A Study of Analyzing The Influence of Organizational Justice Perception on Human Resource Managers’ Decisions

Yıl 2017, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 5, 2574 - 2593, 03.12.2017

Fahri Özsungur

Öz

The effects of
organizational justice perception on employees is a research object in the
literature. Effects of organizational justice scales those are procedural
justice, deprivation, interactional justice perceptions on human resource
managers are investigated in this research. Survey study consequences data on
human resource management and staff management units in operations be active in
varied sectors processed to statistical comparison. Analyses executed with
reliability, Pearson correlation, Anova analysis techniques. Participants’ job
position and determined organizational justice three scale are compared. AMOS
Structural Equation Model was used to compare the data of the study with the
initial model (GFI = 0.79, NFI = 0.75, CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.85 and RMSEA =
0.084). This research indicated that procedural justice, deprivation,
interactional justice perceptions realise positive influence on human resource
managers and staff managers. This research identified that senior managers have
high perceptions about interactional and procedural justice, in case mid-level managers
have high perceptions about deprivation perception. The other consequence is,
managers have to put emphasis on interactional justice.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Organizational Justice, Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice, Relative Deprivation, Justice Perception

İnsan Kaynakları Yöneticilerinin Örgütsel Adalet Algıları Üzerine Ampirik Bir Çalışma

Öz

Örgütsel adalet algısının
çalışanlar üzerindeki etkileri, literatürde araştırma konusudur. Bu çalışmada
örgütsel adaletin boyutlarından prosedürel adalet, mahrumiyet ve etkileşim
adaleti algılarının insan kaynakları yöneticileri üzerindeki etkileri
araştırılmıştır. Farklı sektörlerde faaliyet gösteren işletmelerin personel ve
insan kaynakları birimlerinde yapılan anket çalışması sonucunda elde edilen
veriler istatistiksel olarak analiz edilmiştir. Elde edilen veriler üzerinde
güvenilirlik, Pearson korelasyon ve Anova analizi gerçekleştirilmiştir.
Araştırma verileri ile başlangıçta belirlenen modelin uyumlu olduğu (GFI =
0.79, NFI = 0.75, CFI = 0.87, TLI = 0.85 ve RMSEA = 0.084) AMOS Yapısal Eşitlik
Modeli ile tespit edilmiştir. Katılımcıların işyerindeki pozisyonları
ile örgütsel adaletin belirlenen üç boyutu karşılaştırılmış; üst yöneticilerin
etkileşim ve prosedürel adalet algıların yüksek olduğu, orta düzey
yöneticilerin ise mahrumiyet algılarının fazla olduğu tespit edilmiştir. Analiz
sonucunda prosedürel adalet, mahrumiyet, etkileşim adaleti algılarının insan
kaynakları ve personel yöneticileri üzerinde pozitif bir etkiye sahip olduğu
bulgulanmıştır. Elde edilen bulgular, yöneticilerin etkileşim adaletine önem
vermeleri gerektiği şeklinde yorumlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Örgütsel adalet, prosedürel adalet, etkileşim adaleti, göreli mahrumiyet, adalet algısı

