan pemerintah daerah Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan dan Provinsi Sulawesi Tengah.
Teknik penarikan sampel menggunakan penyampelan purposif.
Besaran sampel yang ditetapkan dalam penelitian adalah 400 orang dan diperoleh 350 kuesioner yang dikembalikan sehingga tingkat tanggapannya adalah 87,5%.
Analisis data menggunakan SEM dengan pendekatan secara dua tahap, yaitu: model pengukuran dan model struktural.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa keadilan organisasional dapat menjelaskan dan memprediksi emosi positif.
Selanjutnya, emosi positif dapat menjelaskan dan memprediksi kepuasan kerja para pegawai negeri sipil di Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan dan Tengah.
Keadilan interaksional dan prosedural mempengaruhi emosi positif secara signifikan dimana keadilan interaksional memiliki pengaruh terbesar atas emosi positif.
Sementara keadilan distribusi tidak memiliki pengaruh yang signifikan terhadap emosi positif.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of this research is to examine the influence of organizational justice to positive emotion of civil servants in south and central Sulawesi Province which impact their job satisfaction.
Organizational justice consists of distributive justice, procedural Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
justice, and interactional justice.
We propose that the perception of organizational justice by civil servants on these two provinces will influence the formation of positive emotion which will impact their job satisfaction.
This study provides a guidance to civil servants at leadership level to design a form of justice which influence positive emotions that have an impact on the work satisfaction of their subordinates.
The subject on this research are civil servants employees in South and Central Sulawesi Province Purposive sampling method is employ with 400 respondents as sample requirement and 350 questionnaires were returned which made the response rate of 87.
5 percent.
Data is analyze using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) with two phase approaches, namely: calculation model and structural model.
The results demonstrate that organizational justice has the ability to explain and predict positive emotion.
Furhermore, positive emotion has the ability to explain and predict job satisfaction for civil servants employees in South and Central Sulawesi Province.
Interactional and procedural justice are significantly influencing positive emotion with interactional justice has the largest influence in positive emotion.
While distributional justice has no significant influence on positive emotion.
INTRODUCTION
Judgement about what is fair or what should have been fair has been recognized as a fundamental cognition that affects people's attitudes and behaviours (Chun.
Brockner, & Cremer, 2.
The judgement of fairness in the workplace is known as organizational justice (Ambrose & Cropanzano, 2003.
Cropanzano & Stein, 2009.
Zhang.
Nie, & Luo, 2.
Numerous studies agree that the attitudes and behaviors of employees are affected by organizational justice.
In the workplace is often find differences between one worker to another, whether in the form of leaderAos treatment, salary and bonus receieve, or other policies made by organization leaders.
Organizational justice is related to how a worker feel about insentif/reward distribution, its alocation process, and the treatment they acquired inside an organization (Colquitt et al.
, 2013.
Cropanzano.
Stein, & Nadisic, 2.
Some scholars have examined the effect of various organizational attributes on justice perception formation (Cropanzano.
Paddock.
Rupp.
Bagger, & Baldwin.
Roberson & Colquitt, 2005.
Tziner & Sharoni, 2.
In addition, a growing number of organizational justice studies have shown that employeesAo perceptions of fairness in the workplace lead to a wide range of work-related outcomes (Dzansi, 2016.
Ouyang.
Sang.
Li, & Peng, 2015.
Skarlicki.
Van Jaarsveld, & Walker, 2.
These outcomes include job attitudes .
, organizational outcomes, job involvement, trust in management, and job satisfactio.
, emotional reactions .
, depression and ange.
, and behaviors .
, turnover, performance, and organizational citizenship behavio.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 In general, at the government organization, civil servant workers often compare outcome they receieve with their colleaguesAo as a base to form fairness perception.
According to Cohen-Charash and Spector .
that individual will compare the outcomes he/she receives with those received by their colleagues in one organization, thus it will form his perception of justice that is related to the outcome of the Furthermore, this applied to all types of organizations, both profit and non-profit organizations.
Therefore, it is necessary to implement a policy perceived to serve fairness between these workers.
According to preliminary observation conducted by interviewing 100 civil servants at government organization in South Sulawesi Province, 55 percent of the workers admitted they perceived organizational injustice in their workplace, such as the publication of new rules concerning pay cut from their insentif payment when a worker unable to attend work even when he/she is sick/ill.
See table 1.
Table 1 Percentage of Perceieve Organizational Justice/Injustice by Civil Servant Workers in South Sulawesi Province Perceive Perceive Total Civil Servants No opinon Worker (Number of 55 .
%) 33 .
%) 12 .
%) 100 .
%) Source: Data Process by researchers, 2017 According to the preliminary interviews from the civil servant workers, we conclude that perceive organizational justice will influence their emotion (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2.
and in turn will impact their job satisfaction (Cropanzano et al.
, 2008.
Robbins & Judge, 2.
In their book.
Robbins and Judge .
, stated that job satisfaction is formed when employees feel that they play a part in sharing their opinions related to the achievement of organizationAos goals.
They will feel that they receive appropriate appreciation and satisfaction from playing part in organizationAos goals achievement.
The satisfaction acquired is a positive emotional form from the achievement of perceived values related with their job and these values are in line with their needs (Cassar & Buttigieg, 2.
Moreover, we could say that positive emotion will impact civil servants job satisfaction as proposed by Barclay and Skarlicki .
Although emotion has been discussed extensively in organizational justice theory, yet only few researches in organizational justice consider emotion in their researches (Kaplan.
Cortina.
Ruark.
Laport, & Nicolaides, 2014.
Weiss.
Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1.
Furthermore, organizational justice research in government organization setting has never been conducted with civil servants as research subjects in Indonesia, despite early evidences we have collected concerning the important of perceive organizational justice in civil servants employees which will affect their Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
emotion, attitude and behavior in the workplace.
