Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business
September-December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 335–353

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AS AN
ANTECEDENT OF JOB PERFORMANCE
Aizzat Mohd. Nasurdin
Soon Lay Khuan
The present research examines the influence of organizational
justice (distributive justice and procedural justice) on predicting job
performance (task performance and contextual performance). Survey data were drawn from a sample of 136 customer-contact employees within the telecommunications industry in Malaysia. Results of
the regression analysis illustrate that distributive justice alone has
a significant and positive relationship with task performance. On the
other hand, only procedural justice is found to be significantly and
positively related to contextual performance. Implications of the
findings and directions for future research are highlighted.
Keywords: contextual performance; customer-contact employees; distributive justice; Malaysia; procedural justice; task performance

335

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

Introduction
In a competitive business environment, behavior of frontline employees play a critical role in ensuring the
success of a service provider. Being in
boundary-spanning occupations, these
employees represent the key link between the external customer and the
organization. For service-oriented
companies, the effective performance
of customer-contact workers would
directly and significantly affect customers’ perception of the level of service quality offered, thus creating a
losing or winning ground for the related service providers in the market
place. Customer-contact employees
who perform tasks and activities efficiently which include keeping customers’ records correctly and solving customers’ queries promptly would provide a favorable impression on the
service, thereby enhancing the image
of the service provider. Similarly, by
engaging in activities beyond their formal role prescriptions such as assisting
their colleagues that are temporarily
burdened with work, providing informal mentoring for lesser skilled staffs,
and displaying acts of courtesy and
goodwill to customers, customer-contact employees are bound to contribute
to better service. According to Wang
et al. (2003), superior service quality
will have positive consequences in the
form of enhanced reputation, higher
customer satisfaction and retention, and
greater profitability for the service organization.

336

Historically, Katz (1964) has identified two basic types of behaviors that
are necessary for organizational effectiveness in the form of in-role and
extra-role job behaviors. In-role behavior reflects predictable job performance responsibilities that must be
carried out in order to implement the
organization’s essential operations. If
employees fail to perform these required behaviors, they do not receive
organizational rewards and they may
lose their jobs. These types of behaviors are synonymous with task performance (Borman and Motowidlo 1997)
or in-role behaviors (Bott et al. 2003;
Williams and Anderson 1991). On the
other hand, extra-role behavior reflects
variable patterns of behaviors that fall
outside of one’s job descriptions yet
facilitate the accomplishments of organizational goals (Katz 1964). These
behaviors are not assigned by the organization and thus, are voluntary in nature. Employees are not punished for
not performing these acts and neither
are they rewarded for doing it. Nevertheless, these behaviors are equally
important because they allow for the
smooth internal operations of the organization which enables it to adapt to
the changing external environments.
Acts and gestures of altruism, cooperation, goodwill, courtesy, sportsmanship, and other instances help reduce
the friction encountered in work situations and under many unforeseen circumstances. Such behaviors reflect Van
Scotter’s (2000) conceptualization of
contextual performance. To sum up,

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

viewing job performance that is comprised of two dimensions is in tandem
with those of other scholars (for instance, Campbell 1990; Conway 1999).
In the customer-organization interface,
frontline, customer-contact employees
are expected to exhibit high levels of
both task and contextual performance.
A review of literature illustrated a
vast array of determinants of task performance and contextual performance
using samples which have been primarily derived from developed countries
especially those in the West. The investigations that focused on task performance as the dependent variables
include those of Langhorn’s (2004),
Morgeson, Delaney-Klinger, and
Hemingway’s (2005), and Williams’s
(1999). Meanwhile, studies on contextual performance include those by Farh
et al. (1990), Konovsky and Pugh
(1994), and Yoon and Suh (2003).
Generally, the antecedents of either
task performance or contextual performance can be grouped under organizational, job/role, and individual-related
categories. Organizational-related predictors comprise of organizational justice (Jin and Shu 2004; Konovsky and
Pugh 1994; Konovsky and Organ 1996;
Niehoff and Moorman 1993), organizational commitment (Chen and
Francesco 2003; MacKenzie et al.
1998; Moorman et al. 1993), leadership (Netemeyer et al. 1997; Podsakoff
et al. 1996), perceived organizational
support (Farh et al. 1990; Kaufman et
al. 2001), and trust (Aryee et al. 2002;
Konovsky and Pugh 1994). Job/rolerelated factors include job satisfaction

