Library Management

Impact of organizational justice on job performance in libraries: Mediating role of

leader-member exchange relationship
Sidra Shan Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq Maqsood Ahmad Shaheen
Article information:
To cite this document:
Sidra Shan Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq Maqsood Ahmad Shaheen , (2015),"Impact of organizational
justice on job performance in libraries", Library Management, Vol. 36 Iss 1/2 pp. 70 - 85
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-01-2014-0003
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Downloaded on: 02 September 2016, At: 21:12 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 61 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1127 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
(2015),"Skills and knowledge needs assessment of current and future library professionals in
the state of Qatar", Library Management, Vol. 36 Iss 1/2 pp. 86-98 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/
LM-10-2014-0120
(2015),"Service quality of library front desk staff in medical colleges of Lahore", Library Management,
Vol. 36 Iss 1/2 pp. 12-22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-05-2014-0056
(2015),"Knowledge management for service innovation in academic libraries: a qualitative study",
Library Management, Vol. 36 Iss 1/2 pp. 40-57 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LM-08-2014-0098

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:394461 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


LM
36,1/2
70
Received 9 January 2014
Revised 11 July 2014
Accepted 17 August 2014
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)
Library Management
Vol. 36 No. 1/2, 2015
pp. 70-85
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-5124
DOI 10.1108/LM-01-2014-0003
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm
Impact of organizational justice
on job performance in libraries
Mediating role of leader-member
exchange relationship
Sidra Shan
International Islamic University, Islamabad, Pakistan
Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq
Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology,
Islamabad, Pakistan, and
Maqsood Ahmad Shaheen
U.S. Embassy, Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating role of leader-member exchange in
the relationship between organizational justice and job performance. The study primarily focused
on the perception of university libraries personnel regarding organizational justice practices and the quality
of their relationship with their supervisors and how such perceptions predict their job performance.
Design/methodology/approach – This study tested a sample of 15 university libraries of Islamabad,
Pakistan. Data were accumulated through questionnaire and analyzed on SPSS. Descriptive and
correlation analysis showed the positive and significant relationship between all variables. Series of
separate hierarchical regression analysis were used to test the hypothesis.
Findings – The result revealed that all three kinds of organizational justices (distributive justice,
procedural justice and interactional justice) predict the job performance but interactional justice along
with leader-member exchange impacts more strongly on job performance.
Research limitations/implications – The result of this study will assist the library leadership to
foster a greater sense of employee worth and teamwork among staff members by implementing
organizational justice practices. The study would also enhance the interest of Pakistani Library
Information Science professionals and researchers toward behavioral aspects of library administration.
Limitation: The results of this study may not be generalized to all universities and other industries of
Pakistan as data is collected only from 15 universities of Pakistan. Second, interpretations of results are
limited by the cross-sectional design of study and does not allow casual conclusion.
Originality/value – According to researcher knowledge very few studies have been conducted on the
management side of libraries in Pakistan. This paper is the first study in Pakistan Librarianship that
examines the linkage between organizational justice, leader-member exchange and job performance.
Keywords Libraries, Interactional justice, Distributive justice, Job performance,
Leader-member exchange, Procedural justice
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Due to the political instability, economic downfall, advancement in technology, high
rate of unemployment and increasing insecurities in Pakistan, library personnel are
more concerned about receiving fair treatment from their organization and leadership.
Almost every university has their library or resource center to serve their researchers.
In universities library professionals and paraprofessional staff have close tendency to
compare their status and practicing power with employees of other fields. In the
process of comparing, perceive imbalance in input to output ratio may develop feelings
 of unjust among employees. The equity and social exchange theory also suggest that Organizational
employees consider their workplace as social market-place where they are interested to justice on job
obtain favorable return on their investment (Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson et al.,
2000; Mowday and Colwell, 2003). If employees have fair judgment regarding treatment
performance
from leadership, their satisfaction toward employer and job will increase. At the same in libraries
time, to remain competitive and up to the mark library leadership needs to be more
diverse, proactive and adaptive in response to continuous change in internal and 71
external environment (Green et al., 2000; Kieserman, 2008). Leadership theories also
suggest that leader’s behavior and qualities like integrity, interpersonal skills and
emotional intelligence are important aspects of effective leadership. As leaders directly
influence subordinates to achieve organizational goals, it is important to have both
parties in good working relationship.
Universities are playing a vital role in creating research competitiveness for nations
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

