Does Organizational Justice Matter?

Implications for
Construction Workers’ Organizational Commitment
Ying-Yi Chih, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE 1; Kohyar Kiazad, Ph.D. 2; David Cheng, Ph.D. 3;
Alessandra Capezio, Ph.D. 4; and Simon Lloyd D. Restubog, Ph.D. 5

Abstract: Despite the empirical linkage between employees’ organizational commitment and their positive work outcomes (e.g., reduced
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

turnover and enhanced productivity), very little is known in the construction literature and practice about the antecedents of construction
workers’ organizational commitment. Thus, this research extends employee commitment scholarship to the construction context to
investigate the interactive effects of workers’ perceived organizational injustice and tenure on their subsequent organizational commitment,
via the mediating role of psychological strain. Longitudinal data from 179 construction workers revealed that worker’s perceived
organizational injustice increased their psychological strain, which, in turn, reduced their organizational commitment. This indirect negative
effect of organizational injustice on organizational commitment via psychological strain was found to be stronger for less-tenured workers.
Thus, to promote and maintain a committed workforce, construction organizations should ensure their organizational routines, procedures,
and supervisory practices enhance workers’ perceptions of fairness. This research contributes to the body of knowledge by identifying
processes through which workers’ organizational commitment can be eroded (or strengthened), enriching the understanding of the
social-psychological aspects of performance management. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000490. © 2016 American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Construction workers; Organizational justice; Psychological strain; Organizational commitment; Labor and personnel
issues.

Introduction
Construction organizations rely heavily on labor productivity, yet,
at the same time, they suffer from high levels of employee turnover
(Chih et al. 2016). The retention of a productive and committed
labor force thus becomes a critical determinant of competitive
advantage for construction organizations. Indeed, research has long
recognized organizational commitment—or the extent to which
employees identify with and affectively attach to their employing
organization (Mowday et al. 1979)—as a key driver of employee
retention and performance. That is, committed employees,
i.e., those who demonstrate a strong belief in and acceptance of
1
Senior Lecturer, Research School of Management, ANU College of
Business and Economics, Australian National Univ., 26 Kingsley St.,
Acton, ACT 2601, Australia (corresponding author). E-mail: ying-yi
.chih@anu.edu.au
2
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Management, Monash Business School,
Monash Univ., Sir John Monash Dr., Caulfield, VIC 3145, Australia.
E-mail: kohyar.kiazad@monash.edu
3 commitment in the construction industry, they only examine a lim-
Lecturer, Research School of Management, ANU College of Business
and Economics, Australian National Univ., 26 Kingsley St., Acton, ACT
2601, Australia. E-mail: david.cheng@anu.edu.au
4 2013). However, Leung and Chan (2007) suggested that commit-
Senior Lecturer, Research School of Management, ANU College
of Business and Economics, Australian National Univ., 26 Kingsley St.,
Acton, ACT 2601, Australia. E-mail: alessandra.capezio@anu.edu.au
5
Professor, Research School of Management, ANU College of Business
and Economics, Australian National Univ., 26 Kingsley St., Acton, ACT
2601, Australia. E-mail: simon.restubog@anu.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on May 9, 2016; approved on July
21, 2016; published online on September 2, 2016. Discussion period open
until February 2, 2017; separate discussions must be submitted for indivi-
dual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Management in Engineer-
ing, © ASCE, ISSN 0742-597X.
organizational values and goals, are more likely to stay in their
organization and exhibit high performance (Leung and Chan 2007).