(Bateman and Organ 1983; MacKenzie
et al. 1998; Moorman 1993), job scope
(Farh et al. 1990; Morgeson et al. 2005),
job characteristics and burnout (Bakker
et al. 2004), and role stressors (Fried et
al. 1998; MacKenzie et al. 1998). Demographic variables (Pelled et al. 2000;
Tang and Ibrahim 1998; Van Emmerik
and Sanders 2004), personality traits
(Bott et al. 2003; Williams and Sanchez
1998), and emotional intelligence
(Carmeli 2003; Langhorn 2004) constitute the individual-related predictors. Research on the topic of job performance using Malaysian subjects has
received little empirical attention. The
few studies identified have exclusively
concentrated on one particular type of
job performance, that is, extra-role citizenship behavior (Hemdi et al. 2007;
Ishak et al. 2003; Nasurdin and
Ramayah 2003). Despite the extensive
literature, except for the work by
MacKenzie et al. (1998), no other studies have examined the predictors of
both forms of performance (task performance and contextual performance)
simultaneously. Hence, testing a bidimensional model of job performance
using a sample of employees in Malaysia would be helpful in addressing the
under-representation of samples from
developing countries in the East.
Among the numerous antecedents of individual job performance,
fairness perceptions have been regarded as important factors that affect
employees’ actions and reactions at
the workplace (Masterson et al. 2000;
Podsakoff et al. 2000). Research into
organizational justice has shown that it
337

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

is comprised of two major components: distributive justice and procedural justice (Greenberg 1990). Although numerous studies have been
conducted between organizational justice (distributive justice and procedural
justice) and work attitudes and behaviors (Folger and Konovsky 1989;
Konovsky and Pugh 1994; Moorman
1991; Niehoff and Moorman 1993;
Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin 1996;
Williams 1999; Kwon 2006), the relative importance of these two dimensions in explaining the variance in the
criterion variables has yet to be clearly
demonstrated. Hence, the goal of the
present investigation is to examine the
influence of organizational justice (distributive justice and procedural justice) on both forms of job performance
(task performance and contextual performance) among customer-contact
employees in Malaysia.

Review of Literature
Job Performance
The meaning of job performance
in the field of organizational behavior
has changed over the last few decades.
There has been a growing realization
that job performance is not a unitary
construct. In fact, researches have
shifted from a focus on fixed tasks
associated with the jobs to encompass
a broader perspective in a dynamic
organizational context (Ilgen and
Hollenbeck 1991). Traditionally, performance was evaluated in terms of the
proficiency with which an individual
338

carried out the tasks that were prescribed in his or her role descriptions
(Griffin et al. 2007). This conceptualization is in tandem with those
of earlier scholars (such as Katz 1964;
Katz and Kahn 1978). According to
these authors, for an organization to
function, its members must be able to
exhibit dependable role performance,
i.e. meet and preferably exceed certain
minimal standards. Such role-prescribed work behaviors reflect task
performance. According to Motowidlo
and Van Scotter (1994), task performance comprises two types of behaviors. The first type consists of activities which directly transform raw materials into the goods and services which
the organization produces. The second
type comprises of activities that service and maintains the technical core.
In other words, when employees use
technical skills and knowledge to produce goods or services through the
organization’s core technical processes, or when they accomplish specialized tasks that support these core
functions, they are engaging in task
performance (Van Scotter 2000).
The increasing interdependence
and uncertainty associated with work
and organizations have challenged the
traditional views of individual job performance (Ilgen and Pulakos 1999).
Although early approaches to job performance have highlighted the need
for organizational members to
innovatively and spontaneously go
beyond prescribed roles to accomplish
organizational goals (Katz 1964; Katz
and Kahn 1978), the full range of be-

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

haviors that contribute to effectiveness when systems are uncertain and
interdependent are not adequately
emphasized (Murphy and Jackson
1999). Uncertainty in an organizational
context occurs when the inputs, processes, or outputs of work systems
lack predictability (Wall et al. 2002).
According to Burns and Stalker (1961),
the existence of uncertainty in the work
environment may be attributed to many
factors such as increasing competition, changing technology, and evolving customer demands. When the organizational context is more dynamic,
it becomes more difficult for task performance alone to be effective. In such
situation, there is greater need for role
flexibility whereby employees are required to engage in adaptive and proactive behaviors. Hence, new constructs have emerged that encompass
an expanded set of duties and responsibilities. One of such constructs relates to contextual performance, which
includes a variety of non-job specific
behaviors (Borman and Motowidlo
1993). When employees voluntarily
help coworkers who are getting behind, act in ways that maintain good
working relationships, or put in extra
effort to complete assignment on time,
they are engaging in contextual performance (Van Scotter 2000). In sum,
contextual performance behaviors do
not support the technical core itself as
much as they support the broader organizational, social and psychological
environment in which the technical
core must function (Motowidlo 2000).

Therefore, any measure of performance should capture all aspects of
behaviors that have value for the organization. Consistent with this principle,
dissection of the performance domain
into task performance and contextual
performance is important. Furthermore,
as previously noted by scholars (Bott
et al. 2003; MacKenzie et al. 1998;
Motowidlo and Van Scotter 1994; Van
Emmerik and Sanders 2004), each of
the performance dimensions is associated with a different set of antecedents.