by valuing basic research and producing academic papers (Kim and Lee, 2011). At the
same time universities are also competing with each other on the basis of research
production. This competiveness has increased pressure on library professionals to be
updated in terms of skill development for providing relevant services to its clientele
(O’Connor, 2013). While working in such a demanding workplace, library personnel
seem relatively more concerned about job security, career growth opportunities and the
quality relationship with colleagues and supervisors. In these circumstances uncertainties
may decrease or increase the counterproductive work behavior and interpersonal
deviance in libraries. Ameen (2006) discussed the interactional justice and internal
equity in the context of Pakistani library professionals. She stated that library
professionals are not getting same respect, power and authority when compared to
other professionals on the same hierarchical level within same organization. She also
suggested employers to improve rewards (distributive justice) and respect
(interactional justice) for innovative librarians. To avoid these uncertainties fair
treatment in terms of reward distribution, transparency in reward distribution process
and fair leadership can contribute positively.
Although librarians take part in designing work outcomes and their process of
distribution in the organization however they seem to be more directly involved in the
implementation of processes and policies in the library. During the implementation of
organizational policies and processes, interaction of leadership with their employees is
considered vital to increase the work performance (Cropanzano et al., 2002).
A primary contribution of this research would be to test a sample of academic libraries
to identify the relationship between organizational justice and job performance by
mediating the role of leader-member exchange relationship. According to researcher’s
knowledge few studies have been conducted on organizational justice and leader-member
exchange relationship in context of academic libraries. This study would enhance the
interest of researchers toward behavioral aspects of library administration. The study
would also contribute in academia as the results will present insight of libraries’
leadership. The result may further help academician to include relevant content
(i.e. organizational behavior, leadership) in library and information science syllabus.
It has been observed that most LIS programs offer leadership studies under Libraries
Management courses whereas considering its emerging importance toward professional
development training and education it should be included as a separate subject (Chu, 2010;
Hicks and Given, 2013). The research will also help the library leaders and university
management to adopt processes that contribute in making leadership more interactive
and participative.
 LM Literature review
36,1/2 Organizational justice has been regarded beneficial for organization, society and
individuals (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Especially in case of developing countries
where many social, political and economic challenges prevail, injustice can accelerate
the happening of unfortunate event in the work place. Suliman and Kathairi (2013) also
discussed the organizational justice as a least understood and underutilized concept in
72 creating organizational effectiveness in the developing countries and stressed to
explore this soft side of organization as well. Greenberg (1987) defined organizational
justice as the members’ view of being treated fairly in the organization. Greenberg
(1990) also described it as having “grown around attempts to describe and explain the
role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace” (p. 400). Cropanzano et al. (2007)
discussed the organizational justice as glue and that enable employees to work together
while injustice as corrosive solvent that split up the bonds of community.
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Organizational justice comprises of three further concepts; distributive justice,

procedural justice and interactional justice. Distributive justice (Homans, 1961) related
with the equity theory which means employees compare their input ratio with the
output ratio and if there is any discrepancy they feel unjust. Employees work on
different capacities and there level of performance can also differ (Cropanzano, 2007).
Employees may differ in their outcomes and needs, as some employees may perform
very high with different needs while some have moderate level of performance with
different needs. The implication of distributive justice is of making sure that all
employees have received their “just share” based on their contribution. It also deals
with equal treatment of compensation packages and providing benefits based on
individual requirements of employees. In libraries the issue of low wages is as old as
library profession itself. Kont and Jantson (2013) also stated in their study that
Estonian university libraries are facing the problem of lower distributional rewards
(money) toward their knowledge, skills and responsibility. Library staff members
showed great concern in the study that if they are paid more justifiably their inclination
toward working will be high.
Procedural justice concerns with fairness of the process involved in the allocation of
outcomes (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Burton et al., 2008; Leventhal, 1980). It also
contract with fair treatment of all employees without any biasness. Research has
shown that fair process leads to construct voluntary cooperation in strategy execution
and is fundamental in sustaining the institution legitimacy while lessening the negative
effect of unfavorable outcomes in the organization (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Research
has proven strong relationship between distributive and procedural justice as former
one impact the later one (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Tyler (1990) also discussed that
employees may perceive distributive injustice while considering process to be fair or
vice versa. Rubin (1989) discussed that adequate pay and fair hiring procedure lead to
low turnover rates in libraries.
Third, interactional justice was commenced by Bies and Moag (1986) that contract with
fairness of treatment during the social exchange process (Cropanzano and Greenberg,
1997). It concerns with appropriateness of information sharing and avoiding offensive
remarks. Colquitt et al. (2001) and Greenberg (1993) have discussed interactional justice
under the categorization of interpersonal justice and informational justice. Informational
justice is related to sharing relevant and proper information with employee while
interpersonal justice is concerned with the treatment of employees with respect, dignity
and courtesy (Cropanzano et al., 2007). When leaders provide adequate, honest and
truthful justification for their decisions, it is considered to be informational fairness.
 However when leaders treat their employees with dignity and respect, it is more likely Organizational
considered as interactional fairness. Research has shown that interactional justice justice on job
is positively related to leader-member exchange, commitment to the supervisors
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001) and job outcome (Masterson et al., 2000).
performance
All the three types of organizational justice are indispensable components of in libraries
maintaining the justice in the organization and the bad impact of injustice can be
lessened if efforts are made to maintain one type of justice, particularly interactional 73
justice. As Goldman (2003) and Cropanzano et al. (2007) have discussed that if
interactional justice is high in an organization, the harmful effect of procedural and
distributive justice can be decreased.
Informational and interactional justice is concerned with the quality of communication
between leaders and employees. It also depends on the discretion shown toward
employees by their leaders (Folger, 2001). Cheung (2013) stated the case of Chinese
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

