perceived injustice affecting job outcomes through mediating ...

JOHANNES KEPLER

UNIVERSITY LINZ

Altenberger Str. 69

4040 Linz, Austria

www.jku.at

DVR 0093696

Author

Muhammad Umer Azeem

Submission

Institut für Organisation und

Globale Managementstudien

First Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Johannes M. Lehner

Second Supervisor

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang H. Güttel

Month Year

May 30, 2016

PERCEIVED INJUSTICE

AFFECTING JOB

OUTCOMES THROUGH

MEDIATING MECHANISM OF

EPISODIC ENVY:

MODERATING ROLE OF

PSYCHOLOGICAL CAPITAL.

Doctoral Thesis

to confer the academic degree of

Doktor der Sozial- und Wirtschaftswissenschaften

in the Doctoral Program in Social and Economic Sciences

Name – Doctoral Program

May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem ii

SWORN DECLARATION

I hereby declare under oath that the submitted Doctoral Thesis has been written solely by me without

any third-party assistance, information other than provided sources or aids have not been used and

those used have been fully documented. Sources for literal, paraphrased and cited quotes have been

accurately credited.

The submitted document here present is identical to the electronically submitted text document.

Place, Date

Signature

iii May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The journey of my Doctoral program owe many acknowledgements to all those who were with

me every time I needed. Perhaps this journey would not be possible without their support in

times of need. First of all, I would like to pass my sincerest gratitude to my supervisor Prof. Dr.

Johannes M. Lehner, who remained the source of inspiration and encouragement for me

throughout the degree. I truly believe that his mentorship style is unique in a way that gives his

students a balance between guidance and freedom to find new ways of exploration.

Additionally, I would also like to pass my heartfelt indebtedness to my second supervisor Prof.

Dr. Wolfgang H. Guttel for his valuable suggestions along-with other members of Colloquium

Committee Prof. Dr. Robert Bauer and Prof. Dr. Gerhard A. Wuhrer during Colloquium

presentations. Their valuable feedback enables me to find right path to work on from the very

start of this degree program. Moreover, I cannot forget the support of Heidelore Binder in

dealing with all my administrative issues. She was always there to help in resolution and I truly

indebted to her for all her support since I came.

I would not be doing justice if not acknowledging the Higher Education Commission of Pakistan

for their financial support to fund the complete program. I am thankful to this wonderful

institution which is playing the most constructive role in the society. I hope and pray that they

will keep on doing this fabulous job to uplift the higher education in Pakistan.

iv May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

I would also like to thank all my colleagues in and outside JKU, for their valuable discussion and

support in this passage. It’s always good to have nice people around you who make your journey

easy and give lifelong beautiful relationships.

This acknowledgement cannot be completed without thanking my Parents, who always stood by

me in hard times and their unconditional love makes it possible for me to be what I am today. I

also wanted to thank my brothers and sisters for their moral support throughout my life and

guiding me to face the challenges of life. At the end, thanks to my wonderful wife for her support

and waiting for me to start this married life. I could not imagine a better quality relationship.

v May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION……………………………….……………………………………………......ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………….....iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………..v

LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………...vii

LIST OF FIGURES…………………………………………………………………………....viii

ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………...ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Introduction: ................................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Problem Statement: ...................................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Research Questions: ................................................................................................................................... 10

1.4 Significance of the Study: .......................................................................................................................... 11

1.5 Theoretical Framework: ............................................................................................................................. 13

2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................... 16

2.1 Perceived Injustice: .................................................................................................................................... 16

2.1.1 Distributive injustice: ............................................................................................................................. 17

2.1.2 Procedural injustice: .............................................................................................................................. 18

2.1.3 Interpersonal injustice: ........................................................................................................................... 18

2.1.4 Informational injustice: .......................................................................................................................... 19

2.2 Important Job Outcomes: ........................................................................................................................... 20

2.2.1 Workplace deviance:.............................................................................................................................. 20

2.2.2 Job Performance: ................................................................................................................................... 24

2.2.3 Organizational Citizenship Behavior: .................................................................................................... 26

2.2.4 Turnover intentions: ............................................................................................................................... 27

2.3 Episodic Envy: ........................................................................................................................................... 30

vi May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

2.4 Psychological Capital: ................................................................................................................................ 35

2.4.1 Psychological Capital as Moderator: ..................................................................................................... 41

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 44

3.1 Research Design: ........................................................................................................................................ 44

3.2 Population and Sampling Technique:......................................................................................................... 47

3.3 Data Collection Method: ............................................................................................................................ 49

3.4 Scales: ........................................................................................................................................................ 50

3.4.1 Perceived (in)justice: ............................................................................................................................. 51

3.4.2 Workplace deviance:.............................................................................................................................. 52

3.4.3 Turnover intentions: ............................................................................................................................... 52

3.4.4 Psychological Capital: ........................................................................................................................... 53

3.4.5 Job Performance: ................................................................................................................................... 54

3.4.6 Organizational Citizenship Behavior: .................................................................................................... 54

3.4.7 Episodic Envy: ....................................................................................................................................... 54

3.4.8 Control Variables: .................................................................................................................................. 55

4 RESEARCH FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... 56

4.1 Descriptive Statistics: ................................................................................................................................. 57

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis: ................................................................................................................... 58

4.3 Bivariate Correlations: ............................................................................................................................... 62

4.4 Regression Analysis: .................................................................................................................................. 65

4.5 Mediation Analysis of Episodic Envy: ....................................................................................................... 77

4.6 Moderation of Psychological Capital: ........................................................................................................ 85

4.7 Summary of Findings: .............................................................................................................................. 100

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ................................................................................ 104

5.1 Discussion: ............................................................................................................................................... 104

5.2 Implications of the study: ......................................................................................................................... 109

5.3 Implications for Practice: ......................................................................................................................... 111

5.4 Limitations and Future Directions: .......................................................................................................... 113

6 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 118

APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………………………………………………..146

APPENDIX B......................................................................................................................................................151

APPENDIX B......................................................................................................................................................154

CURRICULUM VITAE............................................................................................................................. ....xxx

vii May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………….…………………...57

Table 2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Perceived Injustice)………………………………………………59

Table 3 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Psychological Capital)……………………………………...........60

Table 4 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (Episodic Envy)…………………………………………..….........61

Table 5 Bivariate Correlations…………………………………………………………………….……….63

Table 6 Main Effects of Distributive Injustice on Job Outcomes...………………………………………..67

Table 7 Main Effects of Procedural Injustice on Job Outcomes.……………………………...…………...69

Table 8 Main Effects of Interpersonal Injustice on Job Outcomes.………………………………………..71

Table 9 Main Effects of Informational Injustice on Job Outcomes ...……………………………………..73

Table 10 Multiple Regression Analysis of Perceived Injustice on Job Outcomes…………………...……..75

Table 11 Mediation Analysis (Perceived Injustice → Episodic Envy → Workplace Deviance)…………..79

Table 12 Mediation Analysis (Perceived Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance)……….………81

Table 13 Mediation Analysis (Perceived Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB)……….……………………83

Table 14 Mediation Analysis (Perceived Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions)…….……...85

Table 15 Moderation Analysis of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of

Distributive Injustice and Job Outcome …………………………….………..……..…………….88


Procedural Injustice and Job Outcome ………………………………….…….………………….91


Interpersonal Injustice and Job Outcome…...…………………………………………………….95


Informational Injustice and Job Outcome .....…………………………………………………….97

Table 19 Summary of results for main effect hypotheses……...........…...………………………………...101

Table 20 Summary of results for mediation of Episodic Envy……..……………………………………...102

viii May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Theoratical Framework………………………………………………………..….……………….28

Figure 2 Moderation Process…..………………………………………………….………………..……….86

Figure 3 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Indirect effect of Distributive Injustice

and Job Performance..…..................................................….……………………………………...89

Figure 4 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Direct effect of Procedural Injustice

and Organizational Deviance …………………………………………………………….….……92

Figure 5 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Indirect Effect of Procedural Injustice

and Job Performance..…………………….……………………………..………………………...93

Figure 6 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Indirect Effect of Interpersonal Injustice

and Job Performance …………………….……………………………....………………………..96

Figure 7 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Direct Effect of Informational Injustice

and Interpersonal Deviance……………………………………..……….………………………...98

Figure 8 Interaction of Psychological Capital on Indirect Effect of Informational Injustice

and Job Performance …..……………………………………………….…………………………99

ix May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

ABSTRACT

Extending the efforts of previous reserachers, this study aimed at developing a causal model

assimilating the emotional mechanism of perceived injustice and job oucome relationship

through episodic envy. The research examined the main and indirect effects of perceived

injustice types on job related behavioral job outcomes (organizational and interpersonal

deviance, job performance, OCB) and employee’s turnover intentions. The findings significantly

supported the assertion that episodic envy mediated this relationship. In addition, this study also

investigated the coping capacity of psychological capital in this relationship. The findings

revealed that psychological capital tends to moderate the negative effects of perceived injustice

on employee’s job outcomes in such that individuals with high psychological capital are less

likely to influence their job outcomes detrimentally. The findings also suggest that psychological

capital buffers the negative effect of episodic envy on employee’s job performance. The findings

are also discussed in terms of its practical and theoratical implications at the end.

Keywords: Perceived injustice, Episodic envy, Psychological capital.

1 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction:

The study of justice has deep roots in literary history and can be traced back in the philosophical

literature of Plato and Socrates (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). Colloquially,

the term justice is used to synonymize the terms of "righteousness" or "oughtness" (Colquitt,

2001). The term “fair” is defined in the internet dictionary as “free from bias or dishonesty,

equitable, impartial, legitimate, in accordance with the rules or standards and offering an equal

chance of success”. In literature, Cohen (1986, p.4) described justice as “central moral standard

against which social conduct, practices, and institutions are evaluated”. Positioning it briefly,

‘fairness’ represents the idea of being treated equally, justly and with “rightness”. Here, being

treated fairly, equally or justly indicates that one is dealt with in the same evenhanded, impartial

path as one's colleagues, neighbors or friends are dealt with. Justice is, perhaps, one of the

primogenital philosophical phenomenon as Rawls (1971, p.3) describes justice to be “the first

virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought”.

Adam’s equity theory was one of the first efforts which explain justice in psychology studies but

in social psychological context (Adams, 1963, 1965). However, the notion of organizational

justice has flourished in organizational psychology in the last 30 years (Colquitt, 2001). Since

then, scholars from industrial psychology, human resource management, and organizational

behavior extensively studied this phenomenon (Colquitt et al., 2001; Folger, Cropanzano,

Greenberg, & Cropanzano, 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Although the research on

organizational justice is voluminous, at its core, organizational justice is considered as an

important factor that shaped and/or related with a variety of psychological and workplace


outcomes like commitment (Andrews, Kacmar, Blakely, & Bucklew, 2008; Paré & Tremblay,

2007), job dis/satisfaction (Harvey & Haines Iii, 2005; Clay-Warner, Reynolds, & Roman, 2005;

E. Lambert, 2003; Schmitt & Dörfel, 1999), resistance (Chory‐Assad & Paulsel, 2004;

Theoharis, 2007), organizational citizenship behavior (S. Williams, Pitre, & Zainuba, 2002;

Blakely, Andrews, & Moorman, 2005), aggression (Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz,

2003; Kennedy, Homant, & Homant, 2004), desire for revenge (Jones, 2009; Sonis et al., 2009),

revenge (Aquino, Tripp, & Bies, 2001, 2006; Tripp, Bies, & Aquino, 2007), and employee

turnover intention and/or actual turnover (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Bal, de Lange, Ybema,

Jansen, & van der Velde, 2011; Byrne, 2005; DeConinck & Johnson, 2009; Jones & Skarlicki,

2003).

However, the research on justice literature has changed in certain aspects in last couple of

decades. First, the scholars emphasized on the role of social exchange theory as the literature

moved from “an emerging lens for justice phenomena” to the explanatory phase of justice effects

(Colquitt, 2008; Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston, 2009).

In their effort to relate justice in social exchange context, scholars argued that justice perceptions

stimulate the reciprocal actions on the part of employees (Colquitt et al., 2009; Cropanzano,

Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001; Mowday, 1991). In an earlier article, this instinct is labeled as

universal norm that demands from individuals to help those who help them (Gouldner, 1960). In

general, explaining social exchange theory in this context also well suited for explaining that

why beneficial actions by organizations and/or supervisors might reciprocated by favorable

actions by employees.

On the other hand, justice literature is changed in another way, whereby, scholars shifted their

focus on investigating that whether affect has any place in justice issues. After decades of


painting individuals as “rational beings” who reasons about justice, researchers started to

acknowledge that individuals also “feel” it (De Cremer, 2007; Cropanzano, Stein, & Nadisic,

2011). Although emotions were frequently discussed in justice literature but there remains a

debate about the role of emotions in the justice models (Folger, Rosenfield, & Robinson, 1983).

The same is also observed by De Cremer (2007) in his investigation on advancement in

psychology of justice and affect where he explicitly emphasized that, “relatively little progress

has been made in exploring the relationship between two concepts that, by their very nature,

should have a friendly relationship, namely, justice and affect.” (p. 2). A similar observation was

also narrated by Cropanzano et al. (2011) where they questioned the progress on justice and

affect research in these words, “Given the natural affinity between (in)justice and affect,

integrating the two literatures has been slower than one might expect.” (p. 3). A similar notion,

based on similar observation, has emphasized that the researchers are more inclined to

investigate the direct effects of justice and complex integrative models are yet to be explored

(Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Zapata-Phelan et al., (2009) also noted the same and specified

that, “based on the current state of research, it is virtually impossible to understand why fair

treatment can have positive consequences”.

As a result, current literature is not sufficient to fully understand that how justice perception

influences individual’s attitudes and behavior (Colquitt, 2004; Masterson et al., 2000). Extending

the efforts of these scholars, this study propagates that perceived injustice is undoubtedly the

compelling force which induce individuals towards deviant behavior but it’s not just perceived

injustice rather the negative emotions, shaped from this perception, which lead employees to

workplace deviance. Previous organizational psychology scholars have labeled perceived

unfairness as an emotionally laden experience (Barclay et al., 2005). The previous research in


the justice and emotion domain has suggested that the perceptions of injustice can elicit a range

of qualitatively different emotions (Aquino et al., 2006; Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Barclay et

al., 2005; Jones & Skarlicki, 2003). Hummer (1992) also argued that our capacity to do things in

a just and right manner also depends more on our capacity of sympathy and not solely on

cognitive, rational deliberation. Thus, in this view, emotions play an important role in shaping

this deliberative justice process in our social environment.

Considerable justice literature indicated, explicitly or implicitly, emotions as the central player

which translate a sense of unfairness into work behaviors (Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano,

1999). For example, Bies and Tripp (2002) suggest emotions as “part of the relationship between

experience of injustice and tendency to retaliate”, but little effort is made to empirically examine

the mediating role of emotions in such relationships. Considering this key question in literature,

this research aimed at providing a quantitative synthesis of the relationship between injustice

perceptions and job outcomes, through the mechanism of emotion of episodic envy. Episodic

envy is more relevant in explaining the (in)justice and outcome relationship because it can be

experienced by anyone, regardless of one’s general level of feelings of inferiority or ill will and

is generally experienced towards a specific person and is also limited to a particular experience

or event (Cohen‐Charash, 2009). Moreover, at its core, emotion of envy has often reported as

detrimental to workplace outcomes (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Dunn & Schweitzer,

2004; Gino & Pierce, 2009; Tai, Narayanan, & McAllister, 2012; Vecchio, 2005). Although the

majority literature poses envy with negative outcomes, recent studies revealed that it may also

lead to certain positive outcomes in certain situations. These include increased admiration for the

envied target (Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters, 2009) and increased motivation (Cohen-

Charash, 2009). This alternate explanation of envy can also be traced in past literature (Neu,


1980; Rawls, 1971), whereby, scholars posit this emotion as self-motivating force to reduce the

social imbalance by lifting oneself up rather than pulling the envied other down (Van de Ven et

al., 2009). However, the extent to which this emotion of envy lead to negative and/or positive

consequences may depend on certain key moderating factors (Tai et al., 2012).

The current study is an attempt to provide the synthesis to this true nature of envy by

understanding the emotion laden mechanism, through which injustice perceptions influence

individuals' attitudinal and behavioral job outcomes. This is in line with the strong theoretical

notion of affective event theory (AET) which illustrates that employees evaluate organizational

events, and based on their assessment, they experience emotions that subsequently influence

their attitudes and behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Following the same view, current

research argued that event of injustice triggers the negative emotion of episodic envy and

resultantly influence the job outcomes adversely. However, the extent to which employee’s job

outcomes will be affected depends on their psychological capabilities. Therefore, this study is an

attempt to advance the knowledge on justice literature by examining episodic envy as an

mediating mechanism in the relationship of perceived injustice and individual’s attitudinal and

behavioral job outcomes i.e. interpersonal deviance, organizational deviance, job performance,

organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions.

The existing literature supported the notion that frustrated environment of organizations can

compel organizational members to involve in workplace deviant behaviors because of their

disturbed feelings (Fujishiro & Heaney, 2007; Griffin, 2005; Hershcovis et al., 2007).

Organizational members who sense greater pressure, either from perceived injustice or any other

factor, in work settings may also experience greater possibility of triggering the negative

emotions and this will lead them to exhibiting low tolerance behavior (Ambrose, 2002; Ambrose


et al., 2002; Beugré, 2005; Beugre & Baron, 2001; Folger & Baron, 1996; Greenberg, 1990a,

1990b; Greenberg & Alge, 1998). Literature gives strong support for the view that perceived

injustice has that knack to elicit negative outcomes like theft (Greenberg, 1990a), retaliation

(Beugré, 2005; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997) and aggressive behavior (Cohen-Charash & Mueller,

2007; Folger & Baron, 1996). The current study infers the framework by considering perceived

injustice as possible source of triggering negative emotions of episodic envy, resultantly shaping

the job outcomes undesirably. However, this adverse effect of episodic envy depends on the

psychological resources that an individual holds.

This coping capability of psychological resources is harmonized by previous researchers,

whereby, they explained that the relationship of negative emotions and its adverse consequences

can be moderated by different factors like personality attributes, social environment and self-

belief (Abbas, Raja, Darr, & Bouckenooghe, 2014; Jex & Bliese, 1999; Jex & Elacqua, 1999;

Lehner, Azeem, Haq, & Sharif, 2014; Mossholder, Bedein, & Armenakis, 1982). Following this

theoretical conception, the current research also seeks to investigate the moderating role of a

high order construct of individual’s self-belief that has now being studied in organizational

psychology research at large i.e. psychological capital, which is “an individual’s positive

psychological condition of development” and include four components i.e. (1) self-efficacy

(being confident to perform challenging task); (2) Optimism (to develop a positive urge or

feeling of being successful in present and future); (3) Hope (provides willingness and energy to

attain a specific task or goal) and; (4) Resilience (sustaining and bouncing back after an adverse

or problematic situation to attain success) (Abbas et al., 2014; Avey, Luthans, & Jensen, 2009;

Luthans et al., 2007). When employees at workplace faced social unfairness, in order to make

balance, he/she makes effort to successfully cope with such stressful condition (Abbas et al.,


2014; Hobfoll, 2011; Lehner et al., 2014). These efforts of coping depend on psychological

resource (Treadway, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Ferris, 2005). In this research, researcher proposed

that psychological capital will work as psychological resource which helps in coping individuals

with negative emotions.

1.2 Problem Statement:

Previous researchers reported workplace deviance as pervasive, detrimental and threatening to

organizations and its members (Dunlop & Lee, 2004; Griffin & Lopez, 2005; Robinson &

Greenberg, 1998). For instance, United States’ Department of Justice stated in their report that

about 1.7 million Americans experience one or the other type of violent oppressions at

workplace per annum (U. S. Department of Justice, 2000). In earlier studies, about 40% to 75%

females and 13% to 30% males reported the victimization of sexual harassment at workplace in

American public and private sector organizations (McDonald, 2012; Aggarwal and Gupta, 2000).

Beside sexual harassment, employees also reported that they receive threats of physical ill will

(Northwestern Life Insurance Company, 1993). Research in recent past accused the demanding

corporate world tensions for increase in significant level of misconduct on the part of employees.

For example, every three out of four employees have reported to steel from their employer at

least once in their career (Coffin, 2003; McGurn, 1988). Moreover, earlier scholars also reported

that 33% to 75% of the employees have involved in one or the other type of workplace deviant

conduct such as unwarranted breaks from work, theft, bullying, fraud, spreading rumor,

sabotage, and absenteeism (Case, 2000; Harper, 1990).

Such acts of non-conformity to the organizational norms cost enormous loss to organizations.

For example, earlier surveys stated that US economy has to face billions of dollars loss for such

acts of deviant behavior at workplace in recent years (Bowling & Gruys, 2010; Stewart, Bing,


Davison, Woehr, & McIntyre, 2009). The annual costs of such deviant acts have been estimated

around $4.2 billion for workplace violence (Bensimon, 1994), $40 to $120 billion for theft (Buss,

1993; Camara & Schneider, 1994), and $6 to $200 billion for other types of deviant

organizational behaviors (Murphy, 1993). Evidence suggests that it costs $15.1 billion per year

to U.S. retailers in internal theft (Hollinger & Davis, 2001). According to the US Equal

Opportunity Commission 2010, around 12,000 cases of sexual harassment costing above $48

million are dealt and resolved by the commission (EEOC, 2010). Australian companies also have

to face loss of $2.1 million (average) for each fraud an organization experiences (KPMG

Forensic, 2004). In addition to these financial loses; the negative effects of workplace deviance is

also voluminous, costs for which cannot be estimated. For instance, workplace deviance is found

to be related with low job performance, high absenteeism, spoiled organization's reputation,

increased turnover, low employee morale, low motivation and reduced commitment (Penney &

Spector, 2005, 2008; Spector et al., 2006). Such acts of deviance are so threatening to

organizations that it may lead to business failures, especially, if such behaviors spreads over the

organization (Jones, 2009).

Considering such massive loses as threatening to the organization, it becomes imperative to

ascertain the underlying cause that why employees adopted such behavior. In this research,

workplace deviance is considered as an act of reaction to perceived injustice. Workplace

deviance is frequently suggested in literature as reaction to frustrating organizational

environment and working conditions (Bennett & Robinson, 2000). And this study highlighted the

perception of injustice as root cause of deviance at workplace, which is important to explore in

order to undermine the negativity at workplace.


The current study is also an attempt in filling the gaps in literature by responding to the calls for

investigation by previous researchers in multifold perspectives. Firstly, it addresses the

mediating mechanism through episodic envy, by logically relating perceived injustice to

individual’s emotional state and then to the subsequent job outcomes. Researchers from

organizational sciences have frequently pointed to examine the emotion laden mechanism of

injustice and workplace outcomes (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Colquitt et al., 2013;

Cropanzano et al., 2011; De Cremer, 2007; De Cremer & Van den Bos, 2007; Zapata-Phelan et

al., 2009). In particular, (Khan, Quratulain, & M Bell, 2013) ask for need to investigate the

mechanism through which perceived injustice, envy and counterproductive work behaviors relate

to each other. Moreover, Jones (2009) also suggested to explore underlying explanatory motives

and mechanism in this relationship (Jones, 2009). Responding to these calls, current study

empirically explore a mediated mechanism of episodic envy in injustice-job outcome

relationship to address this gap by arguing that event of injustice potentially triggers the emotion

of episodic envy, whereby, the victim perceive the other party on the advantageous position and

resultantly react to restore equity by involving himself in workplace deviance and affecting his

job outcomes detrimentally.

Another important call has been made to investigate psychological capital as moderator which

provides more insight about the buffering capabilities of these psychological resources (Abbas et

al., 2014; Lehner et al., 2014). Noticeably, Azeem et al., (2015) investigated a similar

relationship between interpersonal mistreatment and interpersonal deviance and emphasized on

the need to explore moderating role of psychological capital in future. Current study responded

to these calls by exploring psychological capital as moderator in direct and indirect effect of


perceived injustice and job-outcome relationship which helps to identify the mitigating effect of

psychological resources.

Moreover, Colquitt et al., (2001) in their meta-analytic review of organizational justice found

that interactional justice has not received much attention by previous researchers although

distributive and procedural justice has extensively been investigated (Colquitt et al., 2001).

Current study also addressed this issue by exploring all four perceived injustice types in one

comprehensive model in order to better understand the nature of each. There has been a debate

about the dimensionality of injustice in literature (Ambrose, 2002; Colquitt, 2001). Current study

found better fit for four-factor model of injustice perceptions, which is also consistent with the

meta-analysis findings of Colquitt et al., (2013) where they argue about the distinct nature of all

four types of perceived injustice.

This study also responded to call of Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001), who proposed to

investigate the causality of justice-outcome relationship through longitudinal surveys. Moreover,

in-spite of the fact that longitudinal design has largely been suggested to investigate causality in

relationship of injustice and its aftermaths, it has rarely been investigated (Colquitt et al., 2013;

El Akremi, Vandenberghe, & Camerman, 2010; Matta, Erol‐Korkmaz, Johnson, & B, 2014).

Current study investigated the injustice and job outcome relationship by using longitudinal

research design which is also suggested for measuring the mediated mechanisms (J. Cohen,

Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2013; MacKinnon, Fritz, Williams, & Lockwood, 2007).

1.3 Research Questions:

The present research aimed at investigating the main effects of perceived injustice and

employee’s job outcomes at workplace. Moreover, it is further aimed to examine the relationship

of perceived injustice and employee’s job outcomes through episodic envy (as intervening


mechanism). The study also probed psychological capital as a variable functioning as buffering

tool to confine individuals from spoiling their job outcomes. The following research questions

were addressed in this research:

1. What is the impact of perceived injustice on employee’s job outcomes such as

organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational

citizenship behavior and turnover intentions?

2. Does episodic envy mediates the relationship of perceived injustice and employee’s

job outcomes such as organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job

performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions?

3. Does psychological capital moderates the relationship between episodic envy and

employee’s job outcomes such as organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job

performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions?

1.4 Significance of the Study:

This study has several significant aspects that could be the major contributions to the existing

literature in the field of organizational behavior. First, the comprehensive framework of current

study is the first attempt to explore perceived injustice and job outcomes where episodic emotion

is involved as mediating mechanism. This effort will contribute to enhance our understanding

about the nature of injustice and job outcome relationship. Earlier organizational researchers

have focused on affective state of moods (Pekrun & Frese, 1992; Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996)

and/or discrete emotions like anger, guilt, resentment, happiness and pride (Barclay et al., 2005;

Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997; Daniel P Skarlicki & Robert Folger, 1997; Weiss et al., 1999;

Zohar, 1995) as emotional mechanism of (in)justice and outcome relationship, however, due to

the dispositional nature of these discrete emotions, some researchers also suggest that prior


emotional state may also cause the emergence of such perceptions and, accordingly, can change

the nature of the final justice judgment (Barsky & Kaplan, 2007; Van den Bos, 2003; van den

Bos, Maas, Waldring, & Semin, 2003). Current study enriches this debate by investigating the

mediation of a more relevant state emotion i.e. episodic envy, which is indicated in literature as

event specific (Cohen‐Charash, 2009). Second important significance of this study is the

investigation of psychological capital as a moderator between direct and indirect effect of

perceived injustice and job outcomes to stretch buffering mechanism. This coping mechanism

has been called by many previous researchers to investigate and current study is contributing in

literature by responding to those calls (Abbas et al., 2014; Azeem, Lehner, & Haq, 2015; Lehner

et al., 2014). Moreover, it will also increase our understanding about the coping strategies for

envy by arguing that people with high psychological capital will see envy as self-motivating and

helps themselves in reducing the envy-aroused pain by using their psychological resources of

confidence, hope, optimism and resilience.