Organizational Justice and Job
Performance
Two sources of organizational justice have been frequently cited in the
literature: distributive justice and procedural justice (Moorman 1991). Distributive justice refers to the perceived
fairness of the amounts of outcomes
employees receive (Greenberg 1990).
Procedural justice, on the other hand,
reflects a person’s judgments about
the fairness of the process of making
outcome allocations decisions
(Greenberg 1990). Specifically, procedural justice relates to the extent in
which an individual perceives that outcome allocation decisions have been
fairly made according to the
organization’s formal procedures and
from the treatments given by the
organization’s authorities in enacting
those procedures (Moorman 1991).
Generally, prior researchers (Jin and
Shu 2004; Moorman 1991; Niehoff
and Moorman 1993; Williams 1999)
conclude that both types of justice influence employees’ job behaviors.
339

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

Distributive Justice and Job
Performance
Distributive justice is defined as
the perceived fairness of the amounts
of outcomes employees receives
(Greenberg 1990). Basically, it reflects
how significant rewards (such as compensation) from organized organizational efforts are fairly distributed
among employees (Farh et al. 1990;
Folger and Konovsky 1989). The positive relationship between distributive
justice and performance may be due to
the predictions derived from Adam’s
(1965) equity theory. The theory posits that human motivation is affected
by the outcomes people receive for
their inputs, compared to the outcomes
and inputs of other people (Pierce and
Gardner 2002). When employees feel
that they are being treated unequally,
they will restore equity by altering
their behaviors, attitudes, or both such
as to be less productive or vice-versa
(Greenberg 1990). In other words,
unfair distribution of work rewards
relative to work inputs creates tension
within an individual, which may ultimately results in a reduction in work
inputs. Based on Blau’s (1964) economic exchange, distributive justice
may results in an increased exhibition
of in-role task behavior. On the other
hand, when employees define their
employment relationships as that of a
social one, contextual performance
may be deemed as an appropriate response to distributive fairness. Findings from past studies in the West have
been divided. Some studies (Moorman
340

1991; Niehoff and Moorman 1993)
find that when two types of justice
were measured separately, procedural
justice predicts citizenship behaviors
but not distributive justice. In contrast,
Williams (1999) using an experimental design discovers that distributive
justice perceptions are significantly and
positively related to task performance.
Given the paucity of research on the
justice-performance relationship in
Eastern societies, testing a model linking these variables using a sample of
Malaysian employees will be able to
address this issue. We expect that there
will be similarity in the findings on the
positive effect of distributive justice
on individual performance as discovered by Western scholars. Therefore,
this study posits that:
H 1: Distributive justice will be positively related to job performance.
H 1a: Distributive justice will be
positively related to task performance.
H 1b: Distributive justice will be
positively related to contextual performance.

Procedural Justice and Job
Performance
Procedural justice is defined as a
person’s judgments about the fairness
of the process of making outcome allocations decisions (Greenberg 1990).
Specifically, procedural justice reflects
the extent in which an individual perceives that outcome allocation decisions have been fairly made according
to the organization’s formal procedures

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

and from the treatment given by the
organization’s authorities in enacting
those procedures (Moorman 1991).
Since process issues are equally important to people whenever allocations
are made (Tyler 1987), it is highly
likely that procedural justice may have
a potent effect on employees’ job performance. Organ (1990) opines that
perceived procedural fairness alters an
employee’s relationship with the organization from one of economic exchange to one of social exchange. In
social exchange relationships (Blau
1964), when employees are satisfied
with the fairness of procedures, they
are more likely to reciprocate by engaging in discretionary behaviors that
lie outside of their formal role requirements. These extra-role behaviors relate to contextual performance. Besides, procedural justice is comprised
of fair procedures, which include actions such as allowing employees a
voice in the decision process, and fair
treatment, which is comprised of actions such as providing employees with
information justifying the outcome they
receive, are thought to increase the
probability that the distribution of outcomes will be fair (Williams 1999). As
a result, employees will be more likely
to feel satisfied, and subsequently perform their duties as specified in their
job descriptions. Some studies (Jin and
Shu 2004; Williams 1999) support the
positive relationship between procedural justice judgments and task performance. Others also provide empirical evidence for the positive impact of
procedural justice on contextual per-

formance (Jin and Shu 2004; Konovsky
and Pugh 1994; Konovsky and Organ
1996; Nasurdin and Ramayah 2003).
Based on the aforementioned discussion and findings, it appears that employees’ experience of procedural justice may lead to increased performance.
Therefore, the following hypothesis is
offered:
H 2: Procedural justice will be positively related to job performance.
H 2a: Procedural justice will be
positively related to task
performance.
H 2b: Procedural justice will be
positively related to contextual performance.