employees who mostly depend on the quality of relationship and fair informational and
interpersonal treatment from their leaders rather than fair distribution of rewards.
He further explained that if Chinese employees are provided access to sensitive
information and are involved in development of fair interpersonal relationship with
their leaders, the negatives effects of fewer rewards may be reduced. Scott et al. (2007)
also stated the importance of informational and interactional justice because both are
involved in more frequent activities as compared to procedural and distributive justice.
Previous research has shown a positive relation among organizational justice and
employee’s satisfaction, loyalty, job performance, commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior and organization support (Cropanzano, 2007; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013)
while being negative related to employee theft, work place sabotage (Greenberg (1993);
Ambrose et al., 2002). It is also proved in literature that unfair treatment in organization
is harmful to loyal and committed workers even though they are not directly victimized
(Brockner et al., 1992; Cropanzano, 2007).
Organizational justice have been studied in the context of job performance
(Masterson et al., 2000; Cropanzano and Prehar, 1999) and it is proved that when
employees are underpaid, they start decreasing their level of performance to lower
down the input whereas when they are overpaid they start working more to enhance
their input (Adams and Freedman, 1976; Greenberg, 1982). Cohen-Charash and Spectro
(2001) stated in their meta-analysis of organizational justice and job performance that
procedural justice is the best predictor of performance as compare to distributive
justice. Sinh et al. (2011) also discussed that library personnel get actively involved in
library development when their managers make clear about benefits and responsibilities
of working in that organization. Odunlade (2012) stated that academic librarians in
Nigeria are not being given equal benefits and compensation packages compared to
academic staff. The study further concluded that unfairness in distribution of rewards
adversely impact job performance of librarians.
Leader-member exchange (LMX) concerns with quality of the leader subordinate
relationship and include the factors such as respect, affect, contribution and loyalty
(Liden and Maslyn, 1998). Colquitt et al. (2001) said that any supervisor-originated
fairness in the organization leads to increase the level of LXM. Meta analysis of
Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) and research of Scandura (1999) also support the
view that justice is essential for building mutually supportive LMX. Rupp and
Cropanzano (2002) discussed that instead of building only short term economic exchange
relationship at work, employees must also involve in social exchange relationship which
are long term and intangible.
 LM Wang et al. (2010) stated the effective mediating relationship of LMX between
36,1/2 organizational justice and job performance. She further discussed that employees provide
input like efforts and talent to seek favorable output like self esteem and pay. High-quality
LMX relationships enable employees to impart extra efforts on behalf of their leader
without considering immediate payback. Therefore employees with high-quality LMX
relationship have tendency to demonstrate higher job performance (Gerstner and Day,
74 1997; Walumbwa et al., 2009). Masterson et al. (2000) stated that organizational justice
works as an organizational input in the process of exchange relationship.
The literature has provided the support of mediating role of LMX between
organizational justice and job performance. There is gap of literature in librarianship
especially in Pakistan’s context. Most of the library and Information Science literature
discuss organizational justice and LMX indirectly. This study will explore the
significant relationship of organizational justice, LMX and job performance in
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

the setting of university libraries in Pakistan (Figure 1).

Conceptual framework
The model points that LMX is mediating the relationship between distributive justice,
procedural justice, interactional justice and job performance. Hence the following six
hypotheses are suggested:

H1. Job Performance increases with increases in Distributive Justice.

H2. Job Performance increases with increases in Procedural Justice.

H3. Job Performance increases with increases in Interactional Justice.

H4. LMX mediate the relationship between distributive justice and job performance.

H5. LMX mediate the relationship between procedural justice and job performance.

H6. LMX mediate the relationship between interactional justice and job performance.

This study answers two main research questions; firstly, does the leader-member
exchange relationship mediate the relationship between organizational justice and job

Distributive
Justice

Leader Work
Procedural
Member Performance
Justice
Exchange
Relationship

Figure 1. Interactional
Conceptual Justice
framework
 Organizational
performance in libraries? Second, whether organizational justice practices are significantly
related to library personnel’s job performance? justice on job
Methodology performance
The observatory sample comprised of library staff members from 15 public sector in libraries
universities of Islamabad charted by Government of Pakistan. Particular data about
universities were taken from Higher Education Commission of Pakistan’s website. For data 75
accumulation, one hundred and ten questionnaires were distributed through email and in
person. The participation in the survey was voluntary although few respondents were
asked by their supervisors to fill the questionnaire. Of 110 surveys distributed
69 completed questionnaires were returned (with response rate of 63 percent).

Measures
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

The questionnaire comprising of two main sections, was used to measure the
hypothesized relationship. The first section consists of demographic questions like
gender, age, designation/job title, qualification and job experience. In the second part
responses were taken on total of 32 items; 20 items related to organizational justice,
seven items associated with LMX and five items corresponding to job performance. All
the scales showed high reliability and internal consistency ranging coefficient score
from 0.83 to 0.92. The respondent choices were taken on five-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 to 5 (1 ¼ strongly disagree; 5 ¼ strongly agree). The current study used the
various analysis techniques like, descriptive analysis, correlation analysis and
regression analysis as used by previous researcher (Ishaq et al., 2013).