Third important significance of current study is its contextual nature. Since, most of the theories

and researches are being conducted and developed in Western countries; practitioners and

researcher have low confidence regarding its generalizability in non-western settings (Tsui,

Nifadkar, & Ou, 2007). Earlier studies explore the effects of perceived injustice in different

context of western countries (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Cropanzano, Bowen, &

Gilliland, 2007; Folger & Baron, 1996; J. Greenberg, 1990a; J. Greenberg & Alge, 1998;

McGurn, 1988; Mintzberg, 1985; Robinson & Bennett, 1995, 1997) leaving the need for further

exploration in different countries, historical and social, with different cultural features across

national context (Tsui et al., 2007). Responding to this necessity, current study is a valuable

addition in terms of its Eastern context and comprehensiveness.


In addition to these three significant contributions, current study is also pooled with some

important aspects which will supplement our research. First, current study examined the

dimensionality of perceived injustice construct, which is quite long been in debate. Moreover,

Colquitt et al., (2001) found in their meta-analytic review of organizational justice that

interactional justice has not received much attention by previous researchers (Colquitt et al.,

2001). Current study contributed in literature by advancing our knowledge via exploration of all

four perceived injustice types in one comprehensive model which will help us to comprehend

about the nature of each. Another important significance is the longitudinal nature of current

study, which will give better understanding about the causal effects of perceived injustice over

time. Longitudinal design has frequently been suggested in literature but seldom investigated (El

Akremi et al., 2010; Matta et al., 2014). This study has been conducted by using time lagged

design which augments the significance of current piece of research.

1.5 Theoretical Framework:

Above mentioned research questions assisted to derive the theoretical framework of the study to

conceptually sum up the whole theoretical idea in testable framework. The current study

discussed the four types of injustice perceptions (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and

informational) and its aftermaths at workplace (organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance,

job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions). By following the

strong theoretical notion of affective event theory (AET), the current study also examined the

emotional mechanism by exploring the mediating role of episodic envy in relationship of

injustice perceptions and job outcomes of employees in banks of Pakistan. Additionally, this

study also suggested the comprehensive model to mitigate the negative effects of emotions,

aroused from injustice perceptions, through the introduction of psychological capital as


moderator. Overall, current study provides a comprehensive framework of emotion laden

reaction to injustice perceptions and also provides structure to cope with this situation through

moderating effect exploration.

Figure 1: Theoretical Framework

This study is conceptualized in three facets; i) the dotted line in the above framework represent

the main effects of perceived injustice on its potential aftermaths (i.e. organizational deviance,

Turnover Intentions

Procedural Injustice

Organizational Deviance

Distributive Injustice

Interpersonal Injustice

OCB

Job Performance

Episodic Envy

Informational Injustice

Episodic Envy

Job Performance

Turnover Intentions

OCB

Interpersonal Deviance

Psychological Capital

Per

ceiv

ed I

nju

stic

e

Psychological Capital


interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover

intentions), ii) the dark lines represents the indirect effects of perceived injustice on job

outcomes through episodic envy as mediator, iii) and the long dash-dotted line represents the last

aspect of the framework explaining the examination of individual differences in psychological

capital as a moderator by drawing upon the strong theoretical notion of conservation of resource

(COR) theory (Hobfoll, 2011) that when employees bump into negative emotions due to injustice

perceptions, psychological capital will work as “a solid resource reservoir” and will help the

individual’s to reduce the effects of these negative emotions (episodic envy) on work outcomes

(Hobfoll, 2002).


2 LITERATURE REVIEW

This section addresses the literature of all proposed variable of this research study. These

variables includes i) four types of perceived injustice, ii) the conceptualization of mediating

variable i.e. episodic envy, iii) psychological capital as moderator, and, iv) proposed job

outcomes of the study i.e. organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance,

organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions.

The current section also proposed the hypotheses of the study which includes the main effect

relationship between independent variables (i.e. distributive, procedural, interpersonal and

informational injustice), and dependent variables (i.e. job outcomes such as organizational

deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and

turnover intentions). Subsequently, episodic envy also conceptualized and discussed as

intervening variable in relationship of perceived injustice and all job outcomes. Based on

conservation of resource theory, this chapter also theorized and hypothesized about the

moderating role of psychological capital in direct and/or indirect relationship of perceived

injustice and job outcomes.

2.1 Perceived Injustice:

The phenomenon of justice has been in debate from primeval era. Rosen (1990) linked the notion

of justice from 1790s and defined according to Kent’s views about the regulations of freedom.

He defined the social side of justice as “the restriction of each individual’s freedom so that it

harmonizes with the freedom of everyone else” (Rosen, 1989, 1990). However, researchers from

the field of organizational behavior have taken it from perspective of employee’s perception

about themselves. Earlier, Miller (2001) defined perceived injustice as “Injustice is experienced


when people perceive that they are being treated in ways that they do not deserve or that they are

not being treated in ways that they do deserve” (Miller, 2001). So, perceived organizational

injustice is the perception of the employee about violation of fair treatment with him in the

organization.

Previous scholar’s work on justice literature establishes it as a multi-dimensional construct.

Initially, studies on justice unveil this construct as two dimensional i.e. distributive (the

perceived fairness about distribution of resources such as reward) and procedural (the perceived

fairness of process or formal procedure through which such decisions were taken) (Cropanzano

& Greenberg, 1997). However, as the field evolved, justice scholars began to acknowledge the

importance of how the decisions were communicated and how the procedures were

implemented. Eventually, they progressed to reveal the third dimension i.e. interactional justice

(the perceived fairness of how the decisions were communicated by decision maker or the

behavior with which one is treated at workplace by decision maker). Later, Bies and Moag

(1986) discussed the social side of justice and presented a framework for overall justice construct

in which interactional justice was incorporated as third dimension. Lately, Colquitt et al., (2013)

recently argue about the dimensionality of justice construct by suggesting a four-factor model of

justice i.e. distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational.

2.1.1 Distributive injustice:

The first component of justice is distributive justice which is, as depicted by name, associated

with the distribution of resources or outcomes that some of the organizational members get and

others do not. Theory of distributive injustice follows the notion that resources or outcomes are

differentially distributed and employees are not treated equally. In organizational settings, one of

the major apprehensions of employees is that whether they are receiving their share of outcome


fairly or not. Outcomes are perceived fairly distributed, when the reward goes to the top

performer or to the most deserving and competent employee. However, outcome seems to be

distributed unfairly, if they are distributed politically to corporate “insiders” due to their

connection with upper management.

2.1.2 Procedural injustice:

The second component is procedural justice which refers to the perceived fairness of the process

by which outcomes are allocated by the organization. Perceived fairness of procedures is also an

important concern of employees at workplace, since they wanted to know that how decision

making policies and practices are devised and implemented. Procedurally just organizations

establish rules which clearly specify the roles of individuals. A just process is one which is

transparent, unbiased, evenhanded, accurate, correctable, consistent with ethical norms and is

applicable to all. On the other hand, a procedure is considered unjust, if the decision is biased,

based on favoritism, and ambiguous.

2.1.3 Interpersonal injustice:

Lately, literature argued about the third type of justice which emphasizes that how one person

treats another at workplace. Bies and Moag (1986) labeled it as interactional justice and

incorporated it in general framework of justice as third type. But as research evolves, researchers

started to distinguish interactional injustice in two different forms i.e. a) interpersonal justice,

and b) informational justice (Colquitt et al., 2001). The interpersonal justice deals with the

respect and dignity with which one is treated by the decision maker. In other words, employees

perceive interpersonally treated unjust if decision is communicated to all with differential level

of respect and dignity, that is, some are treated with respect while others are treated with rude or

cruel remarks.


2.1.4 Informational injustice:

Literature marked fourth component of justice as informational justice, which is about the

accurateness and completeness of information sharing. Employees perceive informational

injustice if the decision maker didn’t provide true, complete and adequate information and/or

justification while conveying the decision, especially, when outcomes are not favorable.

Early organizational studies on distributive justice mainly derived and attributed with equity

theory of Adams (1965), whereby, justice scholars linked the perceived fairness of outcome

distribution with a variety of organizational decisions regarding pay (Mowday, 1983), job

security (Oldham, Kulik, Stepina, & Ambrose, 1986), and layoffs (Cropanzano, Ambrose,

Greenberg, & Cropanzano, 2001). Additionally, organizational research on distributive fairness

showed that such perceptions affect employee’s attitudinal and behavioral job outcomes such as

job performance, job satisfaction, commitment, and intention to quit or stay with the

organization. As with distributive justice, the perceived fairness of procedures also affects

important employee’s attitudinal and behavioral job outcomes. As a matter of fact, perceived

procedural justice can also mitigate the effect of the unfavorable outcomes. In an earlier study,

Thibaut and Walker (1975) suggested that employees remained satisfied even with unfavorable

outcomes, if they perceive that the procedures were fair and transparent through which the

outcomes are produced. Similar to distributive and procedural justice, justice scholars also

reported the effects of interpersonal and informational justice on employee’s attitudes and

behaviors (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; J. Greenberg & Alge, 1998; J. Greenberg &

Cropanzano, 1993).


2.2 Important Job Outcomes:

The current study investigated the major job outcomes of the employees in banking sector. These

job outcomes include both forms of workplace deviance in isolation, i.e. organizational deviance

and interpersonal deviance. Moreover, the study also examined the behavior and attitudinal job

outcomes i.e. job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions.

2.2.1 Workplace deviance:

The most acknowledged sketch of workplace deviance is presented by Robinson and Bennett

(1995), whereby, they conceptualize it as “voluntary behavior of organizational members that

violates significant organizational norms, and in so doing, threatens the well-being of the

organization and/or its members” (p. 556). Any act of individual or group is considered as

deviant if it violated any of the organizational norms or enacted rules and regulations,

particularly, if that act is also threatening to organization and/or its members by putting them at

risk (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Bennett & Robinson, 2000). Scholars who worked on this

construct suggested many different names to such non-conformity conducts, such as workplace

deviance (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Bennett & Robinson, 2003),

antisocial behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), and Counterproductive work behavior

(Beugré, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Mangione & Quinn, 1975). In their classical

work on workplace deviance, Robinson and Bennett (1995) gave a framework which they

labeled as “typology of workplace deviance” and classified deviant behaviors into two

dimensions; organizational deviance and interpersonal deviance. Organizational deviance

encircle the acts which are directed towards organizations and are threatening for organization’s

well-beings like fraud, embezzlement, theft, absenteeism, putting little effort in work,

unwarranted breaks from work, and sabotage (Robinson & Bennett, 1995; Ambrose et al., 2002;


Colquitt, Scott, Judge, & Shaw, 2006), whereas, interpersonal deviance refers to threatening acts

which are directed towards the employees and/or members of the organization such as abusing

co-worker, spreading rumors, politicking, ostracizing and sexual harassment (Robinson &

Bennett, 1995; Beugré, 2005; Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007).

The construct of workplace deviance is formally operationalized by Bennett and Robinson

(1995), where they differentiate this construct from other similar constructs like antisocial

behavior (Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), and Counterproductive work behavior (Beugré, 2005;

Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Mangione & Quinn, 1975). Since then, workplace deviance

has received much attention from scholars from organizational behavior (Bennett & Robinson,

2003; Langan-Fox, Cooper, & Klimoski, 2007; Spector & Fox, 2005). Initially, earlier scholars

of organizational studies relate this construct with perceptions of injustice (Robbins, Judge,

Millett, & Boyle, 2013; Robbins, Judge, & Education, 2003), however, as literature evolved,

perceptions of organizational injustice became one of the key constructs in explaining workplace

deviance (Berry, Ones, & Sackett, 2007). This relationship follows the strong principle of

retaliation which explains that employees are more likely to involve in deviance when they

perceived inequitable treatment at workplace (Aquino, Lewis, & Bradfield, 1999; Ambrose et

al., 2002; Aquino et al., 2006). Similar observations were reported by previous researchers,

whereby, perceived injustice has been linked with a range of deviant behaviors such as theft

(Colquitt et al., 2006; J. Greenberg, 1990a, 2002), sabotage (Ambrose et al., 2002), and

retaliation (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Barclay et al., 2005). Moreover, and more relevant to

current study, deviant behaviors are reported to be associated with different dimensions of

injustice. For example, Greenberg (1993b) reported the perception of distributive injustice with

employee’s tendency to involve in deviance. Procedural and interactional injustice has also been


linked with workplace deviance in earlier investigations (Barclay & Skarlicki, 2009; Barclay et

al., 2005; Daniel P Skarlicki & Robert Folger, 1997). Similarly, another recent study also

reported informational justice as a predictor of retaliatory behavior (Skarlicki, Barclay, & Pugh,

2008).

In the same context, previous scholars of organizational psychology research highlighted the

workplace attitudes, behaviors and relationships in social exchange context (Cropanzano &

Mitchell, 2005). They argue about viewing relationships in context of reciprocal exchange of

tangible and/or intangible resources between two entities (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). This

can be better viewed in context of fairness, such that the employees are likely to contribute more

to the organization when organizations reciprocate their contributions by giving them rewards,

and those rewards should be according to employee’s contributions (Leventhal, 1976b). This

norm of the reciprocity violated if employees perceive that the organization reward them with

lesser resources as compared to what they contribute to the organization. And such perceptions

of injustice stimulates them to involve in deviant behaviors to restore justice e.g., violating the

organizational norms (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). In addition to this, if employees perceive

injustice that the organization reward their coworkers with better outcomes for almost similar

performance, they may also attempt to restore justice by harming the source of injustice, e.g. the

organization (J. Greenberg & Scott, 1996), or supervisor (Cropanzano, Prehar, & Chen, 2002), or

a co-worker (L. Greenberg & Barling, 1999). Therefore, it should be no surprise that employees

will attempt to punish those they consider as responsible for workplace injustices (Bernerth &

Walker, 2012).

Researchers in this search of investigating this relationship of injustice and deviance reported

that the multidimensional construct of injustice is tied to different sources. For some dimensions


(distributive injustice and procedural injustice); employees consider organizations as responsible

for unjust treatment, while for other dimensions (interpersonal injustice and informational

injustice), they tied the source with organizational members (Bernerth & Walker, 2012).

Employees tend to find the source of unjust treatment to restore equity by reacting against that

source, i.e. the source of injustice will then be aligned with the target of deviance. In their mata-

analytic review, Colquitt et al (2001) reported that different dimensions of injustice are related to

different job outcomes. For example, the two-factor model suggests that distributive injustice

would be related to outcome-referenced dependent variables and procedural injustice would

predict system-referenced dependent variables (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Similarly,

interpersonal injustice and informational injustice would be related to agent-referenced

dependent variables as suggested by the agent-system model (Bies & Moag, 1986). In essence,

the source of distributive injustice and procedural injustice is generally tied with the

organization; therefore, these dimensions are generally related to organizational deviance

(Colquitt et al., 2013; Berry et al., 2007; Bennett & Robinson, 2000; Aquino et al., 1999).

Similarly, the source of interpersonal injustice and informational injustice is generally tied with

specific individuals (like supervisors); therefore, these dimensions are usually related to

interpersonal deviance (Greenberg & Cropanzano, 1993; Aquino et al., 1999; Berry et al., 2007).

Following the same notion, current study argued that employees who perceive inequitable

treatment would attempt to restore equity by reacting against the source of unfairness. So

hypothesizing the relation as:

H1a: Distributive injustice will positively predict employee’s act of organizational deviance.

H1b: Procedural injustice will positively predict employee’s act of organizational deviance.

H1c: Interpersonal injustice will positively predict employee’s act of interpersonal deviance.


H1d: Informational injustice will positively predict employee’s act of interpersonal deviance.

2.2.2 Job Performance:

Job performance is reported as one of the most extensively examined work related behavioral job

outcomes in the field of organizational behavior and has been defined as “employee behaviors

that are consistent with role expectations and that contribute to organizational effectiveness”

(Rotundo and Sackett, 2002; Judge & Kammeyer‐Mueller, 2012). Some researchers also

attached it with proficiency with which one accomplish the central core activities which are

officially recognized as a part of their job (Borman, 2004). For example, Cascio (2006) described

that job performance is the degree to which an individual is doing the tasks according to his job

description. Previous studies reported that individual’s job performance is largely been

influenced by workplace perceptions, attitudes and relationships (Vigoda, 2000). As mentioned

earlier, these workplace behaviors and relationship are viewed in reciprocal social exchange

context (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). If employees perceive injustice at workplace, they are

more likely to involve in distressed behaviors to restore justice, and the most obvious way to

restore justice is to reduce their job performance.

Considerable research has been done and supported the view that there is significant association

between perceived injustice and job performance (Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Shirom,

Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross, 2000). However, despite of these

efforts, the effects of perceived injustice on job performance is yet to be conclusive (Colquitt et

al., 2001; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). For example, as proposed by equity theory,

distributive justice is found to be related with performance (Ball, Trevino, & Sims, 1994;

Griffeth, Vecchio, & Logan, 1989). On the other hand, Kanfer et al. (1987) reported a negative

relationship of procedural fairness and performance. Another study by Keller and Dansereau


(1995) found a moderate relationship of both these constructs. In their experimental research,

Barley and Lind (1987) also reported relationship of procedural justice and performance. All

these studies showed mixed results for relationship among procedural justice and performance

making it the most unclear of the relationships in literature among other types of justice (Kanfer,

Sawyer, Early, & Lind, 1987; Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009). Similarly, the relationship of

performance with interactional injustice is also remained unclear. In a meta-analytic review, the

findings revealed near-zero correlations between interactional justice and task performance,

however, these findings were based on very few studies (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash &

Spector, 2001). In addition to these meta-analysis findings, some other studies found

insignificant correlations between performance and interpersonal justice (Kickul, Lester, &

Finkl, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2006;). On the other hand, some studies yielded significant

relationships between these two constructs (Rupp & Cropanzano, 2002; Ramaswami & Singh,

2003). These mixed findings, with different magnitude effect of perceived injustice on job

performance, indicate the lack of understanding and give rise to the need of further exploration

of this relationship between perceived injustice and job performance. Responding to this

necessity of exploration, this study investigates the relationship of perception of injustice and job

performance. Following hypotheses has been tested for exploring this relationship:

H2a: Distributive injustice will significantly reduce employee’s job performance.

H2b: Procedural injustice will significantly reduce employee’s job performance.

H2c: Interpersonal injustice will significantly reduce employee’s job performance.

H2d: Informational injustice will significantly reduce employee’s job performance.


2.2.3 Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

Organizational citizenship behavior is defines as an “Individual’s behavior that is discretionary,

not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system and that in aggregate promotes

the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ, 1988). In this definition, the term

discretionary means that the behavior is not an obligation for the employee neither has been

written in his formal job description. To put it in more clear way, “the behavior is rather a matter

of personal choice, such as its omission is not generally understood as punishable” (Podsakoff &

Mackenzie, 1997). An important aspect of this definition is that when such behaviors are adopted

and enacted consistently over time, it results in increased employees and organizational

effectiveness. The same observation is reported by Podsakoff & Mackenzie (1997) that

organizational effectiveness influenced by employee’s citizenship behaviors in different ways

such as it helps in increasing employees efficiency, organizational performance, ability of

organization to identify and retain good employees, and also helps organizations to be adaptive

to change more effectively. Organ (1988) describes organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) as

a multidimensional construct. The first dimension is altruism which refers to the behaviors of

individuals where they help other employees in their routine work related to organizational

matters like being cooperative to colleagues, and helping newcomers etc. the second dimension

is sportsmanship which is defined as “a willingness to tolerate the inevitable inconveniences and

impositions of work without complaining” (Organ 1990; p. 96). Third dimension is

conscientiousness which refers to the compliance in work, where employees also work beyond

normal requirements or expectation. The fourth dimension is courtesy which is defined by Organ

(1990) as “behaviors that are directed towards prevention measures of future organizational

problems like advance notices, reminder and whistle blowing”. The last dimension is civic virtue


which refers to an active involvement in organizational activities like participation in

organizational events, and attending meetings (Organ, 1990). Organ (1990) suggests that

organizational citizenship behaviors are determined by perceived fairness in organizations. Other

researchers also reported that such behaviors are expected more often in a just environment

(Blakely et al., 2005; Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998; Nadiri & Tanova, 2010). When

employee perceive fair treatment in organization, they are likely to do something in return to

reciprocate and, in doing so, engage themselves in voluntary behaviors other than their specific

job task (Van dyne, Cummings, & Parks, 1995). On the other hand, they will withdraw from

such behaviors in case of unfair treatment (Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). The same is also

stated by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) that affective events at workplace might result in

spontaneous behaviors such as acts of good or bad citizenship. In an earlier study, Colquitt et al.

(2001) presented agent-system model to explain that employees tend to reciprocate perceived

injustice by withdrawing citizenship behaviors in an effort to restore justice. Following the same

conceptualization, current study argues that individuals who perceive that they are victim of

injustice will react and will less likely to involve in organization’s citizenship behaviors.

Therefore, hypothesize:

H3a: Distributive injustice will negatively affect employee’s organization citizenship behavior.

H3b: Procedural injustice will negatively affect employee’s organization citizenship behavior.

H3c: Interpersonal injustice will negatively affect employee’s organization citizenship behavior.

H3d: Informational injustice will negatively affect employee’s organization citizenship behavior.

2.2.4 Turnover intentions:

Turnover intention is defined as “the extent to which an individual plans to quit the organization”

(Podsakoff, LePine, & LePine, 2007). It is also defined as “an individual’s own estimated


probability that they are permanently leaving the organization in the near future” (Vandenberg &

Nelson, 1999). Turnover intention is the volunteer decision of an employee to quit from work

(Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978). The employees in organizations may vacate their

position in two ways, either by voluntarily leaving the company or by involuntarily quit.

Voluntarily turnover occurs due to certain reasons like unfavorable working conditions, stress at

work, or due to personal reasons of better career orientation or more attractive financial offerings

(Dess & Shaw, 2001). On the other hand, involuntary turnover ascends from organizational side

due to certain reasons. Organizations may dismiss the employee due to his incompetence, or

offer retirement plans due to old age (Dess & Shaw, 2001).

However, regardless of approach adopted for employee turnover, the consequences of it are very

deleterious and challenging for the company. Organizations have to bear enormous cost in

process of recruiting, hiring and training of new employees to replace the departing counterparts

(Dalton, Todor, & Krackhardt, 1982). Moreover, it also indirectly reduces the employee’s morale

of remaining associates which results in loss of social capital (Shaw, Duffy, Johnson, &

Lockhart, 2005). In principle, the actual cost associated with employee’s turnover is hard to

measure, particularly, when the departing employee is highly skilled, knowledgeable and a high

performer (Dess & Shaw, 2001; Shaw et al., 2005). Therefore, it’s important for organizations

and managers to give fair treatment to their employees because, only then, it stretches the

message that they are being valued equally as members of the organization (Sousa-Poza &

Henneberger, 2002; Posthuma, Maertz, & Dworkin, 2007; Siers, 2007). Theoretically, fair

treatment is viewed by the employees as a fact that organizations value them as an important part

of the group. However, unfair treatment stretches a clue that one is no more considered as an

important part of the group and, thus, an indication of his disposability. In such cases of unfair


treatment, the employees consider it as employer’s failure to establish the equitable employment

relationship (Sousa-Poza & Henneberger, 2002), therefore, will want to cease from such

relationships (Bernerth & Walker, 2012). In addition to these situations, fairness and

deontological theorist suggests that interpersonal relationships would also have an effect on

individual’s decisions to leave or remain with the organization (Bernerth & Walker, 2012).

When an employee sees his fellow colleagues being treated unfairly, he may expect the similar

type of treatment for himself in future. Such situations of unfair treatment with the fellow

counterparts would also likely to influence individual's desire to remain with the organization

(Bernerth & Walker, 2012).

In essence, inequitable treatment triggers the emotional judgment that employees are not

considered important part of the organization and, therefore, results in intensified turnover

intentions. Following the same conception, this study argues that perception of injustice will

stimulates the employee’s intention to leave the company. When employees feel that they are

being treated unfairly, they might trigger negative emotions in reaction, therefore, will more

likely to leave the organization. Considering it in social exchange perspective (Gouldner, 1960;

Scanzoni, 1979), employees expect that what they got from organizations should be

proportionate to their efforts for the organization. However, if they perceive that they are treated

unfairly, they will reciprocate to equal the score by giving reactions such as increased turnover

(Lavelle, Rupp, & Brockner, 2007). Similar observations were reported by previous studies that

organizational injustice does indeed related to higher turnover intentions (Alexander &

Ruderman 1987; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Aryee et al., 2002; Hendrix, Robbins, Miller,

& Summers, 1998). However, magnitude of the effect size is yet to be conclusive. For example,

Colquitt et al. (2001) in their meta-analytic investigation established that distributive justice had


a strong correlation with employee’s turnover intentions, while procedural justice had a moderate

correlation with employee’s turnover intentions. Current study is an attempt to explore the true

insight about this relationship and expects by following the theoretical notion of social exchange

that perceived injustice relates to amplified turnover intentions. Therefore hypothesize:

H4a: Distributive injustice will significantly predict employee’s turnover intentions.

H4b: Procedural injustice will significantly predict employee’s turnover intentions.

H4c: Interpersonal injustice will significantly predict employee’s turnover intentions.

H4c: Informational injustice will significantly predict employee’s turnover intentions.

2.3 Episodic Envy:

Definitions of envy labeled it as an “unpleasant, often painful emotion characterized by feelings

of inferiority, hostility, and resentment produced by an awareness of another person or group of

persons who enjoy a desired possession (object, social position, attribute, or quality of being)”

(Smith & Kim, 2007: 49). Consistent with this understanding, Parrot and Smith (1993) earlier

defined this experience as; “envy arises when a person lacks another’s superior quality,

achievements, or possession and either desires it or wishes that the other lacked it” (1993: 908).

Earlier researcher reported envy as conjuncture of related characteristics of “inferiority, hostility,

and resentment” commonly persists in almost every definitions of envy (Smith, Kim, & Parrott,

1988; Johnson-Laird & Oatley, 1989; Smith & Kim, 2007). Envy is described as the negative

affective reaction triggered from upward social comparison with the superior fortune of the

envied other (Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1990). Similar connotation was mentioned in early

Greek philosophy about envy that it often considered as very painful experience which arises

from social comparison with someone else’s good fortune (cf. Plato, 2007/360 BCE). In such


social upward and unfavorable comparisons, individuals feel themselves inferior, shamed and

humiliated as compared to envied other (Parrott & Smith, 1993).

However, although the painful experience is fundamental to envy, it also have an alternative

explanation which pitch it as positive and motivating factor to work hard to get the desired

outcome (Van de Ven et al., 2009). This type of envy is labelled as “benign envy” which is more

like resembling to admiration (Van de Ven et al., 2009; Smith & Kim, 2007) because the feeling

of hostility is not present in it. Nonetheless, even the desire to harm the envied other is absent,

the experience of pain is the defining quality which is present in benign envy (Tai et al., 2012;

Takahashi et al., 2009). Recent evidence from neuroscience also validates envy as painful

emotion by showing that experience of envy activates those brain regions which are associated

with pain i.e., “the anterior cingulate cortex” (Takahashi et al., 2009).

The tendency to feel envy is so widespread that almost every culture has a word for envy or a

word with meaning something close to envy (Schoeck, 1969), moreover, almost everyone has the

capability of feeling it (Tai et al., 2012; Smith, Parrott, Ozer, & Moniz, 1994; Salovey & Rodin,

1984). Envy, at its inception, was conceptualized as more of a dispositional tendency (Smith &

Kim, 2007; Smith, Parrott, Diener, Hoyle, & Kim, 1999; Gold, 1996). However, as literature

evolved, researchers began to realize that envy is not just a personality trait, rather everyone can

experience it. Even those individuals who are not predisposed to experience envy may

sometimes experience it because of a specific social comparison, whereby, they found

themselves less fortunate relative to another (Cohen‐Charash, 2009; Schalin, 1979). This

temporary, event specific or situation-specific envy is labeled as Episodic envy (Cohen-Charash,

2009).