Based on the literature review, there were several studies in Indonesia in the last ten years.
Hwei and Santosa .
Palupi.
Tjahjono, and Nuri .
who examined the effect of career distributive justice and career procedural justice on retaliation behavior of private employees with career satisfaction as mediating variables.
and Januriastuti .
which examines the effect of personality and procedural justice on organizational commitment.
In order to fill this gap, we propose a study to investigate how organizational justice perception will influence positive emotion of civil servant workers in South and Central Sulawesi Province which in turn will impact their job satisfaction.
Researchers in the organizational justice area have identified three dimensions of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional .
Cohen-Charash & Spector.
Virgolino.
Coelho, & Ribeiro, 2.
These all three dimensions of organizational justice will be included in this study.
We also conduct Social Desirability Response (SDR) test to test all indicators use in measuring constructs of organizational justice, positive emotion, and job satisfaction in this research to make our constructs more valid and robust.
Theoritical benefit of this study is to reveal the role of organizational justice towards emotion which will impact job satisfaction.
As for practioner, the result of this study is expected to give knowledge regarding factors inflencing employeesAo job satisfaction in an organization, thus directors and managers of companies could design a suitable justice or fairness for the formation of positive emotion that will impact employeesAo job satisfaction.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The equity theory proposed by Adams .
is based on social exchange theory and extends the concept of organizational justice.
Equity theory has been applied widely in the field of organizational behavior.
Colquitt et al.
defined organizational justice as the degree to which workers are cognizant that they are treated fairly in their workplace.
Greenberg in Colquitt .
asserted that organizational justice is the fairness of the treatment received by employees in their workplace.
This treatment can serve to describe a working environment in terms of whether it is fair to However, models of equity theory and distributive justice cannot entirely predict how employees react to perceived unfairness in the workplace.
Studies of procedural factors that affect reward distribution have gradually increased.
These studies indicate that the perceived fairness of a reward distribution is less important than the perceived procedural fairness.
Therefore, studies of organizational justice have begun to shift Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 their focus from distributive justice to procedural, i.
, the perceived justice of Procedural justice is an extension of the concept of distributive justice and originates in the fields of law and politics.
Thibaut and Walkers .
were the first sociologists to perform systematic studies of procedural fairness, particularly in dispute resolution.
In their study of court proceedings, they defined procedural justice as the opportunity to express opinions and to participate in process control.
According to the perceived procedural justice theory proposed by the authors in that study, the fairness of a legal proceeding as perceived by the participants is just as important as the actual outcome.
Greenberg .
categorized organizational justice as distributive justice .
he perceived fairness of the reward allocatio.
and procedural justice .
he perceived fairness ofthe decision-making process applied by the organizatio.
However.
Bies and Moag .
argued that the concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice do not adequately explain organizational justice because they do not consider the interpersonal interactions perceived by employees during procedures.
Thus, they proposed the concept of interactional justice.
Since then, this concept has been applied in studies of how employees in organizations perceive the fairness of their treatment and the fairness of their interpersonal communications.
Organizational Justice and Emotion Research investigating the relationship between fairness and discrete emotions is lacking (Cropanzano.
Weiss.
Hale, & Reb, 2003.
Kaplan et al.
, 2.
, and most of the empirical work that does exist is relatively recent .
Wolfe.
Manjarrez, & Rojek Barclay.
Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005.
Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2.
Cropanzano and Wright .
review, the relative absence of research on discrete emotions in the justice literature is surprising for three reasons: .
classic discussions of injustice, including the work of Adams .
describe injustice as leading to the discrete emotions of anger or guilt, depending on whom the situation benefits.
theoretical models of justice often assume, but do not test for, emotions as mediators.
the importance of emotion is apparent in qualitative and quantitative studies of Research on fairness and discrete emotions suggests a basic model of the relationships among events, justice perceptions and emotions: events lead to justice perceptions and justice perceptions to emotions.
Existing research on emotions and fairness relates mainly to outcomes .
Virgolino et al.
, 2.
or events with both distributive and procedural aspects .
Budiyanti & Patiro, 2018.
Yadav & Yadav.
Despite the paucity and limitations of existing research, it provides a foundation for predicting the relationship between emotions and fairness.
In these studies discrete emotions vary.
Emotions including anger, happiness, and self-related emotions such as guilt are used as dependent variables in multiple studies.
Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
In assessing discrete emotions and fairness.
Weiss et al.
added happiness as a positive emotion to negative emotions for several reasons.
First, happiness is related to oneAos overall life adjustment (Moliner.
Cropanzano, & Martinez-tur, 2.
, organizational life (Colquitt & Rodell, 2.
, and important work outcomes .
, job performance.
Meisler .
Cropanzano & Wright .
Further, happiness is clearly distinguished in the emotions literature from anger and These reasons all support the inclusion of happiness in the current Additionally, happiness is included in other studies of emotion and fairness (Belyn.
Vyzquez-casielles, & Dyaz-martyn, 2009.
Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2.
Fairness and justice study in restaurant context also showed the importance of ditributive, procedural, and interactional justice for customers in assesing their needs and satisfaction (Budiyanti & Patiro, 2.
In this study we use happiness as one of the discrete positive emotion.
Other studies investigated emotion, such.
Ledimo .
proposed that procedural and interactional justice are interactiong in predicting individualAos emotion.
Emotion is mediating the relationship between perceieved organizational justice and revenge act.
Cassar and Buttigieg .
found that violation in psychological contract breach is mediating the relationship organizational justice and emotion.