Organizational justice
Organizational justice was measured through the scale developed by Niehoff and
Moorman (1993). The selected scale was projected to measure the distributive justice
with five items, procedural justice with six items and interactional justice with nine
items. Distributive justice consisted of items assessing the fairness of job outcomes
including work load, pay level, work schedule, job responsibilities and rewards.
Procedural justice scale included the items to assess the fairness in decision making
process, justification of decisions and employees appeal process to challenge supervisor’s
decision. Interactional justice was measured using nine items assessing the degree to
which library employees perceived fairness in supervisor’s treatment and adequate
justification relating to job decision. As shown in Table II reliability analysis of the scale
depicted internal consistency and validity with the Cronbach α score of 0.83 for
distributive justice, 0.88 for procedural justice and 0.92 for interactional justice (Table I).

LMX
Scandura and Graen (1984) developed the seven-item LMX scale that was adapted for
this study. The scale intended to measure the quality of relationship between
supervisor and employees. The coefficient alpha score of 0.86 showed strong reliability
of the measure (Table II).

Job performance
Elding (1989) five-item scale was adopted to measure the library professional and
paraprofessional staff members’ job performance. The item intended to assess the
contribution of librarians in overall performance of universities, their perspective of
job effectiveness and willingness to meet standard performance. The Cronbach α score
 LM Distributive justice
36,1/2
I think my work schedule is fair 0.826
I think my level of pay is fair 0.843
I consider my workload to be fair 0.648
Overall the rewards, I receive here are quite to be fair 0.674
I feel that my job responsibilities are fair 0.758
76 Procedural justice
Job decisions are made by supervisor in an unbiased manner 0.726
My manager makes sure that all employee concerns are heard 0.819
before job decisions are made
To make job decisions, my supervisor collects accurate and
complete information 0.828
To make job decisions, my manager clarifies decisions and
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

provides additional information when requested by the employee 0.839

All job decisions are applied consistency across all affected 0.615
Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made
by the supervisor 0.681
Interactional justice
When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with
respect and dignity 0.781
When decisions are made about my job, the manager treats me with
kindness and consideration 0.840
When decisions are made about my job, the manager is sensitive to
my personal needs 0.811
When decisions are made about my job, the manager deals with me
in a truthful manner 0.817
When decisions are made about my job, the manager shows
concern for my rights as an employee 0.702
Concerning decisions made about my job, supervisor discusses the
implications of the decisions with me 0.786
The supervisor offers adequate justification for decisions made
about my job 0.853
Table I. When making decisions about my job, manager offers explanations
Factor analysis – that make sense to me 0.676
organizational justice My manager explains very clearly any decision made about my job 0.765

LMX

My supervisor is satisfied with the work I do 0.697

My supervisor understands my job problems and needs 0.712
My supervisor recognizes my potential 0.787
My supervisor uses his or her power to help me solve work
problems 0.570
I have enough confidence in my supervisor that I would
defend and justify his or her decision if he or she were not 0.763
present to do so
Table II. I have an effective working relationship with my supervisor 0.746
Factor analysis – I can trust on my supervisor to “bail me out” at his/her
LMX expense, when I really need it 0.662
 for the scale was 0.83. Most libraries were hesitant to provide actual data on job Organizational
performance therefore study was based on self-reported job performance (Table III). justice on job
Analysis performance
SPSS (version 20) is used for descriptive, correlation, reliability and regression analysis. in libraries
As shows in Table IV majority of the respondent were male (78 percent) percent.
The lower numbers of female staff in academic libraries showed that female librarians 77
are not being proportionally hired or may be early quitting the job due to family
responsibilities (Rubin, 1989). Mostly upper positions in academic libraries of Pakistan are
occupied by male librarians that give the signal of glass ceiling effect as well. Majority of
the respondent were working on above basic pay scale (BPS) 16. Qualification were
measured on four educational levels (Bachelor, Master, MS/MPhil, PhD) and result showed
that (74 percent) of the respondent have Master’s degree in Library and Information
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Science. Results also depicted that 4 percent (three of 69) of respondent have PhD degree
and they are perusing their career as a practitioner (Table IV).
To check the interdependency of independent variables (IVs), multicollinearity test
was run in SPSS. All Three IVs were entered one by one and effects had been checked
on each others. The VIF values were less than 3 which proved that no multicollinearity
exists among the IVs (Table V).
One-way ANOVA analysis was conducted to check the impact of control variable
(gender, age, job level and qualification) on other variables but result found was insignificant.
Descriptive analysis showed the mean, standard deviation, and correlation values.