Methodology
Subjects
Participants in the study were customer-contact employees working in
the northern and central branches of a
telecommunication company in Malaysia. The northern region covering
the 10 branches in the states of Penang,
Perlis, Kedah, and Perak had 107 customer-contact employees. On the other
hand, the central region comprising of
14 branches in Kuala Lumpur and
Selangor had 160 customer-contact
employees. Questionnaires were distributed and subsequently collected
from these 267 employees with the
help of the northern and central regional managers. Respondents were
given two weeks to answer the questionnaires.
341

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

Measurement
The predictor variables in this
study are distributive justice and procedural justice. The criterion variables
are task performance and contextual
performance. Distributive justice was
assessed using 3 items adapted from
Moorman (1991). Procedural justice
was gauged using 6 items adapted from
Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Responses to these items were made on a
5-point scale (1= strongly disagree to
5= strongly agree). The criterion variables relate to the two forms of job
performance namely task performance
and contextual performance. These two
variables were assessed via supervisory ratings. Seven items were used to
measure task performance adopted
from Williams and Anderson (1991).
Another eight items were utilized to
gauge contextual performance adapted
from Hochwarter et al. (2004). Responses to the items were made on a 5point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5=
strongly agree).

Method of Analysis
Since gender, age, race, job tenure, and organizational tenure have
been found to be related to job performance (Bott et al. 2003; Chen and
Francesco 2003; Jones and
Schaubroeck 2004; Hochwarter et al.
2004; Williams et al. 2002), these personal variables were controlled in the
statistical analyses. Data was initially
factor analyzed using the criteria de-

342

veloped by Igbaria, Iivaria, and
Maragahh (1995). All items conform
to the original factors. In the present
study, the two hypotheses were tested
using hierarchical regression following Cohen and Cohen’s (1975) recommendation.

Results
Profile of Respondents
In all, 136 useable questionnaires
were returned and analyzed representing a response rate of 50.94 percent. A
total of 34 superiors were involved in
assessing the job performance of the
participating customer-contact employees. The demographic profile of
the sample is shown in Table 1.
From Table 1, of those who completed the survey, 54 (39.7%) were
males and 82 (60.3%) were females. In
terms of marital status, 86 respondents
were married (63.2%) and 50 were
unmarried (36.8%). For ethnicity, 80
respondents were Malays (58.8%), 40
respondents were Chinese (29.4%),
with the remaining 16 respondents
(11.7%) being Indians and others. Regarding education, a majority of the
sample (59.5%) have polytechnic/college certificates and diplomas. The
mean age for the sample was 27.32
years (SD= 3.53 years). The mean job
tenure and organizational tenure were
3.40 years (SD= 1.89 years) and 3.75
years (SD= 1.98 years) respectively.

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

Table 1. Demographic Profile of Sample
Demographic Variable
Gender
Marital Status
Ethnicity

Education

Categories

Frequency

Percentage (%)

Male

54

39.7

Female

82

60.3

Unmarried

50

36.8

Married

86

60.3

Malays

80

58.8

Chinese

40

29.4

Indians and others

16

11.7

Secondary School
Certificates

55

40.4

Polytechnic and
College Certificates

35

25.7

Diploma

46

33.8

Mean

Standard Deviation

Age (years)

27.32

3.53

Job Tenure (years)

3.40

1.89

Organizational Tenure (years)

3.75

1.98

Mean, Standard Deviations, and
Correlations of the Study
Variables
Descriptive statistics such as mean
scores,
standard
deviations,
reliabilities, and intercorrelations of
the study variables are presented in
Table 2.
As depicted in Table 2, on the
average, the levels of procedural justice and distributive justice were judged
to be within the moderate to slightly
high range. On further scrutiny, re-

spondents in this study perceived the
level of distributive justice (mean=
4.13, SD=1.02) to be higher than that
of procedural justice (mean= 3.72, SD=
0.89). The mean values for task performance and contextual performance
were 3.80 (SD= 1.03) and 3.88 (SD=
0.68) respectively. On average, the
levels of task performance and contextual performance exhibited by the
sample were relatively moderate.
The reliability coefficients for the
study variables were above 0.9 which
concur with Nunnally’s (1978) mini343

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

mum required level of 0.70. These
high alpha values indicate that the
measurements used were reliable. In
terms of the correlation values, dis-

tributive justice had significant and
positive associations with task performance (r= 0.514, p<.01) and procedural justice had a significant and posi-

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and Reliabilities of the Study
Variables
Variable

Mean

SD

DJ

PJ

DJ
PJ
TP
CP

4.13
3.72
3.80
3.88

1.02
0.89
1.03
0.68

(0.94)
-0.136
0.514 **
-0.052

TP

CP

(0.92)
0.022
(0.95)
0.375 ** 0.517 **

(0.94)

** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05
Note: Values in parentheses on the diagonal indicate reliability coefficients; DJ denotes
Distributive Justice, PJ denotes Procedural Justice, TP denotes Task Performance,
and CP denotes Contextual Performance.