Episodic envy is relatively a new construct and is defines as “a negatively felt emotional state

experienced because of a negative social comparison, when Person A notices that a similar other,

Person B, has something (e.g., material or personal) that Person A wants but does not have, and

the desired object or condition is central to A’s self-concept” (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007,

p. 666). When this kind of envy is experienced, the envious person will not only focus on getting

what the other has but also experience the feeling of ill will towards the other (Neu, 1980;

Salovey, 1991a). The feeling of ill will is triggered because the envious person blame the

“envied other” for his inferiority, therefore, leading to hostile feelings (Smith & Kim, 2007;

Smith et al., 1994) and making the “envied other” target of harmful behaviors (Hill, DelPriore, &

Vaughan, 2011; Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2007; Tai et al., 2012). This view is also validated by

Craig (2003), who considered envy as a homeostatic emotion that urges a behavioral response.

Homeostasis is described as the process which regulates the physiological balance for survival.

For example, human body regulates its internal temperature when encounter the extreme external

temperature. Similarly, much like a homeostatic response to regulate body temperature, the

experience of envy stimulates the reactive action to regulate the psychological balance. The same

is validated from previous conceptual and empirical work on action tendencies of emotions

(Frijda, 1993; Bagozzi, Verbeke, & Gavino Jr, 2003); whereby emotions, specifically envy, was

found to be associated with threat-oriented action tendencies towards the envied other (Cohen‐

Charash, 2009; Gino & Pierce, 2009, 2010; Tai et al., 2012; Van de Ven, Zeelenberg, & Pieters,

2009; Vecchio, 2005).

According to Smith (1991), the reason of action oriented hostility towards envied other is that the

envious individuals perceive themselves victims of being treated unjust which activates the

feeling of resentment towards the envied counterpart. Some other researchers also investigated


the same and suggested that perceived inequality is related to envy (Ben-Ze'ev, 2002; Tai et al.,

2012; Smith, 1991; Smith et al., 1994). In a more recent study, Tai et al. (2012) explicitly

referred that "equity theory is a useful lens for understanding envy" (p. 110). Moreover,

employee’s feeling of envy due to perceptions of unfairness stimulates more serious reaction

than feeling of mild frustration (Yochi Cohen-Charash & Jennifer S Mueller, 2007; E. G.

Lambert et al., 2010; M. Lewis, 2008). Following the same conception, current study emphasis

on finding true mechanism of injustice perception-job outcome relationship by arguing that

employees perception about injustice will trigger negative emotions of episodic envy and to

restore balance, they are more likely to involve in deviant activities.

H5: Episodic envy will mediate the relationship between perceived injustice (distributive and

procedural) and organizational deviance.

H6: Episodic envy will mediate the relationship between perceived injustice (interpersonal and

informational) and interpersonal deviance.

According to strong theoretical notion of equity theory “people make equity assessments by

comparing the ratio of what they receive (outcomes) to what they contribute (inputs) with the

corresponding ratios of referent others” (Adams, 1965). In this view, people tend to compare

themselves with other and such social comparisons results in hurtful and painful feelings if they

found themselves underrated (Harvey & Haines Iii, 2005; Smith & Kim, 2007; Tai et al., 2012).

Moreover, this unfavorable evaluation could also originate envy within the relationship.

Following this theoretical impression of equity theory, the behavioral consequences of envy can

be substantiated. Earlier researchers have also pointed this out as “People can take steps to

reduce this social pain by restoring equity through a variety of means, out of which, one obvious

approach is to reduce job performance” (Pinder, 2008). According to Pinder (2008), employee’s


tendency to decrease his performance at workplace by producing or contributing less will satisfy

his urge of balancing the score by equalizing his ratio of outcome to input as compared to

corresponding ratios of his counterparts. Beside this, the envious parties may also attribute blame

for this perceived injustice to the organization and also respond to it by reducing their job

performance at workplace. Therefore, arguing about the tendency of envious employee’s to

lower the job performance due to perceived injustice, current study hypothesize the mediation

test of episodic envy in relationship of perceived injustice and job performance:

H7: Episodic envy will mediate the relationship between perceived injustice (distributive,

procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s job performance.

As mentioned earlier, perceived injustice can trigger envy within relationship. Earlier research

have also suggested that, as a reaction to injustice, episodic envy is more likely to predict

reduced intend of friendship with envied parties (Salovey & Rodin, 1984), and will also be

reluctant to share information with them (Dunn & Schweitzer, 2004). These findings indicate the

fewer tendencies of envious individuals to involve in citizenship behaviors (Salovey & Rodin,

1984; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2004). Moreover, envious individuals will less likely to involve in

organizational citizenship behavior with those he/she envied due to perceived injustice,

irrespective of nature of citizenship behavior required. Therefore, current study conjectures the

hypothesis to test the mediation of episodic envy in relationship of perceived injustice and

organizational citizenship behavior as:


procedural, interpersonal and informational) and organizational citizenship behavior.

In similar studies, envy was also found to be related with depressive tendencies (Smith et al.,

1999), lower commitment, increased absenteeism and/or, increased turnover intentions (Duffy &


Shaw, 2000; Vecchio, 2005). Turnover intention is one of the attitudinal job outcomes which are

related to equity theory (Carrell & Dittrich, 1976; Colquitt et al., 2013; Duffy & Shaw, 2000;

Telly, French, & Scott, 1971; Vecchio, 2005). Employees may compare their coworkers' job

contribution and reward (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979). Once employees frequently experience

imbalances, they may have strong desire to leave their job (J. S. Adams, 1965; Aquino et al.,

1997; Cropanzano & Rupp, 2008; Dittrich & Carrell, 1979). In addition, employees who have a

poor relationship with supervisors (Chalkiti & Sigala, 2010; Simons & Hinkin, 2001) or, sense

that their supervisors treat them unfairly and do not support them, both of which might increase

the chance to have a conflict with their coworkers or leaving the organization (e.g., through

envy) (Yang, Wan, & Fu, 2012). Therefore, current study hypothesizes:


procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee turnover intentions.

2.4 Psychological Capital:

Historically, the academic and practicing psychologists overwhelmingly emphasized the negative

aspects in order to seek solutions of dysfunctional behaviors (Luthans, Youssef, & Avolio,

2007). The field of psychology has largely ignored the elements which contribute to prosperity,

rather focusing on what made individuals fail. But as the field evolves, both academic and

practicing psychologists started to emphasize the need to explore the positive aspects of human

behaviors. Specifically, the movement started with the call made by Martin Seligman in 1998 to

start concentrating on recognizing what is right with people, rather only focusing on what is

wrong with people (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;

Youssef & Avolio, 2006, 2007). Since then, the field of psychology has been in the process of

advancement in the study of positive human prospective. Although the primary focus was on


positive side of human behaviors, Martin Seligman (1998) actually called for more balanced

approach for examining the underlying mechanism of human functioning and behaviors.

While the work on positive psychology had some indirect implications for workplace, the direct

inferences emerged with the introduction of a new concept of positive organizational behavior

(Luthans, 2002a, 2002b, 2003; Wright, 2003). This field of positive organizational behavior or

POB focuses on the well-being of individuals and their positive strengths at the workplace.

Luthans (2002), initially defined this construct as “the study and application of positively-

oriented human resource strengths and psychological capacities that can be measured, developed,

and effectively managed for performance improvement in today’s workplace” (Luthans, 2002b:

59). Afterwards, another higher order construct was introduced which had more direct positive

implications for performance at workplace. They named it psychological capital or PsyCap and

comprehensively defined it as:

“an individual’s positive psychological state of development that is characterized by

(1) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to

succeed at challenging tasks; (2) making a positive attribution (optimism) about

succeeding now and in the future; (3) persevering toward goals and, when necessary,

redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (4) when beset by problems

and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain

success”. (Luthans et al., 2007: 3).

Unlike social and human capital, psychological capital provided a new perspective to understand

and manage the human behaviors at workplace. It emphasized on “who you are” (the actual self)

and “what you intend to become” (your possible self), rather emphasizing on “what you know”

(human capital) and “who you know” (social capital) (Larson & Luthans, 2006). Moreover,

psychological capital is measurable (Luthans et al., 2006b), composed of malleable and open for


development capacities which can be significantly increased by applying relatively short-term (1

to 3 hours) and focused micro-interventions (Luthans et al., 2006a). These positive psychological

capacities are not only developable but also significantly impactful on work-related job outcomes

(Luthans et al., 2005; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Earlier investigation on this construct reported

that it is significantly associated with employee’s performance at workplace (Luthans et al.,

2005, 2006b; Youssef & Luthans, 2007), eventually contributing to the organizations (Luthans et

al., 2006a, 2007).

As stated above, there are four components which encircle this higher-order construct of

psychological capital i.e. self-efficacy/confidence, hope, optimism, and resilience (Luthans &

Youssef, 2004; Luthans, Avey, Avolio, Norman, & Combs, 2006). These components are briefly

discussed below in terms of their conceptualization and effects over individual’s behavior at

workplace.

Self-Efficacy: The concept of self-efficacy is mainly derived from Albert Bandura’s social

cognitive theory (Bandura, 1986, 1997) and can be defined in context of work environment as

“an individual’s conviction (or confidence) about his or her abilities to mobilize the motivation,

cognitive resources, and courses of action necessary to successfully execute a specific task

within a given context” (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998b: 66). Earlier, Bandura (1997) also defined

self-efficacy in similar passion i.e. “beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the

courses of action required to produce the given attainments” (p. 3). Previous scholars reported

that higher self-efficacy has significantly been related with performance at workplace (Stajkovic

& Luthans, 1998a) and also stated it as developable attribute at the same time (Bandura, 1997).

Social cognitive theory can be a useful lens in understanding the developmental state of this

construct (Bandura, 2002), according to which, self-efficacy can be enhanced at workplace by


centering the focus on (1) emphasizing the employees to actually experience the mastery

(enactive mastery) at work; (2) showing the role models (vicarious modeling) that how they

behave in challenging situation, thus enhancing the observers’ believe on his own abilities; (3)

positive encouragement (verbal persuasion) that one can perform the challenging tasks; and (4)

physiological and psychological states (emotional arousal) which can be informative regarding

one’s competence (Bandura, 1997, 2002). These approaches to enhance self-efficacy

consequently raised human motivation (Bandura, 1997; Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998), thus,

drastically change the working environment by stimulating positive emotions and increases

performance (Jimmieson, Terry, & Callan, 2004; Jex, Bliese, Buzzell, & Primeau, 2001; Jex &

Bliese, 1999).

Hope: In its early conceptualization, hope was defined as “overall perception that goals can be

met” (French, 1952; Lewin, 1946). However, in a later classical work of Snyder et al., (1991),

this construct was more elaborately define in these words; “a positive motivational state that is

based on an interactively derived sense of successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy), and (b)

pathways (planning to meet goals)” (p. 287). In this conceptualization, agency refers to the

person’s willpower or mental power which helps them toward achieving goals. Similarly,

pathways refer to the mental ability which gives the alternative road maps to achieve goals in

challenging situations. (Snyder, 1994; Snyder et al., 1991). Combining both, agency and

pathways, stimulates the state of mind in which a person is capable to plan goals, and works to

reach goals, and also capable of making alternate ways when encounter with obstacles. Both,

agency and pathway, are independent elements of hope, but still is inseparable like a math

equation (Snyder, 1994; Snyder et al., 1991; Snyder, Lopez, & Pedrotti, 2010). Hope is also

developable state and different techniques are suggested to develop both elements of it. For


example, one effective way of developing sense of agency is through setting goals which are

realistic, specific, measurable and achievable. Another effective technique, called “stepping”, is

the division of a greater goal into smaller and achievable sub-goals which are easy to accomplish

as agency thinking urges to deny the pursuit of unrealistic goals (Snyder, 1995; Luthans et al.,

2001; Luthans & Jensen, 2002). Similarly, individual’s ability to evaluate and adopt alternatives

pathways can also be developed through “mental rehearsals”, “contingency planning” and “what-

if analyses” techniques which can be used by organizations to develop hope (Snyder et al.,

2000a; Youssef & Luthans, 2007). Alike others, hope is also one of the vital components of

psychological capital which is considered helpful in increasing performance of employees at

workplace (Peterson & Byron, 2008), and creating a positive environment (Adams et al., 2002).

Optimism: One of the earliest operationalization of optimism was attributed to Tiger (1979), who

defined it as “mood or attitude associated with an expectation about the social or material future

one which the evaluator regards as socially desirable, to his advantage, or for his pleasure” (p.

18). According to Luthans (2007), optimism is a positive behavior and characteristic of an

individual to feel good for every situation. Unlike optimism, pessimism is adoption of negative

behavior and feeling for something bad to happen (Carver & Scheier, 2002). Optimistic

individuals should uphold realistic approach to increase their effectiveness (Peterson, 2000),

otherwise, they have to face negative results (Seligman, 1998). Generally, optimistic attribution

is an explanatory style which attributes the negative event as externally caused and positive event

as internally caused (Buchanan & Seligman, 2013). However, optimism in PsyCap gives a more

balanced approach by evaluating the true causes and consequences of events, rather just taking

credit of success or blaming failures to external factors. As noted with other components of

psychological capital, optimism is also a developmental attribute, and the most effective three-


step developmental approach was given by Schneider (2001). These steps include “leniency for

the past, appreciation for the present and opportunity-seeking for the future”. In addition to its

developmental nature, optimism is also suggested to be related with work-related outcomes.

Buchanan and Seligman (2013) discussed in their work that optimism is related to productivity

and decreases turnover intention at workplace. Another research on healthcare by Luthans and

Jensen, (2005) found positive relationship between optimism and job performance. Hooker et al.,

(1992) found negative relationship between optimism and stress, moreover, also found that high

optimistic approach decreases negative emotions.

Resilience: The fourth component is resilience which can be defined, by drawing its roots from

developmental, positive and clinical psychology, by Luthans (2002a) in these words; “the

positive psychological capacity to rebound, to bounce back from adversity, uncertainty, conflict,

failure or even positive change, progress and increased responsibility” (p. 702). Resiliency is also

defined from individual’s perspective as “a class of phenomena characterized by patterns of

positive adaptation in the context of significant adversity or risk” (Masten & Reed, 2002: 75).

Similarly, Coutu (2002) also discussed resilience from individual’s perspective by stating that

“resilient individuals possess a staunch acceptance of reality; a deep belief, often buttressed by

strongly held values, that life is meaningful; and an uncanny ability to improvise” (p. 48).

Although this component is also developable but, unlike optimism and hope, is more reactionary

in nature. For developing resilience at workplace, scholars suggested three sets of strategies

namely, “asset focused, risk focused and process focused” (Masten & Reed, 2002; Masten,

2001). By applying these strategies at workplace, organizations often initiate trainings to enhance

the ability of resilience in their employees (Luthans et al., 2006).


2.4.1 Psychological Capital as Moderator:

Although each of the components of psychological capital i.e., self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and

resilience, has found to be related with performance of employees at workplace (Luthans, et al.,

2007; Luthans & Youssef, 2004), however, when combine all four psychological resources

together, this construct transforms into a high-order, core construct (Luthans et al., 2007) which

expose more performance variation and satisfaction as compared to each of the four independent

constructs (Luthans et al., 2006b). Current study intended to follow the same conception of

psychological capital as a high-order, core construct as a moderating variable by using the

conservation of resource theory (COR) as foundation. Conservation of resource theory explains

that “individuals seek to obtain, retain, and protect resources and that stress occurs when

resources are threatened with loss or are lost or when individuals fail to gain resources after

substantive resource investment” (Hobfoll, 2002: 312). According to this definition, resources

refer to “those entities that either are centrally valued in their own right (e.g., self-esteem, close

attachments, health, and inner peace) or act as a means to obtain centrally valued ends (e.g.,

money, social support, and credit)” (Hobfoll, 2002: 307).

In current study, conservation of resource (COR) theory is used to conceptualize and examine

the moderating role of psychological capital in direct and/or indirect effect of perceived injustice

and job outcome relationship through internal and contextual resources. According to this theory,

the loss of resource exerts more influence relative to resource gain, and creating a balance in this

tendency depends on resources associated with individual’s psychological capital such as self-

efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, and how he/she use them (Treadyway et al., 2005). It

follows that more the psychological resources an individual possesses, the less likely he/she will

experience resource loss or vice versa.


According to Luthans (2007), self-efficacy is characterized as an individual’s trust on his

capabilities to achieve success in his activities. According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy can

be practiced through indirect learning, socially influencing people and providing positive

feedback. Individuals with increased level of self-efficacy, usually, face fewer failures or loss to

their confidence level while dealing with negative comments, uncertainty and problems (Bandura

& Locke, 2003). Jex and Bliese (1999) examined the self-efficacy as moderator in stressors and

outcome relationship and findings suggested that self-efficacy weaken the negative relationship

of workload and job satisfaction. However, on the main effects, self-efficacy was found to be

related with increased commitment. In another study, Grau et al., (2011) also investigated self-

efficacy’s moderating role and found that it buffers the effect of difficult job routine and

cynicism. Moreover, their research also examined the combined effect of role conflict and self-

efficacy with cynicism and found self-efficacy as moderator. In a similar fashion, hope and

optimism also reported as buffering capacities in the relationship of psychological distress,

dysfunctional behavior and addiction (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Some earlier studies

reported a strong relationship of hope with individual’s ability to deal with tough situations and

performance (Snyder, et al., 1991; Curry et al., 1997). The last component of psychological

capital is resilience which helps individuals in building their stamina to deal with challenging

situations in their lives (Block & Kremen, 1996; Coutu, 2002; Masten, 2001) and stand again in

the cases of failures (Youssef & Luthans, 2005). Masten (2001) described the role of resilience at

workplace and stated that it allows employees to deal with unjust and ambiguous working

environment and enables them to change and adjust according to situation by facing setbacks,

failures and adversities (also see Masten & Reed, 2002). These capacities collectively offer “the


necessary staying power in the face of repeated failures, setbacks, and skeptical or even critical

social reactions that are inherently discouraging” (Bandura & Locke, 2003: 92).

Considering these resourceful capabilities helpful in hard times, psychological capital is

theorized as moderating variable in this study due to its defensive capability to work against

situational as well as harmful factors. And it is argued in current study that this defensive

capability buffers the effect of emotion of episodic envy aroused from perceived injustice in such

a way that people with high psychological capital use this resource composite to convert emotion

of episodic envy into positive, self-motivating and constructive force. Employees with high

psychological capital have this capacity to activate this psychological resource of hope to confine

themselves from negative and destructive effects of episodic envy. They remained hopeful to get

the desired outcomes as their self-efficacy leads them to remain positive about accomplishing the

challenging tasks (Bandura, 1997). Moreover, their high optimism toward the future (Seligman,

1998), their ability to deal with problems and difficult situations (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998),

their move as a multi-tasker to approach success (Snyder, 1994), and their capability to bounce

back from difficult situations and setbacks (Masten and Reed, 2002) also help them to reduce the

negatives of episodic envy. Collectively, this psychological composite works as resource

reservoir and individuals are less likely to “feel” injustice and also less likely to consider it as

threatening to resource loss. So, current study hypothesizes:

H10: Psychological capital will moderate the direct and/or indirect relationship of perceived

injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s job

outcomes (organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational

citizenship behavior and turnover intentions) such that relationship will be weaker when

psychological capital is high.

Note: indirect relationship indicates Perceived injustice → episodic envy → job outcomes


3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This section includes the details about methodology used in current research summarizing

research design, population, sampling technique and data collection procedure. The section also

outlines the scales which are used to collect data and their reported reliability.

3.1 Research Design:

Research design describes the methods to conduct the research process (Zechmeister,

Shaughnessy, & Zechmeister, 2001). Literature argued about the necessity that the research

design decisions should have the required consistency and get guidance from the research

questions and objectives (Lewis, Thornhill, & Saunders, 2007). Moreover, an appropriate

research design enables the researcher to conduct the research in an effective and efficient way

and unearth the truthful conclusion (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). The research designs can be

categorized in three broad classifications namely exploratory, descriptive and explanatory

(Saunders, Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2011). The first classification is exploratory research

which is conducted to recognize the nature of a problem (Uma Sekaran, 2003). This research

design is especially helpful to explore that what is happening by probing the true insights about a

certain phenomenon which is new in context (Robson, 2002). Since, the researchers are unsure

about the nature of the problem at the start; this research design used qualitative data collection

techniques such as observations, expert surveys, literature search and interviews to reach the

conclusion (Saunders et al., 2011; Uma Sekaran, 2003; Hair, Wolfinbarger, Ortinau, & Bush,

2008; Malhotra & Birks, 2007).

In comparison, descriptive research is a more structured approach, which is characterized by

conducting investigation to answer specific research questions (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). This


research design is particularly fruitful in investigating the characteristics of a certain variables of

interest in a specific situation (Uma Sekaran, 2003). More comprehensively, descriptive research

aimed at collecting data from a defined target population and elaborates their characteristics by

using scientific methods and procedures (Hair et al., 2008). Unlike exploratory design, this

approach use quantitative techniques for data collection to reach conclusion by statistically

examining the acquired data in terms of frequencies, or mean and standard deviations (Uma

Sekaran, 2006).

The third classification of research design is explanatory research which is used to assess the

cause and effect relationships (Hair et al., 2008; Sekaran & Bougie, 2010). This design is helpful

to study a problem or a situation, whereby, the aim is to explain the nature of relationship

between certain variables (Saunders et al., 2011), more specifically, determining and explaining

the causality among measured variables (Hair et al., 2008). Explanatory study is a pre-planned

and structured approach much like descriptive research, however, the descriptive research is not

an appropriate method for examining causal relationships (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). It is,

however, pertinent to mention that there are no absolute preferences among exploratory,

descriptive and explanatory research design i.e. the decision to use particular research design is

dependent on the research objectives which may demand the use of more than one research

design (Malhotra & Birks, 2007).

The current research employed an explanatory research design as this study aims to assess the

cause and effect relationships between independent variable of perceived injustice and the

dependent variables of job outcomes such as organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job

performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions. Explanatory research

design is useful in explaining the causality among measurable variables, for example how much


and to what extent perceived injustice causes change in job outcomes. The causal relationship

can better be investigated by collecting data through quantitative research techniques (Sekaran &

Bougie, 2010). The use of quantitative and qualitative research method is widespread in business

and management research and both can be differentiated largely on the basis of data collection

techniques and data analysis procedures (Saunders et al., 2011). In quantitative methods, the data

collecting techniques and analysis procedures are largely produces numerical values. On the

other hand, the data collecting techniques and analysis procedures produces non-numeric data

such as statements in qualitative methods (Saunders et al., 2011). The current research is using

quantitative research method which is more beneficial for examining the problem statements of

causal nature (Mertens, 2003). When employing the quantitative method, the researchers also

need to articulate the time horizon as part of research planning (Saunders et al., 2011). Study of a

particular relationship or phenomenon at a particular point in time, and/or a series of snapshots

over a given time period, is categorized as cross-sectional and/or longitudinal. Cross sectional

research seeks to collect information from respondents only once, however, the information is

collected from the sample at specified intervals over an extended period of time in longitudinal

research (Malhotra & Birks, 2007). Among other, a major advantage of longitudinal research is

the researcher’s ability to observe sample (people or events) over time and exerts a robust control

over variables under study (Adams & Schvaneveldt, 1991).

The current research used time lagged longitudinal research design by collecting data in two

waves. Study’s independent variables were measured at Time 1 and job outcomes were collected

at Time 2 alongside the mediator with a time lag of six weeks. The longitudinal research design

is adopted due to many reasons. First, it helps in decreasing the common bias error (Siemsen,

Roth, & Oliveira, 2010; Chang, Van Witteloostuijn, & Eden, 2010). Second, this research is


causal in nature, investigating how perceived injustice causes effect on criterions variable, and

causality inference can be better explored through longitudinal research design (Cohen et al.,

2013; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Third, the framework of present research

investigates that the predictors (perceived injustice) effect on mediator (episodic envy) and

subsequently, affect the criterion variables (job outcomes). The cross sectional research with

mediation analysis is questionable and largely been criticized by previous researcher (Colquitt et

al., 2013; Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009). Only research with different time lags or longitudinal

would best estimate the mediations relationship (MacKinnon et al., 2007; Podsakoff et al.,

2003).

3.2 Population and Sampling Technique:

Population is defined as collection of observations through data collection to have analysis on

variables and relationships (Blerkom, 2009). This study aimed at investigating the impact of

perceived injustice in banking sector in Pakistan. Field survey was conducted across various

branches of banking organization in Pakistan. Moreover, data was collected by personally

visiting the organizations to further minimize the ambiguities faced by respondents. The data was

collected through questionnaires containing structured questions to measure the major study

variables.

Before collection of data, prior approval in this regard was obtained from the banks explaining

the purpose of the study. It was communicated that the study is conducted purely for academic

purpose and results will only be published with aggregate findings. While applying for bank's

permission for data collection, the researcher provided a written "Statement of Confidentiality"

to the banks in which researcher assured complete confidentiality of respondents to address

social desirability issues. The statement also explained the respondents' rights to refuse to take


part in the study or withdraw at any stage. It was also explained that the responses of the

participants will be completely confidential and that no one will be identified in any written

report or publication, and that only aggregate data will be presented. The statement of

confidentiality also explained that the researcher is also bound by the "Code of Ethics in

research" which mandates complete confidentiality and that under no circumstances any

information divulged in this questionnaire be revealed. The confidentiality assurance was also

important to communicate because Pakistan is high power distance country (Hofstede, 2011;

Hofstede & Bond, 1988), and respondents might be reluctant to share their perception of

injustice at workplace.

In the next step, sample was drawn from the population for data collection (Ruane & Ugur,

2005). According to Ruane and Ugur (2005), results concluded on sample can be easily

generalized on population, if the appropriate sample size is chosen. Therefore, it’s important to

select right sample size in order to generalize its results on population and have true

representation of population. In this study, I succeed to collect the data from 485 respondents

(paired responses) which justify the sampling recommendations of earlier researchers and also

considered appropriate considering the sample size of previous studies on these variables and

were published in reputed journals (El Akremi et al., 2010; Khan, Quratulain, & Bell, 2014;

Matta et al., 2014; Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009). I also carefully choose the appropriate sampling

strategy for this study to ensure its generalizability across as well as within industry. I collected

the data from branches of banks by using multi stage cluster sampling, which is a type of

probability sampling. In First stage, whole population was divided into different homogeneous

clusters of branches of banks. Then, in second stage, subsequent clusters were identified

according to management levels i.e. upper management, middle management and lower


management. Lower and Middle level management were then selected as our target respondents

in third stage. In third stage clusters, randomization for data collection was not needed because I

approach to all middle and lower level employees for data collection as they are easily

approachable in branches of banks in Pakistan. Middle management employees were

communicated to measure the scales for job outcomes (job performance and organizational

citizenship behavior) of lower level employees who are working under their supervision.