Correlation analysis
Table VI indicates the correlation among variables and descriptive statistics. The mean
value for distributive justice was 3.83 (SD ¼ 0.79), for procedural justice 3.51 (SD ¼ 0.87)

Job performance

I am very effective in contributing to my firm’s performance 0.787

I sometimes work harder than I really need to because I enjoy doing a good job 0.659
I feel unhappy when my work is not up to my usual standard 0.714 Table III.
I often try to think of ways of doing my job more effectively 0.819 Factor analysis –
I feel a sense of pride and satisfaction when I do a good job 0.845 job performance

Demographic Percentage

Gender
Male 78
Female 22
Job Level
BPS-16 and above 70
Below BPS-16 30
Qualification
BLIS 18
MLIS 74 Table IV.
MS/MPhil 4 Demographic
PhD 4 characteristics
 LM Coefficients
36,1/2 Collinearity statistics
Model Tolerance VIF

1a DJ 0.725 1.378
PJ 0.725 1.378
78 2b IJ 0.672 1.488
DJ 0.672 1.488
c
Table V. 3 PJ 0.425 2.355
Multicollinearity IJ 0.425 2.355
test of IVs Notes: aDependent variable, IJ; bdependent variable, PJ; cdependent variable, DJ
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Variables SD Mean 1 2 3 4 5

1. DJ 0.796 3.83 (0.83)

2. PJ 0.871 3.51 0.524** (0.88)
3. IJ 0.787 3.63 0.573** 0.758** (0.92)
4. LMX 0.755 3.81 0.641** 0.722** 0.869** (0.86)
Table VI. 5. JP 0.532 4.34 0.531** 0.530** 0.454** 0.575** (0.83)
Standard deviation, Notes: DJ, distributive justice; PJ, procedural justice; IJ, interactional justice; LMX, leader-member
mean, correlation exchange; JP, job performance; alpha reliabilities are given in parenthesis; **Correlation is
analysis significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

and for interactional justice 3.63 (SD ¼ 0.787). The value of mean for all three kinds of
justices reflects that most of the respondents showed agree response for the
organizational justice. The standard deviation for three kinds of justices indicated
the deviation of data from a mean of all three variables.
The value of mean for the LMX was 3.81(0.75) which indicated that mostly
respondents have quality relationship with their supervisors. The value of mean for job
performance was 4.34 (SD ¼ 0.53) highest among all which indicated that mostly
respondents have shown strong agree response for job performance.
The correlation between distributive justice and job performance was (0.53; po0.01)
which revealed the significant and positive relationship of both variables. The result of
correlation (0.53; po0.01) between procedural justice and job performance revealed the
positive and significant relationship of variables that also proved the second hypothesis.
The correlation between interactional justice and job performance was 0.45
(p o 0.01) which supported the third hypothesis. Correlation table also showed the
positive and significant relationship between job performance and LMX. The value 0.57
demonstrated significant and positive relationship at the level of p o 0.01. The value in
parenthesis showing the reliability of scales that is above 0.80 indicating highly reliable
(Table VI).
Factor analysis was done to assess the discriminate and convergent validity.
To evaluate the construct validity of all variables, confirmatory factor analysis was
performed by adopting the principal component analysis method for extraction.
The result of factor analysis by applying varimax rotation method reported that all the
items loaded onto their respective factors. The results proved a good degree of
convergent and discriminate validity of all variables (see Tables I, II and III). Bartlett’s
 test of sphericity shows significance score of 0.000 and KMO score of sampling Organizational
adequacy was 0.833. justice on job
In order to support hypothesis, a series of separate hierarchical regression analysis
were conducted. Mediation had been checked by fulfilling all three assumptions
performance
of Baron and Kenny (1986). Table VII indicates the regression analysis, coefficient of in libraries
determination (R2) which measures the goodness of model fit and changes in coefficient
of determination (R2) that separates the effect of independent variable on regression 79
analysis.
The model was divided into multiple steps and in first step demographic variables
were incorporated as control variable but the results were not significant. In second
step job performance was regressed on distributive justice and results shown were
highly significant ( β ¼ 0.53, p o 0.001). The value of coefficient of determination
showed that distributive justice explained 28 percent of total variations prevailing in
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

job performance. The result proved H1, as distributive justice showed positive relation
with job performance. In third step, job performance was regressed on distributive
justice and LMX together. As shown in Table III, the distributive justice became
insignificant in the presence of LMX and beta value also decreased ( β ¼ 0.53, p o0.001
to β ¼ 0.27, p o 0.132). The results supported H4 as LMX mediate the relationship
between distributive justice and job performance.
To support the H2, job performance was regressed on procedural justice. The result
showed significant and positive relationship between procedural justice and job
performance ( β ¼ 0.53, p o 0.001). In second step job performance was regressed on
procedural justice and LMX. The beta value decreased from 0.53 to 0.23 and procedural
justice became insignificant ( p o 0.001 to p o0.121) that showed full mediation. This