Table 3. Results of Regression Analysis: Impact of DJ and PJ on TP
Independent Variables

Task Performance (TP)
Std Beta (Model 1)

Std Beta(Model 2)

Control Variables
Age
Job Tenure
Organizational Tenure
Gender (Male=1, Female= 0)
Race 1 (Malay=1,Others= 0)
Race 2 (Chinese=1, Others= 0)

0.082
0.099
-0.237
0.163
0.135
0.079

Model Variables
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
R2
Adj. R2
R2- Change
F-Change
**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05
344

0.014
0.133
-0.219
0.078
0.149
0.100
0.513 **
0.083

0.063
0.019
0.063
1.444

0.309
0.265
0.246
22.603 **

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

tive association with contextual performance (r= 0.375, p<.01). Besides,
the correlation coefficient between task
performance and contextual performance was significant and positive
(r= 0.517, p<.01). Other correlations
were found to be insignificant.

Hypotheses Testing
The two dimensions of organizational justice (distributive justice and
procedural justice) were regressed on
to the two dimensions of performance
(task performance and contextual performance) separately. Table 3 reports
the results of regressing distributive
justice (DJ) and procedural justice (PJ)
on task performance (TP).

As reflected in Table 3, control
variables were able to explain 6.3 percent of the variance in task performance (R2= 0.063). None of the control variables was found to be related to
task performance. The F-change
(1.444) was also insignificant. When
the two model variables comprising of
distributive justice and procedural justice were added into the regression
equation, the additional variance explained was 24.6 percent (R2-Change=
0.246, F-change= 22.603, p < .01). In
the second model, distributive justice
(â= 0.513, p < .01) alone had a significant and positive effect on task performance. Procedural justice, on the other
hand, had no effect on task perfor-

Table 4. Results of Regression Analysis: Impact of DJ and PJ on CP
Independent Variables

Contextual Performance (CP)
Std Beta (Model 1)

Control Variables
Age
Job Tenure
Organizational Tenure
Gender (Male=1, Female= 0)
Race 1 (Malay=1,Others= 0)
Race 2 (Chinese=1, Other= 0)

-0.177
0.037
-0.007
0.042
0.103
0.146

Model Variables
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
R2
Adj. R2
R2- Change
F-Change

Std Beta(Model 2)
-0.192
0.009
0.001
0.013
0.080
0.102
0.020
0.385 **

0.034
-0.010
0.034
0.768

0.178
0.127
0.144
11.114 **

**p < 0.01, *p < 0.05

345

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

mance. This finding provided support
for H1a but not H2a.
Table 4 displays the results of
regressing distributive justice (DJ) and
procedural justice (PJ) on contextual
performance. Results in Table show
that control variables in the combination were able to explain 3.4 percent of
the variance in contextual performance
(R2= 0.034). None of them was significantly related to contextual performance. The F-change (0.768) was also
insignificant. When the two model
variables were added into the regression equation, the additional variance
explained was 14.4 percent (R 2 Change= 0.144, F-change= 11.114, p
< .01). In the second model, only procedural justice (â= 0.385, p < .01) was
found to have a significant and positive effect on contextual performance.
Distributive justice, on the other hand,
had no effect on contextual performance. This finding provided support
for H2b but not H1b

Discussion, Implication, and
Limitations
The objective of the current study
is to examine whether organizational
justice dimensions (distributive justice and procedural justice) have positive effects on job performance. The
statistical results indicated that the two
organizational justice dimensions have
separate effects on the two forms of
performance. In this study, only distributive justice and task performance
is found to be positively related. This
finding supports those of Williams’s
346

(1999). When employees define their
employment relationships as that of an
economic exchange (Blau 1964), they
are likely to fulfill their formal employment contract by engaging in inrole behaviors (task performance). In
line with the arguments put forth by
past scholars (Moorman 1991; Niehoff
and Moorman 1993), judgments about
the existence of fairness of the ends
achieved will foster a state of equity,
creating feelings of satisfaction, and
resulting in the display of functional
behaviors aimed at fulfilling the formal contract of employment. Besides,
the respondents in this study were bluecollar, customer-contact Malaysian
employees, whose nature of tasks suggest the primacy of productivity goal.
According to Meindl (1989), the equity rule is preferred when the task
goal relates to productivity. Thus,
perceptions of fairness in the reward
allocations received may well be more
salient as a commodity for economic
exchange. In other words, when these
workers judged their rewards to be
equitable, they are likely to reciprocate by engaging in role-prescribed
behaviors.
Procedural justice, however, failed
to have any effect on task performance.
One probable explanation could be
due to the position held by the respondents. In a service setting, customercontact employees may not be in a
position to judge the prevalence of
procedural fairness. The need to handle
customers’ queries and problems on
an on-going basis would not have enabled them to have the time to retrieve