3.3 Data Collection Method:

The data collection depends on the size and type of the samples (Ruane & Ugur, 2005). The

current research collected primary data from employees of banks in Pakistan. The primary data is

the type of data in which researcher collected raw hand data for the first time (Bonds-Raacke &

Raacke, 2012). For this purpose, the questionnaires were distributed among the respondents by

the researcher. The researcher visited the branches of the target bank personally to distribute the

questionnaires so that any ambiguity faced by the respondents, while filling the questionnaire,

can be resolved on spot. All queries from the respondents were answered with extreme care so

that the researcher’s bias should not affect the respondent’s answer. Moreover, in order to

ensure the convenience for the respondents after completing the questionnaire, researcher placed

a drop box in the corners of the office with the permissions of manger. It was communicated to

the respondents that they should drop the questionnaire in the drop box after completion. The

researcher collected the filled questionnaires from these drop boxes.

Data (N = 485 paired sample) were collected in two waves from six banking sector organizations

located in Pakistan. Total 900 questionnaires, covering questions on study’s independent

variables (perceived injustice and psychological capital), were distributed at Time 1 in these

organizations. Every respondent was provided with self-reported version of the survey. An


identification number was assigned to identify the respondent and to pair it together with Time 2

survey and supervisor-reported version of survey. We got 648 filled questionnaires back with

response rate of almost 72%. While scrutiny, I found 19 unfilled or improperly filled

questionnaires, hence, excluded for next phase. In second wave (Time 2), the same remaining

629 respondents were contacted after six weeks and asked to fill the questionnaire including

questions for mediating variable (episodic envy) and dependent variables (organizational

deviance, interpersonal deviance and turnover intentions). The performance was also measured

by the supervisors of these respondents at Time 2 by filling the questionnaire containing

questions on job performance and organizational citizenship behavior of their subordinates. This

time, we got back 485 filled questionnaires which makes 77.10% response rate, showing high

and encouraging interest of bank employee’s to participate in the research. Out of these 485, I

again scrutinized and exclude the unfilled and/or improperly filled questionnaires, therefore,

finally left with 447 usable paired responses (447 self-reported responses and 447 supervisory

rated responses).

3.4 Scales:

In current field survey, the questionnaire is used as a tool for data collection. I carefully selected

the questionnaires by focusing on reported reliability and validity of the scale in previous studies

of organizational sciences (Bennett & Robinson, 2003; Cohen‐Charash, 2009; Colquitt et al.,

2013; El Akremi et al., 2010; Gilliland, 2008; Khan et al., 2014; Matta et al., 2014; Vigoda,

2000, 2002; Zapata-Phelan et al., 2009). The current study used the self-reported measures for all

variables except for that of employee’s job performance and organizational citizenship behavior

which were measured by their respective supervisors. The supervisory-rated performance was

adopted to address the common method bias which may appear, if the responses were taken from


the same source. All measured remain in English and no translation will be done in native

language because English is well-understood by the majority of the working population in

Pakistan. Moreover, previous studies conducted in Pakistan also did not apply any translation

technique, neither they reported any serious problem in collecting data in English (Abbas et al.,

2014; Lehner et al., 2014; Raja, Johns, & Ntalianis, 2004). Therefore, standardized back

translation of the questionnaire into the native language was not required. Further, the author

made every effort to employ well-established scales which are simple in language and easy to

understand.

Following scales are employed to collect data for current study:

3.4.1 Perceived (in)justice:

Perceived (in)justice has been measured by using 20-items scale developed by Colquitt

(2001). Colquitt (2001) extracted this scale from previous researches to seizure it towards

the dimensionality of perceived (in)justice and is, now, the most widely used scale for

organizational (in)justice research. He extracted 4-items scale of Leventhal (1976) for

measuring distributive (in)justice. Sample item includes “These outcomes reflect the

effort I have put into my work.” The alpha reliability of this scale in current study is

(0.89). In current study, responses were taken on a 5-point likert scale, whereby, high

scores indicate high degree of perceived injustice. The 5-point likert scale was ranging

from “1= strongly agree” to “5= strongly disagree”. To develop procedural (in)justice

scale, Colquitt (2001) used 7-items scale of Thibaut & Walker (1975) and Leventhal

(1980). Same scale has been used in this study. Responses were taken by using same

likert scale, whereby, high scores indicating high level of perceived injustice. Sample

item is “I have expressed my views and feelings during those procedures.” Findings


revealed the alpha reliability of the scale as (0.89). For measuring interpersonal

(in)justice, 4-item scale developed by Colquitt (2001) has been used in current study. He

used 9-items scale of Bies & Moag (1986) and Shapiro et al. (1994) for measuring

interactional injustice. Out of these, first four measured interpersonal injustice. Sample

item is “He treated me with dignity”. And remaining five measured informational

(in)justice. Responses were taken on a 5-point likert scale, whereby, high scores indicated

the high degree of perceived injustice. Current study reported the alpha reliability of this

scale as (0.91), which was previously reported as (0.84). Perceived (in)justice is

multidimensional construct and in order to further validate the contextual difference; I

conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Findings revealed a better fit for four

factor model of injustice which is consistent with recent meta-analysis results by Colquit

et al., (2013).

3.4.2 Workplace deviance:

19-items scale by (Bennett & Robinson, 2000) has been used for workplace deviance to

measure this construct. The reported alpha reliability of workplace deviance was (0.83).

7-items were used to measure interpersonal deviance. Sample item for interpersonal

deviance is “I made fun of someone at work”. Organizational deviance is measured by

using 12-items; sample item for organizational workplace deviance is “I took property

from work without permission”. The result of current study for alpha reliability test is

(0.66) for interpersonal deviance and (0.63) for organizational deviance.

3.4.3 Turnover intentions:

Turnover intentions were measured by using global measure developed by Vigoda

(2000). This scale is largely been used in previous studies of organizational sciences


(Abbas et al., 2014; Byrne, 2005; Ahmad & Lemba, 2010). These researchers reported

high reliability of this scale. For example, Abbas et al., (2014) measured turnover

intention with Vigoda, (2000), and reported Cronbach’s alpha as (.76) indicating high

reliability. Khan, Abbas, Gul, and Raja (2015) used this scale in their study and reported

reliability as (.78). These evidences demonstrate it as valid scale which can be used for

further studies. Moreover, cuurent study also found high alpha reliability as (0. 85). The

sample questions are “next year I will probably look for a new job outside this

organization” and “lately, I have taken interest in job offers in the newspaper”. The

responses were taken from 5 point likert scale ranging from “1= strongly disagree” to “5=

strongly agree”, whereby, high value indicates high intentions of turnover.

3.4.4 Psychological Capital:

To measure these psychological capacities, the 24 item scale of PsyCap developed by

Luthans et al., (2007) is used. Psychological capital questionnaire was developed to

measure four sub dimensions of positive psychological capital. These dimensions are

self-efficacy, optimism, resilience and hope. First six questions were used to assess self-

efficacy. The sample items are “I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a

solution”, “I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management”

and “I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues”. Next six questions

were used to assess hope and the sample items are “at the present time, I am energetically

pursuing my work goals”, “right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work” and

“at this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself”. Six questions used

to assess resilience and the example questions are “when I have a setback at work, I have

trouble recovering from it, moving on”, “I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I


have to” and “I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced

difficulty before”. Last six questions were used to assess optimism and the sample

questions are “When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best”, “I

always look on the bright side of things regarding my job” and “I’m optimistic about

what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work”. Responses were taken on 6-

point likert scale which ranges from “1= strongly disagree”, to “6= strongly agree” and

high response value indicates high level of psychological capital resource of respondent.

The reported alpha reliability of this scale was (0.88), however, current study found it as

(0.91).

3.4.5 Job Performance:

The performance is measured by supervisor-rated measure, consisted of 7 items and

developed by (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Sample item includes “this person

adequately completes assigned duties”. Current study reported the alpha reliability of this

measure as (0.71).

3.4.6 Organizational Citizenship Behavior:

The 14 items of the same measure developed by Williams and Anderson (1991) to assess

organizational citizenship behavior has been used in this study. The example item of the

scale is “Passes along information to co-workers”. This was also included in supervisor-

rated version of scale. The alpha reliability of this measure is (0.75).

3.4.7 Episodic Envy:

Envy has been measured using a 9-item scale developed by (Cohen‐ Charash, 2009).

Sample item includes “I want to have what my fellow employee\colleague has”. Reported


Cronbach’s reliability of this scale was (0.81), which is found to (0.91) in this study. I

conducted the confirmatory factor analysis for confirming the validity of the scale and

also to check the discriminant validity of episodic envy from that of dispositional envy.

Results revealed that episodic envy is significantly different from dispositional envy

which works more like a trait emotion.

3.4.8 Control Variables:

The respondents’ demographic information is acquired by several self-reported items that

cover gender, age, educational qualification, work experience and their job nature. The

reason of including these demographic was to explain the characteristic of respondents

who were being surveyed. Moreover, individual differences in demographic variables

have also reported to be related with the criterion variables in previous studies of

organizational behavior (Xie & Johns, 1995). One-way analysis of variance was applied

to reveal any difference in groups of respondents for these variables, however, no

significant factor is found except for gender, age and experience which were then

controlled for further analyses. I also checked for possible effect of dispositional envy, if

any, to cure any possible interaction of dispositional emotion which can affect justice

perception but no significant effect found.


4 RESEARCH FINDINGS

This section covers a detailed discussion on findings of the study after data analysis. Firstly, the

preliminary data analysis is reported which is performed to check the missing values and

outliers. The descriptive statistics is also discussed explaining the nature of each variable

separately and how respondents reported them. After examining the data accuracy and missing

values, I performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by using structural equation modeling

(SEM). For this purpose, the measurement model of structural equation model (SEM) is

performed which enables us to confirm the validation of scales. Present research performed

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for all independent variables of the study. Mainly, I

examined the dimensionality of the perceived injustice as it is largely been in debate regarding

its factors. Findings revealed that a four factor model is better fit for empirical evaluation.

Subsequently, the bivariate correlations are discussed to check the possible association among

study’s major variables. Afterwards, multiple linear regression analysis is conducted to examine

the main effects of perceived injustice on job outcomes. Hayes and Preacher (2013) process

conditioning technique is used to test the mediation of episodic envy and for testing moderation

of psychological capital in this direct and/or indirect relationship of perceived injustice and job

outcomes.

Preliminary data analysis: Preliminary data analysis is conducted where I checked for the

missing values and potential outlier which may affect the analysis. Initially, all the data is

scrutinized through SPSS and found only two missing values. It was then checked with the

respective questionnaire and recorded the missing response. Afterwards, I also checked with

minimum and maximum values with respective variable’s scale and found within the prescribed

scale range. After detecting missing values, outliers were checked in the dataset by using


Mahalanobis distance test which is widely used test for detecting multivariate outliers

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The Mahalanobis distance test findings revealed only six responses

as outliers, hence, excluded from the final analysis.

4.1 Descriptive Statistics:

Table 1 explained the mean and standard deviation values for study’s major variables.

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics

Variables Mean S.D

Gender 1.28 0.45

Age 30.44 7.01

Qualification 3.61 0.65

Experience 7.96 6.28

Job Nature 3.01 1.27

Distributive Injustice 3.39 0.99

Procedural Injustice 3.38 0.92

Interpersonal Injustice 3.46 0.86

Informational Injustice 3.53 1.01

Episodic Envy 3.37 0.81

Organizational Deviance 4.01 0.56

Interpersonal Deviance 4.23 0.84

Job Performance 2.33 0.62

OCB 2.76 0.49

Turnover Intentions 3.01 0.96

Psychological Capital 4.52 0.63


Descriptive statistics indicated some good insight about the respondent’s demographic

characteristics and how they respond towards variables that are included in the questionnaire.

Frequency test findings describe that out of the 447 participants, 125 were females showing an

encouraging improved percentage (28%) of female participation in working organizations in

Pakistan. In previous studies, data collected from various organizations of Pakistan showed that

the organizations in Pakistan have high male dominance and reported less than 15 percent

women’s participation (Lehner et al., 2014; Azeem et al., 2015; Haq et al., 2011; Raja et al.,

2004). The mean age of the respondents, at the first measurement, is found as 30.5 years ranged

from 19 years to 57 years (S.D = 7 years). Findings also revealed that 89% of total respondents

are of 40 years or below indicating the trend of young population in joining the banking sector in

Pakistan. Level of qualification is much encouraging as 58% of the respondents are having

Master’s degree or above education. Out of remaining, 92% are having Bachelor’s degree which

shows quite encouraging trend of recruiting educated personnel in banking organizations of

Pakistan. Only 14 respondents reported to have higher secondary education, leaving other 97%

as having 14 years of education or above. In the first measurement, mean experience was

reported as 8 years (SD = 6.2 years) and ranged from 1 year to 34 years which shows a diverse

and experienced respondent’s pool. Lastly, job nature ranges from office work to managerial

positions. Table 1 also illustrates the respondent’s mean response towards study’s main variables

with standard deviation values.

4.2 Confirmatory Factor Analysis:

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has been done in order to validate the developed scales of

constructs. I performed CFA for independent variable (perceived injustice) and moderator

(psychological capital), because both these constructs are considered multi-dimensional in


literature (Colquit et al., 2013; Luthans et al., 2007). Further, CFA of episodic envy is also

performed to check the discriminant validity of the scale. While performing CFA analysis, I

followed the recommendations given by Kline (2005) and Hair et al., (2006) for evaluating

model fit for adaptability standards. Following fit indices were examined: “root mean square

error of approximation” (RMSEA) with 90 percent confidence interval, chi-square (χ2),

goodness of fit index (GFI), comparative fit index (CFI), and the non-normed fit index (NNFI).

As recommended by Greeno, Hughes, Hayward, and Parker, (2007) for model fit, parameter

estimates were used which included standardized factor loading at >0.50 (Kline, 2005).

Table 2 describes the CFA factor loadings of perceived injustice. I also checked and reported the

composite reliability and average variance extracted.

Table 2: Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Perceived Injustice

Items

Distributive injustice: .89 .70

“These outcomes reflect the effort I have put into my work”. .84

“These outcomes appropriate for the work I do”. .91

“These outcomes reflect what I have contributed to the organization”. .82

“These outcomes are justified, given my performance”. .86

Procedural injustice: .89 .68

“I have expressed my views and feelings during those procedures”. .73

“I had the influence over the outcomes arrived at by those procedures”. .83

“Those procedures been applied consistently”. .79

“Those procedures have been free of bias”. .79

“Those procedures have been based on accurate information”. .79

“I have been able to appeal the outcome arrived at by those procedures” .76

“Those procedures confirm ethical and moral standards”. .73

Interpersonal injustice: .91 .66

“He treated me in a polite manner”. .87

“He treated me with dignity”. .94

“He treated me with respect”. .92

“He refrained from improper remarks or comments”? .74

Informational injustice: .89 .67

“He has been candid/frank in his communications with me”. .63

“He explained the procedures thoroughly”. .88

“Were his explanations regarding the procedures reasonable”? .82

“He communicated details in a timely manner”. .87

“He seemed to tailor his communications to individuals' specific needs”? .84

Standardized

factor loading Composite

reliability Average

variance extract


I initially checked the 3-factor model for perceived injustice (distributive, procedural and

interactional). All factor loadings are loaded on expected latent variables, however, the model

fitness values did not meet the criteria of adaptability statndards (Kline, 2005; Hair, Black,

Babin, Anderson, & Tatham, 2006). The results shows GFI = 0.80, CFI = 0.78 and NNFI = 0.79,

which are quite less than the acceptable standard of values > 0.90. I retest the model with 4-

factors of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational), and find

the values GFI = 0.90, CFI = 0.92 and NNFI = 0.91, which are above the accepted standard of

model fit and is also consistent with recent meta analysis findings where authors revealed better

fir for 4-factor model of injustice (Colquit et al., 2013). Therefore, 4-factor model of perceived

injustice is used in further analysis.

Table 3 shows the factor loadings of psychological capital, whereby, all factor loadings are

loaded on expected latent variables and found significant (p<0.001). The results shows that the

values for model fitness meets the criteria of accepted adaptabilty standard i.e. GFI = 0.91, CFI =

0.94 and NNFI = 0.92.

Table 3: Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Psychological Capital

Items

Psychological capital: .91 .71

“I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution”. .68

“I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management”. .69

“I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization’s strategy”. .70

“I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area”. .71

“I feel confident contacting people outside the organization to discuss problems” .54

“I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues”. .72

“If I find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it”. .62

“At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals”. .69

“There are lots of ways around any problem” .70

“Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work”. .68

“I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals”. .69

“At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself”. .68

“When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on”. .51

“I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work”. .53

“I can be on my own, so to speak, at work if I have to”. .62

Standardized


reliability Average

variance extract


“I usually take stressful things at work in stride”. .51

“I can get through difficult times because I’ve experienced difficulty before”. .60

“I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job”. .67

“When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best”. .59

“If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will”. .51

“I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job”. .61

“I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work” .58

“In this job, things never work out the way I want them to”. .51

“I approach this job as if every cloud has a silver lining”. .51

The last confirmatory factor analysis was performed for episodic envy. Episodic envy is single

dimensional construct, nonetheless, I performed the confirmatory factor analysis to check the

discriminant validity of the construct.

Table 4: Result of Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Episodic Envy

Items

Episodic Envy: .90 .73

“I lack some of the things that my fellow employee\colleague has”. .71

“I feel bitter”. .67

“I feel envious”. .70

“I have a grudge (resentment, bitterness) against my fellow employee\colleague”. .74

“I want to have what my fellow employee\colleague has”. .79

“My fellow employee\colleague has things going for him/her better than I do”. .82

“I feel gall (irritated, annoyed)”. .81

“I feel some hatred toward my fellow employee\colleague”. .80

“I feel rancor (resentment, ill will) toward my fellow employee\colleague”. .74

Table 4 illustrates the factor loadings of episodic envy. All factor loadings are loaded on

expectedly single factor and the results shows the acceptable model fit values, GFI = 0.90, CFI =

0.91 and NNFI = 0.91. I also checked for the discriminant validity of episodic envy by

estimating the value of square correlation coefficient of two variables, and had been found less

Standardized


reliability Average

variance extract


than the average variance extracted, thus, confirming the discriminant validity of the tested

measurememnt model of episodic envy (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

4.3 Bivariate Correlations:

In the next phase, the correlation has been estimated. Table 5 shows the bivariate correlations for

all the variables along-side the estimates of reliability (coefficient α). Most of study’s proposed

zero-order bivariate correlations are found in the expected direction.


Table 5: Result of Bivariate Correlations

N = 447.

** significant at the .01 level (2-tailed),

* significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), † p

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

1. Gender

2. Age .10*

3. Qualification .08 .03

4. Experience .08 .91* .03

5. Job Nature .01 .09 -.08 .11*

6. Distributive Injustice -.17* .03 -.06 .02 -.07 (.89)

7. Procedural Injustice -.05 .01 -.02 .01 -.01 .50** (.89)

8. Interpersonal Injustice -.04 .00* -.17* .10* .07 .37** .41** (.91)

9. Informational Injustice .01 .01 -.14* -.04 -.01 .26** .33** .64** (.89)

10. Episodic Envy -.14* .03 -.04 .03 -.01 .75** .81** .46** .37** (.90)

11. Organizational deviance .09 .27** -.12* .28** .18** .10* .18** .34 .19** .20** (.63)

12. Interpersonal deviance .10* .12* -.13** .15** .06 .22** .24** .43** .33** .26** .43** (.66)

13. Job Performance -.03 .03 .11* .05 .04 -.21** -.19** -.34** -.32** -.23** -.10* -.38* (.71)

14. OCB .01 .08 .03 .08 .08 -.10* .02 -.05 -.05 -.02 .07 -.03 .11* (.75)

15. Turnover Intentions -.06 .49 -.03 .05 .02 .24** .15** .14** .12* .22** .16** .18** -.13* .02 (.85)

16. Psychological Capital .05 .03 .03 .05 -.02 .18** .20** .17** .20** .27** .09 .12* -.02 .01 .06 (.91)


The estimates of reliability (coefficient α) found to be well above the threshold value. The values

cited in the table within parenthesis and in bold font indicate alpha reliability of respective

variables. The values of Cronbach’s alpha (α) are ranged between 0.63—0.91, indicating good

reliability for the used scales (Nunnally, 1978). Results from the bivariate correlations also

revealed quite encouraging findings and most of them are in the expected direction. The

correlation between distributive injustice and organizational deviance is (r = 0.10, p <.05),

positive and significant as proposed in the study showing positive association between

distributive injustice and organizational deviance. The correlation between distributive injustice

and job performance is (r = -0.21, p <.01), negative and significant as proposed in the study

showing negative association between distributive injustice and job performance. Similarly, the

correlation between distributive injustice and organizational citizenship behavior is (r = -0.10, p

<.05), negative and significant as proposed in the study showing negative association between

distributive injustice and organizational citizenship behavior. Results from bivariate correlation

also revealed significant positive correlation between distributive injustice and intention to quit (r

= 0.24, p <.01).

Results from bivariate correlation for procedural injustice and job outcomes also revealed some

interesting findings. A significant correlation had been found between procedural injustice and

organizational deviance (r = 0.18, p <.01) showing positive association between both. A

significant correlation had also been found between procedural injustice and job performance (r

= -0.19, p <.01) showing negative association between procedural injustice and job performance.

The correlation of procedural injustice with intention to quit was also significant (r = 0.15, p

<.05). However, the association between procedural injustice and organizational citizenship

behavior has found to be insignificant.


Similarly, correlations were also checked for interpersonal injustice and job outcomes. Findings

revealed that interpersonal injustice is positively associated with interpersonal deviance (r = 0.43,

p <.01) and not with organizational deviance as proposed. Interpersonal injustice is also

negatively associated with job performance (r = -0.34, p <.01). Moreover, correlation between

interpersonal injustice and intention to quit is also found in similar way as with other types of

injustice (r = 0.14, p <.01) showing positive association between both. However, correlation of

interpersonal injustice with organizational citizenship behavior is found, although in expected

direction, but insignificant (r = -0.05, n.s.).

Results of bivariate correlation for informational injustice and job outcomes are also found in

expected directions. Findings revealed significant positive correlation of informational injustice

with interpersonal deviance (r = 0.33, p <.01), significant negative association with job

performance (r = -0.32, p <.01), and significant positive correlation with turnover intentions (r =

0.12, p <.05). Results for correlation of informational injustice and organizational citizenship

behavior, however, found insignificant.

4.4 Regression Analysis:

In next Phase of data analysis, I examine the main causal effect of perceived injustice

(distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) on job outcomes (organizational

deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and

turnover intentions) by using hierarchal regression technique. Hierarchal regression analysis

allows the test to control the influence of extraneous variables on relationship of predictor and

criterion variables (Cohen et al., 2013). Previous studies in organizational psychology reported

that individual differences in demographic variables can influence such relationships (Xie &

Johns, 1995). Therefore, I tested the effect of current study’s demographic variables on job


outcomes by applying one way ANOVA test. Findings revealed significant effects of gender, age

and experience on certain job outcomes, therefore, treated as control variables. I entered gender,

age and experience in step 1, to control for any possible effect of demographics, followed by the

independent variables in step 2.

Table 6 presents the results for main effects of distributive injustice on proposed job outcomes

(i.e. organizational deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover

intentions).


Table6: Main effects of distributive injustice on job outcome

N = 447. “Gender, age, and experience used as control variables

*** significant at the .001 level (2-tailed),


* significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), † p”

Organizational

deviance

Job

Performance OCB

Turnover

intentions

Variable Β R2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2

Step 1

Gender 0.16**

-0.09

-0.01

-0.05

Age 0.01

-0.01

0.01

-0.01

Experience 0.02*

0.02

0.01

0.02

Step 2

Distributive Injustice 0.07** 0.11** .01** -0.14*** 0.05*** 0.04*** -0.05* 0.02* 0.01* 0.22*** 0.06*** 0.05***


As proposed in hypothesis 1a, distributive injustice is found to be positively related to

organizational deviance (β = 0.07, p < .01) thus supporting hypothesis 1a which indicates that

employee’s perception of distributive injustice significantly predict their act of organizational

deviance. Next, hypothesis 2a proposed a negative relationship between distributive injustice and

employee’s job performance. Results revealed a significant support for this hypothesis (β = -

0.14, p < .001), therefore, accepted it. The main effects for distributive injustice and

organizational citizenship behavior are also found significant and in expected direction (β = -

0.05, p < .05) as proposed in hypothesis 3a. Last main effects of distributive injustice was

proposed as positive with employee’s turnover intentions in hypothesis 4a, the same was

revealed in the results ((β = 0.22, p < .001). Therefore, hypothesis 4a is also supported by the

findings.

Next, table 7 presents the results for main effects of procedural injustice on proposed job

outcomes (i.e. organizational deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and

turnover intentions).


Table 7: Main effects of procedural injustice on job outcome





Organizational

deviance

Job

Performance OCB

Turnover

intentions

Variable Β R2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2

Step 1

Gender 0.15**

-0.05

0.01

-0.19

Age 0.01

-0.01

0.01

-0.01

Experience 0.02*

0.02

0.01

0.02

Step 2

Procedural Injustice 0.12*** 0.13*** 0.03*** -0.13*** 0.04*** 0.03*** 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.15** 0.03** 0.02**


Results for main effects of procedural injustice on employee’s job outcomes also found

convincing support. As proposed in hypothesis 1b, a positive relationship between procedural

injustice and organizational deviance is found (β= 0.12, p < .001), thus, accepting this

hypothesis. The main effects of procedural injustice on employee’s job performance also found

significant and in expected direction (β = -0.13, p < .001) as proposed in hypothesis 2b.

Hypothesis 3b proposed a negative relationship between procedural injustice and organizational

citizenship behavior, however, direct effects has found to be insignificant (β = 0.03, n.s). Results

for hypothesis 4b also revealed significant support for proposed hypothesis (β= 0.15, p < .01),

signifying a positive relationship between procedural injustice and turnover intentions. These

results support study’s proposed hypothesis 1b, 2b and 4b for effects of procedural injustice on

job outcomes (organizational deviance, job performance and turnover intentions). However,

direct effects of procedural injustice has found to be insignificant with organizational citizenship

behavior, thus, rejecting hypothesis 3b.

The next table illustrates the results for main effects of interpersonal injustice on proposed job

outcomes (i.e. interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and

turnover intentions).


Table 8: Main effects of interpersonal injustice on job outcome





Interpersonal

deviance

Job

Performance OCB

Turnover

intentions

Variable Β R2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2

Step 1

Gender 0.24**

-0.05

0.08

-0.12

Age -0.02

-0.01

0.03

-0.01

Experience 0.03*

0.02

0.04

0.02

Step 2

Interpersonal Injustice 0.42*** 0.22*** 0.18*** -0.25*** 0.12*** 0.11*** -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.16** 0.03** 0.02**


Results for main effects of interpersonal injustice on proposed job outcomes also validate most

of the anticipated hypotheses. Interpersonal injustice was found to be positively related to

interpersonal deviance (β = 0.42, p < .001), thus, supporting hypothesis 1c. Noticeably, the

magnitude of the effect is larger than other types of injustice, which shows that interactional

injustice at workplace is more painful.

Hypothesis 2c proposed a negative relationship between interactional injustice and employee’s

job performance, and results also confirms the proposed notion (β = -0.25, p < .001)

demonstrating that employee’s perception about interactional injustice significantly reduces their

job performance. The main effects for interpersonal injustice and employee’s organizational

citizenship behavior was found in expected direction but not significant (β = -0.03, n.s), thus,

rejecting hypothesis 3c. Hypothesis 4c predicted the positive relationship between interactional

injustice and turnover intentions. Results also supported this hypothesis (β= 0.16, p < .01).

The last table of hierarchal regression demonstrates the main effects of informational injustice on

proposed job outcomes (i.e. interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship

behavior and turnover intentions).