Dzansi .
demonstrated that perceived organizational justice concerning human resource management in the workplace is affecting the quality of service rendered by the Moon .
showed that there is a negative relation between distributive and interpersonal justice with emloyeesAo turnover.
On the other hand, he also showed that there is a positive relation between ditributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice with organizationAos performance.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are H1: Procedural justice will positively influence the positive emotion.
H2: Distributive justice will positively influence the positive emotion.
H3: Interactional Justice will positively influence the positive emotion.
Positive Emotion and Job Satisfaction Begin with a simple question, what determine job satisfation of an employee? This question has long been a main concern of academics (Tziner & Sharoni 2014.
Spector, 1.
Job satisfaction has been defined as Aufeelings or affective responses to facets of the .
situationAy (Smith et al 1969 in Al-ZuAobi, 2.
More recently, researchers have acknowledged that job satisfaction is a phenomenon best described ashaving both cognitive .
and affective .
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 Furthermore, some studies demonstrated that job satisfaction is influence by confidence about the job .
as well as feelings and emotion (Fisher, 2000.
Ilies & Judge, 2.
In line with these studies.
Gotlib .
showed that organizational justice positively related to organizational behaviour moderated by employeesAo emotion.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses are propose:
H4: Positive emotion will positively influence job satisfation.
Therefore the theoritical model in this study is as follow:
Figure 1
Theoretical Model
RESEARCH METHOD
In the preliminary interviews phase, interviews with 100 respondents as key informant to explore organizational justice .
istributive, procedural, and interactional justic.
phenomenon in the workplace, were conducted.
Exploring on how organizational justice retaliate with emotion and job satisfaction of civil servant workers are performed subsequently.
Afterwards, a questionaire to be use as a measurement tool of the research based on the preliminary interviews with 100 key informants are build.
Next, face validity, social desirability response, and construct validity .
onvergent and discriminan.
, are conducted.
After an adequate validity result is acquired, measurement of the impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction mediated by positive emotion will be required.
Sampling Design Population in this study is civil servant employees and unit analysis is civil servant employees based in Makassar (South Sulawesi Provinc.
and Palu (Central Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Sulawesi Provinc.
Purposive sampling method is applied.
Respondents use in this study must fullfill three necessary requirements, as follow: .
Man or Woman.
Civil servant employees based in Makassar and Palu, .
Willing to be involved in the Hair et al.
proposed that minimum magnitude of sample in a study using SEM is five up to ten times indicators use.
In this study, 25 indicators are used, therefore minimum sample required is 25x10 = 250 .
wo hundred and fift.
According to Aeker.
Kumar.
Day, and Leone .
the bigger the sample size employed, the more accurate is the result of the study to reduce sampling Therefore, 400 .
our hundre.
is selected as the sample size in this study.
Operational definition and measurement Distibutive justice is the fairness of perceived rewards between individuals (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2002.
Cropanzano et al.
, 2.
Rewards included here is not only limited in financial aspect but also comprise promotion opportunity Individuals (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2002.
Colquitt et al.
, 2.
Measurement items to assess given rewards are: P1 (Pay for perso.
P2 (Pay for positito.
P3 (Pay for Performanc.
, overtime, special compensation for position, premium, and promotion opportunity.
Prosedural justice is perceived justice from the process use to define rewards distribution (Colquitt, 2.
Interactional justice is individual perception considering how far an employee is being treated with dignity, respect, and consideration, as well as other information relevant for employees (Colquitt, 2.
Morris and Keltner .
define positive emotion as an aroused circumstance from organism comprising realised changes and behaviour changes.
Job satisfaction is a pleasant emotional statement from individual assessment related to his/her work or work experiences (Judge.
Heller, & Mount, 2.
Job satisfaction is measure using measurement established by Judge and Ilies .
validated by Rafferty and Griffin .
All of the variables comprising of five item iquiries on 5 likert scale, which are.
1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree.
Instrument testing Instrument testing is perform to test whether the research intrument use in this study has the capability to measure needed research constructs.
This study uses face validity, content validity, convergent validity (Hair et al.
, 2.
The purpose of conducting pilot test in this study is to test social desirability response (SDR) and construct test (Validity and Realibilit.
Next phase is to perform construct realibility.
This test is rendered to test the consistensy of indicators use in this study.
In collecting data neccesary in this study to be analyze quantitatively, this study use survey method.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 Data Analysis Method This study use Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) technique with the help of AMOS program software.
SEM has the ability to analyse latent variables (Hair et , 2.
This study use two phase SEM approach, which are: measurement model and structural model.
Measurement model is conducted to confirm a dimention or factor based on its empirical indicators.
While structural model is related to corelation structure establishing or explaining causality between factors.
Model testing See table 2 for model testing details.
Table 2
Indicator of Goodness of Fit model
Goodness of Fit
Index
yyU2 chi-square Probability RMSEA
GFI
AGFI
Description Cut Off Value To test whether population covarioance estimates is equal to sample covariance .
s model fit with the dat.
Very sensitive to big sample size.
Significance test for the diffrence in data covariance matrix and estimate covariance matrix.
Compensating the weakness of chi-square in big size sample.
Calculate weighted proportion variance in sample matrix explain by the estimate population matrix covariance.
GFI adjusted to Degree of Freedom (DF) CMIN/DF CFI Goodness of fit between data and model.
Siignificance test for model insensitive with the size of the sample and the model complication.
Source: Hair et al.
Expected to be small > 0.
< 0.
> 0.
> 0.
1 < normed yyU2 <5 > 0.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Sample Characteristics Table 3 presents the demographic characteristics.
Descriptive information shows that 57.
14 percent of the respondents .
were male, and 42.
86 percent were female.
The majority of respondents .
86 percen.
were married.
Regarding their education levels, 4.