Given the strong connection between employees’ organizational
commitment and performance, scholarly inquiries into the
antecedents and outcomes of organizational commitment continue
to proliferate [see for example Riketta (2002) for comprehensive
meta-analyses]. Surprisingly, there has been a dearth of research
examining antecedents of organizational commitment in the
construction literature. For example, Malone and Issa (2013)
and Lingard and Lin (2004) suggested that female employees’
organizational commitment in Australian and U.S. construction
firms is significantly affected by their ability to manage conflicting
work–life demands. Liu et al. (2007) showed that when quantity
surveyors’ perceptions of work empowerment increased, so did
their organizational commitment. Chow et al. (2014) found that
committed construction project team members are more likely to
be satisfied with their job and develop a trusting relationship with
other team members, resulting in reduced withdrawal behavior
(e.g., absenteeism and nonresponsiveness). Although findings from
these studies contribute to current understanding of organizational
ited number of antecedents, such as empowerment (Liu et al. 2007)
and work–life balance (Lingard and Lin 2004; Malone and Issa
ment in the construction industry can be subject to a much broader
range of influences (e.g., role conflict, role ambiguity, justice, goal
acceptance, authority, senior supportiveness, and peer influences).
Thus, in order to better understand the implications of organiza-
tional commitment in the construction industry, it is important
to examine other possible antecedents. Furthermore, these prior
studies focus mainly on construction professionals. Given that
different occupational groups in the construction industry display
different cultural and behavioral patterns and require different types

© ASCE 04016043-1 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 04016043

 of managerial attention (Loosemore and Tan 2000), extant research
findings (which focus primarily on construction professionals) may
not be directly applicable to construction workers. The cross-
sectional research designs that were utilized in these prior studies
also do not permit strong inferences about causality.
To this end, this research strives to advance the understanding
of organizational commitment in the construction industry by
incorporating other occupational groups (i.e., construction
workers) and address prior empirical shortcomings by employing
a longitudinal research design to enhance generalizability of the
research findings and permit stronger causal conclusions (Leung
and Chan 2007; Liu et al. 2007). In particular, this research
examines the indirect effect of organizational injustice on construc-
tion workers’ organizational commitment via the mediating role of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
psychological strain. Organizational commitment generally
consists of three dimensions: normative, affective, and continuance
commitment (Allen and Meyer 1990). This research focused on
affective commitment because it has been found to be more
strongly associated with work-related attitudes and outcomes as
opposed to the other two dimensions (i.e., normative and contin-
uance commitment) (Chen and Francesco 2003). For example, in a
meta-analytic study consisting of 155 independent samples involv-
ing 50,146 employees, Meyer et al. (2002) reported that affective
commitment correlated more strongly to turnover and withdrawal
cognitions, absenteeism, job performance, and organizational
citizenship behaviors. Organizational injustice reflects employees’
appraisals of unfair treatment (e.g., unfair distribution of outcomes,
unfair implementation of procedures, and unfair interpersonal treat-
ment) in their workplace (Elovainio et al. 2001). The authors focus
on organizational injustice because it has been identified as a
critical antecedent of employees’ organizational commitment in
other workplace domains (e.g., Colquitt et al. 2001). Because
organizational injustice has been linked with stress-based reactions
(e.g., emotional exhaustion; Cole et al. 2010; Elovainio et al. 2001;
Tepper 2001), the authors further examine the mediating role of
workers’ psychological strain—a state characterized by emotional
discomfort (e.g., anxiety, unhappiness, anger; Beehr and Newman
1978)—in the relationship between organizational injustice and
organizational commitment. Finally, because reactions to organiza-
tional injustice can vary across individuals (e.g., educational level
and equity sensitivity; Colquitt et al. 2001), not all construction
workers who perceive organizational injustice are likely to experi-
ence similar levels of psychological strain and subsequent dimin-
ished commitment. Given that employees’ organizational tenure
has been found to moderate the relationship between organizational
justice and commitment in prior studies (e.g., Ohana 2014), the
authors also examine the role of workers’ tenure as a boundary
condition that influences the indirect relationship between organi-
zational injustice and organizational commitment via the mediating
role of psychological strain. The theoretical relationships among
the study variables are discussed in the following sections.
While there is a plethora of studies examining organizational
commitment in the organizational behavior and management
literatures, less systematic attention has been given in the construc-
tion literature. As such, this research makes important theoretical
and practical contributions to construction research and practice.