Table 9: Main effects of informational injustice on job outcome





Interpersonal

deviance

Job

Performance OCB

Turnover

intentions

Variable Β R2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2

Step 1

Gender 0.21*

-0.03

0.02

-0.13

Age -0.02

-0.01

0.01

-0.01

Experience 0.04**

0.01

0.01

0.02

Step 2

Informational Injustice 0.29*** 0.15*** 0.11*** -0.19*** 0.11*** 0.09*** -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.12** 0.02** 0.01**


Like other types of perceived injustice, results for main effects of informational injustice on

proposed job outcomes also approve most of the hypotheses as projected in the study. As

proposed, informational injustice is found to be positively related to interpersonal deviance (β =

0.29, p < .001), thus, supporting hypothesis 1d. Hypothesis 2d also catch the support from the

results (β = -0.25, p < .001) confirming a negative relationship between informational injustice

and employee’s job performance. Alike procedural and interactional injustice, the main effects

for informational injustice and employee’s organizational citizenship behavior also found

insignificant (β = -0.03, n.s), therefore, rejecting hypothesis 3d. And last tested main effect of

informational injustice is with employee’s turnover intentions. Hypothesis 4d predicted the

positive relationship between both and results also found significant support for this (β= 0.12, p

< .01), thus, accepting the hypothesis.

After analyzing the main effects of all types of injustice in isolation, I performed the multiple

regression analysis to further explore the unique explanation for impact of perceived injustice on

employee’s job outcomes. The result also shows significant insight about the differences of

perceived injustice types and its impact on employee’s job outcome. Table 10 below illustrates

the multiple regression analysis results of main effects of all types of perceived injustice with job

outcomes.


Table 10: Multiple regression analysis of all types of perceived injustice on job outcome





*! Workplace deviance indicates organizational deviance (with Distributive and Procedural injustice) and interpersonal deviance (with Interpersonal

and Informational injustice)

Workplace

deviance*!

Job

Performance OCB

Turnover

intentions

Variable Β R2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2 Β R

2 Δ R

2

Step 1

Gender 0.16**

-0.07

-0.01

-0.06

Age 0.01

-0.01

0.01

-0.01

Experience 0.18 0.09*** 0.09*** 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.007 0.007

Step 2

Distributive Injustice 0.02 -0.05* -0.07 0.20***

Procedural Injustice 0.11*** 0.13*** 0.04*** -0.01 0.06 0.02

Interpersonal Injustice 0.34*** -0.14*** -0.02 0.03

Informational Injustice 0.10** 0.21** 0.18** -0.10** 0.15*** 0.13*** -0.01 0.03 0.02 0.05 0.065*** 0.058***


The findings revealed that among relationship of distributive and procedural injustice with

organizational deviance, procedural justice brings strong and significant explanation. Results

shows that procedural injustice positively predicts organizational deviance (β = 0.11, p < .001),

however, distributive injustice reportedly did not establish any significant relationship in the

model. However, the complete model significantly predicts organizational deviance with R2 value

of 0.13 at 0.001 level of significance showing 13 percent of the variation in organizational

deviance is explained by the given model and remaining by other factors. In the next step, the

interpersonal and informational injustice was regressed with interpersonal deviance and both

found to be significantly related with the criterion variable. However, interpersonal injustice is

found to be more strongly related with interpersonal deviance (β= 0.34, p < .001) as compared to

informational injustice (β= 0.10, p < .01). A similar pattern of results is found in relationship of

job performance and all types of perceived injustice. The results shows that distributive,

interpersonal and informational injustice significantly reduces employee’s job performance,

however, no significant relationship was found between procedural injustice and job

performance. The results of relationship between perceived injustice and organizational

citizenship behavior again found no significant relationship confirming the results of simple

regression analysis among this relationship. In further exploration, the distributive injustice is

found to be the only predictor of turnover intentions (β= 0.20, p < .001) in multiple regression

results with model variation explained as 6.5 percent. This analysis not only gives an interesting

insight about the nature of relationship between injustice types and job outcomes but also report

that which type of injustice is more strongly related to which job outcome. For example, the

procedural injustice is a more strong predictor of organizational deviance and interpersonal

injustice is a stronger predictor of interpersonal injustice and reduced job performance. Similarly,


among other types, the distributive injustice is found to be predictor of employee’s turnover

intention. These findings give a strong theoretical and practical insight to manage employee’s

behavior at workplace.

4.5 Mediation Analysis of Episodic Envy:

In the next phase, the mediation analysis is performed to examine the mediating effect of

episodic envy in relationship all types of perceived injustice and employee’s job outcomes. The

conditional process technique suggested by Hayes and Preacher (2013), was employed to test

this mediation. They elaborated the use of indirect effect, direct effect and total effect for each

mediation path. According to Hayes and Preacher (2013);

“The total effect is the effect in which change in independent variable is related with

dependent variable (X to Y). The indirect effect is the effect in which a change in

independent variable cause change in dependent variable via the mediating variable

(X→M→Y). Finally the direct effect is the change in independent variable is directly

related to dependent variable without using mediator path”.

For mediation test, it is important to know that nature of mediator could be full, partial and no

mediation. Full mediation proved if the direct effect is not significant, whereas indirect effects

are significant. However, if both direct and indirect effect were significant with considerable

decrease in significance level or effect size, it shows partial mediation (Mathieu and Taylor,

2006). On the other hand, no mediation is observed if the indirect effects found to be

insignificant.

This research used SAS macros for with bootstrapping (N= 5000) with confidence interval of

95% (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Baron and Kenny (1986) recommended Sobel test of indirect

effect of X on Y through M. Sobel test is very low in power for indirect effects, whereas

bootstrap tests in recommended for mediation analysis (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008; Zhao et al.,


2010). Bootstrapping is non-parametric test of re-sampling (Shrout & Bolger, 2002) that replaces

sample which is done by several times (1000, 5000, 10000). For each sample of indirect effect,

the bootstrapping sampling distributions generated by taking a sample of N from the data set and

re-estimate the indirect effect with resample. Researchers strongly recommended bootstrapping

because it gives generalized way for testing confidence intervals and significance and

bootstrapping does not need so many assumptions (Fritz et al., 2012; Hayes & Scharkow, 2013).

The current study proposed episodic envy as mediator in the relationship of perceived injustice

types (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s job outcomes

(organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, OCB and turnover

intentions). Tables given below discuss detailed insight about the findings. Table 11 discusses all

results of episodic envy as mediator in relationship between perceived injustice (distributive,

procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s act of workplace deviance

(organizational and interpersonal).


Table 11: Mediation Analysis for Perceived Injustice and Workplace Deviance

Effect SE L.C.L U.C.L

P

Value

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Organizational Deviance

Total effect .06 .02 .01 .10 .03

Direct effect -.07 .04 -.15 .01 .06

Indirect effect .13 .03 .06 .20 .00

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Organizational Deviance

Total effect .11 .02 .05 .16 .00

Direct effect .03 .04 -.06 .12 .49


Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Interpersonal Deviance

Total effect .42 .04 .34 .50 .00

Direct effect .38 .04 .29 .47 .00

Indirect effect .04 .02 -.01 -.08 .10

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Interpersonal Deviance

Total effect .27 .03 .20 .35 .00

Direct effect .22 .04 .14 .30 .00


Note. N= 447. Bootstrap sample size 5,000. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. LCL = lower

Confidence Limit UCL= upper Confidence limit.

The current study proposed hypothesis 5 and 6 for tests of mediation for relationship of

perceived injustice and workplace deviance. Hypothesis 5 stated that episodic envy will mediate

the relationship of distributive and procedural injustice with organizational deviance. And

hypothesis 6 narrates that episodic envy will mediate the relationship of interpersonal and

informational injustice with interpersonal deviance. Results supported most of the proposed

notions and helps in confirming the hypotheses. Findings revealed that the direct effects for

distributive injustice and organizational deviance becomes insignificant (Effect =-.07, p= .06)


when tested with indirect effects. Moreover, indirect effects are found significant (Effect = .13,

p= .00), proving full mediation. As described by Preacher and Hayes (2013), if presence of

indirect effect makes the direct effects insignificant, it supports full mediation. Findings for

mediation test of procedural injustice and organizational deviance also revealed similar results.

Results of direct effects for procedural injustice and organizational deviance becomes

insignificant (Effect =.03, p= .49) while indirect effects are significant (Effect =.08, p= .04)

confirming full mediation. Therefore, results fully supported the hypothesis 5 and thus,

confirmed that episodic envy mediates the relationship of distributive and procedural injustice

with organizational deviance.

However, results for mediation test for hypothesis 6 revealed mixed results. The results of direct

effects for interpersonal injustice and interpersonal deviance is found significant (Effect = .38,

p= .00) while indirect effects found insignificant (Effect =.04, p= .10), therefore, unable to

establish the mediation. I used 95% confidence interval for mediation test (Preacher and Hayes,

2008); however, we could support this mediation if the accepted range of confidence interval

decreased to 90%. Hypothesis 6 further stated that episodic envy will also mediate the

relationship of informational injustice and interpersonal deviance. Findings revealed a partial

mediation in this relationship as results found a significant reduction in effect size of direct effect

(Effect = .22, p= .00) to indirect effects (Effect =.05, p= .00), however, relationship remained

significant for direct and indirect effects. The results provides a partial support for hypothesis 6

because partial mediation is proved in relationship of informational injustice and interpersonal

deviance, however, results did not get any support for mediation of episodic envy in relationship

of interpersonal injustice and interpersonal deviance.


Next, table 12 discusses all results of episodic envy as mediator in relationship between

perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s job

performance to test for study’s proposed hypothesis 7.

Table 12: Mediation Analysis for Perceived Injustice and Job Performance


P

Value

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance

Total effect -.04 .09 -.11 .24 .46

Direct effect .05 .04 -.13 .03 .29

Indirect effect -.09 .03 -.14 -.02 .01

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance

Total effect -.13 .03 -.19 -.06 .00

Direct effect -.01 .05 -.10 .09 .92

Indirect effect -.12 .04 -.23 -.06 .00

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance

Total effect -.24 .03 -.30 -.18 .68

Direct effect -.21 .03 -.28 -.14 .00

Indirect effect -.03 .01 .07 .01 .05

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance

Total effect -.19 .02 -.25 -.14 .00

Direct effect -.16 .02 -.22 -.11 .00

Indirect effect -.03 .01 -.06 -.01 .00



This study proposed hypothesis 7 to test the mediation of episodic envy in relationship of

perceived injustice and job performance. Hypothesis 7 proposed that episodic envy will mediate

the relationship of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational)

and employee’s job performance. Results of the mediation test supported most of the proposed


views and helps in confirming the hypotheses. Findings revealed that the direct effects for

distributive injustice and job performance becomes insignificant (Effect =.05, p= .29) when

tested with indirect effects. Moreover, indirect effects are found significant (Effect = -.09, p=

.01), proving full mediation. Findings for mediation test of procedural injustice and job

performance also revealed similar results. Results of direct effects becomes insignificant (Effect

= -.03, p= .92) while indirect effects are significant (Effect = -.12, p= .00) confirming full

mediation. Further, results confirm a partial mediation in this relationship of interpersonal

injustice and job performance as results found a significant reduction in effect size of direct

effect (Effect = -.21, p= .00) to indirect effects (Effect = -.03, p= .05), however, relationship

remained significant for direct and indirect effects. Similarly, a partial mediation is also found in

relationship of informational injustice and job performance as results found a significant

reduction in effect size of direct effect (Effect = -.16, p= .00) to indirect effects (Effect = -.03,

p= .00), however, relationship remained significant for direct and indirect effects. These results

fully supported the hypothesis 7 and thus, confirmed that episodic envy mediates the relationship

of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) with employee’s

job performance.

Next, table 13 illustrate the results of mediation test of episodic envy in relationship between

perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee’s

organizational citizenship behavior to test for study’s proposed hypothesis 8.


Table 13: Mediation Analysis for Perceived Injustice and OCB


P

Value

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB

Total effect -.05 .02 -.19 -.01 .03

Direct effect -.10 .03 -.17 -.03 .01

Indirect effect .05 .02 -.01 .10 .06

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB

Total effect .01 .02 -.03 .06 .68

Direct effect .05 .04 -.03 .13 .21

Indirect effect -.04 .03 -.16 .02 .21

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB

Total effect -.02 .02 -.08 .02 .31

Direct effect -.02 .03 -.08 .03 .35

Indirect effect .001 .01 -.03 .02 .94

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB

Total effect -.02 .02 -.06 .02 .32

Direct effect -.02 .02 -.07 .02 .36

Indirect effect .00 .00 -.07 .02 .97



The current study proposed hypothesis 8 to test the mediation of episodic envy in relationship of

perceived injustice and organizational citizenship behavior by stating that episodic envy will

mediate the relationship of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and

informational) and employee’s organizational behavior. Contrary to current study’s hypothesis 8,

findings did not get any support for this proposed hypothesis. Findings revealed that the indirect

effects for all types of perceived injustice (i.e. distributive, procedural, interpersonal and


informational) remained insignificant with employee’s organizational citizenship behavior.

Therefore, the hypothesis 8 is rejected.

The last table for mediation test explains the results of episodic envy as mediator in relationship

between perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and

employee’s turnover intentions to test for study’s proposed hypothesis 9.

Table 14: Mediation Analysis for Perceived injustice and Turnover Intentions


P

Value

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions

Total effect .22 .04 .13 .31 .00

Direct effect .15 .06 .02 .28 .02

Indirect effect .07 .05 -.04 .18 .15

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions

Total effect .16 .05 .05 .25 .00

Direct effect -.09 .08 -.25 .07 .26


Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions

Total effect .15 .05 .05 .26 .00

Direct effect .05 .05 -.05 .17 .31


Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions

Total effect .11 .04 .02 .20 .01

Direct effect .04 .04 -.05 .13 .38




The current study proposed hypothesis 9 to test the mediation of episodic envy in relationship of

perceived injustice and employee’s turnover intentions. Hypothesis 9 illustrates that episodic

envy will mediate the relationship of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal


and informational) and employee’s turnover intentions. Results of the mediation test supported

most of the proposed views and helps in confirming the hypothesis except for distributive

injustice where the direct effects for distributive injustice and turnover intentions remained

significant (Effect =.15, p= .02) while indirect effects found insignificant (Effect = .07, p= .15),

endorsing no mediation. However, findings for mediation test of other types of perceived

injustice and turnover intentions provide encouraging support. Results of direct effects of

procedural injustice and turnover intentions becomes insignificant (Effect = -.09, p= .26) while

indirect effects are significant (Effect = .25, p= .00) confirming full mediation. Similarly, results

also confirm full mediation in this relationship of interpersonal injustice and turnover intentions

as results found insignificant direct effects (Effect = .05, p= .31), while indirect effects are

significant (Effect = .10, p= .00), confirming full mediation. Full mediation is also found in

relationship of informational injustice and turnover intentions as direct effect becomes

insignificant (Effect = .04, p= .38) when tested with indirect effects (Effect = .07, p= .00),

confirming full mediation. These results considerably supported current study’s hypothesis 9,

except for distributive injustice. Consequently, we can reasonably argue that episodic envy

mediates the relationship of perceived injustice (procedural, interpersonal and informational) and

employee’s turnover intentions.

4.6 Moderation of Psychological Capital:

In the last phase of analysis, I performed moderation analysis to test the hypothesis 10 which

proposed that psychological capital will moderate the relationship of direct and/or indirect effects

of perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) with job

outcomes such that the relationship will become weaker when psychological capital is high. The

prior analysis shows that there is no significant direct and/or indirect effect of perceived injustice


on OCB, therefore, OCB is excluded from further analysis. Moreover, I obtained (VIF) scores

and the tolerance statistics to check the possibility of multicollinearity among predictors before

applying the moderation test (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell,

2007), however, the results rejects the presence of multicollinearity i.e. VIF scores were below 3

(tolerance > .3).

For moderation analysis, I applied the conditional process technique, suggested by Hayes and

Preacher (2013), to check the moderating effect of psychological capital. Preacher and Hayes

(2008) provided 76 different models to analyze different mediated and moderated frameworks.

These models explained different scenarios of mediation and moderation possibilities in certain

framework. However, the current study chooses the model, whereby, the direct effects, indirect

effects and moderation on these direct and indirect effects can be tested simultaneously. Figure 2

portrays the process which is used for current analysis.

Figure 2: Moderation Process

Mj

X Y

V

Source: Hayes and Preacher, 2013


To run the analysis, I entered the mediator Mj (episodic envy), followed by the independent

variable X (perceived injustice) and moderator variable V (psychological capital) and regress

with the dependent variables separately. Consequently, the system generates two interaction

terms i.e. i) one by multiplying episodic envy and psychological capital to test the indirect effects

of perceived injustice on job outcomes and ii) second by multiplying perceived injustice and

psychological capital to test the direct effects of perceived injustice on job outcomes.

Table 15 discusses all results for moderating effects of psychological capital on direct and/or

indirect effects of distributive injustice and job outcomes (organizational deviance, job

performance and turnover intentions). The procedure mentioned in above paragraph is followed

by entering episodic envy (Mj), distributive injustice (X) and psychological capital (V) in the

prescribed fields along-with dependent variables one by one.


Table 15: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Distributive Injustice and Job Outcome

Variables

Organizational deviance Job performance Turnover intentions

Β LCL UCL p value Β LCL UCL p value Β LCL UCL p value

Episodic envy -.14 -.80 .50 .65 .58 -.12 .99 .10 .03 -.97 .98 .95

Distributive injustice .38 -.14 .91 .15 -.02 -.60 .56 .94 .12 -.79 .97 .79

Psychological capital .11 -.20 .42 .48 .55 .21 .90 .01 -.06 -.60 .47 .80

Interation 1 .07 -.06 .22 .28 -.16 -.32 -.01 .04 .02 -.22 .26 .88

Interation 2 -.10 -.21 .01 .08 -.01 -.13 .12 .96 .01 -.19 .20 .94

Total R² .05

.00 .07

.00 .06

.00

N = 447

Interaction 1 = Episodic envy * Psychological capital

Interaction 2 = Distributive injustice * Psychological capital


Findings illustrate that psychological capital moderates the indirect effects of distributive

injustice and job performance (β = -.16, p=.04, LCL= -.32 UCL= -.12). However, these findings

did not give the complete information about the magnitude of moderation. To fully support this

moderation, the interaction should conform to the hypothesized pattern. The slope analysis

suggested by Aiken, West and Reno, (1991) is performed to measure the significant interactions

for low and high (Mean+- SD). Figure below describes the pattern of moderation, whereby, slope

of job performance shows a considerable uplift when psychological capital is high (see Figure 3).

Figure 3: interaction of psychological capital on indirect effect of distributive injustice and job performance

The figure above support the portioned proposition of current study that individual’s with high

psychological capital cope with the negative emotions triggered from unjust events and their

performance will not be reduced. The slope of job performance significantly shows that the

employees with high psychological capital uphold their job performance level even when they

are envious.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low PsyCap

High PsyCap

Job P

erfo

rman

ce

Low Envy High Envy


Table 16 below illustrates the results for moderating effects of psychological capital on direct

and/or indirect effects of procedural injustice and job outcomes (organizational deviance, job

performance and turnover intentions). The similar procedure was adopted to run the analysis and

entered episodic envy (Mj), procedural injustice (X) and psychological capital (V) in the

prescribed fields along-with dependent variables one by one. Table below illustrate the output.


Table 16: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Procedural Injustice and Job Outcome

Variables

Organizational deviance Job performance Turnover intentions

β LCL UCL p value β LCL UCL p value Β LCL UCL p value

Episodic envy .84 .03 .98 .03 .53 -.34 .98 .23 .14 -.98 .99 .83

Procedural injustice -.71 -.98 .05 .06 .05 -.77 .89 .89 -.06 -.96 .98 .91

Psychological capital .02 -.29 .34 .87 .57 .22 .92 .01 -.11 -.66 .43 .68

Interation 1 -.16 -.34 .01 .07 -.15 -.35 -.03 .03 .04 -.26 .34 .78

Interation 2 .16 .01 .33 .04 -.01 -.20 .17 .87 -.01 -.29 .28 .97

Total R² .05 .00 .07 .00 .05 .00

N = 447


Interaction 2 = Procedural injustice * Psychological capital


Findings revealed that psychological capital moderates the direct effects of procedural injustice

and organizational deviance (β = .16, p=.04, LCL= .01 UCL= .33). Results also found

significant moderating effect of psychological capital on indirect effects of procedural injustice

and job performance (β = -.15, p=.03, LCL= .35 UCL= .03). The same procedure is again

applied to measure the pattern that whether the interactions are in expected directions or not.

Figure 4 describes the pattern of moderation, whereby, slope of organizational deviance shows a

decline when psychological capital is high. Whereas, slope of job performance again shows a

considerable uplift when psychological capital is high (see Figure 5).

Figure 4: interaction of psychological capital on direct effect of procedural injustice and organizational

deviance

Figure 4 marked significant reduction in participation of employees in organizational deviance

when their psychological capital is high. The dark slope showed a significant decline, whereas,

the dotted line (representing individuals with low psychological capital) showed the upward

tendency of participation in organizational deviance. However, the test for significance of the

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low PsyCap

High PsyCap

Org

aniz

atio

nal

dev

iance

Low Procedural injustice High Procedural injustice


slope revealed that the dotted slope is not significant. Additionally, the dark slope gives an

interesting insight about the higher tendency of employee’s involvement in organizational

deviance when there is no procedural injustice. This might be explained by the fact that

psychological capital activates when employees feels the threat of losing the resources in shape

of high procedural injustice and only then employees limit themselves from participating in

deviant behaviors against organization.

Figure 5: interaction of psychological capital on indirect effect of procedural injustice and job performance

This figure above provides the same information as described in Figure 3 and again supported

the apportioned proposition that individual’s with high psychological capital cope with the

negative emotions triggered from procedurally unjust events and their performance will not be

reduced.

Table 17 stated the results for moderating effects of psychological capital on direct and/or

indirect effects of interpersonal injustice and job outcomes (organizational deviance, job

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low PsyCap

High PsyCap

Job P

erfo

rman

ce

Low Envy High Envy


performance and turnover intentions). To run the analysis, the similar procedure was adopted

except replacing procedural injustice by interactional injustice (X) in the prescribed field.


Table 17: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Interpersonal Injustice and Job Outcome

Variables

Interpersonal deviance Job performance Turnover intentions


Episodic envy .34 -.33 .99 .31 .67 .15 .99 .01 .19 -.65 .99 .65

Interpersonal injustice .07 -.54 .69 .81 -.23 -.70 .23 .33 -.24 -.99 .52 .52

Psychological capital -.01 -.52 .49 .96 .56 .17 .94 .01 -.25 -.88 .36 .41

Interation 1 -.06 -.21 .08 .42 -.16 -.28 -.05 .00 .01 -.17 .19 .92

Interation 2 .07 -.06 .20 .32 .01 -.09 .10 .92 .06 -.10 .23 .43

Total R² .20 .00 .14 .00 .05 .00

N = 447


Interaction 2 = Interpersonal injustice * Psychological capital


Results shows that psychological capital moderates the indirect effects of interpersonal injustice

and job performance (β = -.16, p=.00, LCL= -.28 UCL= -.05). The slope analysis is again

performed to measure the significant interactions for low and high (Mean+- SD). Figure 6 below

describes the pattern of moderation, whereby, slope of job performance shows a considerable

uplift when psychological capital is high (see Figure 6).

Figure 6: interaction of psychological capital on indirect effect of interpersonal injustice and job performance

This figure above again provides the same information supporting the apportioned proposition

that individual’s with high psychological capital cope with the negative emotions triggered from

interactional injustice perceptions.

Table 18 below describes the results for moderating effects of psychological capital on direct

and/or indirect effects of informational injustice and job outcomes (organizational deviance, job

performance and turnover intentions).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low PsyCap

High PsyCap

Job P

erfo

rman

ce

Low Envy High Envy


Table 18: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Informational Injustice and Job Outcome

Variables

Interpersonal deviance Job performance Turnover intentions


Episodic envy .49 -.19 .99 .16 .59 .09 .99 .02 .20 -.61 .99 .62

Informational injustice -.26 -.81 .29 .35 -.06 -.47 .33 .73 -.28 -.94 .37 .39

Psychological capital -.12 -.63 .38 .63 .64 .26 .99 .00 -.27 -.88 .33 .36

Interation 1 -.07 -.22 .07 .34 -.15 -.26 -.05 .00 .01 -.17 .18 .92

Interation 2 .10 .01 .23 .04 -.02 -.11 .06 .60 .07 -.07 .21 .32

Total R² .13 .00 .14 .00 .05 .00

N = 447


Interaction 2 = Informational injustice * Psychological capital


Findings revealed that psychological capital moderates the direct effects of informational

injustice and interpersonal deviance (β = .10, p=.04, LCL= .01, UCL= .23). Results also found

significant moderating effect of psychological capital on indirect effects of informational

injustice and job performance (β = -.15, p=.00, LCL= -.26 UCL= -.05). The same procedure is

again applied to measure the pattern that whether the interactions are in expected directions or

not. Figure 7 describes the pattern of moderation, whereby, slope of interpersonal deviance

shows a decline when psychological capital is high. Whereas, slope of job performance again

shows a considerable uplift when psychological capital is high (see Figure 8).

Figure 7: interaction of psychological capital on direct effect of informational injustice and interpersonal

deviance

Inte

rper

sonal

dev

ian

ce

Low Informational injustice High Informational injustice

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low Psycap

High Psycap


Figure 7 reports significant reduction in interpersonal deviance of employees who have high

psychological capital. The slope lines showed that people with high psychological capital have

fewer tendencies to involve in interpersonal deviance when they perceive informational injustice.

The dark slope (representing individuals with high psychological capital) showed significantly

more decline as compared to dotted slope (representing individuals with low psychological

capital) showing employees tendency to involve in interpersonal deviance.

Figure 8: interaction of psychological capital on indirect effect of informational injustice and job

performance

The last moderation figure above provides the support for the apportioned proposition that

individual’s with high psychological capital cope with the negative emotions triggered from

informational injustice perceptions better than those with low psychological capital.

Overall, these results revealed mixed findings on the moderating role of psychological capital.

Although, employee’s job performance is found to be moderated by high psychological capital,

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Low PsyCap

High PsyCap

Job P

erfo

rman

ce

Low Envy High Envy


no significant moderation is found in the relationship of perceived injustice and employee’s

turnover intentions. Moreover, moderation is also not established in relationship of distributive

and interactional injustice with its respective deviance type (organizational and interpersonal

respectively). However, these deviance types are moderated in case of procedural and

informational injustice.

4.7 Summary of Findings:

Overall, results of the current study revealed some encouraging information about relationship

between study’s major variables. I not only tested the direct and indirect effects of perceived

injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) on job related outcomes

(organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship

behavior and turnover intentions), but also revealed the moderating effect of psychological

capital by incorporating COR as foundation. Findings revealed some interesting insight about

nature of these relationships.

Table 19 describes the summary of results for main effects of perceived injustice (distributive,

procedural, interpersonal and informational) and job outcomes (organizational deviance,

interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship behavior and turnover

intentions).