28 percent of the respondents have at least a senior high school degree, 29.
43 percent, 37.
71 percent, and 28.
57 percent hold bachelor, masterAos and doctoral degrees, respectively.
The respondents aged between 41 and 45 formed the largest group .
86 percen.
The majority of job tenure respondents was more than 10 years .
57 percen.
Sixty-two point twenty nine percent of the respondents have monthly expenses which range between Rp 2,500,001 Ae Rp 5,000,000.
Variables Table 3 Sample Characteristics Categories Sum Percentage Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Gender Age Marital status Job tenure Education Monthly expenses Male Female 25-30 years 31-35 years 36-40 years 41-45 years 46-50 years Single Married Less than 1 year 1-5 years 5-10 years More than 10 years Senior High School Bachelor Master Doctor IDR 0 Ae IDR 1.
IDR 1.
001 Ae IDR 2.
IDR 2.
001 Ae IDR 5.
IDR 5.
001 Ae IDR 10.
More than IDR 10.
Measurement model On the basis of Anderson and Gerbing .
two-step approach, first, this study conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a maximum likelihood to estimate the measurement model by verifying the underlying structure of constructs.
This study also check unidimensionality, reliabilities, and validities of the seven-factor measurement model before testing the structural model (Table .
As illustrated in Table 4, the level for internal consistency in each construct is acceptable with CronbachAos estimate ranging from 0.
88 to 0.
Composite reliabilities estimates, ranging from 0.
87 to 0.
98, are considered acceptable (Hair et al.
, 2.
In addition, all variance extracted estimates .
istributive justice = 0.
procedural justice = 0.
interactional justice = 0.
positive emotion = 0.
job satisfaction = 0.
exceed the recommended 0.
50 threshold (Fornell & Larcker, 1.
Convergent validity is first observed since all confirmatory factor loadings exceed 0.
70, and all are significant, with t-values ranging from a low of 9.
49 to a high of 15.
37 at the a level 001 (Anderson & Gerbing, 1.
Thus, these results show evidence of the convergent validity of the measures.
Discriminant validity assess by comparing the average variance extracted (AVE) with the squared correlation between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1.
The inter-factor correlations between the five constructs, estimated by the coefficient, ranged from 0.
50 to 0.
Discriminant validity is evident since the variance extracted Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 estimates, ranging from 0.
74 to 0.
85, exceed all squared correlations of each pair of constructs, ranging from 0.
35 to 0.
These results suggest that the five factors are distinct and unidimensional.
Also, confirmatory measurement models demonstrated the soundness of measurement properties (N2 .
= 693.
A < 0.
N2 /df = 2.
NFI = 0.
TLI = 0.
CFI = 0.
IFI = 0.
RMSEA = 0.
Table 5 presents the intercorrelations among the five constructs in this study.
The shared correlations, representing the shared variance among the constructs, were found not to exceed the average variance explained.
Thus, the result suggests that measures employed in this study are distinct and unidimensional measures.
Table 4 Reliabilities and confirmatory factor analysis properties Standardized factor Composite Construct (CronbachAos ) Distributive Justice .
DJ1
DJ2
DJ3
DJ4
Procedural Justice .
PJ1
PJ2
PJ3
PJ4
PJ5
PJ6
Interactional Justice .
IJ1
IJ2
IJ3
IJ4
IJ5
IJ6
Positive Emotion .
PE1
PE2
PE3
PE4
Job Satisfaction .
JS1
JS2
JS3
JS4
JS5
Table 5 Correlations among the latent constructs AVE Constructs Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Interactional Justice Positive Emotion Job Satisfaction Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) Structural equation modeling is performed to test the validity of the proposed model and the hypotheses.
The results of the standardized parameter estimates and tvalues are presented in Table 6.
Figure 2 presents the estimated model, illustrating the direction and magnitude of the impact of the standardized path coefficients.
The N2 statistic indicate that the overall model did not fit the data well (N2 .
= 693.
A <
Given the sensitivity of the N2 statistics to sample size (Hair et al.
, 2.
, other fit indexes are also examined.
First, normed N2 (N2/degrees of freedo.
is considered to reduce the sensitivity of the N2 statistic.
The value of the normed N2 was 2.
589, which is below the cut-off criterion of 3 (Hair et al.
, 2.
, and show that the model fit the data well (N2/df = 2.
Other goodness-of-fit indices proof that the structural model fit the data reasonably (NFI = 0.
TLI = 0.
CFI = 0.
IFI = 0.
RMSEA
= 0.
GFI = 0.
945 dan AGFI = 0.
The modelAos fit as indicated by these indexes is deemed satisfactory.
thus, it provide a good basis for testing the hypothesized paths.
According to Hu and Bentler .
and Hair et al.
that CMIN/DF (N2/d.
GFI.
AGFI, and RMSEA were Goodness of Fit Indices which is often the main reference in SEM analysis.
Because of the four indices show that the model analyzed is parsimony and in accordance with the data (Hu & Bentler, 1.
Overall, the four indices values in this study meet the requirements.
Indeed, indices such as NFI.
TLI, and IFI have to be considered as well where they complement each other, but, these values in this research show an acceptable or moderate level according to Hair et al.
The parameter estimates in a structural model exhibit the direct effects of one construct on the other and thereby a significant coefficient at a certain level of a reveals a significant casual relationship between latent constructs.
(Figure 2.
Table .
H1, which hypothesized a positive relationship between distributive justice and positive emotion, was supported .
= 0.
160, t = 2.
229, p<0.
The result of the first hypothesis demonstrate that when public servant evaluate the money they receieve as fair, they tended to have more positive emotion.
H2, which hypothesized a positive relationship between procedural justice and positive emotion, is supported .