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance

information concerning the processes
and procedures used in determining
their allocation outcomes.
In contrast, procedural justice
alone was found to have a significant
and positive effect on contextual performance. This finding is consistent
with those of past scholars (Jin and
Shu, 2004; Konovsky and Pugh 1994;
Konovsky and Organ 1996; Nasurdin
and Ramayah 2003; Niehoff and
Moorman 1993). When employees
define their employment relationships
as that of social exchange (Blau 1964),
they are likely to reciprocate by engaging in discretionary, extra-role behaviors. In tandem with the group-value
model (Lind and Tyler 1988), the use
of fair procedures and processes help
communicate the fact that the employee
is a valued member of the group. Such
impressions may motivate the employee to behave in a manner that will
ensure the welfare of the group. Contextual performance is an example of
such behaviors. Besides, people from
collectivistic cultures are more concerned for interpersonal harmony and
group solidarity (Leung 1988). Hence,
they are more inclined to place higher
importance on the process of making
outcome allocation decisions especially the interpersonal facets of procedural justice (Greenberg 2001). Since
Malaysia is more of a collectivistic
society (Hofstede 1991), perceived
procedural fairness may well serve as
a key commodity for social exchange.
In other words, when these workers
judged the process of determining their
rewards to be equitable, they are likely

to reciprocate by engaging in extrarole contextual behaviors.
On the other hand, distributive
justice failed to have any effect on
contextual performance. One possible
reason may be related to the sample
itself. A majority of the Malaysian
customer-contact employees surveyed
were women (60.3%) and married
(63.2%). In countries of the East such
as Malaysia, as noted by Mansor
(1994), married women are expected
to place more attention towards family
matters than their jobs or careers. This
is in line with the traditional values
associated with women as homemakers. According to Gutek, Searle, and
Klepa (1991), women are expected to
provide a stable home situation rather
than financial security. Hence, even
though these female workers may judge
the outcomes that they have received
as fair, they may not be able to spend
their time and effort in reciprocating
their employers by performing beyond
their in-role job requirements.
The strongest implication of this
study is that fairness is an important
motivator of job performance at the
workplace. In order to enhance employees’ task performance, managers
as representatives of the employing
organization should ensure that the
outcomes employees received are fair.
A key aspect to consider is to reward
workers based on objective criteria
and merit. Similarly, managers who
wish to see an improvement in the
contextual performance of their employees must treat them fairly and make
use of fair procedures when making
347

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3

outcomes allocation decisions. Among
others, managers need to apply rules
fairly and consistently, treat employees with respect and dignity, make job
decisions in an unbiased manner, collect accurate and complete information before making job decisions, and
show sensitivity towards employees’
personal needs.
Finally, the reader is cautioned to
recognize the limitations of this study.
First, all participants were customercontact employees within the telecommunication industry which may be
associated with certain unique features.
Thus, the findings obtained may not be
generalized to other samples across
different industries. The use of a larger

sample from diverse sectors would
make it easier to generalize the findings. Second, both forms of justice
(procedural justice and distributive
justice) accounts for about 24.6 percent and 14.4 percent of the variance in
task performance and contextual performance respectively. Although these
figures are somewhat acceptable, the
amount of unexplained variance in job
performance is still substantial. This
should encourage future researchers to
expend their efforts towards identifying other variables that may be able to
explain job performance, which include those related to the organization,
job, and individual.

References
Adam, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology 2: 267-299. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Aryee, S., P. S. Budhwar, and Z. X. Chen. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model.
Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 267-280.
Bakker, A. B., E. Demerouti, and W. Verbeke. 2004. Using the job demands-resources
model to predict burnout and performance. Human Resource Management 43: 83104.
Bateman, T. S., and D. W. Organ. 1983. Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The
relationship between affect and employee “citizenship.” Academy of Management
Journal 26: 587-595.
Blau, P. M. 1964. Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley
Borman, W. C., and S. J. Motowidlo. 1993. Expanding the criterion domain to include
elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt and W.C.Borman (Eds.), Personnel Selection in Organizations: 71-98. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Borman, W. C., and Motowidlo, S. J. 1997. Task performance and contextual performance: The meaning for personnel selection research. Human Performance 10: 99109.