Table 19: Summary of results for main effect hypotheses

Main Effects Hypotheses Results

Hypothesis 1a: Distributive injustice Organizational deviance Accepted

Hypothesis 1b: Procedural injustice Organizational deviance Accepted

Hypothesis 1c: Interpersonal injustice Interpersonal deviance Accepted

Hypothesis 1d: Informational injustice Interpersonal deviance Accepted

Hypothesis 2a: Distributive injustice Job Performance Accepted

Hypothesis 2b: Procedural injustice Job Performance Accepted

Hypothesis 2c: Interpersonal injustice Job Performance Accepted

Hypothesis 2d: Informational injustice Job Performance Accepted

Hypothesis 3a: Distributive injustice OCB Accepted

Hypothesis 3b: Procedural injustice OCB Rejected

Hypothesis 3c: Interpersonal injustice OCB Rejected

Hypothesis 3d: Informational injustice OCB Rejected

Hypothesis 4a: Distributive injustice Turnover Intentions Accepted

Hypothesis 4b: Procedural injustice Turnover Intentions Accepted

Hypothesis 4c: Interpersonal injustice Turnover Intentions Accepted

Hypothesis 4d: Informational injustice Turnover Intentions Accepted

Current study proposed 16 hypotheses for testing these main effects and 13 of these got support

from the results, therefore, accepted. The findings revealed that most of the main effects of

perceived injustice types influence the employee’s work outcome adversely except for effects of

procedural, interpersonal and informational injustice with organizational citizenship behavior.

In addition to main effect results, table 20 illustrates the summary for indirect effects of

perceived injustice (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and job outcomes

(organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job performance, organizational citizenship

behavior and turnover intentions) through episodic envy.


Table 20: Summary of results for mediation of Episodic Envy

Predictor → Mediator → Criterion Degree of Mediation

Hypothesis 5

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Organizational Deviance Full

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Organizational Deviance Full

Hypothesis 6

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Interpersonal Deviance No Mediation

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Interpersonal Deviance Partial

Hypothesis 7

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance Full

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance Full

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance Partial

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Job Performance Partial

Hypothesis 8

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB No Mediation

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB No Mediation

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB No Mediation

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → OCB No Mediation

Hypothesis 9

Distributive Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions No Mediation

Procedural Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions Full

Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions Full

Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions Full


Current study proposed 4 main hypotheses which initiated 16 mediation tests for investigating

these indirect effects. Most of the study’s hypothesis for indirect effects also got support from the

results. Findings revealed support for 9 mediations out of which 7 confirms full mediations and 2

partial mediations. However, no mediations were found in perceived injustice types and

organizational citizenship behavior relationship. This also makes sense because the main effects

were also found to be insignificant in this relationship. The last hypothesis of the current study is

about moderating effect of psychological capital and the findings extracts apportioned support

for the proposed hypothesis.


5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This section encircles the discussion on findings in the light of current study’s research

questions. Moreover, this section also provides arguments on current research’s implications for

theory and practice. Subsequently, limitations of the study are discussed along-with future

directions for future researchers to further extend this effort of knowledge advancement.

5.1 Discussion:

Current study revealed a detailed insight about the emotional mechanism of perceived injustice

and job outcomes relationship. Following the strong theoretical notion of effective event theory,

it was theorized that the event of injustice triggers the negative emotion of episodic envy and

resultantly influence the job outcomes adversely. Further, it was also hypothesized that such

relationships are moderated by individual’s psychological resource i.e. psychological capital by

incorporating conservation of resource theory as foundation. Most of the study’s proposed

hypotheses got encouraging support from the results.

First research question of the current study was about the main effects of perceived injustice and

job outcomes. To answer the question, 4 hypotheses were proposed and results yielded strong

evidence that perception of injustice is detrimental to workplace outcomes. Findings confirm that

distributive and procedural injustice significantly predict employee’s act of organizational

deviance, moreover, interpersonal and informational injustice significantly predict employee’s

act of interpersonal deviance. These findings are consistent with prepositions of target similarity

model of Lavelle et al. (2007), whereby, they propose that organizational focused injustice is

more likely to relate with organizational target outcomes, while supervisory focused injustice is

more likely to relate with supervisor target outcomes (Colquit et al., 2013). Moreover, Masterson


et al. (2000) and Rupp and Cropanzano (2002) also reported some similar findings in their

empirical investigations.

Findings on the relationship of perceived injustice and employee’s job performance also yield

the expected results as all types of injustice perception results in significant reduction in

employee’s job performance. These findings are consistent with previous studies, where, the

workplace behaviors are viewed in social exchange perspective and employees react to balance

the score by decreasing their performance, if social exchange norms are violated (Cropanzano,

Rupp, & Byrne, 2003; Shirom, Nirel, & Vinokur, 2006; Van Scotter, Motowidlo, & Cross,

2000). Contrarily to the next hypothesis, findings for main effects perceived injustice and

employee’s organizational citizenship behavior did not get much support. Although distributive

injustice significantly explains decrease in employees’ citizenship behavior, remaining types of

injustice perceptions remained unable to establish any significant relationship. Last hypotheses

for finding main effects also get strong evidence for relationship between perceived injustice and

employee’s turnover intentions. Earlier studies consistently reported unfair treatment as an

activating force to increased intensions of leaving the organization (Cole, Bernerth, Walter, &

Holt, 2010; Li & Cropanzano, 2009b). Consistent with these findings, current study also revealed

all types of injustice perceptions as stimulating to increased turnover intentions.

The second research question of the current research asks about the mediating role of episodic

envy in relationship of perceived injustice and job outcomes. Mediation analysis also shows

significant support for study’s proposed hypotheses of mediation. Full mediation was found in

relationship of distributive and procedural injustice with organizational deviance. Results also

found partial mediation in relationship of informational injustice and interpersonal deviance.

Although there are some studies which recently attempted to investigate the mechanism of


perceived injustice and workplace deviance (see for example Jones, 2009), however, the

consensus in literature is yet to be conclusive. Specifically, current study improves our

understanding regarding emotional mechanism of injustice. Earlier studies examined some

outward focused negative state emotions (e.g. anger and hostility) in relationship of procedural

and interactional injustice with retaliatory behaviors in organizations (Barclay et al., 2005), but

the current study adds to the literature of justice by examining a more relevant emotion which is

episodic and triggered by certain event, i.e. perceived injustice (Cohen‐Charash, 2009; Tai et al.,

2012). It can reasonably argue that injustice and deviance relationship is explained by more hot

or spontaneous instances of affect induced deviance (Fox et al., 2001; Judge, Scott, & Ilies,

2006). Another relevant attempt was also made by Jones (2009), investigating desire for revenge

as mediator in relationship of procedural injustice and counterproductive work behaviors at

workplace. However, evidently, such perceptions of injustice stimulate negative emotions before

stimulating such desires. Further analysis of current study also revealed that the relationship of

perceived injustice and job performance is mediated by episodic envy. However, similar to the

findings of main effects of perceived injustice with employee’s citizenship behavior, mediation

test also did not get any support for indirect effects. Mediation test for indirect effects of

perceived injustice and employee’s turnover intentions found significant support except for that

of distributive injustice. These findings clearly portrays that employees compare themselves with

their coworker (Dittrich & Carrell, 1979) and when they perceive injustice in this comparison,

they “feel” it and their intend to leave the organization increased (Adam, 1965; Aquino et al.,

1997; Yang et al., 2012).

The third and last research question of the current study aimed at exploring the moderating effect

of psychological capital on the direct and/or indirect effects of perceived injustice types on


employee’s job outcomes. The findings of moderation analysis partially supported the third

research question of the study as moderation of psychological capital has been found in certain

direct and/or indirect effects of perceived injustice and job outcomes. First, the direct effects of

procedural injustice with organizational deviance found to be moderated by psychological capital

such that the employees with high psychological capital are less likely to involve in

organizational deviance when they perceive procedural injustice in the organizations. Similarly,

the direct effects of informational injustice with interpersonal deviance have also found to be

moderated by psychological capital in such manner that employees with high psychological

capital are less likely to involve in interpersonal deviance when they notice informational

injustice. In the similar model investigation, result also found the support for moderating effect

of psychological capital on indirect effect of all types of perceived injustice with employee’s job

performance such that employees with high psychological capita are less likely to reduce their

performance even when they “feel” injustice. The psychological resource of high psychological

capital buffers the negative effect of episodic envy on employee’s job performance in such a way

that employees with high psychological capital convert their envy into positive and bolstering

force due to their high composite resource of confidence, hope, optimism and resilience enabling

them to face the setback with patience and remain hopeful to move forward and achieve the

personal goals in future.

However, the remaining moderating prepositions were not supported in the findings. There are

certain explanations which can describe that why the findings only reveal certain moderations

and not the others. First of all, the results are drawn from the survey conducted in field study

which is inherently lacked in its capacity to detect the interactions because of differences in

measurement error (McClelland & Judd, 1993). Similarly, another important factor is the low


base rate of self-reported attitudes and behaviors, which may also limit us in our capacity to

detect some of the proposed interactions. However, I reasonably believe that the findings of the

current study highlighted an important and suggestive provision for the proposed contention

because the mainstream interactions were supported for organizational deviance, interpersonal

deviance and job performance.

The findings clearly upkeep the contention proposed by current study in the first part that when

employees at workplace perceive injustice, they are more likely to involve in organizational and

interpersonal deviance depending on their attribution of injustice. Moreover, such perceptions of

injustice are also results in their reduced job performance and increased turnover intentions. In

addition, the findings also suggest that these main effect relationships are explained through

emotion of episodic envy. Results found that episodic envy mediated the main effect relationship

of all types of perceived injustice (i.e. distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational)

and employee’s job outcomes (i.e. organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance, job

performance and turnover intentions). Similarly, findings also found partial support for the

moderating effect of psychological capital on direct and/or indirect effects of perceived injustice

and major employee’s job outcomes like organizational deviance, interpersonal deviance and job

performance. However, contrary to our expectations, the moderating effect of psychological

capital on direct and/or indirect effect of perceived injustice and intentions to quit was not found

significant. This is specifically understandable because earlier scholar frequently reported that

employees with high psychological capital might also think of quitting the organization in case

of unfavorable working environment because they are more skillful and often have more

employment opportunities due to their proven high performance record (Jackofsky, 1984).

Moreover, studies also reported that high performing employees are more likely to leave the


organization in pursuit of better working conditions, if treated unjust with unaligned pay and

promotion policies (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 1999; Nauta, Vianen, Heijden, Dam, & Willemsen,

2009).

5.2 Implications of the study:

The central conceptual implication of this study is that injustice is an affective event (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996) rather merely considering equity theory as foundation of organizational

justice’s. More importantly, when equity theory is unable to suggest the tactics that individual

can uphold to restore equity (Greenberg, 2010; Mowday, 1983; Pinder, 2008). This central

implication that injustice is an affective event is evidenced by model investigated in current

study which also extends the efforts of previous researchers by proposing that emotion of

episodic envy resulting from perceived inequity prompts reaction, and these reactions are

synchronized with actions which are threat oriented. This general implication, in turn, has several

important and specific implications which extend the current knowledge in the field of

organizational behavior. First, despite the fabulous growth in the literature of organizational

injustice, injustice types in single study have largely been overlooked in literature (Colquit et al.,

2001). Current study investigated a comprehensive model covering all four types of perceived

injustice in single study to better understand the nature of the whole construct and each

component of it in isolation. Additionally, another theoretical implication of this study is its

contribution in cultural context by exploring the phenomenon in eastern context, in comparison

of earlier studies which explore the effects of perceived injustice in different context of western

countries (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Cropanzano et al., 2007; Folger & Baron, 1996; J.

Greenberg, 1990a; J. Greenberg & Alge, 1998; Mintzberg, 1985; Robinson & Bennett, 1995).

Earlier scholars frequently highlighted the need of exploring the relationship of emotions and


injustice in real world settings. There are studies in literature which have been conducted in

laboratory settings in an experimental design by using students as respondents, but the

generalizability of the findings are limit by the controlled and artificial work settings

(Cropanzano et al., 2001; Krehbiel & Cropanzano, 2000; Weiss et al., 1999; Gordon, Slade, &

Schmitt, 1987). Nevertheless, Weiss et al., (1999) explicitly ask to investigate such relationships

in real world settings. Current effort to examine the relationship between fairness, emotions, and

job outcomes strengthens the generalizability as it is conducted in a field study, which is another

important contribution. Matta et al., (2014) investigated the relationship of justice, emotions and

counterproductive work behaviors among young computer programmers in small companies and

ask for further examination in other work settings, specifically, service jobs. Current study also

responded to that call by conducting the field study in banking industry and verifies the external

validity and enhances the generalizability.

Further, the comprehensive framework of current studies, to our little knowledge, is the first

attempt to explore perceived injustice and job outcomes where state emotion is involved as

mediating mechanism. This will enhance our understanding about the true insight of this

injustice-outcome relationship by arguing that it is mediated by episodic envy. Such mechanisms

were also suggested to investigate by previous researchers in order to better understand the

nature of this injustice-outcome relationship (Khan et al., 2013; Jones, 2009). Another important

theoretical implication of this study is the examination of prevalence of psychological capital as

a moderator between direct and/or indirect effect of perceived injustice on job outcomes to

stretch buffering mechanism and responding to call for investigations (Abbas et al., 2014;

Azeem et al., 2015; Lehner et al., 2014). This coping mechanism also helps to identify envy

categorization by arguing that individual’s with high psychological capital ease the envy-aroused


pain and see it as self-motivating rather than feeling it as malicious. Nonetheless, another

significant contribution of the study is the longitudinal nature of the study which gives better

understanding about the effects of perceived injustice over time. Longitudinal design has

frequently been suggested in literature but seldom investigated (Cohen-Charash & Spector,

2001). Taken together, this examination extends our understanding of seeing the injustice as an

affective phenomenon and how such perceptions are transformed into work attitudes and

behaviors at workplace. This examination also initiates the debate of tackling the negative effects

of emotions through high psychological capital.

5.3 Implications for Practice:

This study provides substantial and valuable implications for practice, especially, to managers by

emphasizing the need and importance of adhering to the fair procedures while applying the

human resource policies (Scott, Colquit, & Paddock, 2009). The current study also points to the

manager to stay cautious from the harmful effects of injustice perception at workplace.

Moreover, organizations should also encourage and train their managers to treat their subordinate

with equality while appraising them and also when explaining the decisions (Skarlicki &

Latham, 2005). The managers should avoid all the potential contributors to such perceptions like

unclear procedures, ambiguous feedback, lack of communication and mentoring, and absence of

dignity and respect in communication. This is even more important for the managers of the

organizations those are going through mergers, acquisitions, downsizing, or restructuring

because the working environment of such organizations already going through uncertain

conversations and rumors (Van den Bos, 2001; Van den Bos & Lind, 2002; Lind, Greenberg,

Scott, & Welchans, 2000). The findings of the current study also points to the need of

implementing the fair procedures during appraisals because it will help organizations in reducing


the involvement of their employees in deviant behaviors (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Indeed, the

fair and transparent procedures escalate the credibility of the organization and employees

attribute it feeling of support by their organization. Literature also reported that organizations

with fair and transparent procedural justice profited with higher in-role and extra-role

performances from the (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). Moreover, the findings also highlight the

importance of giving respect and dignity while dealing with subordinates. Indeed, the respectful

treatment and supportive behavior from supervisor can mitigate the effect of distributive or

procedural injustice.

Another important and valuable implication which can be extracted from the findings of this

study is that it stresses the need of examining and changing the selection criteria for hiring the

employees by including the tests of characteristics such as confidence, hope, optimism and

resilience because these characteristics can help the newcomers to cope the undue perceptions of

injustice (Abbas et al., 2014). Moreover, as these psychological capabilities are developable,

organizations can also introduce the appropriate training interventions which can help the

existing employees to enhance these psychological capabilities enabling them to deal with such

perceptions. The managers can use the tactics of emotional arousal, verbal persuasion, goal-

directed energy boosters, defining pathways, and trainings for opportunity seeking in future,

enactive mastery at work and vicarious modeling can help to develop and increase the

psychological capital of individuals at workplace. Moreover, the trainings for coping with

emotions can also be introduced, whereby, employees would be exposed to emotional

intelligence training interventions and counseling. This would help managers to deal with their

subordinate’s emotional state before it transforms into detrimental workplace behaviors (Kwok,

Au, & Ho, 2005).


The findings of the current study also urge managers to be aware of the episodic models at

workplace, which in turns help them to manage the emotions of employees effectively.

Moreover, managers can also develop effective techniques to cope with emotional reaction by

understanding when and how one is experiencing it (Salovey & Mayer, 1990). Another method

to prevent the emotion of envy is by fostering cooperative working environment where every

employee feel comfortable approaching his manager and/or colleagues and talk to him regarding

his problem. The managers can also use another important strategy of boosting self-reliance for

coping with envy (Salovey & Rodin, 1998). Self-reliance helps employees in increasing their

emotional control and perseverance, thus, reducing envy. A more specific organizational

implication of this study is for organizations in Pakistan, who can use the findings of the current

study for managing the detrimental forces of envy and workplace deviance. The early cultural

theories suggested that the negative emotions and behaviors are generally less tolerated in high

power distance and collectivist cultures. However, employees still found some ways to deviate

due to the pain they experience from upward comparison. This situation can be tackled by

fostering a strong group harmony and cooperative working environment.

5.4 Limitations and Future Directions:

While this study has substantial implications of exploring the emotional mechanism of reaction

to injustice perceptions, it certainly has some limitation. First, the results of this research are

limited to banking sector of Pakistan, and could be different in other sectors and geographical

areas (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Jo & Joo, 2011). The ratio of such injustice perceptions

and its impact could also vary in other organizations or industries of Pakistan. Another limitation

of this study is the inability to control for the environmental support in such relationship. Support

from supervisor or colleagues may help to cope with such injustice perceptions or may also


affect such perceptions in a way that individual’s would not take it as emotional as in absence of

such support (Allen et al., 1999; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Eisenberger, Stinglhamber,

Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades, 2002). Similarly, a crucial limitation of the current study

is its inability to control the impact of the labor market opportunities which might have an effect

on the results of the study. As argued in the above section, high performers have more

opportunities in labor market, hence tends to leave the organization in case of unfavorable

working conditions. This may also be true with other factors like age, gender and experience etc.

for example, older employees might not leave the company even treated unfairly because they

perceive fewer opportunities outside (Ng & Feldman, 2009).

Another limitation, normally associated with investigation of emotions, is the use of self-report

scale to measure emotions of individuals at workplace. However, previous studies reported that

considering the implicit nature of emotions, self-reported measures are better at estimating the

emotional experiences (Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Diener, 2000). A similar suggestion

was also made to measure the deviant behaviors of the employees because some of these

behaviors are covert and implicit (Khan et al., 2014). Moreover, the appraisals are important to

employees and they are more likely to remember and recall more important events than the less

important ones (Fabiani & Donchin, 1995). Therefore, the injustice perceptions were also

measured by using self-reported measures because the individuals perceiving such perceptions

can only best recall such events. However, the performance of employees was measured by using

supervisory-rated measure to avoid the single source bias. The current study is also limited

because of measuring study variables over one time lag of six weeks and at two fixed time

points. Though, the process examined here actually may have long time lag, previous studies


suggested four-week time lag difference as the minimum to measure the emotion related

variables (Côté & Morgan., 2002).

As an important contribution, this study examined a different cultural context which is in-line

with calls made by scholars of organizational behavior to test the validity for theories of western

considerations in eastern countries (Johns, 2006). While the findings of the current study

provides the support for such validity and generalizability of examined relationship, it certainly

highlighted the importance of examining more discrete contextual factors like cultural values

(Abbas et al., 2014). This could also be achieved by comparing the findings with similar cultural

context like India and Bangladesh which will helps to increase generalizability as the cultural

values differ in those countries as compared to Pakistan. Similarly, this research model needs to

pursue in other Asian countries with different cultures (China, Hong Kong, Singapore and

Malaysia) helping to ensure generalization of research findings in Asia.

Future researchers may also examine other emotions as possible mediators in relationship

between injustice perception and job outcomes. For example, injustice perceptions could also

prompt the emotion of anger in individuals and could be investigated in future studies (Walsh et

al., 2011). Similarly, other phenomenon like “attribution of blame” can also be tested as possible

explanation of injustice and outcome relationship at workplace (Barclay et al., 2005). The

current study attempts to examine the emotion laden mechanism of perceived injustice and

employee’s job outcomes relationship. The social exchange perspective of perceived injustice is

also well researched; therefore, give rise to the need of exploring a comprehensive comparative

study of perceived injustice; comparing how the affective and reciprocated social exchange

mechanisms differ (Gouldner, 1960). It will results in finding out the unique effect of each

mechanism even it might be the case that some of their impact is shared. It will also help us in


understanding the respective role of affects and social exchange as drivers of deviant behaviors

in reaction to injustice perceptions.

Certain other phenomenon which are relevant to injustice perceptions also needs to be examined

as possible alternative explanation. For example, individual’s social identities are particularly

related with interactional injustice, whereby, individuals viewed their identity being threatened

hence involved in deviant behaviors (Blader & Tyler, 2009). Therefore, this would suggest that

individual identity and/or group identity can be tested as mechanisms of the relationship between

injustice experiences and employee’s respective job outcomes. Additionally, this research thesis

examined negative behavioral job outcomes and employee turnover intention. Future researchers

may benefit by investigating the positive consequences of envy, where employees take envy as

motivating and work harder to get the desired object. From another perspective, the moderating

factors needs to be explored in future, which help individuals to cope with the emotions of envy.

In addition, the personality traits like core self-evaluation and emotional intelligence could also

weaken the negative effects of emotions and job related outcomes and could be investigated in

future.

In conclusion, it is evidenced that individuals who encounter injustice “feel” that unfairness. This

experience has been described as “hot” and painful (Bies, 2001), and those encountering this

experience stimulates negative emotional reaction and are more likely to balance the score by

involving in undesirable outcomes. Therefore, the current study emphasize to the need of giving

equal importance to emotions at work because we, as human beings, both think and feel

(Muchinsky, 2000). The current study also shed light on dealing with emotions by developing

strong psychological capabilities which helps them in coping with emotion of episodic envy.

This study concludes that perceived injustice is detrimental to workplace outcomes, especially


when it triggers the negative emotions. However, people with high psychological composite

resource have that ability to cope with such unjust situations better.


6 REFERENCES

Abbas, M., Raja, U., Darr, W., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2014). Combined effects of perceived

politics and psychological capital on job satisfaction, turnover intentions, and

performance. Journal of management, 40(7), 1813-1830.

Adams, G. R., & Schvaneveldt, J. D. (1991). Understanding research methods.

Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 67(5), 422.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology,

2(267-299).

Adams, V. H., Snyder, C., Rand, K. L., King, E. A., Sigmon, D. R., & Pulvers, K. M. (2002).

Hope in the workplace. Handbook of workplace spirituality and organizational

performance, 367-377.

Adrianson, L., & Ramdhani, N. (2014). Why you and not me? Expressions of envy in Sweden

and Indonesia. International Journal of Research Studies in Psychology, 3(3).

Ahmad, R., & Lemba, C. (2010). Performance appraisal politics and employee turnover

intention. Jurnal Kemanusiaan, 16.

Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions: Sage.

Allen, D., Shore, L., & Griffeth, R. (1999). A model of perceived organizational support.

Unpublished manuscript, University of Memphis and Georgia State University.

Ambrose, M. L. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 803-812.

Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the

relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational

support, and supervisory trust. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 295.

Ambrose, M. L., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the workplace: The role

of organizational injustice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

89(1), 947-965.


Andrews, M. C., Kacmar, K. M., Blakely, G. L., & Bucklew, N. S. (2008). Group cohesion as an

enhancement to the justice—affective commitment relationship. Group & Organization

Management, 33(6), 736-755.

Aquino, K., Griffeth, R. W., Allen, D. G., & Hom, P. W. (1997). Integrating justice constructs

into the turnover process: A test of a referent cognitions model. Academy of Management

Journal, 40(5), 1208-1227.

Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and

employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical test. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 20(7), 1073-1091.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2001). How employees respond to personal offense: the

effects of blame attribution, victim status, and offender status on revenge and

reconciliation in the workplace. Journal of applied psychology, 86(1), 52.

Aquino, K., Tripp, T. M., & Bies, R. J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural

justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and

avoidance in organizations. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 653.

Arnetz, B., & Blomkvist, V. (2007). Leadership, mental health, and organizational efficacy in

health care organizations. Psychotherapy and psychosomatics, 76(4), 242-248.

Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2009). Psychological capital: A positive resource for

combating employee stress and turnover. Human Resource Management, 48(5), 677-693.

Avey, J. B., Wernsing, T. S., & Luthans, F. (2008). Can positive employees help positive

organizational change? Impact of psychological capital and emotions on relevant

attitudes and behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(1), 48-70.

Azeem, M. U., Lehner, J. M., & Haq, I. U. (2015). Interpersonal Mistreatment to Interpersonal

Deviance: Victim’s Reaction Against Instigator. Academy of Management Proceedings,

2015(1). doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.15174abstract

Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W., & Gavino Jr, J. C. (2003). Culture moderates the self-regulation of

shame and its effects on performance: the case of salespersons in The Netherlands and

the Philippines. Journal of applied psychology, 88(2), 219.

Bailey, C. A. (2007). A guide to qualitative field research: Sage Publications.


Bal, P. M., de Lange, A. H., Ybema, J. F., Jansen, P. G., & van der Velde, M. E. (2011). Age and

Trust as Moderators in the Relation between Procedural Justice and Turnover: A Large‐

Scale Longitudinal Study. Applied Psychology, 60(1), 66-86.

Ball, G. A., Trevino, L. K., & Sims, H. P. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on

subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 299-

322.

Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of

Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control: Macmillan.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269-

290.

Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of

applied psychology, 88(1), 87.

Barclay, L. J., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2009). Healing the wounds of organizational injustice:

Examining the benefits of expressive writing. Journal of applied psychology, 94(2), 511.

Barclay, L. J., Skarlicki, D. P., & Pugh, S. D. (2005). Exploring the role of emotions in injustice

perceptions and retaliation. Journal of applied psychology, 90(4), 629.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social

psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.

Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it's unfair: a quantitative synthesis of affect

and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of applied psychology, 92(1), 286.

Begley, T. M., Lee, C., & Hui, C. (2006). Organizational level as a moderator of the relationship

between justice perceptions and work‐related reactions. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 27(6), 705-721.

Ben-Ze'ev, A. (2002). Are envy, anger, and resentment moral emotions? Philosophical

Explorations, 5(2), 148-154.

Benjamin, W., & Levin, T. Y. (1988). Rigorous Study of Art. October, 84-90.

Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance.

Journal of applied psychology, 85(3), 349.


Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2003). The past, present, and future of workplace deviance

research.

Bernerth, J., & Walker, H. J. (2012). Reexamining the workplace justice to outcome relationship:

Does frame of reference matter? Journal of Management Studies, 49(5), 945-969.

Berry, C. M., Ones, D. S., & Sackett, P. R. (2007). Interpersonal deviance, organizational

deviance, and their common correlates: a review and meta-analysis. Journal of applied

psychology, 92(2), 410.

Beugré, C. D. (2005). Reacting aggressively to injustice at work: A cognitive stage model.

Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 291-301.

Beugre, C. D., & Baron, R. A. (2001). Perceptions of systemic justice: The effects of

distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

31(2), 324-339.

Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. Research in

organizational behavior.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in) justice: The sacred and the profane. Advances in

organizational justice, 89118.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness.

Research on negotiation in organizations, 1(1), 43-55.

Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (2002). ‘Hot flashes, open wounds. Gilliland, SW, Steiner, D. & D.

Skarlicki (Eds.), Emerging perspectives on managing organizational justice, 203-223.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model:

linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole

behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 94(2), 445.

Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity

sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational

citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259-273.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Justice in social exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34(2), 193-206.

Block, J., & Kremen, A. M. (1996). IQ and ego-resiliency: conceptual and empirical connections

and separateness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(2), 349.

Bollen, K. A. (1998). Structural equation models. Encyclopedia of biostatistics.

Bonds-Raacke, J., & Raacke, J. (2012). Research Methods: Are You Equipped? : Prentice Hall.