At the theoretical level, this research expands prior limited research
on organizational commitment in the construction literature by
investigating a novel antecedent (organizational injustice), explor-
atory mechanism (psychological strain), and boundary condition
(organizational tenure), which together broaden and deepen
understanding of precursors and processes related to construction
workers’ organizational commitment. Moreover, by conducting re-
search on organizational injustice and psychological strain in the
© ASCE 04016043-2
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
construction context, this research further contributes to the grow-
ing recognition of the importance of integrating construction and
organizational behavior research (Love et al. 2011; Maloney and
Mcfillen 1983; Phua 2013; Wilkinson et al. 2012). On a practical
level, knowledge generated from this research can help construc-
tion organizations develop and implement policies and practices
that enhance construction workers’ psychological well-being and
subsequent organizational commitment. A more stable, committed,
and productive workforce would, in turn, enhance construction
project performance, and overall organizational efficiency and
competitiveness.
In the following sections, the authors first elaborate on the re-
search model and the theoretical predictions among study variables.
The research methodology and results are then discussed, followed
by theoretical and practical implications.
Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses
Theoretical Framework: Conservation of Resources
Theory
Conservation of resources (COR) theory is applied as an overarch-
ing theoretical framework to explain the relationships among con-
struction workers’ perceived organizational injustice, tenure,
psychological strain, and organizational commitment. The core
tenet of COR theory is that individuals are motivated to preserve,
protect, and acquire resources in order to meet external demands
and accomplish goals (Hobfoll 1989, 2001). Resources can be
objects, personal characteristics, conditions, or energies that are im-
portant to individuals (e.g., health, companionship, feeling
valued, money; Hobfoll 2001). According to COR theory, when
individuals’ valued resources are threatened or lost, they may
become defensive and discontinue their resource investments to
prevent further loss, increase their resource investments to acquire
more resources to offset the loss, or both (Hobfoll 1989, 2001). The
COR theoretical perspective is increasingly being used in the con-
struction literature to explain employees’ affective and behavioral
reactions to work events (e.g., Chih et al. 2016; Lingard et al.
2010). For example, using the theoretical lens of COR theory, Chih
et al. (2016) found that psychological contract breach (i.e., when
employees believe their organization has broken promised obliga-
tions; Rousseau 1995) is positively related to construction workers’
turnover. Lingard et al. (2010) used COR theory to show that job-
related resources (e.g., flexibility, control, time adequacy and
supervisor support) can facilitate work–family balance. Since it
originated as a resource-based theory of stress (Hobfoll 2001),
COR theory has also been used extensively as an explanatory
framework for understanding antecedents and responses to stress
(e.g., Cole et al. 2010; Janssen et al. 2010). For example, Cole et al.
(2010) applied COR theory to demonstrate that employees’ percep-
tions of distributive and interpersonal justice are negatively asso-
ciated with their emotional exhaustion, which, in turn, related
negatively to their organizational commitment.
Altogether, COR theory provides a viable and parsimonious
theoretical framework for understanding how and why psychologi-
cal strain transmits the effects of perceived organizational injustice
on construction workers’ organizational commitment. Fig. 1
illustrates the theoretical model proposed in this study. In sum,
it suggests that construction workers’ perceptions of organizational
injustice will have a direct impact on their psychological strain and
commitment to the organization. Workers’ psychological strain will
also mediate the relationship between their perceived organiza-
tional injustice and organizational commitment. This relationship
J. Manage. Eng.
 Org. Tenure
(T1)
Psychological Org.
Org. Injustice
Strain Commitment
(T1)
(T1) (T2)
Fig. 1. Theoretical model (T1 and T2 indicate that data for the con-
struct were collected at Time 1 and Time 2, respectively)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
will then be moderated by workers’ organizational tenure. The
sections that follow further elaborate on these proposed theoretical
relationships among study variables.
Organizational Injustice and Psychological Strain
The concept of organizational justice is a multidimensional
construct capturing employees’ perceptions of fairness at work
(Moorman 1991). It generally encompasses three dimensions: dis-
tributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Distributive justice
refers to employees’ perceived fairness of outcomes, such as pay
and promotion decisions (Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001);
procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of the process
by which these outcomes are determined (Lind and Tyler 1988);
finally, interactional justice reflects employees’ perceived quality
of interpersonal treatment they receive as procedures are enacted
(e.g., politeness and respect from superiors; Bies and Moag
1986). Given their interrelated nature, organizational justice has
been treated as an overall aggregate of these three dimensions
(Colquitt et al. 2001). Thus, in this study, organizational injustice
refers to employees’ perceptions of violations of the aforemen-
tioned distributive, procedural, and/or interactional justice, by
the organization or its representatives (e.g., managers).
