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
Table 16 Moderation Analysis of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of
Procedural Injustice and Job Outcome ………………………………….…….………………….91
Table 17 Moderation Analysis of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of
Interpersonal Injustice and Job Outcome…...…………………………………………………….95
Table 18 Moderation Analysis of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of
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
2 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
3 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
4 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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,
5 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
6 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.,
7 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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,
8 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
9 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
10 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
11 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
12 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
13 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
14 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
15 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
16 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
17 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
18 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
19 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
20 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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;
21 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
22 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
23 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
(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.
24 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
25 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
(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.
26 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
27 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
28 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
29 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
30 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
31 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
32 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
33 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
34 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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:
H8: Episodic envy will mediate the relationship between perceived injustice (distributive,
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 &
35 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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:
H9: Episodic envy will mediate the relationship between perceived injustice (distributive,
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
36 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
37 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
38 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
39 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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-
40 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
41 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
42 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
43 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
44 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
45 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
46 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
47 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
48 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
49 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
50 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
51 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
52 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
53 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
(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
54 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
55 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
56 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
57 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
58 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
59 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
60 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
factor loading Composite
reliability Average
variance extract
61 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
“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
factor loading Composite
reliability Average
variance extract
62 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
63 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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)
64 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
65 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
66 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
67 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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 .01 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***
68 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
69 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 7: Main effects of procedural injustice on job outcome
N = 447. “Gender, age, and experience used as control variables
*** significant at the .001 level (2-tailed),
** significant at the .01 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 0.15**
-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**
70 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
71 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 8: Main effects of interpersonal injustice on job outcome
N = 447. “Gender, age, and experience used as control variables
*** significant at the .001 level (2-tailed),
** significant at the .01 level (2-tailed),
* significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), † p”
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**
72 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
73 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 9: Main effects of informational injustice on job outcome
N = 447. “Gender, age, and experience used as control variables
*** significant at the .001 level (2-tailed),
** significant at the .01 level (2-tailed),
* significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), † p”
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**
74 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
75 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 10: Multiple regression analysis of all types of perceived injustice on job outcome
N = 447. “Gender, age, and experience used as control variables
*** significant at the .001 level (2-tailed),
** significant at the .01 level (2-tailed),
* significant at the .05 level (2-tailed), † p”
*! 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***
76 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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,
77 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.,
78 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
79 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Indirect effect .08 .03 .02 .15 .04
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
Indirect effect .05 .01 .01 .08 .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)
80 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
81 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Effect SE L.C.L U.C.L
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
Note. N= 447. Bootstrap sample size 5,000. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. LCL = lower
Confidence Limit UCL= upper Confidence limit.
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
82 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
83 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 13: Mediation Analysis for Perceived Injustice and OCB
Effect SE L.C.L U.C.L
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
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 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
84 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Effect SE L.C.L U.C.L
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
Indirect effect .25 .06 .12 .44 .00
Interpersonal Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions
Total effect .15 .05 .05 .26 .00
Direct effect .05 .05 -.05 .17 .31
Indirect effect .10 .03 .04 .15 .00
Informational Injustice → Episodic Envy → Turnover Intentions
Total effect .11 .04 .02 .20 .01
Direct effect .04 .04 -.05 .13 .38
Indirect effect .07 .01 .03 .11 .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 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
85 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
86 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
87 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
88 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
89 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
90 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
91 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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 1 = Episodic envy * Psychological capital
Interaction 2 = Procedural injustice * Psychological capital
92 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
93 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
94 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
95 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 17: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Interpersonal Injustice and Job Outcome
Variables
Interpersonal deviance Job performance Turnover intentions
β LCL UCL p value β LCL UCL p value Β LCL UCL p value
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 1 = Episodic envy * Psychological capital
Interaction 2 = Interpersonal injustice * Psychological capital
96 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
97 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Table 18: Moderation of Psychological Capital on Direct and Indirect Effect of Informational Injustice and Job Outcome
Variables
Interpersonal deviance Job performance Turnover intentions
β LCL UCL p value β LCL UCL p value Β LCL UCL p value
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 1 = Episodic envy * Psychological capital
Interaction 2 = Informational injustice * Psychological capital
98 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
99 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
100 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
101 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
102 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
103 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
104 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
105 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
106 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
107 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
108 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
109 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
110 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
111 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
112 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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).
113 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
114 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
115 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
116 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
117 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
when it triggers the negative emotions. However, people with high psychological composite
resource have that ability to cope with such unjust situations better.
118 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
119 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
120 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
121 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
122 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
123 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate
interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of applied
psychology, 92(3), 666.
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.
124 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
applied psychology, 88(1), 160.
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.
125 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
126 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Psychology, 52(6), 1148.
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.
127 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
128 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
129 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
applied psychology, 92(1), 228.
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
Psychology, 101(4), 653.
Hobfoll, S. E. (2002). Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of general
psychology, 6(4), 307.
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.
130 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Organizational Behavior, 32(5), 726-750.
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
psychology, 86(3), 401.
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.
131 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
132 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
133 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Organizational Behavior, 23(6), 695-706.
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.
134 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
135 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
136 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1053-1075.
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
Management Journal, 29(3), 599-608.
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.
137 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
138 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
139 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
applied psychology, 94(3), 756.
Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business . Hoboken: NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
140 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
141 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
142 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
applied psychology, 94(1), 207.
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.
143 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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
Psychology, 85(3), 482.
144 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
145 May 30, 2016 Muhammad Umer Azeem
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.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(4), 437-442.
Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. (1995). Job scope and stress: Can job scope be too high? Academy of
Management Journal, 38(5), 1288-1309.
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement and
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: _________________
Respected Sir/Madam,
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly
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
For each item of the statements below, please indicate the extent of your agreement and
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: _________________
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 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.
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.
Email: [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Usman Raja
Faculty of Business, Brock University
Ontario. Canada.
Email: [email protected]
Prof. Dr. Inam ul haq
Head of Department. Faculty of Management Sciences
Ripha International University, Lahore Campus. Pakistan.
Email: [email protected]
May 30, 2016.
Top Related