Bonds-Raacke, J. M., & Raacke, J. D. (2008). Using tablet PCs in the classroom: An

investigation of students' expectations and reactions. Journal of Instructional Psychology,

35(3), 235.

Borman, W. C. (2004). The concept of organizational citizenship. Current directions in

psychological science, 13(6), 238-241.

Bowling, N. A., & Gruys, M. L. (2010). Overlooked issues in the conceptualization and

measurement of counterproductive work behavior. Human Resource Management

Review, 20(1), 54-61.

Brockner, J., & Greenberg, J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: An organizational

justice perspective. Applied social psychology and organizational settings, 45, 75.

Buchanan, G. M., & Seligman, M. (2013). Explanatory style: Routledge.

Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis (Vol.

248): london: Heinemann.

Byrne, Z. S. (2005). Fairness reduces the negative effects of organizational politics on turnover

intentions, citizenship behavior and job performance. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 20(2), 175-200.

Carrell, M. R., & Dittrich, J. E. (1976). Employee Perceptions of Fair Treatment. Personnel

journal, 55(10), 523-524.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2002). The hopeful optimist. Psychological Inquiry, 13(4), 288-

290.

Chalkiti, K., & Sigala, M. (2010). Staff turnover in the Greek tourism industry: A comparison

between insular and peninsular regions. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 22(3), 335-359.

Chang, S.-J., Van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the editors: Common method

variance in international business research. Journal of International Business Studies,

41(2), 178-184.

Chory‐Assad, R. M., & Paulsel, M. L. (2004). Classroom justice: Student aggression and

resistance as reactions to perceived unfairness. Communication Education, 53(3), 253-

273.

Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Organizational justice and job satisfaction: A

test of three competing models. Social Justice Research, 18(4), 391-409.


Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate

interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of applied


Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-

analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.

Cohen‐Charash, Y. (2009). Episodic envy. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(9), 2128-

2173.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2013). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences: Routledge.

Cohen, R. L. (1986). Justice: Views from the social sciences: Springer Science & Business

Media.

Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., & Holt, D. T. (2010). Organizational justice and

individuals' withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of emotional exhaustion. Journal of

Management Studies, 47(3), 367-390.

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a

measure. Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 386.

Colquitt, J. A. (2004). Does the justice of the one interact with the justice of the many? Reactions

to procedural justice in teams. Journal of applied psychology, 89(4), 633.

Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Two decades of organizational justice: Findings, controversies, and future

directions. The Sage handbook of organizational behavior, 1, 73-88.

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the

millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of applied psychology, 86(3), 425.

Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A

historical overview. Handbook of organizational justice, 1, 3-58.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Judge, T. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2006). Justice and personality: Using

integrative theories to derive moderators of justice effects. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 100(1), 110-127.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson,

M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social

exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 199.


Côté, S., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of the association between emotion

regulation, job satisfaction, and intentions to quit. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23(8), 947-962.

Coutu, D. L. (2002). How resilience works. Harvard business review, 80(5), 46-56.

Craig, A. (2003). A new view of pain as a homeostatic emotion. Trends in neurosciences, 26(6),

303-307.

Cropanzano, R., Ambrose, M. L., Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Procedural and

distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research

agenda. Advances in organizational justice, 119, 151.

Cropanzano, R., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Injustice and organizational conflict: The moderating

effect of power restoration. International Journal of Conflict Management, 2(1), 5-26.

Cropanzano, R., & Byrne, Z. S. (2000). Workplace justice and the dilemma of organizational

citizenship. Collective problems in modern society: Dilemmas and solutions, 142-161.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through

the maze. International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 12, 317-372.

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review.

Journal of management, 31(6), 874-900.

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to

distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management,

27(3), 324-351.

Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2008). Social exchange theory and organizational justice: Job

performance, citizenship behaviors, multiple foci, and a historical integration of two

literatures. Research in social issues in management: Justice, morality, and social

responsibility, 63-99.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., & Byrne, Z. S. (2003). The relationship of emotional exhaustion to

work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of


Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to

organizational justice.

Cropanzano, R., Stein, J. H., & Nadisic, T. (2011). Social justice and the experience of emotion:

Routledge.


Curry, L. A., Snyder, C., Cook, D. L., Ruby, B. C., & Rehm, M. (1997). Role of hope in

academic and sport achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6),

1257.

Dalton, D. R., Todor, W. D., & Krackhardt, D. M. (1982). Turnover overstated: The functional

taxonomy. Academy of Management Review, 7(1), 117-123.

De Cremer, D. (2007). Advances in the psychology of justice and affect: IAP.

De Cremer, D., & Van den Bos, K. (2007). Justice and feelings: Toward a new era in justice

research. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 1-9.

Deaux, K. (1996). Social identification.

DeConinck, J. B., & Johnson, J. T. (2009). The effects of perceived supervisor support,

perceived organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among

salespeople. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29(4), 333-350.

Degoey, P. (2000). Contagious justice: Exploring the social construction of justice in

organizations. Research in organizational behavior, 22, 51-102.

Dess, G. G., & Shaw, J. D. (2001). Voluntary turnover, social capital, and organizational

performance. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 446-456.

Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national

index. American psychologist, 55(1), 34.

Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of

community violence and an organization's procedural justice climate on workplace

aggression. Academy of Management Journal, 46(3), 317-326.

Dittrich, J. E., & Carrell, M. R. (1979). Organizational equity perceptions, employee job

satisfaction, and departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational behavior and

human performance, 24(1), 29-40.

Dorfman, P. W., & Howell, J. P. (1988). Dimensions of National Culture & Effective Leadership

Patterns: Hofstede revisited Advances in international comparative management: A

research annual (pp. 127-149).

Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2000). The Salieri syndrome consequences of envy in groups.

Small group research, 31(1), 3-23.


Dunlop, P. D., & Lee, K. (2004). Workplace deviance, organizational citizenship behavior, and

business unit performance: The bad apples do spoil the whole barrel. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25(1), 67-80.

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2004). TOO GOOD TO BE TRUSTED? RELATIVE

PERFORMANCE, ENVY AND TRUST. Paper presented at the Academy of Management

Proceedings.

Earley, P. C., & Lind, E. A. (1987). Procedural justice and participation in task selection: The

role of control in mediating justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social


Eisenberger, R., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., & Rhoades, L. (2002).

Perceived supervisor support: contributions to perceived organizational support and

employee retention. Journal of applied psychology, 87(3), 565.

El Akremi, A., Vandenberghe, C., & Camerman, J. (2010). The role of justice and social

exchange relationships in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human

Relations, 63(11), 1687-1717.

Erkutlu, H., & Chafra, J. (2013). Effects of trust and psychological contract violation on

authentic leadership and organizational deviance. Management Research Review, 36(9),

828-848.

Fabiani, M., & Donchin, E. (1995). Encoding processes and memory organization: a model of

the von Restorff effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and

Cognition, 21(1), 224.

Farh, J.-L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship

behavior: Leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of management,

16(4), 705-721.

Folger, R., & Baron, R. A. (1996). Violence and hostility at work: A model of reactions to

perceived injustice.

Folger, R., Cropanzano, R., Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). Fairness theory: Justice as

accountability. Advances in organizational justice, 1, 1-55.

Folger, R., Rosenfield, D. D., & Robinson, T. (1983). Relative deprivation and procedural

justifications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 268.


Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and

measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of marketing research, 382-388.

Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in

response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests

for autonomy and emotions. Journal of vocational Behavior, 59(3), 291-309.

Frankel, J., & Wallen, N. (2000). How to evaluate & design research in education: Boston, MA:

McGraw Hill.

French, T. M. (1952). The integration of behavior (Vol. 1): University of Chicago Press.

Frijda, N. H. (1993). The place of appraisal in emotion. Cognition & Emotion, 7(3-4), 357-387.

Fritz, H. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. The Journal of Marketing, 56, 322.

Fritz, M. S., Taylor, A. B., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2012). Explanation of two anomalous results in

statistical mediation analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(1), 61-87.

Fujishiro, K., & Heaney, C. A. (2007). Justice at work, job stress, and employee health. Health

Education & Behavior.

Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. E. (1997). Antisocial behavior in organizations: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Gill, J., & Johnson, P. (2010). Research methods for managers: Sage.

Gilliland, S. (2008). The tails of justice: A critical examination of the dimensionality of

organizational justice constructs. Human Resource Management Review, 18(4), 271-281.

Gilliland, S., Skarlicki, D., & Steiner, D. D. (2008). Justice, morality, and social responsibility:

IAP.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2009). The abundance effect: Unethical behavior in the presence of

wealth. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 142-155.

Gino, F., & Pierce, L. (2010). Lying to level the playing field: Why people may dishonestly help

or hurt others to create equity. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(1), 89-103.

Gold, B. T. (1996). Enviousness and its relationship to maladjustment and psychopathology.

Personality and Individual Differences, 21(3), 311-321.

Gordon, M. E., Slade, L. A., & Schmitt, N. (1987). Student guinea pigs: Porcine predictors and

particularistic phenomena. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 160-163.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American

sociological review, 161-178.


Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost

of pay cuts. Journal of applied psychology, 75(5), 561.

Greenberg, J. (1990b). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

management, 16(2), 399-432.

Greenberg, J. (2002). Who stole the money, and when? Individual and situational determinants

of employee theft. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 985-

1003.

Greenberg, J., & Alge, B. J. (1998). Aggressive reactions to workplace injustice.

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2013). Handbook of organizational justice: Psychology Press.

Greenberg, J., & Cropanzano, R. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and

informational classes of organizational justice. Justice in the workplace: Approaching

fairness in human resource management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Greenberg, J., & Scott, K. S. (1996). Why do workers bite the hands that feed them? Employee

theft as a social exchange process.

Greenberg, L., & Barling, J. (1999). Predicting employee aggression against coworkers,

subordinates and supervisors: The roles of person behaviors and perceived workplace

factors. Journal of Organizational Behavior(20), 897-913.

Greeno, E. J., Hughes, A. K., Hayward, R. A., & Parker, K. L. (2007). A confirmatory factor

analysis of the Professional Opinion Scale. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(4),

482-493.

Griffeth, R. W., Vecchio, R. P., & Logan, J. W. (1989). Equity theory and interpersonal

attraction. Journal of applied psychology, 74(3), 394.

Griffin, R. W., & Lopez, Y. P. (2005). “Bad behavior” in organizations: A review and typology

for future research. Journal of management, 31(6), 988-1005.

Guba, E. G. (1990). The paradigm dialog: Sage Publications.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. Handbook of

qualitative research, 2(163-194).

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. (1998). Black (1998), Multivariate

data analysis: Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate

data analysis (Vol. 6): Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.


Hair, J. F., Wolfinbarger, M. F., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2008). Essentials of marketing

research: McGraw-Hill/Higher Education.

Harper, D. (1990). Spotlight abuse-save profits. Industrial distribution, 79(3), 47-51.

Harvey, S., & Haines Iii, V. Y. (2005). Employer treatment of employees during a community

crisis: The role of procedural and distributive justice. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 20(1), 53-68.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (2013). Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation

modeling to examine contingent causal processes. Structural equation modeling: A

second course, 2, 217-264.

Hayes, A. F., & Scharkow, M. (2013). The relative trustworthiness of inferential tests of the

indirect effect in statistical mediation analysis does method really matter? Psychological

Science, 0956797613480187.

Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupré, K. E., Inness, M., . . .

Sivanathan, N. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: a meta-analysis. Journal of


Hill, S. E., DelPriore, D. J., & Vaughan, P. W. (2011). The cognitive consequences of envy:

attention, memory, and self-regulatory depletion. Journal of Personality and Social


Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general


Hobfoll, S. E. (2011). Conservation of resource caravans and engaged settings. Journal of

occupational and Organizational Psychology, 84(1), 116-122.

Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online readings

in psychology and culture, 2(1), 8.

Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to

economic growth. Organizational dynamics, 16(4), 5-21.

Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1988). Social identifications.

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. (2001). Attitudes, behavior and social context: JSTOR.

Hooker, K., Monahan, D., Shifren, K., & Hutchinson, C. (1992). Mental and physical health of

spouse caregivers: The role of personality. Psychology and aging, 7(3), 367.


Hudson, L. A., & Ozanne, J. L. (1988). Alternative ways of seeking knowledge in consumer

research. Journal of consumer research, 508-521.

Hughes, J., & Sharrock, W. (1997). The philosophy of social science research: London:

Longman.

Hunt, S. D. (1991). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research: toward critical

pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of consumer research, 32-44.

Jackofsky, E. F. (1984). Turnover and job performance: An integrated process model. Academy

of Management Review, 9(1), 74-83.

Jam, F. A., Haq, I. U., & Fatima, T. (2012). Phychological Contract and Job Outcomes:

Mediating Role of Affective Commitment. Journal of Educational and Social Research,

2(4), 79-90.

Janssen, J., Müller, P. A., & Greifeneder, R. (2011). Cognitive processes in procedural justice

judgments: The role of ease‐of‐retrieval, uncertainty, and experience. Journal of


Jex, S. M., & Bliese, P. D. (1999). Efficacy beliefs as a moderator of the impact of work-related

stressors: a multilevel study. Journal of applied psychology, 84(3), 349.

Jex, S. M., Bliese, P. D., Buzzell, S., & Primeau, J. (2001). The impact of self-efficacy on

stressor–strain relations: Coping style as an explanatory mechanism. Journal of applied


Jex, S. M., & Elacqua, T. C. (1999). Self‐esteem as a moderator: A comparison of global and

organization‐based measures. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology,

72(1), 71-81.

Jimmieson, N. L., Terry, D. J., & Callan, V. J. (2004). A longitudinal study of employee

adaptation to organizational change: the role of change-related information and change-

related self-efficacy. Journal of occupational health psychology, 9(1), 11.

Jo, S. J., & Joo, B.-K. (2011). Knowledge sharing: The influences of learning organization

culture, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of

Leadership & Organizational Studies, 1548051811405208.

Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of context on organizational behavior. Academy of

Management Review, 31(2), 386-408.


Johnson-Laird, P. N., & Oatley, K. (1989). The language of emotions: An analysis of a semantic

field. Cognition and emotion, 3(2), 81-123.

Jones, D. A. (2009). Getting even with one's supervisor and one's organization: relationships

among types of injustice, desires for revenge, and counterproductive work behaviors.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(4), 525.

Jones, D. A., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2003). The Relationship Between Perceptions of Fairness and

Voluntary Turnover Among Retail Employees1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

33(6), 1226-1243.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual review of psychology,

63, 341-367.

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer‐Mueller, J. D. (2012). General and specific measures in

organizational behavior research: Considerations, examples, and recommendations for

researchers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(2), 161-174.

Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance:

test of a multilevel model. Journal of applied psychology, 91(1), 126.

Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Early, C., & Lind, A. (1987). Fairness and participation in evaluation

procedures: effects on task attitudes and performance». Social Justice Research, 1, 235-

249.

Kaya, T. (2009). Describing and Illustrating Quantitative Data. The Encyclopedia of Applied

Linguistics.

Kellerl, T., & Dansereaul, F. (1995). Leadership and empowerment: A social exchange

perspective. Human Relations, 48(2), 127-146.

Kennedy, D. B., Homant, R. J., & Homant, M. R. (2004). Perception of injustice as a predictor of

support for workplace aggression. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18(3), 323-336.

Khan, A. K., Quratulain, S., & M Bell, C. (2014). Episodic envy and counterproductive work

behaviors: Is more justice always good? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(1), 128-

144.

Khan, K., Abbas, M., Gul, A., & Raja, U. (2015). Organizational justice and job outcomes:

Moderating role of Islamic Work Ethic. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(2), 235-246.


Kickul, J., Lester, S. W., & Finkl, J. (2002). Promise breaking during radical organizational

change: do justice interventions make a difference? Journal of Organizational Behavior,

23(4), 469.

Kim, S. K., Jung, D.-I., & Lee, J. S. (2013). Service employees’ deviant behaviors and leader–

member exchange in contexts of dispositional envy and dispositional jealousy. Service

Business, 7(4), 583-602.

Kline, T. J. (2005). Psychological testing: A practical approach to design and evaluation: Sage

Publications.

Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of

Management Journal, 37(3), 656-669.

Krehbiel, P. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Procedural justice, outcome favorability and emotion.

Social Justice Research, 13(4), 339-360.

Lambert, E. (2003). The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of

criminal justice, 31(2), 155-168.

Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., Jiang, S., Elechi, O. O., Benjamin, B., Morris, A., . . . Dupuy, P.

(2010). The relationship among distributive and procedural justice and correctional life

satisfaction, burnout, and turnover intent: An exploratory study. Journal of criminal

justice, 38(1), 7-16.

Langan-Fox, J., Cooper, C. L., & Klimoski, R. J. (2007). Research companion to the

dysfunctional workplace: Management challenges and symptoms: Edward Elgar

Publishing.

Larson, M., & Luthans, F. (2006). Potential added value of psychological capital in predicting

work attitudes. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 13(2), 75-92.

Lavelle, J. J., Rupp, D. E., & Brockner, J. (2007). Taking a Multifoci Approach to the Study of

Justice, Social Exchange, and Citizenship Behavior: The Target Similarity Model†.

Journal of management, 33(6), 841-866.

Lehner, J. M., Azeem, M. U., Haq, I. U., & Sharif, I. (2014). Moderating role of PsyCap in

relationship of psychological contracts, breach and job-outcomes. Paper presented at the

Academy of Management Proceedings.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976a). The distribution of rewards and resources in groups and organizations.

Advances in experimental social psychology, 9, 91-131.


Leventhal, G. S. (1976b). Fairness in social relationships: General Learning Press Morristown,

NJ.

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? : Springer.

Lewin, K. (1946). Behavior and development as a function of the total situation.

Lewis, M. (2008). Envy in Organizational Life. Envy: Theory and Research, 167.

Lewis, P., Thornhill, A., & Saunders, M. (2007). Research methods for business students:

Pearson Education UK.

Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009a). Do East Asians Respond More/Less Strongly to

Organizational Justice Than North Americans? A Meta‐Analysis. Journal of

Management Studies, 46(5), 787-805.

Li, A., & Cropanzano, R. (2009b). Fairness at the group level: Justice climate and intraunit

justice climate. Journal of management, 35(3), 564-599.

Lin, Y. Y. (2013). The Effect of Perceived Unfairness and Negative Emotions On Workplace

Behavior.

Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. (2000). The winding road from

employee to complainant: Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-

termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(3), 557-590.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in

experimental social psychology, 25, 115-192.

Lipponen, J., Olkkonen, M.-E., & Moilanen, M. (2004). Perceived procedural justice and

employee responses to an organizational merger. European Journal of Work and

Organizational Psychology, 13(3), 391-413.

Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of


Luthans, F. (2002b). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological

strengths. The Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57-72.

Luthans, F. (2003). Positive organizational behavior (POB): Implications for leadership and HR

development and motivation. Motivation and leadership at work, 178-195.

Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., Avolio, B. J., Norman, S. M., & Combs, G. M. (2006). Psychological

capital development: toward a micro‐intervention. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

27(3), 387-393.


Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital:

Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Personnel psychology,

60(3), 541-572.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Li, W. (2005). The psychological capital of

Chinese workers: Exploring the relationship with performance. Management and

Organization Review, 1(2), 249-271.

Luthans, F., & Jensen, S. M. (2002). Hope: A new positive strength for human resource

development. Human Resource Development Review, 1(3), 304-322.

Luthans, F., Luthans, K. W., & Luthans, B. C. (2004). Positive psychological capital: Beyond

human and social capital. Business horizons, 47(1), 45-50.

Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2004). Human, Social, and Now Positive Psychological Capital

Management:: Investing in People for Competitive Advantage. Organizational dynamics,

33(2), 143-160.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2006). Psychological capital: Developing the

human competitive edge: Oxford University Press.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007). Psychological capital: Investing and

developing positive organizational behavior. Positive organizational behavior, 9-24.

Luthans, K. W., & Jensen, S. M. (2005). The linkage between psychological capital and

commitment to organizational mission: A study of nurses. Journal of Nursing

Administration, 35(6), 304-310.

MacKinnon, D. P., Fritz, M. S., Williams, J., & Lockwood, C. M. (2007). Distribution of the

product confidence limits for the indirect effect: Program PRODCLIN. Behavior

research methods, 39(3), 384-389.

Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the

reformulated model of organizational identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

13(2), 103-123.

Malhotra, N. K., & Birks, D. F. (2007). Marketing research: An applied approach: Pearson

Education.

Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American

psychologist, 56(3), 227.


Masten, A. S., & Reed, M.-G. (2002). Resilience in development. Handbook of positive

psychology, 74-88.

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (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.

Mathieu, J. E., & Taylor, S. R. (2006). Clarifying conditions and decision points for mediational

type inferences in organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8),

1031-1056.

Matta, F. K., Erol‐Korkmaz, H. T., Johnson, R. E., & B. (2014). Significant work events and

counterproductive work behavior: The role of fairness, emotions, and emotion regulation.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 920-944.

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and

moderator effects. Psychological bulletin, 114(2), 376.

Mertens, D. M. (2003). Mixed methods and the politics of human research: The transformative-

emancipatory perspective. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral

research, 135-164.

Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2007). The envious mind. Cognition and emotion, 21(3), 449-

479.

Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies,

22(2), 133-154.

Mintzberg, H., & Waters, J. A. (1985). Of strategies, deliberate and emergent. Strategic

management journal, 6(3), 257-272.

Mobley, W. H., Horner, S. O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of

hospital employee turnover. Journal of applied psychology, 63(4), 408.

Mooi, E., & Sarstedt, M. (2011). Cluster analysis: Springer.

Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support

mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship

behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41(3), 351-357.

Moorman, R. H., Niehoff, B. P., & Organ, D. W. (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(3),

209-225.

Mowday, R. T. (1983). Beliefs about the causes of behavior: The motivational implications of

attribution processes. Motivation and work behavior, 3, 352-374.

Mowday, R. T. (1991). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. Motivation and

work behavior, 5, 111-131.

Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace: The neglect of organizational behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior.

Murphy, B. (1979). Assessing the value of financial control techniques to the smaller business.

Certified Accountant, 71(2), 93-95.

Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job

satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International

journal of hospitality management, 29(1), 33-41.

Nauta, A., Vianen, A., Heijden, B., Dam, K., & Willemsen, M. (2009). Understanding the factors

that promote employability orientation: the impact of employability culture, career

satisfaction, and role breadth self‐efficacy. Journal of occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 82(2), 233-251.

Neu, J. (1980). Jealous thoughts.

Neuman, W. L. (2009). Understanding research: Allyn & Bacon.

Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2009). Age, work experience, and the psychological contract.


Oldham, G. R., Kulik, C. T., Stepina, L. P., & Ambrose, M. L. (1986). Relations between

situational factors and the comparative referents used by employees. Academy of


Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. Research in

organizational behavior, 12(1), 43-72.

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel psychology, 48(4), 775-802.

Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1990). The cognitive structure of emotions: Cambridge

university press.


Paré, G., & Tremblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices,

procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information

technology professionals' turnover intentions. Group & Organization Management,

32(3), 326-357.

Parker, S. K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: the roles of job enrichment and other

organizational interventions. Journal of applied psychology, 83(6), 835.

Parrott, W. G. (1991). Experiences of envy and jealousy. The psychology of jealousy and envy,

3-30.

Parrott, W. G., & Smith, R. H. (1993). Distinguishing the experiences of envy and jealousy.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 906.

Paulsel, M. L., & Chory-Assad, R. M. (2005). Perceptions of Instructor Interactional Justice as a

Predictor of Student Resistance An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 2004

annual meeting of the Central States Communication Association, Cleveland, OH and

was named a Top Four Paper in the Communication Education Interest Group.

Communication Research Reports, 22(4), 283-291.

Pekrun, R., & Frese, M. (1992). Emotions in work and achievement. International review of

industrial and organizational psychology, 7, 153-200.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2005). Job stress, incivility, and counterproductive work

behavior (CWB): The moderating role of negative affectivity. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 26(7), 777-796.

Penney, L. M., & Spector, P. E. (2008). 11 Emotions and counterproductive work behavior.

Research companion to emotion in organizations, 183.

Peterson, C. (2000). The future of optimism. American psychologist, 55(1), 44.

Peterson, S. J., & Byron, K. (2008). Exploring the role of hope in job performance: Results from

four studies. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(6), 785-803.

Pinder, C. C., & Harlos, K. P. (2001). Employee silence: quiescence and acquiescence as

responses to perceived injustice. Research in personnel and human resources

management, 20, 331-370.

Pinder, P. J. (2008). The" Black Girl Turn" in Research on Gender and Science Education:

Toward Exploring and Understanding the Early Experiences of Black Females. A

Literature Review Paper. Online Submission.


Podsakoff, N. P., LePine, J. A., & LePine, M. A. (2007). Differential challenge stressor-

hindrance stressor relationships with job attitudes, turnover intentions, turnover, and

withdrawal behavior: a meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 92(2), 438.

Podsakoff, P. M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Impact of organizational citizenship behavior on

organizational performance: A review and suggestion for future research. Human

performance, 10(2), 133-151.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method

biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended

remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Ponterotto, J. G. (2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research

paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of counseling psychology, 52(2), 126.

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Assessing mediation in communication research. The

Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research, 13-54.

Raja, U., Johns, G., & Ntalianis, F. (2004). The impact of personality on psychological contracts.

Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 350-367.

Ramaswami, S. N., & Singh, J. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of merit pay fairness for

industrial salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 67(4), 46-66.

Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice (Cambridge. Mass.: Harvard University.

Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: a review of the

literature. Journal of applied psychology, 87(4), 698.

Robbins, S., Judge, T. A., Millett, B., & Boyle, M. (2013). Organisational behaviour: Pearson

Higher Education AU.

Robbins, S. P., Judge, T., & Education, P. (2003). Essentials of organizational behavior.

Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555-572.

Robinson, S. L., & Greenberg, J. (1998). Employees behaving badly: Dimensions, determinants

and dilemmas in the study of workplace deviance. Journal of Organizational Behavior

(1986-1998), 1.

Robson, C. (2002). Real world research: A resource for social scientists and practitioner-

researchers (Vol. 2): Blackwell Oxford.


Rosen, L. (1989). The anthropology of justice: Law as culture in Islamic society: Cambridge

University Press.

Rosen, L. (1990). The anthropology of justice: Cambridge Univ Press.

Ruane, F., & Ugur, A. (2005). Labour productivity and foreign direct investment in Irish

manufacturing industry: a decomposition analysis. Economic and Social Review, 36(1),

19-43.

Rupp, D. E., & Cropanzano, R. (2002). The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in

predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 925-946.

Ryan, A. (1993). Justice. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Salkind, N. J. (2000). Statistics for people who hate statistics: New Delhi: Sage.

Salovey, P. (1991a). The psychology of jealousy and envy: Guilford Press.

Salovey, P. (1991b). Social comparison processes in envy and jealousy.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1984). Some antecedents and consequences of social-comparison

jealousy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 780.

Salovey, P., & Rodin, J. (1991). Provoking jealousy and envy: Domain relevance and self-

esteem threat. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(4), 395-413.

Saunders, M. N., Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2011). Research methods for

business students, 5/e: Pearson Education India.

Schalin, L. J. (1979). On the problem of envy: Social, clinical and theoretical considerations. The

Scandinavian Psychoanalytic Review, 2(2), 133-158.

Schmitt, M., & Dörfel, M. (1999). Procedural injustice at work, justice sensitivity, job

satisfaction and psychosomatic well‐being. European Journal of Social Psychology,

29(4), 443-453.

Schneider, S. L. (2001). In search of realistic optimism: Meaning, knowledge, and warm

fuzziness. American psychologist, 56(3), 250.

Schoeck, H. (1969). Envy: Liberty Press.