= 0.
t = 2.
247, p<0.
This result indicate that in terms of the process used to create allocation of sources, as public servantAos perceived level of justice increased they were more likely to experience positive emotions.
As expected in H3, interactional justice Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 has a significant impact on positive emotion .
= 0.
154, t = 1.
974, p<0.
This result indicate that public servant perceived the fairness of the interpersonal treatment they received during the enactment of procedures (Bies & Saphiro, 1.
With regard to the relationships between the positive emotions and job satisfaction.
H4, is supported .
= 0.
167, t = 3.
689, p<0.
These findings suggest the possibility that positive emotion may be a better indicator for predicting job satisfaction of public servant.
Since procedural fairness is the most important criteria for generating positive emotions, the head office should seriously consider the importance of that justice aspects and their potential to elicit positive emotions.
Figure 2 Structural equation model with parameter estimates Table 6 Structural parameter estimates Hypothesized path .
tated as alternative Standardized path H1: distributive justice Ie positive emotions H2: procedural justice Ie positive emotions H3: interactional justice Ie positive emotions H4: positive emotionsIe job satisfaction t-value Results Supported Supported Supported Supported CONCLUSION This study investigates the usefulness of justice concepts in evaluating public servant experiences in Indonesia context and examined the relationship among organizational justice, emotions, and job satisfaction based on the Mehrabian-Russell Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Results show different roles for each justice dimension in relation to emotions and job satisfaction.
Procedural justice has the greatest effect on positive emotions compared to distributive justice and interactional justice.
This can be seen from the beta coefficient value, which is 0.
rocedural justic.
istributive justic.
nteractional justic.
(Table .
Thus, according to this study procedural justice has the greatest and most significant effect on positive emotion in the context of public services which are nuanced by bureaucracy.
As Leventhal .
argued that procedural justice refers to the individualAos perception of fairness of procedural elements within a social system regulates allocation of resources.
In line with Leventhal .
Zapata.
Colquitt.
Scott, and Livingston .
stated, it fits with the final outcomes that are equitably deal with methods, mechanisms, and processes.
Thus, it is considered to exist when procedures embody certain types of normatively accepted principles.
Specifically.
Indonesia public servant would see the fairness of the procedures, if they shall meet the following criteria, according to Leventhal .
the extent to which they suppress bias, create consistent allocations, rely on accurate information, are correctable, represent the concerns of all the recipients, and are based on the prevailing moral and ethical As another aspect of public servantAos justice perception, procedural justice seems to act as a basic requirement.
The violation of procedural fairness wouldnAot elicited positive emotions.
Distributive justice, has also been found to be a significant determinant of positive emotions.
As it deals with the perceived fairness of outcomes, it has the potential to have strong implications in the organizational context, of which distribution of outcomes is an integral part.
According to Walster.
Walster, and Berscheid .
, realizing the potential implications of distributive justice on the organizational context, researchers examined the perceived fairness of organizational outcomes .
, pay selection, and promotion decision.
and the relations of these justice perceptions to numerous criterion variables, such as quality and quantity of Thus, when a particular outcome is perceived to be unfair by the public servant, it should affect their emotions .
, experience anger, happiness, pride, or guil.
(Erolkorkmaz, 2012.
George & Dane, 2016.
Weiss et al.
, 1.
According to Bies and Moag .
Cropanzano et al.
and Moliner et .
, interactional justice is determined by the interpersonal behavior of managementAos representatives, interactional justice is considered to be related to cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions toward these representatives, that is, the direct supervisor or source of justice.
Thus, when public servant perceives interactional injustice, he/she is predicted to negatively react toward his/her supervisor rather than negatively react toward the organization as a whole.
Hence, the public servant is Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 predicted to be dissatisfied with his/her direct supervisor rather than with the organization as a whole.
Similarly, the public servant will be predicted to be less committed to his/her supervisor, rather than to the organization, and to develop negative attitudes toward the supervisor, but less so toward the organization.
Organizations have realized that public servant emotions are pervasive in the The emotions are not only a deep-seated part of work life but have an important role to play in public servantAos job performance and satisfaction.
Accoriding to George and Brief .
, a public servantAos emotions and overall temperament have a significant impact on his/her job performance, decision making skills, team spirit, leadership, turnover and job satisfaction.
It is believed that public servant bring their feelings of anger, fear, love and respect with them when they come to work.
Emotions of public servant matter because they drive their performance and have influence on job satisfaction.
Positive emotions increase creativity, encourage helping behavior and cooperation and reduce aggression both against the organization and against people.
This research suggests that positive people have better cognitive abilities and tend to do better in the workplace and with accuracy.
Managerial implications This study provides several managerial implications.
It offers head office a perspective for how public servant evaluate policy from a justice standpoint.
Therefore, it can help head office to better understand how each type of organizational justice can contribute to eliciting positive emotion and eventually affect job satisfaction.
This information should help head office develop more effective and efficient strategies for ensuring fairness, thus resulting in higher levels of performance retention.
According to affective event theory (Weiss et al.
, 1.
, work events, positive or negative, have an influence on the emotional reactions of public servant, which is also influenced by the personality or mood of these.
The positive and negative emotional reactions determine the job satisfaction and job performance of public These positive or negative emotional reactions accompany the public servant the whole day at work and later at home.
Consequently, the emotional reactions have an influence on the well-being of a public servant after work at home at his or her Therefore, it is all the more important to create positive emotional reactions by the organisations.
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are given:
Management should endeavor to organize emotion management programs for their public servant in order to ensure that their job satisfaction is improved upon and also to reduce the occurrence of high negative attitude, .
The deployment of emotional intelligence strategies should be used in organisations in order to ensure good working Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
relations between public servant and management and among public servant.