Predictor Job performance

Independent variable Standardize β R2 ΔR2 Sig. Degree of freedom

Step 1
Control variables 0.01
Step 2
DJ 0.53 0.28 0.000 (1,59)
Step 3 mediation
DJ 0.27 0.37 0.09 0.132 (1,58)
LMX 0.005
Step 1
Control variables 0.01
Step 2
PJ 0.53 0.28 (1,59)
Step 3 mediation 0.000
PJ 0.23 0.35 0.78 0.121 (1,58)
LMX 0.100
Step 1
Control variables 0.01
Step 2
IJ 0.45 0.20 0.000 (1,59)
Step 3 mediation
IJ 0.18 0.58 0.13 0.393 (1,58)
LMX 0.001 Table VII.
Note: Control variable were gender, job level and qualification Regression analysis
 LM mediation also supported the H5 that LMX mediate the relationship between procedural
36,1/2 justice and job performance.
The H3 relationship was checked through regressing job performance on
interactional justice. Regression analysis proved that interactional justice had
positive and highly significant relation with job performance (β ¼ 0.45, p o 0.000).
The value of coefficient of determination showed that interactional justice explained
80 20 percent of total variation cause in the job performance. When job performance was
regressed on interactional justice and LMX together, the beta value decreased and
interactional justice became insignificant toward job performance. The change in beta
and significance value ( β ¼ 0.45, p o 0.001 to β ¼ 0.18, p o 0.393) confirmed the H6 that
LMX mediate the relationship between interactional justice and job performance.

Discussion
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

The result showed that distributive justice has potential significant relationship with job
performance. The employees who received fair reward most probably performed well at
jobs. These finding confirmed the H1 that distributive justice and job performance has
positive relationship. The statistical analysis showed that library staff considers their
work schedule, work load and level of pay to be fair. This is because most of the university
libraries, reviewed under this study, are following government-organization pay structure
in which employees (administration/academics) in the same rank are paid equally.
Similar to these results, American library Association (ALA) efforts toward joining
the National Committee of Pay Equity (NCPE) in 1974 and celebration of Pay Equity
Day (April 16) also showed the potential significance of equal rewards for library
professionals (Farley, 2002). In Pakistan efforts are also made by professional
associations to raise the pay scale of librarians. Recently in 2013 Punjab College
Library Association put together efforts to get sanctioned the Punjab Government
Order (Order No. SO (CE-VI)9-6/200) for re-organization/up-gradation of 4-tier service
structure of college librarians. These efforts lead the way to maintain the internal and
external equity for library personnel in job market.
The second hypothesized relationship also supported through regression analysis.
The procedural justice positively impacts the job performance (Cohen-Charash and
Spectro, 2001; Suliman and Kathairi, 2013). The library staff members that score high
at job performance scale, also perceived fairness in the process involved in reward
distribution. The majority of library personnel believed that their concerns are heard
by their supervisors. The values of coefficient of determination (28 percent) showed
that both distribution and procedural justice equally impact the job performance.
Third hypothesis was incorporated to determine the relationship of interactional justice
and job performance. The relationship between variables indicated that interactional
justice positively impacts on job performance (Wang et al., 2010; Suliman and Kathairi,
2013). Most of professional and paraprofessional staff agreed with the statement that
their supervisors offered them adequate justification for job decision. The interpersonal
aspect of interactional justice for which participants were asked about whether the
treatment they received from their supervisors was fair or not and most of respondents
believed that their supervisors treated them with respect, dignity, kindness and
truthfulness.
Green et al. (2000) also expressed the importance of clear communication and library
staff involvement in decision making process. Their studies illustrated that employees
can perform well through fairness and consistency in reward distribution along with
showing them the complete picture of organizational issues and strategies.
 Mediation analysis support H4, H5 and H6. All three hypotheses supposed that Organizational
LMX mediate the relationship between distributive justice, procedural justice, justice on job
interactional justice and job performance (Burton et al., 2008). The result proved that
combing LMX with distributive justice explained 37 percent of total variation causes in
performance
the job performance. More the confidence that library staff members have on their in libraries
leadership, the more will be perception about fair justification of rewards. That perception
further leads to better performance at work place (Wang et al., 2010). 81
Procedural justice also showed significant relationship with job performance in the
presence of LMX. When employees assume that all decisions made by their supervisors
are applied consistently and fairly, their level of performance increases. The result also
showed that library staff is confident that if they encounter any difficult situation their
supervisor will get them out of it. In the same time interactional justice also showed
positive relationship with job performance. Result has shown that when interactional
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

justice and LMX together regressed against the dependent variable job performance,
a significant mediating relation has been found (Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson
et al., 2000). Regression analysis depicted that Interactional justice combined with LMX
is the most power full predictor of high job performance ((Burton et al., 2008) as
compared to distributive and procedural justice (Wang et al., 2010). Rubin (1989) also
discussed the need of interpersonal skills and competencies of library supervisors to
perform well in libraries.