Prior research (e.g., Elovainio et al. 2001; Tepper 2001) has
demonstrated the link between organizational injustice and a num-
ber of stress-related outcomes, including psychological strain,
which is characterized by anxiety, unhappiness, anger, and irritabil-
ity (Beehr and Newman 1978). This effect is more pronounced
among temporary employees in an organization as they are more
likely to perceive an imbalance between their efforts and rewards
(i.e., unfairness) (De Cuyper et al. 2008). Such a sense of depriva-
tion may then generate more unfavorable psychological outcomes
(e.g., psychological strain) (De Cuyper et al. 2008). Following this
logic, construction workers, as temporary (i.e., project-based)
employees of a construction organization, who experience organi-
zational injustice are likely to feel psychological strain. This theo-
retical relationship can be explained by COR theory. Specifically,
given that organizational injustice reflects the perceived lack of fair-
ness in outputs, processes, and treatment at work, it may also be
viewed as a contextual source of resource threat (or loss) for
workers. For example, distributive injustice can deprive or threaten
valued material resources (i.e., “adequate income” in Hobfoll 2001,
p. 342). Procedural injustice can threaten workers’ perceived
control, power, or predictability in the work environment
(i.e., “feeling that my future success depends on me” in Hobfoll
2001, p. 342), while interpersonal injustice may signal that the
worker is not valued or respected (i.e., “understanding from my
employer/boss” in Hobfoll 2001, p. 342). According to COR, such
resource losses are distressing and are likely to be a source of
© ASCE 04016043-3
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
psychological strain (Hobfoll 2001). Thus, is the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H1: Organizational injustice is positively related to
construction workers’ psychological strain.
Organizational Injustice and Organizational
Commitment
Organizational commitment is the extent to which an employee
identifies with and is involved in a particular organization
(Mowday et al. 1979). Committed employees are willing and able
to go beyond the minimum requirements of their duties and devote
more of their personal resources (e.g., time, energy, and work
effort) to the organization (Wright and Hobfoll 2004). Construction
workers represent a unique workforce as they are hired on a
temporary basis yet their commitment and performance can have
a determining role in the successful delivery of project outputs and
organizational effectiveness (Wilkinson et al. 2012). Unfortunately,
even though prior literature has emphasized the need to understand
the antecedents and consequences of organizational commitment
among temporary employees in different contexts, very little and
inconclusive evidence has been found on the subject (De Cuyper
et al. 2008).
In this research, based on COR theory, it is suggested that
organizational injustice will weaken workers’ commitment to their
employing organizations. This is because, as argued earlier,
organizational injustice deprives individuals of important resources
(e.g., valuable rewards, bias-free procedures, and respectful
treatment), and such resource loss (or threat of loss) would lead
workers to become more protective over their remaining resources
and selective in how they invest those resources, especially since
they will be increasingly skeptical about the likely return on their
future investments in the organization (Halbesleben et al. 2014;
Hobfoll 2001). Thus, one way such resource conservation can
manifest itself is via reduced commitment to the organization (Cole
et al. 2010). In particular, organizational injustice may encourage
workers to be more protective over their remaining resources, by
reducing their emotional attachment to and/or level of involvement
in their employing organizations. Indeed, empirical findings con-
sistently show that organizational injustice is negatively associated
with employees’ organizational commitment (Cole et al. 2010;
Wright and Hobfoll 2004). Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
H2: Organizational injustice is negatively related to construc-
tion workers’ organizational commitment.