Limitations and futher research Despite its contributions and managerial implications, several limitations of the study need to be addressed.
First, the data were collected from only public service Therefore, generalizing the results to other sector in Indonesia may not work.
Future studies should consider organizational justice issues in other sectors and examine the relative importance of each organizational justice dimension among those The sampling frame of this study was another limitation.
A national sample of respondents was not used.
the sample was drawn from two cities in two regions in Indonesia.
If the survey were expanded to include more regions, the crucial fairness themes may be different.
Furthermore, from a methodological stance, future studies should refine and revalidate the justice measurement items used in this study and test the applicability of the concept of justice in evaluating public services as compared to that of service This study have focused primarily on the effects of individual-level justice perceptions but paid little attention to the unit-level cognition of how a work unit is treated as a whole.
Thus, another direction for future research involves organization as unit of analysis.
Because of justice perceptions are not formed in isolation but rather in the context of specific relationships with multiple individuals and groups.
As Social Information Processing theory asserts that employee attitudes and behaviors are the results of active interaction with each other, which creates a sense of managerial practices and events in their workplace (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1.
ThatAos why justice judgments are likely to be affected by the responses of others in organization.
In addition, given that an employeeAos fairness perceptions vary over time.
This research using the cross sectional analysis.
According to Hausknecht.
Sturman, and Roberson .
, cross sectional analysis may reveal a weak predictive validity of organizational justice in explaining work-related outcomes.
Therefore, futher studies on justice climate should use longitudinal research designs that will lead to a better understanding of how the shared perceptions about fair treatment are linked to a broad range of work-related outcomes over time.
REFERENCES
Adams.
Inequity in social exchange.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2.
, 267Ae299.
Aeker.
Kumar.
Day.
, & Leone.
Marketing Research.
Jhon Wiley & Sons.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 Al-ZuAobi.
A study of relationship between organizational justice and job International Journal of Business and Management, 5.
, 102Ae https://doi.
org/10.
5539/ijbm.
Ambrose.
, & Cropanzano.
A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: An examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 88.
, 266Ae275.
https://doi.
org/10.
1037/00219010.
Anderson.
, & Gerbing.
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach.
Psychological Bulletin, 103.
, 411Ae423.
Barclay.
, & Skarlicki.
Healing the wounds of organizational injustice: Examining the benefits of expressive writing.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 94.
, 511Ae523.
https://doi.
org/10.
1037/a0013451 Barclay.
Skarlicki.
, & Pugh.
Exploring the role of emotions in injustice perceptions and retaliation.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90.
, 629Ae643.
https://doi.
org/10.
1037/0021-9010.
Belyn.
Vyzquez-casielles.
, & Dyaz-martyn.
Satisfaction with service recovery : Perceived justice and emotional responses.
Journal of Business Research, 62.
, 775Ae781.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Bies.
, & Saphiro.
Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts.
Social Justice Research, 1.
, 198Ae217.
Bies.
, & Moag.
Interactional justice: Communication criteria of In Research on negotiations in organizations .
41Ae.
JAI Press.
Budiyanti.
, & Patiro.
Perceived fairness, emotions, and intention of fast food chain restaurants customers in Indonesia.
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, 20.
, 229Ae252.
Cassar.
, & Buttigieg.
Psychological contract breach, organizational justice and emotional well-being.
Personnel Review, 44.
, 217Ae235.
Chun.
Brockner.
, & Cremer.
De.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes how temporal and social comparisons in performance evaluation a ff ect fairness perceptions.
Organizational Behavior Human Decision Processes, 145(July 1Ae15.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Cohen-Charash.
, & Spector.
Erratum to AuThe role of justice in Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
organizations: A meta-analysisAy [Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86 .
278Ae.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89.
, https://doi.
org/10.
1016/S07495978.
Colquitt.
Organizational https://doi.
org/10.
4324/9781315648194
526Ae547.
Colquitt.
, & Rodell.
Measuring justice and fairness.
The Oxford Handbook Justice Workplace, 187Ae202.
https://doi.
org/10.
1093/oxfordhb/9780199981410.
Colquitt.
Scott.
Rodell.
Long.
Zapata.
Conlon.
& Wesson.
Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A metaanalytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 98.
, 199Ae236.
https://doi.
org/10.
1037/a0031757 Cropanzano.
Paddock.
Rupp.
Bagger.
, & Baldwin.
How regulatory focus impacts the process-by-outcome interaction for perceived fairness and emotions.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105.
, 36Ae51.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Cropanzano.
, & Stein.
Organizational justice and behavioral ethics:
Promises and prospects.
Business Ethics Quarterly, 19.
, 193Ae233.
https://doi.
org/10.
5840/beq200919211 Cropanzano.
Stein.
, & Nadisic.
Social justice and the experience of emotion.
Routledge.
Taylor & Francis Group.
Cropanzano.
Weiss.
Hale.
, & Reb.
The structure of affect:
Reconsidering the relationship between negative and positive affectivity.
Journal of Management, 29.
, 831Ae857.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/S01492063.
Cropanzano.
, & Wright.
Procedural justice and organizational staffing: A tale of two paradigms.
Human Resource Management Review, 13.
, 7Ae39.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/S1053-4822.
Dzansi.
A south african study of influence of fairness of human resource management practices on service quality.
Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 32.
, 871.
https://doi.
org/10.
19030/jabr.
Erol-korkmaz.
Relations of work events, core self and external evaluations, and affective state with employee attitude and behavior.
International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3.
, 137Ae150.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 Fornell.
, & Larcker.
Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error.
Journal of Marketing Research, 18.
, 39Ae50.
George.
, & Dane.
Organizational behavior and human decision processes affect, emotion, and decision making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 47Ae55.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
George.