Scott, B. A., Colquitt, J. A., & Paddock, E. L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule

adherence and violation: the role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of


Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business . Hoboken: NJ: John Wiley & Sons.


Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business: A skill building approach: John Wiley &

Sons.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research methods for business: A skill building approach.

Wiley: London.

Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction (Vol.

55): American Psychological Association.

Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations: What factors enhance their

perceived adequacy? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58(3),

346-368.

Shirom, A., Nirel, N., & Vinokur, A. D. (2006). Overload, autonomy, and burnout as predictors

of physicians' quality of care. Journal of occupational health psychology, 11(4), 328.

Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new

procedures and recommendations. Psychological methods, 7(4), 422.

Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with

linear, quadratic, and interaction effects. Organizational research methods, 13(3), 456-

476.

Simons, T., & Hinkin, T. (2001). The effect of employee turnover on hotel profits a test across

multiple hotels. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 65-69.

Skarlicki, D. P., Barclay, L. J., & Pugh, D. S. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not

enough: Employer's integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational

justice and retaliation. Journal of occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81(1),

123-146.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of applied psychology, 82(3), 434.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (2005). How can training be used to foster organizational

justice?

Smidts, A., Pruyn, A. T. H., & Van Riel, C. B. (2001). The impact of employee communication

and perceived external prestige on organizational identification. Academy of Management

Journal, 44(5), 1051-1062.


Smith, H. J., Tyler, T. R., Huo, Y. J., Ortiz, D. J., & Lind, E. A. (1998). The self-relevant

implications of the group-value model: Group membership, self-worth, and treatment

quality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34(5), 470-493.

Smith, R. H. (1991). Envy and the sense of injustice. The psychology of jealousy and envy, 79-

99.

Smith, R. H. (2000). Assimilative and contrastive emotional reactions to upward and downward

social comparisons Handbook of social comparison (pp. 173-200): Springer.

Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological bulletin, 133(1), 46.

Smith, R. H., Kim, S. H., & Parrott, W. G. (1988). Envy and jealousy semantic problems and

experiential distinctions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14(2), 401-409.

Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Diener, E. F., Hoyle, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (1999). Dispositional

envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(8), 1007-1020.

Smith, R. H., Parrott, W. G., Ozer, D., & Moniz, A. (1994). Subjective injustice and inferiority

as predictors of hostile and depressive feelings in envy. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 20(6), 705-711.

Snyder, C. R. (1994). Hope and optimism. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 2, 535-542.

Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here: Simon and Schuster.

Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling

and Development: JCD, 73(3), 355.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., . . .

Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-

differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 570.

Snyder, C. R., Lopez, S. J., & Pedrotti, J. T. (2010). Positive psychology: The scientific and

practical explorations of human strengths: Sage Publications.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L.

(1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 70(2), 321.

Sonis, J., Gibson, J. L., De Jong, J. T., Field, N. P., Hean, S., & Komproe, I. (2009). Probable

posttraumatic stress disorder and disability in Cambodia: associations with perceived

justice, desire for revenge, and attitudes toward the Khmer Rouge trials. JAMA, 302(5),

527-536.


Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). The Stressor-Emotion Model of Counterproductive Work

Behavior.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created

equal? Journal of vocational Behavior, 68(3), 446-460.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-

analysis. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 240.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998b). Social cognitive theory and self-efficacy: Goin beyond

traditional motivational and behavioral approaches. Organizational dynamics, 26(4), 62-

74.

Stewart, S. M., Bing, M. N., Davison, H. K., Woehr, D. J., & McIntyre, M. D. (2009). In the

eyes of the beholder: A non-self-report measure of workplace deviance. Journal of


Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers′ Evaluations of the" Ends" and the" Means":

An Examination of Four Models of Distributive and Procedural Justice. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55(1), 23-40.

Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2007). Multivariate analysis of variance and covariance. Using

multivariate statistics, 3, 402-407.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA:

Thomson/Brooks/Cole.

Tai, K., Narayanan, J., & McAllister, D. J. (2012). Envy as pain: Rethinking the nature of envy

and its implications for employees and organizations. Academy of Management Review,

37(1), 107-129.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social

psychology of intergroup relations, 33(47), 74.

Takahashi, H., Kato, M., Matsuura, M., Mobbs, D., Suhara, T., & Okubo, Y. (2009). When your

gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: neural correlates of envy and schadenfreude.

Science, 323(5916), 937-939.

Telly, C. S., French, W. L., & Scott, W. G. (1971). The relationship of inequity to turnover

among hourly workers. Administrative Science Quarterly, 164-172.


Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social

justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.

Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis: L. Erlbaum

Associates.

Tiger, L. (1979). Optimism: The biology of hope.

Treadway, D. C., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W., Perrewé, P., Witt, L., & Goodman, J. M. (2005).

The role of age in the perceptions of politics--job performance relationship: a three-study

constructive replication. Journal of applied psychology, 90(5), 872.

Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2002). Poetic justice or petty jealousy? The aesthetics of

revenge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89(1), 966-984.

Tripp, T. M., Bies, R. J., & Aquino, K. (2007). A vigilante model of justice: Revenge,

reconciliation, forgiveness, and avoidance. Social Justice Research, 20(1), 10-34.

Tsui, A. S., Nifadkar, S. S., & Ou, A. Y. (2007). Cross-national, cross-cultural organizational

behavior research: Advances, gaps, and recommendations. Journal of management,

33(3), 426-478.

Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in ingroup

favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9(2), 187-204.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity,

and behavioral engagement: Psychology Press.

Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social

identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and social psychology review, 7(4), 349-

361.

Van de Ven, N., Zeelenberg, M., & Pieters, R. (2009). Leveling up and down: the experiences of

benign and malicious envy. Emotion, 9(3), 419.

Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: the influence of uncertainty salience on

reactions to perceived procedural fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

80(6), 931.

Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: the role of affect as

information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social



Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness

judgments. Advances in experimental social psychology, 34, 1-60.

van den Bos, K., Maas, M., Waldring, I. E., & Semin, G. R. (2003). Toward understanding the

psychology of reactions to perceived fairness: The role of affect intensity. Social Justice

Research, 16(2), 151-168.

van Dijk, W. W., Ouwerkerk, J. W., Goslinga, S., Nieweg, M., & Gallucci, M. (2006). When

people fall from grace: reconsidering the role of envy in Schadenfreude. Emotion, 6(1),

156.

Van Scotter, J., Motowidlo, S. J., & Cross, T. C. (2000). Effects of task performance and

contextual performance on systemic rewards. Journal of applied psychology, 85(4), 526.

Vecchio, R. (2005). Explorations in employee envy: Feeling envious and feeling envied.

Cognition & Emotion, 19(1), 69-81.

Vigoda, E. (2000). Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: Exploration and

implications for the public sector. Journal of vocational Behavior, 57(3), 326-347.

Vigoda, E. (2002). Stress‐related aftermaths to workplace politics: the relationships among

politics, job distress, and aggressive behavior in organizations. Journal of Organizational

Behavior, 23(5), 571-591.

Walsh, G., Shiu, E., Hassan, L. M., Michaelidou, N., & Beatty, S. E. (2011). Emotions, store-

environmental cues, store-choice criteria, and marketing outcomes. Journal of Business

Research, 64(7), 737-744.

Weaver, G. R., & Conlon, D. E. (2003). Explaining facades of choice: Timing, justice effects,

and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2217-2243.

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of

the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. S. L. L.

Cummings (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical

essays and critical reviews, Vol. 18 (pp. 1-74). US: Elsevier Science/JAI Press.

Weiss, H. M., Suckow, K., & Cropanzano, R. (1999). Effects of justice conditions on discrete

emotions. Journal of applied psychology, 84(5), 786.

Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of management,

17(3), 601-617.


Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior

intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The journal of social psychology, 142(1),

33-44.

Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly come.


Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of


Yang, J.-T., Wan, C.-S., & Fu, Y.-J. (2012). Qualitative examination of employee turnover and

retention strategies in international tourist hotels in Taiwan. International journal of

hospitality management, 31(3), 837-848.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2005). Resiliency development of organizations, leaders and

employees: Multi-level theory building for sustained performance. Authentic leadership

theory and practice: Origins, effects and development, 3, 303-343.

Youssef, C. M., & Luthans, F. (2007). Positive organizational behavior in the workplace the

impact of hope, optimism, and resilience. Journal of management, 33(5), 774-800.

Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice,

interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108(1), 93-105.

Zechmeister, J. S., Shaughnessy, J. J., & Zechmeister, E. B. (2001). Essentials of research

methods in psychology: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths

about mediation analysis. Journal of consumer research, 37(2), 197-206.

Zohar, D. (1995). The justice perspective of job stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

16(5), 487-495.

146

APPENDIX A Self-rated questionnaire (Time 1)

Name: _________________

Respected Sir/Madam,

I am a doctoral research student at Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria. I would

like to invite you to participate and complete a survey which will take 20 – 30 minutes of

your time. The aim of this study is to examine the effects of perceived injustice on

employee’s job outcome. However, I am also looking to investigate the emotional mechanism

of this relationship along-with coping tool.

Your precious time and valuable participation will be a great contribution towards the

noble cause of knowledge creation. I ensure you that any information obtained in connection

with this study, will remain highly confidential. In any written report or publication, no one

will be identified and only aggregate data will be presented. Moreover, I am also bound by

the researching code of ethics to keep the data safe and report the aggregate results without

harming any individual’s reputation. Additional, it is also important to note that the

participation is voluntary and the participant can also leave at any time, if not feeling

comfortable.

147

Please tick/fill with the appropriate answer:

1. Gender:

2. Age in years: 18-24 25-31 32-38 39-45 46 & above

3. Job Nature: (You can tick more than one option)

Field work Office work Technical Staff Managerial

4. Tenure with current organization:

Less than 1 year 1-5 years -10 years -15 years & above

5. Total Experience: ____ (Years)

6. How many organizations you have worked in? ______________

7. Monthly Income: Below 25,000 ,000-40,000 1,000-50,000 ,000 and Above

8. Highest Qualification: SSC HSSC Graduation Master M.Phil/PhD

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement and

disagreement by ticking the appropriate box.

These items refer to the benefits / rewards your organization provides for your efforts at work (e.g.

pay, promotion, time-off etc). The words outcomes used below refer to your pay, promotion, time-off

etc.

Questions Strongly

Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly

Agree

1 These outcomes reflect the effort I

have put into my work.

2 These outcomes appropriate for the

work I do.

3 These outcomes reflect what I have

contributed to the organization.

4 These outcomes are justified, given

my performance.

The following items refer to the procedures or processes which are used by the managers /

management to decide the benefits / rewards provided to you. (your performance appraisal

procedures).

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

5 I have expressed my views and

feelings during those procedures.

148

6 I had the influence over the outcomes

arrived at by those procedures.

7 Those procedures been applied

consistently.

8 Those procedures have been free of

bias.

9 Those procedures have been based on

accurate information.

10 I have been able to appeal the

outcome arrived at by those

procedures.

11 Those procedures confirm ethical and

moral standards.

The following items refer to your Manager / Regional or Area Manager who has a determining /

deciding role in the benefits / rewards which organization offers to you.

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

12 He treated me in a polite manner.

13 He treated me with dignity.

14 He treated me with respect.

15 He refrained from improper remarks

or comments?

***explanation***

(he avoids to give improper remarks

or comments)

The following items refer to your Manager / Regional or Area Manager who has a determining /

deciding role in the benefits / rewards which organization offers to you.

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

16 He has been candid/frank in his

communications with me.

17 He explained the procedures

thoroughly.

18 Were his explanations regarding the

procedures reasonable?

19 He communicated details in a timely

manner.

20 He seemed to tailor his

communications to individuals'

specific needs?

149


disagreement by ticking the appropriate number.

Strongly

disagree disagree

Somewhat

disagree

Somewhat

agree Agree

Strongly

agree

1 2 3 4 5 6

Please tick for each question, extend to which, you disagree or agree with the following

statements:

21 I feel confident analyzing a long-term problem to find a solution 1 2 3 4 5 6

22 I feel confident in representing my work area in meetings with management. 1 2 3 4 5 6

23 I feel confident contributing to discussions about the organization’s strategy 1 2 3 4 5 6

24 I feel confident helping to set targets/goals in my work area 1 2 3 4 5 6

25 I feel confident contacting people outside the organization (e.g., suppliers, customers)

to discuss problems. 1 2 3 4 5 6

26 I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 6

27 If I should find myself in a jam at work, I could think of many ways to get out of it. 1 2 3 4 5 6

28 At the present time, I am energetically pursuing my work goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

29 There are lots of ways around any problem. 1 2 3 4 5 6

30 Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

31 I can think of many ways to reach my current work goals. 1 2 3 4 5 6

32 At this time, I am meeting the work goals that I have set for myself. 1 2 3 4 5 6

33 When I have a setback at work, I have trouble recovering from it, moving on. 1 2 3 4 5 6

34 I usually manage difficulties one way or another at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

35 I can be “on my own,” so to speak, at work if I have to. 1 2 3 4 5 6

36 I usually take stressful things at work in stride. 1 2 3 4 5 6

37 I can get through difficult times at work because I’ve experienced difficulty before. 1 2 3 4 5 6

38 I feel I can handle many things at a time at this job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

39 When things are uncertain for me at work, I usually expect the best. 1 2 3 4 5 6

150

40 If something can go wrong for me work-wise, it will. 1 2 3 4 5 6

41 I always look on the bright side of things regarding my job. 1 2 3 4 5 6

42 I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work. 1 2 3 4 5 6

43 In this job, things never work out the way I want them to. 1 2 3 4 5 6

44 I approach this job as if “every cloud has a silver lining.” 1 2 3 4 5 6

“Thank you for giving your precious time to contribute towards noble cause of knowledge creation

by filling this questionnaire.”

151

APPENDIX B Self-rated questionnaire (Time 2)

Name: _________________


I would like to invite you again to participate and complete a survey which is the

continuity of the same previous questionnaire. I would like to remind you that the aim of this

study is to examine the effects of perceived injustice on employee’s job outcome. However, I

am also looking to investigate the emotional mechanism of this relationship along-with

coping tool.

While thanking you for your participation in last survey, I would again like to pass my

gratitude for your precious time and valuable participation. Please place this questionnaire

after filling in the box placed in your branch for this purpose.

Please read the instructions below and tick for each question, extend to which, you disagree or agree.

Compare yourself to a fellow employee at your same level (i.e. not with your supervisor and

subordinate) with whom you consistently compare yourself. Please choose the fellow employee who

is perceived by you as more successful than yourself at gaining things that you strive for and that are

very important to your self-worth.

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

1 I lack some of the things that my

fellow employee\colleague has.

2 I feel bitter.

3 I feel envious.

4 I have a grudge (resentment,

bitterness) against

my fellow employee\colleague.

5 I want to have what my fellow

employee\colleague has.

6 My fellow employee\colleague has

things going for him/her better than I

do.

7 I feel gall (irritated, annoyed).

152

8 I feel some hatred toward my fellow

employee\colleague.

9 I feel rancor (resentment, ill will)

toward my fellow employee\colleague.

Please tick for each question, extend to which, you disagree or agree with the following statements:

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

10 I feel envy every day.

11 The bitter truth is that I generally

feel inferior to others.

12 Feelings of envy constantly torment

me.

13 It is so frustrating to see some

people succeed so

easily.

14 No matter what I do, envy always

plagues me.

15 I am troubled by feelings of

inadequacy

16 It somehow doesn’t seem fair that

some people seem to have all the

talent.

17 Frankly, the success of my

neighbors makes me

resent them.

Please tick for each question, extend to which, you disagree or agree with the following statements:

Questions Strongly

Disagree


Agree

18 I often think about quitting this job.

19 Next year I will probably look for a

new job outside this organization.

20 Lately, I have taken interest in job

offers in the newspaper

153


disagreement by ticking the appropriate number on the scale.

Never Once a year Twice a

year

Several

times a year Monthly Weekly Daily

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Please tick for each item, extend to which, you involve in the following:

21 Taken property from work without permission.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

22 Spent too much time fantasizing or daydreaming instead working 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

23 Falsified a receipt to get reimbursed for more money than you spent on business

expenses. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

24 Taken an additional or a longer break than is acceptable your workplace.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

25 Come in late to work without permission.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

26 Littered your work environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

27 Neglected to follow your boss's instructions.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

28 Intentionally worked slower than you could have worked. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

29 Discussed confidential company information with an unauthorized person.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

30 Used an illegal drug or consumed alcohol on the job. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

31 Put little effort into your work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

32 Dragged out work in order to get overtime. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

33 Made fun of someone at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

34 Said something hurtful to someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35 Made an ethnic, religious, or racial remark or joke at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

36 Cursed at someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 Played a mean prank on someone at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

38 Acted rudely toward someone at work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

39 Publicly embarrassed someone at work.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

“Thank you for giving your precious”

154

APPENDIX C Supervisory-rated questionnaire (Time 2)

Name: _________________


I am a doctoral research student at Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria. I would like to invite

you to participate and complete a survey which is about the performance of your subordinates. The aim of

this study is to examine the effects of perceived injustice on employee’s job outcome. However, I am also

looking to investigate the emotional mechanism of this relationship along-with coping tool.

Your precious time and valuable participation will be a great contribution towards the noble cause

of knowledge creation. I ensure you that any information obtained in connection with this study, will

remain highly confidential. In any written report or publication, no one will be identified and only

aggregate data will be presented. Moreover, I am also bound by the researching code of ethics to keep the

data safe and report the aggregate results without harming any individual’s reputation. Additional, it is also

important to note that the participation is voluntary and the participant can also leave at any time, if not

feeling comfortable.

Please answer the following questions by recalling the performance of your subordinate (the name

of the subordinate mentioned above). The following scale will help you to rate his performance.

(1) None (2) Rarely (3) Sometimes (4) More Often/Mostly (5) A Lot Scale

This person………

1. Adequately completes assigned duties. 1 2 3 4 5

2. Fulfills responsibilities specified in job description. 1 2 3 4 5

3. Performs task that are expected of him/her. 1 2 3 4 5

4. Meets formal performance requirements of the job. 1 2 3 4 5

5. Engages in activities that will directly affect his/her performance evaluation. 1 2 3 4 5

6. Neglects aspects of the job he/she is obligated to perform. 1 2 3 4 5

7. Fails to perform essential duties. 1 2 3 4 5

8. Helps others who have been absent. 1 2 3 4 5

9. Helps others who have workloads. 1 2 3 4 5

10. Assists supervisor with his/her work (when not asked). 1 2 3 4 5

11. Takes time to listen to co-workers’ problems and worries. 1 2 3 4 5

155

12. Goes out of way to help new employees. 1 2 3 4 5

13. Takes a personal interest in other employees. 1 2 3 4 5

14. Passes along information to co-workers. 1 2 3 4 5

15. Attendance at work is above the norm. 1 2 3 4 5

16. Gives advance notice when unable to come to work. 1 2 3 4 5

17. Takes undeserved work breaks. 1 2 3 4 5

18. Great deal of time spent with personal phone conversation. 1 2 3 4 5

19. Complains about insignificant things at work. 1 2 3 4 5

20. Conserves and protects organizational property. 1 2 3 4 5

21. Adheres to informal rules devised to maintain order. 1 2 3 4 5

“Thank you for giving your precious time to fill this questionnaire.”

i

Curriculum Vitae

Muhammad Umer Azeem

Address: Garnisonstrasse 15 /Wist Haus/ 1.ST 45, Linz. Austria.

Phone: +43 681 81186163

Email: [email protected]

Profile

Mr. Muhammad Umer Azeem is currently pursuing his Doctoral in

Business Management from Johannes Kepler University of Linz,

Austria. He is an active research oriented professional with more than

six years of teaching and research experience. His main field of

research interest includes Justice in organizations, emotions, workplace

harassment, workplace ostracism, Psychological capital, Psychological

contracts, and Islamic work ethics. Being member of world high ranked

societies like Academy of Management, he is actively functioning in

different roles as peer reviewing in Academy of Management meeting,

chairing sessions in AOM annual meetings, and peer reviewing for

reputed journals and conferences.

Objective

Being an enthusiastic and professional academician, who enjoys being part of a successful and

productive team; it has been my earnest desire to have productive research oriented work

opportunity in an esteemed research oriented institution. This, off course, will give me growth

and opportunity to learn the dynamics of education industry. I am quick to grasp new ideas and

concepts, and to develop innovative and creative solutions to problems. I am also able to work

with diverse team as I had experience of working in multiple cultures throughout my academic

career. Moreover, I am also good in taking initiative and can demonstrate the highest levels of

motivation required to meet the tight deadlines. Even under significant pressure, I possess

excellent ability to perform teaching and research together.

ii

Personal Information

Date of Birth: May 8, 1986

Marital Status: Married (No Children)

Citizenship: Pakistani

Current Residence: Austria

Education

2016 Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.

Dr.in rer.soc.oec. (Continue)

Dissertation: Perceived Injustice Affecting Job Outcomes through Mediating

Mechanism of Episodic Envy: Moderating Role of Psychological

Capital.

2010 The University of Faisalabad, Pakistan.

MS/M.Phil. (Management). with distinction.

2007 The University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan.

Master’s in Business and Information Technology.

Professional Experience

September 2010 to March 2013 Worked in University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan as permanent faculty member

(Lecturer) in Department of Management Sciences.

Bachelor’s & Master’s level courses, (Teaching language: English)

March 2008 – September 2010

Worked with Superior University, Pakistan as adjunct faculty member in department of

Business studies.

Master’s level courses, (Teaching language: English)

Teaching (at a glance)

More than seven years of teaching experience on Bachelor, Master, MBA, Executive MBA

(EMBA), and MS/M.Phil, primarily in the fields of Organization Behavior, Master’s course in

Management, Leadership, International Management, Strategic Management, Conflict and

Negotiation Management, and Quantitative Methods in Business Research. I prefer experience-

based teaching, i.e. an intensive integration of practical experience and theory in order to enable

sustainable learning. This teaching method helps to ensure that students have enough

understanding of theoretical business concepts and its real world implications.

iii

Invited Seminars and Conference Presentations

1. Azeem, M. U., Lehner, J. M., & Haq, I. (2015). Interpersonal Mistreatment to

Interpersonal Deviance: Victim’s Reaction Against Instigator. Presented at 75th

Annual

Academy of Management Meeting (AOM) Proceedings, 2015(1). British Columbia,

Canada. doi: 10.5465/AMBPP.2015.15174.

2. Azeem, M.U. (2015). “Direct and Indirect impact of work family and family work

conflict on Job performance”. Paper presented at 16th International Research Conference

on Business, Economic and Social Sciences held in Singapore on October 25-26, 2015.

3. Lehner, J. M., Azeem, M. U., Haq, I., & Sharif, I. (2014). Moderating role of PsyCap in

relationship of psychological contracts, breach and job-outcomes. Paper presented at the

74th

Annual Academy of Management Meeting (AOM) Proceedings, (2014).

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA.

4. Azeem, M.U. (2014). “Psychological Contract Breach and Work Place Deviance:

Moderating Role Of Relational Contract. Paper presented at International Research

Conference on Business, Economic and Social Sciences held in Dubai on December 29-

30, 2014.

5. Workshop on Business research, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. October 2014 (invited talk).

6. Azeem, M.U. (2013). “Perceived Politics and Job Outcomes: Moderating Effect of

Personality Types; Mach, Narcissism, Equity Sensitivity and Core-Self Evaluation”

European conference on Social Science Research”. Istanbul, Turkey.

7. Azeem, M.U. (2011). “Comparison of workplace Aggression and sexual harassment:

Attribution in eastern context” Annual Paris conference on “Money, Economy and

Management”. Paris. France.

8. Haq, I.U., & Azeem, M.U. (2011). “The Impact of Interpersonal Conflict on Job

Outcomes: Mediating Role of Perception of Organizational Politics”. Annual conference

of the institute of Behavioral and applied Management, Orlando, Florida. Canada.

Selected Research Publications

1. Azeem. M. U. (2016) “Emotional mechanism of Perceived injustice and job outcomes”

Journal of Organizational Behavior (Under review).

2. Azeem. M. U. (2013) “Perceived politics and job outcomes: Moderating effect of

personality types”. European Journal of Research on Education, Vol. 1(Special Issue

2).

3. Haq U. I., Jam A, F., Azeem, M. U., Ali. A. Fatim. T., (2011) “Psychological contract

and job outcome: Mediating Role of Affective Commitment”. African Journal of

Business Management, Vol. 5(19). 7972-7979,

iv

4. Azeem, M.U., Mahmood, B. Haq, I. U., Sharif, I., Qurashi.T. M., Hijazi, S T., (2010).

"Perception of organizational politics leads to job stress: An Evidence from Banking

Sector of Pakistan" European Journal of social sciences, Volume 18, Number 2 (2010)

5. Haq, I, Ali. A, Azeem. M.U., Hijazi, S.T., Qurashi, T. M., Qayyum, A. (2010).

"Mediating role of employee engagement in creative work process on the relationship of

transformational leadership and employee creativity". European Journal of Economics,

Finance and Administrative Sciences, Issue 25 (2010).

6. Ali. A, Ahmad-ur-rehman. M, Haq. I.U, Jam. F.A, Ghafoor. M.B, Azeem. M.U., (2010).

"Perceived Organizational Support and Psychological Empowerment". European

Journal of Social Sciences, Volume 17, Number 2 (2010).

7. Ali, A. Haq, I.U., Ramay, I. M. Azeem, M.U. (2010). “The Impact of Psychological

Contract on Affective Commitment” Interdisciplinary journal of contemporary

research in business Issue (11) Vol .2, No. 7-16

Working Papers

1. Azeem. M. U. (2016) “Impact of Learning and Performance Goal Orientation on

Employee’s Individual Creativity and Organizational Innovation”. (Working

Paper).

2. Azeem. M. U. (2016) “Interactive effects of organizational justice and political skills on

leader member exchange relationship”. (Working Paper).

Research Affiliations and Conferences organizing experiences

1. As Conference organizer, organized 1st International Conference on Contemporary

Issues in Business Management, (1st ICIBM-2011), dated June 13

th-14

th,2011 at

University of Central Punjab, Lahore as an additional responsibility. In this conference

144 papers were received from 13 countries, while 66 were accepted and presented.

2. As Session Chair-Academy of Management, evaluated and organized presentation of

five papers covering different topic Managerial and Organizational Cognition in AOM

Annual Meeting 2014.

3. As Scientific reviewer, associated with Academy of Management (AOM) meetings since

2010 for reviewing and evaluating the research papers in divisions of organizational

behavior and Managerial and Organizational Cognition.

4. As Journal Reviewer for International journal of Business and Management, reviewing

and evaluating scientific work submitted to journal across world.

http://aom.org/Divisions-and-Interest-Groups/Managerial-and-Organizational-Cognition/Managerial-and-Organizational-Cognition.aspx

http://aom.org/Divisions-and-Interest-Groups/Managerial-and-Organizational-Cognition/Managerial-and-Organizational-Cognition.aspx

v

Professional Membership

1. Academy of Management (AoM)

2. European Group for Organizational Studies (EGOS)

3. Strategic Management Society (SMS)

4. European Academy of Management (EURAM)

References

Prof. Dr. Johannes M. Lehner

Institute of Organization and Global Management

Johannes Kepler University Linz, Austria.


Prof. Dr. Usman Raja

Faculty of Business, Brock University

Ontario. Canada.


Prof. Dr. Inam ul haq

Head of Department. Faculty of Management Sciences

Ripha International University, Lahore Campus. Pakistan.


May 30, 2016.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

perceived injustice affecting job outcomes through mediating ...

Documents

Transcript of perceived injustice affecting job outcomes through mediating ...