Mediating Role of Psychological Strain
As described earlier, based on COR theory, organizational injustice
may be a source of psychological strain (Cole et al. 2010; Judge
and Colquitt 2004) and reduced organizational commitment
(Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001 for a meta-analysis). Because
resource loss is distressing and is likely to motivate individuals
to distance themselves from the source of loss, COR theory sug-
gests that psychological strain may serve as the psychological
mechanism linking organizational injustice with reduced organiza-
tional commitment (Halbesleben and Bowler 2007). Specifically,
when an organization fails to treat its workers fairly, this may
threaten individuals’ resources or result in their actual loss (Cole
et al. 2010). Workers who perceive unfair treatment from their
organization (i.e., organizational injustice) may need to invest other
psychological resources (e.g., energy and emotion) to cope with
such unfair treatment, leading to depletion of their socio-emotional
resources and subsequent psychological strain (Cole et al. 2010).
J. Manage. Eng.
 Resource-depleted workers may, in turn, “adopt a defensive posture
to conserve their resources” (Hobfoll 2001, p. 356), or may
psychologically disengage from their organization as a means to
safeguard their remaining resources (or avoid further loss)
(Campbell et al. 2013). Indeed, as articulated by Campbell et al.
(2013) in the context of COR, “one way exhausted employees
try to preserve remaining resources is by withdrawing psychologi-
cally (i.e., decreased commitment to the organization)” (p. 766). In
other words, based on the resource conservation tenet of COR,
psychologically-strained construction workers may refrain from
further investing resources (e.g., emotion and effort) into their
employing organizations, leading them to maintain only the bare
minimum level of commitment. The effect of this withdrawal is
particularly profound for the construction industry given its
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
labor-intensive nature. Workers’ reduced commitment and perfor-
mance can directly and negatively impact project outcome and
ultimately organizational competitiveness (Wilkinson et al.
2012). Prior empirical findings support this line of reasoning,
showing that employees experiencing organizational injustice tend
to report higher levels of emotional exhaustion and demonstrate
more withdrawal attitudes and behaviors (Campbell et al. 2013;
Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Cole et al. 2010). Thus, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H3: Organizational injustice is indirectly and negatively
related to construction workers’ organizational commitment via
psychological strain.
Moderating Effect of Organizational Tenure
Although organizational injustice can be a source of resource loss
for construction workers, not all workers will experience and
respond to loss in the same way. According to COR theory, indi-
viduals who are endowed with existing resources are less suscep-
tible to the detrimental effects of loss (Hobfoll 1989). For example,
personal resources (e.g., self-esteem and experience) are found
to buffer the negative impact of resource loss on employees
(Halbesleben et al. 2014). Following this logic, construction
workers’ organizational tenure can be conceptualized as a personal
resource (Hobfoll 1989), particularly as more-tenured workers are
likely to acquire greater amounts of social (e.g., social capital) and
psychological (e.g., knowledge, experience, and mastery) resources
(Ng and Feldman 2010), which can be leveraged to buffer the ef-
fects of resource loss (Hobfoll 2001). In other words, organiza-
tional tenure is expected to moderate the relationship between
organizational injustice and psychological strain. Specifically, be-
cause organizational tenure is a measure of time spent in the
employing organization, it can be an indicator of firm-specific
human capital (Crook et al. 2011). Construction workers with
longer tenure have greater access to organizational resources and
have accumulated more job-relevant knowledge and skills as well
as stronger interpersonal relationships with their colleagues (Ng
and Feldman 2010). Such job-related human capital and social
support then become part of the worker’s pool of personal and so-
cial resources (Halbesleben et al. 2014). Such resources are critical
in the construction industry given the complex and dynamic nature
of the construction tasks. Thus, when experiencing resource loss as
a result of organizational injustice, more-tenured workers may
suffer less psychological strain given their greater job-related ex-
perience, social support, and person–organization fit—all of which
have been shown to increase with tenure (Ng and Feldman 2010;
Ostroff and Rothausen 1997) and to buffer against work-related
resource loss (Hunter and Thatcher 2007; Kiazad et al. 2014).
Indeed, Hunter and Thatcher (2007) found that more experienced
(tenured) employees were more likely to channel stress into better
© ASCE 04016043-4
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
work performance. By contrast, according to COR theory, those
who lack resources are more vulnerable to resource loss following
initial loss (Hobfoll 2001). Thus, less tenured workers, who lack
the personal resources to cope as effectively with their emotions,
may be more vulnerable to experiencing psychological strain as a
response to organizational injustice.