Conclusion
The current study exclusively presented the perception of library staff member about
organizational justice practices and the quality of their relationship with their supervisors.
The study focused on the soft side of librarians’ work performance to increase the
productive behavior. The result revealed that personnel in university libraries have
effective working relationship with their supervisors. It was also concluded from the study
that all three kinds of organizational justices predict the job performance but interactional
justice along with LMX impacts more strongly on job performance. The recent shift in
academic libraries from hierarchical model to knowledge work and team work needs more
collaboration at all levels of management (Cawthorne, 2010). University libraries are
also heading in providing academic information services, accommodating advances in
(Kim and Lee, 2011). Thus, library leadership can foster a greater sense of employee worth
and teamwork among staff members by providing justice in interpersonal treatment
(Burton et al., 2008). To ensure the justice in libraries, leadership should hold the moral
code of conduct by involving all concerned stakeholders in the process of decision making.
In addition to considering fairness in distribution of rewards and process involved in
decision making of employee recruitment, selection, training and development and
performance appraisal, it is equally important to maintain fairness in interpersonal
interaction between the library leadership and employee. Because when library personnel
consider their leadership having the qualities of respect, propriety, truthfulness and
justification, they feel more secure and trusted.

Limitation and future research

Several limitation of this research should be considered in a balanced discussion of its
implication. First, the results of this study may not be generalized to all universities and
other industries of Pakistan as data is collected only from 15 universities of Pakistan.
Second, the study relies on self-reported job performance which may differ with actual
performance. Third, interpretations of results are limited by the cross-sectional design
 LM of study and does not allow casual conclusion. Future research can be done exploring
36,1/2 the same relation in public and special libraries. Organizational justice phenomenon
can be more explored in libraries inducing organizational citizenship behavior,
employee commitment and relational contracts of librarians.

References
82 Adams, J.S. and Freedman, S. (1976), “Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated
bibliography”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 9, pp. 43-90.
Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A. and Schminke, M. (2002), “Sabotage in the workplace: the role of
organizational injustice”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89
No. 1, pp. 947-965.
Ameen (2006), “Challenges of preparing LIS professionals for leadership roles in Pakistan”,
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 200-217.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”,
Research in Negotiation in Organization, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 43-55.
Brockner, J., Tyler, T.R. and Cooper-Schneider, R. (1992), “The influence of prior commitment to
an institution on reactions to perceived unfairness: the higher they are, the harder they
fall”, Administrative Science Quarterly, pp. 241-261.
Burton, J.P., Sablynski, C.J. and Sekiguchi, T. (2008), “Linking justice, performance and
citizenship via leader-member exchange”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 23
Nos 1/2, pp. 51-61.
Cawthorne, J.E. (2010), “Leading from the middle of the organization: an examination of shared
leadership in academic libraries”, The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Vol. 36 No. 2,
pp. 151-157.
Cheung, M.F. (2013), “The mediating role of perceived organizational support in the effects of
interpersonal and informational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors”,
Leadership & Organization Developemnt Journal, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 551-572.
Chu, H. (2010), “Library and information science education in the digital age”, Advances in
Librarianship, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Vol. 32, pp. 77-111.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis”,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling through
the maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.
Cropanzano, R. and Prehar, C.A. (1999), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural
from interactional justice”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E. and Gilliland, S.W. (2007), “The management of organizational
justice”, Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 34-48.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice”, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 324-351.
 Farley, Y.S. (2002), “Strategies for improving library salaries”, American Libraries, Vol. 33 No. 1, Organizational
pp. 56-59.
justice on job
Folger, R. (2001), “Fairness as deonance”, in Gilliland, S.W., Steiner, D.D. and Skarlicki, D.P. (Eds), performance
Research in Social Issues in Management, Information Age, Greenwich, CT, pp. 3-31.
in libraries
Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Beverly Hills, CA.
Gerstner, C.R. and Day, D.V. (1997), “Meta-Analytic review of leader – member exchange 83
theory: correlates and construct issues”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 6,
p. 827.
Goldman, B.M. (2003), “The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming by
terminated workers: the role of organizational justice and anger”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 705-728.
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Green, J., Chivers, B. and Mynott, G. (2000), “In the librarian’s chair: an analysis of factors which
influence the motivation of library staff and contribute to the effective delivery of services”,
Library Review, Vol. 49 No. 8, pp. 380-386.
Greenberg, J. (1982), “Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in group and organizations”, in
Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R.L. (Eds), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior, Academic Press,
New York, NY, pp. 389-435.
Greenberg, J. (1987), “Using diaries to promote procedural justice in performance appraisals”,
Social Justice Research, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 219-234.
Greenberg, J. (1990), “Looking fair vs being fair: managing impressions of organizational justice”,
Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 111-157.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “Stealing in the name of justice: informational and interpersonal moderators
of theft reactions to underpayment inequity”, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, Vol. 54 No. 1, pp. 81-103.
Homans, G.C. (1961), “Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms”, Harcourt Brace, New York, NY.
Hicks, D. and Given, L.M. (2013), “Principled, transformational leadership: analyzing the
discourse of leadership in the development of librarianship’s core competences”,
The Library, Vol. 83 No. 1, pp. 7-25.
Ishaq, H.M., Mansoor, N.N., Khan, F. and Ahmed, F. (2013), “To investigate the factors analysis of
effectiveness of performance appraisal”, World Applied Sciences Journal, Vol. 26 No. 8,
pp. 1030-1038.
Kieserman, R.H. (2008), “Issues in library human resources management”, The Bottom Line:
Managing Library Finances, Vol. 21 No. 3 pp. 101-104.
Kim, S.Y. and Lee, J.Y. (2011), “A study on the development of Korean academic libraries’ duty
model based on the job analysis”, Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 76-100.
Kont, K.-R. and Jantson, S. (2013), “Division of labor and coordination, intra-organizational career
and salary fairness : study in Estonian universities libraries”, Library Management, Vol. 34
Nos 6/7, pp. 415-432.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds),
Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 27-55
Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), “The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice”, Plenum,
New York, NY.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
 LM Mowday, R.T. and Colwell, K.A. (2003), “Employee reactions to unfair outcomes in the workplace:
the contributions of equity theory to understanding work motivation”, in Porter, L.W.,
36,1/2 Bigley, G.A. and Steers, R.M. (Eds), Motivation and Work Behavior, McGraw-Hill Irwin,
Boston, MA, pp. 65-113.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behaviour”, Academy of
84 Management Journal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.
O’Connor, S. (2013), “Leadership for future libraries”, Library Management, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2,
pp. 78-87.
Odunlade, R.O. (2012), “Managing employee compensation and benefits for job satisfaction in
libraries and information centres in Nigeria”, Library Philosophy and Practices (e-journal),
Paper No. 714, available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/714
Rubin, R. (1989), “Employee turnover among full-time public librarians”, The Library Quarterly,
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 27-46.