Kaynakça

• Abeles, Ronald D. (1976). "Relative deprivation, rising expectations and black militancy." Journal of Social Issues, 32 (2): 119-137.
• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). New York: Academic Press.
• Altaş, Sabiha Sevinç, Çekmecelioğlu, Hülya Gündüz (2015). Örgütsel Adalet Algısının İş Tatmini, Örgütsel Bağlılık ve İş Performansı Üzerindeki Etkileri: Okul Öncesi Öğretmenleri Üzerinde Bir Araştırma, Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 29 Sayı: 3, pp. 421- 439.
• Becker, B. E., M. A. Huselid and D. Ulrich (2001). The HR Scorecard : Linking People, Strategy , and Performance, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
• Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg ve R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Bies, R. J. (1987). 'The Predicament of Injustice: The Management of Moral Outrage. In Research in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 9). Eds. L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 289-319.
• Bies, R. J., ve Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
• Blader, Steven L. ve Tom R. Tyler (2005). “How Can Theories of Organizational Justice Explain the Effects of Fairness ?”, Edt: Jerald Greenberg ve Jason A. Colquitt, Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers, USA.
• Boyd, H.P, Jr, R. Westfall ve S.F. Stasch (1989), Marketing Reserach – Text and Cases, 7. ed., Boston, Irwin
• Büyüköztürk, Şener (2006). Sosyal Bilimler İçin Veri Analizi El Kitabı, Ankara, Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
• Carifio, J., ve Perla, R. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about likert scales and likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106-116.
• Churchill, G.A. Jr. ve D. Iacobucci (2002), Marketing Research – Methodological Foundadtions, 8. ed. Harcourt.
• Colquitt, Jason A., Raymond A. Noe ve Christine L. Jackson (2002), “Justice in Teams: Antecedents And Consequences Of Procedural Justice Climate”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 55, No: 1, s. 83-109.
• Converse, J.M. ve S. Presser (1986), “Survey questions: Handcrafting the Standadrdized Questionnaire”, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences” Sage Publications.
• Covey, S. R. (2004). The 8th Habit: From Effectiveness to Greatness, Free Press, New York. Cropanzano, Russel, Bowen, David E., Gilliland Stephen W. (2007). Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 34-48.
• Cropanzano, R., ve Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational citizenship. In M. VanVugt, T. Tyler, ve A. Biel (Eds.), Collective problems in modern society: Dilemmas and solutions (pp. 142–161). London: Routledge.
• Crosby, Faye (1984). "Relative deprivation in organizational settings." In Barry M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 6: 51-93. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Douglas M. Cowherd, David I. Levine (1992). “Product Quality and Pay Equity Between Lower-Level Employees and Top Management: An Investigation Of Distributive Justice Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, C. 37, S. 2, s. 303-304.
• Ferris, Gerald R. and Buckley, M. Ronald (1996). Human Resources Management: Perspectives, Context, Functions and Outcomes. Prentice Hall Business Publishing.
• Folger, R., ve Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg ve R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 1–55). Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
• Folger, Robert, Cropanzano, Russell (1998). “Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management”, Sage Publications Inc., USA.
• Folger, Robert, ve Konovsky Mary A. (1989). Effects of Procedural And Distributive Justice on Reactions to Pay Raise Decisions. Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 115-130.
• Folger, R. (1986). Rethinking equity theory: A referent cognitions model. In H. W. Beirhoff, R. L. Cohen, ve J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 145–162). New York: Plenum Press.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. DOI: 10.2307/3151312
• Greenberg, Jeff, Pyswzczynski, T., Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., ve Lyon, D. (1990). Evidence for terror management II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308–318.
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall Isaac, Larry, Elizabeth Mutran, and Sheldon Stryker (1980). "Political protest orientations among black and white adults." American Sociological Review, 45: 191-213.
• Jerald Greenberg (1987). “A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories", The Academy of Management Review, C. 12, S. 1, s. 55.
• Kline, R. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press
• Konovsky, M.A. ve Pugh, S.D. (1994). Citizenship behaviour and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37 (3), 656- 669.
• Likert, Rensis. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes: Archives of Psychology, Vol: 22, New York University, USA.
• MacKenzie, S.B., & Podsakoff, P.M. (2012). Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. Journal of Retailing, 88(4), 542–555.
• Martin, Joanne (1981). "Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources." In L. L. Cummings and Barry M. Staw (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 3: 53-107. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Morgan, R.M. ve Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment - trust theory of relational marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
• Niehoff, B. P., ve Moorman, R. H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), ss. 527-556.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1976), “Psychometric theory (2nd ed)”. New York: McGraw-Hill
• Reynolds, N., A. Diamantapoulos ve B. Schlegelmilch (1993), “Pretsting in questionnaire design: A review of the literature and suggestionf for further reserach”, Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 35, No. 2, s. 171- 182.
• Sapnas, K. G. (2004). Letters to The Editor: Determining Adequate Sample Size, Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36 (1), pp. 4- 9.
• Sencer, M. (1989). Toplumbilimlerinde Yöntem, Beta Basım, İstanbul.
• Senge, P. M (2006). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (Doubleday, New York).
• Synodinos, N.E. (2003), “The “art” of questionnaire construction: some important considerations for manufacturing studies”, Intergrated Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14, No. 3, s. 221-237.
• Tyler, T. R. (1999). Why people cooperate in organizations: An identity-based perspective. In B. M. Staw ve R. Sutton (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(pp. 201–246). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
• Walster, E., Walster, G., W., Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity Theory and Research, Boston: Allyn ve Bacon.
• Vogt, W. P. (2005). "Dictionary ofstatistics ve methodology", A nontechnical guide for the social sciences (3. ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif. [u.a.], Sage Publications, USA.
• Yürür, Şenay (2008). Örgütsel Adalet İle İş Tatmini ve Çalışanların Bireysel Özellikleri Arasındaki İlişkilerin Analizine Yönelik Bir Araştırma, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi Y.2008, C.13, S.2 pp. 295- 312.