Taken together, organizational injustice is expected to relate to
higher levels of psychological strain among construction workers
with less organizational tenure. Given the previous proposition that
psychological strain mediates the relationship between organiza-
tional injustice and organizational commitment, this pattern of
reasoning produces a moderated mediation framework, such that
psychological strain is expected to transmit the negative effects
of organizational injustice onto organizational commitment more
strongly when organizational tenure is low. Thus, the following
hypothesis is proposed:
H4: The conditional indirect effect of organizational injustice
in predicting construction workers’ organizational commitment via
psychological strain will be stronger when the organizational tenure
is low as opposed to high.
Research Methodology
Sample and Procedure
A quantitative questionnaire survey was conducted within the con-
struction industry in the Philippines to test the proposed hypothe-
ses. Surveys were distributed to construction workers in three
satellite offices of a large construction organization in the Philip-
pines. A convenience sampling approach was used because of its
convenience and practicality. This approach not only gives access
to a wider survey population, but it also allows the questions arising
from the survey to be addressed on the spot (Cavana et al. 2001). In
order to enhance statistical power, data obtained from the three sat-
ellite offices were combined to test the hypothesized predictions.
The surveys were administrated over two time periods (separated
by 6 months) to test the predicted relationships. The 6-month time
lag was selected as it would provide ample opportunity for
participants’ perceptions of organizational injustice to have an
impact on their commitment, via their psychological strain. This
time separation is also consistent with prior longitudinal studies
on organizational commitment (e.g., Allen and Meyer 1990;
Vandenberghe et al. 2004). At Time 1, a survey kit including a
cover letter describing the research purpose and a self-report
questionnaire were sent to construction workers. This Time 1 sur-
vey included measures of perceived organizational injustice,
psychological strain, and demographic characteristics. Out of the
269 construction workers initially surveyed, 191 completed sur-
veys were returned, yielding a response rate of 71%. At Time 2,
6 months after the completion of Time 1 administration, a fol-
low-up survey was administered to the 191 construction workers.
Out of those, 179 surveys were collected, yielding a response rate
of 93.72%. The surveys received at both measurement periods were
matched by participants’ unique identity codes. The two waves of
data collection resulted in a final sample of 179 participants. This
longitudinal research design is superior to a cross-sectional design
in that it enhances the generalizability of the research findings and
permits stronger causal conclusions from the empirical linkages
(Leung and Chan 2007; Liu et al. 2007).
The majority of the participants were male (94.41%) and the
average age was 33 years. All participants indicated that they
had completed high school, representing low educational
semiskilled workers. Participants’ tenure was classified into tenure
J. Manage. Eng.
 bands, consisting of less than 1 year (14.5%), 1–5 years (42.5%),
6–10 years (21.2%), 11–15 years (19.6%), and 16–20 years (2.2%).
Measures
Unless otherwise specified, all items, except demographic
variables, were measured on a 5–point Likert scale (1 = “strongly
disagree” to 5 = “strongly agree”). The questionnaire was originally
prepared in English and then back-translated into Filipino to ensure
readability (Brislin 1980).
Organizational injustice (α ¼ 0.94) consists of three
dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional injustice.