Rupp, D.E. and Cropanzano, R. (2002), “The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from mulitfoci organizational justice”, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 925-946.
Scandura, T.A. (1999), “Rethinking leader-member exchange: an organizational justice
perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 25-40.
Scandura, T.A. and Graen, G.B. (1984), “Moderating effects of initial leader – member exchange
status on the effects of a leadership intervention”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 69
No. 3, p. 428.
Scott, B.A., Colquitt, J.A. and Zapata-Phelan, C.P. (2007), “Justice as a dependent variable:
subordinate charisma as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice
perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 6, p. 1597.
Sinh, N.H., Dorner, D.G. and Gorman, G.E. (2011), “The influence of library manager styles on
continuing education of university library practitioners in Vietnam”, Library Management,
Vol. 32 Nos 8/9, pp. 505-515.
Suliman, A. and Kathairi, M.A. (2013), “Organizational justice, commitment and performance in
developing countries : the case of the UAE”, Employee Relations, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 98-115.
Thibaut, J.W. and Walker, L. (1975), “Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis”, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1141-1160.
Tyler, T. (1990), Why People Obey the Law: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Compliance, Yale
University Press, New Haven, CT.
Walumbwa, F.O., Cropanzano, R. and Hartnell, C.A. (2009), “Organizational justice, voluntary
learning behavior, and job performance: a test of the mediating effects of identification and
leader‐member exchange”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 1103-1126.
Wang, X, Liao, J., Xia, D. and Chang, T. (2010), “The impact of organizational justice on work
performance : mediating effcts of organizational commitment and leader-member
exchange”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 660-677.

Further reading
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 267-299.
Akakandelwa, A. and Jain, P. (2013), “A comparative study of perceived work related stress
among library staff in two academic libraries in Southern Africa”, Library Management,
Vol. 34 Nos 8/9, pp. 569-584.
 Ambrose, M.L. and Schminke, M. (2003), “Organizational structure as a moderator of the Organizational
relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational
support, and supervisory trust”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 295-305.
justice on job
Chien, M.S., Lawler, J.S. and Uen, J.-F. (2010), “Performance-based pay, procedural justice and job
performance
performance for R&D professional: evidence from the Taiwanese high-tech sector”, in libraries
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 2234-2248.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of 85
a measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Franklin, B. (1999), “Beyond shared leadership: the importance of learning in a shared leadership
model”, College & Research Libraries News, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 22-23.
Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), “Relationship-based approach to leadership: development of
leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: applying a multi-level
multi-domain perspective”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 219-247.
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)

Muchinsky, P.M. (2008), Psychology Applied to Work: An Introduction to Industrial and

Organizational Psychology, Hypergraphic Press, Summerfield, NC.
Mullins, J. and Linehan, M. (2006), “Desired qualities of public library leaders”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 133-143.
Spendlove, M. (2007), “Competencies for effective leadership in higher education. International
Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 407-417.
Tyler, T.R. (1987), “Conditions leading to value expressive effects in judgments of procedural
justice: a test of four models”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 2,
pp. 333-344.

Corresponding author
Sidra Shan can be contacted at: sidra.shan@iiu.edu.pk

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 This article has been cited by:

1. Ioannis C. Drivas Department of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of the
Linnaeus, Växjö, Sweden. Damianos P. Sakas Department of Computer Science and Technology,
University Of Peloponnese, Tripolis, Greece. Georgios A. Giannakopoulos Department of Library
Science and Information Systems, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Athens, Greece. .
2016. Self-other agreement for improving communication in libraries and information services.
Library Review 65:3, 206-223. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Downloaded by Universiti Putra Malaysia At 21:12 02 September 2016 (PT)