348

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance
Bott, J. P., D. J. Svyantek, S. A. Goodman, and D. S. Bernal. 2003. Expanding the
performance domain: Who says nice guys finish last? The International Journal of
Organizational Analysis 11: 137-152.
Burns, T., and G. Stalker. 1961. The Management of Innovation. London: Tavistock.
Campbell, J. P. 1990. Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook
of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 1: 687-732. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press.
Carmeli, A. (2003). The relationship between emotional intelligence and work attitudes,
behavior and outcomes: An examination among senior managers. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 18: 788-813.
Chen, Z. X., and A. M. Francesco. 2003. The relationship between the three components
of commitment and employee performance in china. Journal of Vocational Behavior
62: 490-510.
Cohen, J., and P. Cohen. 1975. Applied Multiple Regression Correlation Analysis for the
Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, J. M. 1999. Distinguishing contextual performance from task performance for
managerial jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 84: 3-13.
Farh, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., and D. W. Organ. 1990. Accounting for organizational
citizenship behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of
Management 16: 705-721.
Folger, R., and M. A. Konovsky. 1989. Effects of procedural and distributive justice on
reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal 32: 115-130.
Fried, Y., H. A. Ben-David, R. B. Tiegs, N. Avital, and U. Yeverechyahu. 1998. The
interactive role of role conflict and role ambiguity on job performance. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology 71 (1): 19-27.
George, J. M., and A. P. Brief. 1992. Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of
the mood at work-organizational spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin
112: 310-329.
Greenberg, J. 1990. Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. Journal of
Management 16: 399-432.
Greenberg, J. 2001. Studying organizational justice cross-culturally: Fundamental challenges. The International Journal of Conflict Management 12 (4): 365-375.
Griffin, M.A., A. Neal, and S. K. Parker. 2007. A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal 50 (2): 327-347.
Gutek, B. A., S. Searle, and L. Klepa. 1991. Rational versus gender role explanations for
work-family conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 56-568.
Hemdi, M. A., A. M. Nasurdin, and M. A. Hamid. 2007. Human resource management
practices and organizational citizenship behavior: The mediational role of job
satisfaction. The 7th Asian Academy of Management Conference Proceedings 1: 367377.
349

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3
Hochwarter, W. A., C. Kiewitz, M. J. Gundlach, and J. Stoner. 2004. The impact of
vocational and social efficacy on job performance and career satisfaction. Journal
of Leadership and Organizational Studies 10: 27-40.
Hofstede, G. 1991. Management in a multicultural society. Malaysian Management
Review 16 (1): 3-12.
Igbaria, M., J. Iivari, and H. Maragahh. 1995. Why do individuals use computer
technology? A Finnish case study. Information and Management 5: 227-238.
Ilgen, D. R., and J. R. Hollenbeck. 1991. The structure of work: Job design and roles. In
M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology (2nd ed.: 165-207). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ilgen, D. R., and E. D. Pulakos. 1999. Employee performance in today’s organizations.
In D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos (Eds.), The Changing Nature of Performance:
Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and Development: 21-55. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Ishak, N. A., M. A. Ansari, and Z. A. Ahmad. 2003. Leader-member exchange and
organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating impact of self-esteem. The Fifth
Asian Academy of Management Conference Proceedings 2: 493-503.
Jin, F. U., and Shu, H. C. 2004. Compensation structure, perceived equity and individual
performance of RandD professionals. Journal of American Academy of Business 4:
401-405.
Jones, J. R., and J. Schaubroeck. 2004. Mediators of the relationship between race and
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues 16: 505-527.
Katz, D. 1964. The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science 9:
131-133.
Katz, D., and R. L. Kahn. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations. Wiley: New
York.
Kaufman, J. D., C. L. Stamper, and P. E. Tesluk. 2001. Do supportive organizations make
for good corporate citizens? Journal of Managerial Issues 13: 436-449.
Konovsky, M. A., and D. W. Organ. 1996. Dispositional and contextual determinants of
organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 253266.
Konovsky, M. A., and S. D. Pugh. 1994. Citizenship and social exchange. Academy of
Management Journal 37: 656-669.
Kwon, J-W. 2006. Distributive and procedural justice as predictors for organizational
outcomes in Korea and Malaysia: An integrative model. The Business Review 5 (1):
253-257.
Langhorn, S. 2004. How emotional intelligence can improve management performance.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 16: 220-230.
Leung, K. 1988. Theoretical advances in justice behavior: Some cross-cultural inputs. In
Bond M.H. (Ed.), The Cross-Cultural Challenge in Social Psychology: 218-229.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