These dimensions were measured using the organizational justice
scales developed by Moorman (1991). In line with previous organi-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
value of 0.08 or less is indicative of adequate fit (Jaccard and Wan
1996). The results of the CFA analysis revealed a good fit to
the data: χ2 ¼ 109.17, χ2 =df ¼ 2.14, CFI ¼ 0.98, TLI ¼ 0.92,
GFI ¼ 0.92, NFI ¼ 0.96, and RMSEA ¼ 0.08. The standardized
estimates of distributive injustice, procedural injustice, and interac-
tional injustice were 0.79, 0.81, and 0.59, respectively. Standard-
ized estimates for the distributive injustice items ranged from
0.92 to 0.97. Standardized estimates for the procedural injustice
items ranged from 0.82 to 0.93. Standardized estimates for the
interactional injustice items ranged from 0.86 to 0.96. Altogether,
these results suggest that the three factors contributed to an overall
organizational injustice construct. Psychological strain (α ¼ 0.86)
was measured by five items developed by Maslach and Jackson
(1986). Organizational commitment (α ¼ 0.88) was measured us-

zational justice research (e.g., Rafferty et al. 2010), the items across
the three dimensions were reverse-coded and combined to operate
as an overall measure of organizational injustice. A second-order
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which involved the evaluation
of the relationship between the three first-order factors (i.e., dis-
tributive injustice, procedural injustice, and interactional injustice)
and a second-order factor (organizational injustice), was conducted
to validate the factor structure of the organizational injustice con-
struct. Specifically, following Bollen’s (1989) prescription, several
fit statistics were examined, including the chi-square test, normed-
fit index (NFI), goodness-of-fit index (GFI), comparative-fit index
(CFI), Tucker-Lewis coefficient index (TLI), and root-mean square
error of approximation (RMSEA). Values for the TLI, CFI, NFI,
and GFI can range from 0 to 1.00, with values close to 1.00 being
indicative of good fit (Hu and Bentler 1995). Finally, an RMSEA
ing four items from the affective commitment dimension of Allen
and Meyer’s (1990) scale, which measures the emotional response
and orientation that links an individual to the organization.
Completed measurement items used in this research are listed in
Table 1.
In this research, construction workers’ gender and age were con-
trolled in the analysis. Gender was controlled because men and
women tend to have different perceptions on organizational
injustice (Lee et al. 2000). Age was controlled because it may
be confounded with organizational tenure (Onukwube 2012).
Data Analysis
In this research, Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012) for SPSS
was used to test the proposed indirect and conditional indirect effect

Table 1. Measurement Items Used

Construct Items used
Independent variable: Organizational injustice Listed here are the scales developed by Moorman (1991) to measure
(measured at Time 1) different dimensions of organizational justice. They are reverse-coded
and combined to operate as an overall measure of organizational injustice.
Distributive justice
• I am fairly rewarded considering my responsibilities.
• I am fairly rewarded for the amount of effort I put forth in my job.
• I am fairly rewarded for the work I have done well.
• I am fairly rewarded for the stresses of my job.
Procedural justice
• This organization’s procedures generate standards so that decisions
could be made with consistency.
• This organization’s procedures hear the concerns of all those affected by the decision.
• This organization’s procedures provide useful feedback regarding the
decision and its implementation.
• This organization’s procedures allow for requests for clarification or
additional information about decisions.
Interactional justice
• My immediate supervisor considers my viewpoint about work and work conditions.
• My immediate supervisor treats me with kindness and consideration.
• My immediate supervisor shows concern for my rights as an employee.
• My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a fruitful manner.
Mediator variable: Psychological strain • I feel emotionally drained from my work.
(measured at Time 1) • I feel used up at the end of the work day.
• I feel I am working too hard on my job.
• I feel I am at the end of my rope.
• I feel burned out from my work.
• Working with people all day is really a strain for me.
First-stage moderator: Organizational tenure • How long you have been working in the current organization?
(measured at Time 1)
Dependent variable: Organizational commitment • I feel “emotionally attached” to this organization.
(measured at Time 2) • This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me.
• I feel like “part of the family” in this organization.
• I feel a strong sense of belongingness in this organization.

© ASCE 04016043-5 J. Manage. Eng.