, & Brief.
Instrumental or emotional evaluations: What determines preferences? Journal of Psychology, 59.
, 115Ae136.
Gotlib.
Multifoci organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, and counterproductive work behavior: The mediating effects of florida institute of technology.
Greenberg.
A taxonomy of organizational justice theories.
Academy of Management Review, 12.
, 9Ae22.
https://doi.
org/10.
5465/AMR.
Hair.
Black.
Babin.
, & Anderson.
Multivariate data analysis.
Pearson Education.
Hausknecht.
Sturman.
, & Roberson.
Justice as a dynamic construct: Effects of individual trajectories on distal work outcomes.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96.
, 872Ae880.
Hwei.
, & Santosa.
Distributif terhadap komitmen organisasi.
Jurnal Dinamika Ekonomi & Bisnis, 9.
, 37Ae52.
Januriastuti.
Pengaruh kepribadian dan keadilan prosedural terhadap komitmen organisasi guru SD Negeri Kecamatan Cakung Barat.
Kota Administrasi Jakarta Timur.
Pedagogik.
, 83Ae92.
Judge.
Heller.
, & Mount.
Five-factor model of personality and job satisfaction: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87.
, 530Ae https://doi.
org/10.
1037/0021-9010.
Judge.
, & Ilies, r.
Affect and job satisfaction: a study of their relationship at work and at home.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89.
, 661Ae673.
Kaplan.
Cortina.
Ruark.
Laport.
, & Nicolaides.
The role of organizational leaders in employee emotion management : A theoretical The Leadership Quarterly, 25.
, 563Ae580.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Krehbiel.
, & Cropanzano.
Procedural justice, outcome favorability, and Social Justice Research, 13.
, 227Ae358.
Ledimo.
An exploratory study of factors influencing organisational justice among government employees.
The Journal of Applied Business Research, 31.
, 1549Ae1563.
Leventhal.
What should be done with equity theory? In K.
Gergen.
Greenberg, & R.
Wilis (Eds.
Social Exchange .
27Ae.
Springer US.
https://doi.
org/https://doi.
org/10.
1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
Meisler.
Empirical exploration of the relationship between emotional intelligence, perceived organizational justice and turnover intentions.
Employee Relations, 35.
, 441Ae455.
https://doi.
org/10.
1108/ER-05-20120041
Moliner.
Cropanzano.
, & Martinez-tur.
Organizational justice:
International perspective.
Routledge.
Taylor & Francis Group.
Moon.
-K.
Fairness at the organizational level: Examining the effect of organizational justice climate on collective turnover rates and organizational Public Personnel Management, 46.
, 118Ae143.
https://doi.
org/10.
1177/0091026017702610
Morris.
, & Keltner.
How emotions work: The social functions of emotional expressions in negotiations.
Research in Organizational Behavior, 22.
, 1Ae50.
Ouyang.
Sang.
Li.
, & Peng.
Organizational justice and job insecurity as mediators of the effect of emotional intelligence on job satisfaction : A study from China q.
Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 147Ae152.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Palupi.
Tjahjono.
, & Nuri.
Karyawan swasta di Daerah Istimewa Yogyakarta (DIY) dengan kepuasan karir sebagai variabel pemediasian.
Jurnal Universitas Paramadina, 11.
, 1Ae10.
Rafferty.
, & Griffin.
Job satisfaction in organizational research.
Buchanan: The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research Methods .
196Ae.
sage publication.
Robbins.
, & Judge.
Organizational behavior.
(S.
Yagan.
Ed.
Pearson.
Roberson.
, & Colquitt.
Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams.
The Academy of Management Review.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 30.
, 595Ae607.
https://doi.
org/10.
5465/AMR.
Skarlicki.
Van Jaarsveld.
, & Walker.
Getting even for customer mistreatment: the role of moral identity in the relationship between customer interpersonal injustice and employee sabotage.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 93.
, 1355Ae1347.
Specter.
Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and sage publication.
Thibaut.
, & Walkers.
Procedural justice: A psychological analysis.
Hillsdale NJ.
Tziner.
, & Sharoni.
Organizational citizenship behavior, organizational justice, job stress, and work- family conflict: Examination of their interrelationships with respondents from a non-Western culture.
Journal of Work Organizational Psychology, 30.
, 35Ae42.
https://doi.
org/10.
5093/tr2014a5 Virgolino.
Coelho.
, & Ribeiro.
The impact of perceived organizational justice, psychological contract, and the burnout on employee performance: The moderating role of organizational support, in the portuguese International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7.
, 241Ae263.
https://doi.
org/10.
6007/IJARBSS/v7-i1/2604 Walster.
Walster.
, & Berscheid.
Equity: Theory and research.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Weiss.
Suckow.
, & Cropanzano.
Effects of justice conditions on discrete emotions.
Journal of Applied Psychology.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84.
, 786Ae794.
Wolfe.
Manjarrez.
, & Rojek.
Why does organizational justice matter ? Uncertainty management among law enforcement o ffi cers oI.
Journal Criminal Justice, 54.
, 20Ae29.
https://doi.
org/10.
1016/j.
Yadav.
, & Yadav.
Organizational justice : An analysis of approaches, dimensions and outcomes.
NMIMS Management Review, xI(August 2.
, 14Ae40.
Zapata.
Colquitt.
Scott.
, & Livingston.
Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 2.
, 1Ae Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Zhang.
Nie.
, & Luo.
Matching organizational justice with employment modes: Strategic human resources management perspective.
Journal of Technology Management in China, 4.
, 180Ae187.
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360
APPENDIX 1
Nama Identitas Responden :______________________________.
oleh tidak diis.