350

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance
Lind, E. A., and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New
York, MA: Plenum.
MacKenzie, S. B., P. M. Podsakoff, and M. Ahearne. 1998. Some possible antecedents
and consequences of in-role and extra-role salesperson performance. Journal of
Marketing 62: 82-98.
Mansor, N. 1994. Women managers in Malaysia: Their mobility and challenges. In N. J.
Adler and D. N. Izraeli (Eds.), Women Managers in a Global Economy: 101-113.
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell Ltd.
Masterson, S. S., K. Lewis, B. M. Goldman, and M. S. Taylor. 2000. Integrating justice
and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work
relationships. Academy of Management Journal 43 (4): 738-748.
Meindl, J. R. 1989. Managing to be fair: An exploration of values, motives and leadership.
Administrative Science Quarterly 34: 252-276.
Moorman, R. H. 1991. Relationship between organizational justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology 76: 845-855.
Moorman, R. H. 1993. The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction
measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship
behavior. Human Relations New York 46: 759-776.
Moorman, R. H., B. P. Niehoff, and D. W. Organ. 1993. Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behavior: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal 6: 209-223.
Morgeson, F. P., K. Delaney-Klinger, and M. A. Hemingway. 2005. The importance of
job autonomy, cognitive ability, and job-related skill for predicting role breadth and
job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 399-406.
Motowidlo, S. J. 2000. Some basic issues related to contextual performance and
organizational citizenship behavior in human resource management. Human Resource Management Review 10: 115-126.
Motowidlo, S. J., and J. R. Van Scotter. 1994. Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 79: 475480.
Murphy, P.R., and S. E. Jackson. 1999. Managing work-role performance: Challenges for
21st century organizations and employees. In D. R. Ilgen and E. D. Pulakos (Eds.),
The Changing Nature of Performance: Implications for Staffing, Motivation, and
Development: 325-365. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nasurdin, A. M., and T. Ramayah. 2003. The linkage between procedural justice,
perceived organizational support, and extra-role citizenship behavior. The Fifth
Asian Academy of Management Conference Proceedings 1: 220-228.
Netemeyer, R. G., J. S. Boles, D. O. McKee, and R. McMurrian. 1997. An investigation
into the antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors in a personal selling
context. Journal of Marketing 61 (3): 85-98.
351

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business, September - December 2007, Vol. 9, No. 3
Niehoff, B. P., and R. H. Moorman. 1993. Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal 36 (3): 527-556.
Nunnally, J. C. 1978. Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Organ, D.W. 1990. The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In B.
M. Staw and Cummings L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior 12: 4372. Greenwich, CT : JAI Press.
Pelled, L. H., T. G. Cummings, and M. A. Kizilos. 2000. The influence of organizational
demography on customer oriented prosocial behavior: An exploratory investigation.
Journal of Business Research 47: 209-216.
Pierce, J. L., and D. G. Gardner. 2002. Management and Organizational Behavior: An
Integrated Perspective. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and W. H. Bommer. 1996. Transformational leader
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Management 22: 259-298.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. B. Paine, and D. G. Bachrach. 2000. Oraganizational
citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26: 513-563.
Tang, T. L-P., and A. H. S. Ibrahim. 1998. Antecedents of organizational citizenship
behavior revisited: Public personnel in the United States and in the Middle East.
Public Personnel 27: 529-550.
Tang, T. L-P., and L. J. Sarsfield-Baldwin. 1996. Distributive and procedural justice as
related to satisfaction and commitment. S.A.M. Advanced Management Journal 61:
25-31.
Tyler, T. R. 1987. Conditions leading to value-expressive effects on judgments of
procedural justice: A test of four models. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 52: 333-344.
Van Emmerik, H., and K. Sanders. 2004. Social embeddedness and job performance of
tenured and non-tenured professionals. Human Resource Management Journal 14:
40-54.
Van Scotter, J. R. 2000. Relationships of task performance and contextual performance
with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review 10: 79-95.
Wall, T. D., J. L. Cordery, and C. W. Clegg. 2002. Empowerment, performance, and
operational uncertainty. Applied Psychology: An International Review 51 (1): 146169.
Wang, Y., H-P. Lo, and Y. V. Hui. 2003. The antecedents of service quality and product
quality and their influences on bank reputation: Evidence from the banking industry
in China. Managing Service Quality 13: 72-83.
Williams, S. 1999. The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. The
Journal of Psychology 133: 183-193.
352

Nasurdin & Khuan—Organizational Justice as an Antecedent of Job Performance
Williams, L. J., and S. E. Anderson. 1991. Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of
Management 17: 601-617.
Williams, S., R. Pitre, and M. Zainuba. 2002. Justice and organizational citizenship
behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social
Psychology 142: 33-44.
Williams, M., and J. I. Sanchez. 1998. Customer service-oriented behavior: Person and
situational antecedents. Journal of Quality Management 3: 101-116.
Yoon, M. H., and J. Suh. 2003. Organizational citizenship behaviors and service quality
as external effectiveness of contact employees. Journal of Business Research 56:
597-611.

353