Umur :atahun Status Pegawai : PNS/CPNS .
oret yang tidak perl.
Masa Kerja :atahun Status pernikahan : Belum Menikah Pendidikan terakhir : SD
Menikah SMP
SMA
Sarjana Pascasarjana Pengeluaran per bulan Rp 0 Ae Rp 1.
Rp1.
001 Ae Rp2.
Rp2.
001 Ae Rp5.
Rp5.
001 Ae Rp10.
Di atas Rp10.
Untuk Pertanyaan Berikut ini.
Saudara Cukup Memberikan Pilihan Jawaban Berupa Tanda Oo atau X pada kotak yang tersedia.
Keadilan Distributif Menurut saya, imbalan yang diterima mencerminkan usaha yang diberikan dalam pekerjaan.
Menurut saya, imbalan yang diterima sesuai dengan pekerjaan yang saya Menurut saya, imbalan yang diterima mencerminkan kontribusi kita kepada Sangat Tidak Setuju Tidak Setuju Netral
Setuju Sangat Setuju Kode
Kuesioner KD1
KD2
KD3
Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
Menurut saya, imbalan yang diterima sesuai dengan kinerja yang dihasilkan.
Keadilan Prosedural KD4 Sangat Tidak Setuju Tidak Setuju Netral Setuju Sangat Setuju Para pegawai dapat menyatakan pandangan dan perasaan selama organisasi menerapkan peraturan.
Organisasi menerapkan peraturan secara konsisten.
Tidak ada pegawai atau kelompok pegawai yang diistimewakan dalam penerapan peraturan.
Peraturan-peraturan organisasi dibuat berdasarkan undang-undang dan peraturan yang berlaku.
Pegawai dapat mengajukan keberatan terkait penerapan peraturan organisasi Peraturan-peraturan organisasi menjunjung tinggi standar moral dan Keadilan Interaksional Atasan saya memperlakukan bawahan dengan cara yang sopan.
Atasan saya memperlakukan bawahan dengan penuh martabat.
Atasan saya selalu menahan diri untuk tidak berkata-kata atau berkomentar yang tidak pantas.
Atasan peraturan/prosedur secara menyeluruh Atasan peraturan/prosedur secara menyeluruh Atasan berkomunikasi secara rinci
kapanpun diperlukan Kode
Kuesioner KP1
KP2
KP3
KP4
KP5
KP6
Sangat Tidak Setuju Tidak Setuju Netral
Setuju Sangat Setuju Kode
Kuesioner KI1
KI2
KI3
KI4
KI5
KI6
Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 Sangat Tidak Setuju Kepuasan Kerja Saya puas dengan informasi yang saya terima dari atasan saya tentang prestasi kerja saya.
Saya puas dengan pekerjaan saya Saya puas dengan kesempatan yang ada dalam pekerjaan saya untuk berinteraksi dengan orang lain.
Saya puas dengan cara atasan saya menangani bawahan.
Saya puas dengan bayaran yang saya terima untuk pekerjaan saya.
Emosi Positip Saya merasa bahagia dengan situasi dan kondisi kerja dalam Saya senang dengan perlakuan pimpinan terhadap stafnya.
Saya selalu antusias dalam menerima semua tugas dan tanggung jawab yang diberikan oleh pimpinan.
Saya merasa bangga menjadi bagian dari organisasi.
Sangat Tidak Setuju Tidak Setuju Netral
Setuju Sangat Setuju Tidak Setuju Netral
Setuju Sangat Setuju Kode
Kuesioner Kode
Kuesioner EP1
EP2
EP3
EP4
Organizational justice perception of indonesia civilA.
(Budiyanti.
Patiro.
Nurma.
APPENDIX 2 Review Table Review Note Research gap should be put in a Has been fixed in accordance.
Please very brief.
What is the contribution see abstract section, page 1 line 8 of your research? Typos.
Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see abstarct section.
Typos.
data is analyze Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see abstarct section do not use personal pronoun.
Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see introduction section.
Justification of this phenomenon Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see bottom of page 2 Research gap? This claim is too Make sure it has never been done before.
Why does author firmly assign positive emotion rather than emotion itself? Why not using both positive and negative emotion Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see bottom of page 3 A13 What is the justification of the chosen respondents.
Why not just focus on sample set?Do you merge two dataset into one dataset? This study used sample which included public servant as respondents from those 2 regions to increase generalization.
We merge two data set into one dataset.
Has been fixed in accordance.
This section is under results and discussions section We only focus on the effect of organizational justice on positive emotions in our study.
We considered this due to researches conducted previously by Cohen-Charash and Spector .
Cropanzano et al .
Cassar and Buttigieg .
and Budiyanti and Patiro .
, which show that positive emotion has the greatest impact on satisfaction.
A8 Why donAot author test the mediating Indeed, we didnAot do the test of effect of positive emotion? mediating effect of positive emotion in relationship between organizational justice and job It could be done for further research.
A9 Please attach questionnaires.
We provide our questionnaire in separate file.
A10 Citation added.
Has been fixed in accordance.
Please see bottom of page 7 A11 Response? Has been fixed in accordance.
Response.
A12 Move this section before Has been fixed in accordance.
Please operational definition and see page 7 under sampling design A14 This section should be finding not included in research method Jurnal Ekonomi dan Bisnis.
Volume 21 No.
2 Oktober 2018, 333-360 A15 NFI.
TLI.
IFI do not meet the Please justify the we include the other of goodness of fit indices, namely GFI 0.
945 and AGFI = 0.
according to Hu and Bentler .
and Hair et al .
that CMIN/DF (N2/d.
GFI.
AGFI, and RMSEA were Goodness of Fit Indices which is often the main reference in SEM analysis.
For complete analyses, please see page
A16 Discussion?