J. Manage. Eng., 04016043

 hypotheses. This approach was used because it does not rely on the
assumption in Baron and Kenny’s (1986) causal-steps approach
that the total and indirect effects are normally distributed (Preacher
and Hayes 2004). It also incorporates the bootstrapping technique
that is recommended by many methodology scholars (e.g., Anvuur
et al. 2012; Hayes 2013; Zhao et al. 2010). Bootstrapping is a re-
sampling method that involves sampling from the original dataset
thousands of times (with replacement) to estimate an indirect effect
of the independent variable on the dependent variable via mediator
variables. It can also be used to estimate conditional indirect effects
at high and low levels of moderating variables. Bootstrapping has
been considered as an effective method to reduce Type 1 errors and
increase statistical power (Mackinnon et al. 2004). Specifically,
Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012) was used to calculate re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
gression coefficients and generate 95% confidence intervals for
the indirect effects. If the confidence intervals do not include zero,
then the indirect effects are considered significant. In running the
analysis, organizational injustice was entered as the independent
variable, organizational commitment as the dependent variable,
and psychological strain as the meditator using Model 4 of Hayes’
PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012) and 5,000 bootstrap resamples. To
examine the conditional indirect relationships among organiza-
tional injustice, psychological strain, and organizational commit-
ment at high and low levels of organizational tenure (first stage
moderation), Model 7 of Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012)
was used to test for moderated mediation. This approach enabled
implementation of bootstrapping methods and the significance of
the conditional indirect effects to be probed at different values of
the relevant moderator.
Results
The means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among
study variables are reported in Table 2. All correlations were in the
predicted direction.
Organizational Injustice and Psychological Strain
As discussed in the “Data Analysis” section, the predicted relation-
ships were tested using Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012)
with 5,000 bootstrap resamples controlling for gender. H1
predicted that organizational injustice would be positively related
to construction workers’ psychological strain. Results found that
organizational injustice was positively related to construction
workers’ psychological strain (b ¼ 0.33 and 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.45).
This result suggests that construction workers who perceived their
organization to be unfair reported higher levels of psychological
strain. H1 was supported.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations for Variables
Variable Mean SD 1 2
Gender 0.94 0.23 — —
Age 0.33 7.93 0.20a
Tenure 2.53 1.03 0.22a
Organizational injustice 3.83 1.02 −0.18c
Psychological strain 2.44 0.91 −0.37b
Organizational commitment 4.71 0.85 0.18c
Note: N ¼ 179; SD = standard deviations.
a
p < 0.01.
b
p < 0.001.
c
p < 0.05.
© ASCE 04016043-6
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
Organizational Injustice and Organizational
Commitment
H2 predicted that organizational injustice would be negatively
related to construction workers’ organizational commitment.
Results revealed that organizational injustice was significantly neg-
atively related to construction workers’ commitment toward their
organization (b ¼ −0.23 and 95% CI: −0.34 to −0.11). This result
suggests that construction workers who perceived their organiza-
tion to be unjust reported lower levels of organizational commit-
ment. H2 was supported.
Organizational Injustice, Psychological Strain, and
Organizational Commitment
H3 predicted that organizational injustice would be indirectly
and negatively related to construction workers’ organizational com-
mitment via psychological strain. Results found that the indirect
effects of organizational injustice on organizational commitment
via psychological strain is negative and significant (indirect
effect ¼ −0.10 and 95% CI: −0.20 to −0.04). This result suggests
that construction workers who felt that their organization was
unjust reported higher levels of psychological strain, which, in turn,
resulted in lower levels of organizational commitment. H3 was
supported.
Conditional Indirect Effects
H4 proposed that tenure moderates the indirect relationships between
organizational injustice and organizational commitment, via psycho-
logical strain. Model 7 of Hayes’ PROCESS macro (Hayes 2012)
was used to calculate the conditional indirect effects at various levels
of the moderator (i.e., high and low levels of employees’ organiza-
tional tenure). As shown in Table 3, the conditional indirect effects of
organizational injustice on organizational commitment via psycho-
logical strain was significant for construction workers who had
low levels of organizational tenure (indirect effect ¼ −0.11 and
95% CI: −0.22 to −0.04) but not for construction workers with high
levels of organizational tenure (indirect effect ¼ −0.01, 95% CI:
−0.07 to 0.03). These results suggest that, in perceiving organiza-
tional injustice, workers with lower rather than higher organizational
tenure are more likely to experience higher levels of psychological
strain. These effects were carried over to predict lower levels of
organizational commitment. H4 was supported.
Discussion
Building and maintaining a committed workforce is critical to the
competitive advantage of construction organizations. Drawing on
COR theory, this study examined the interactive effects of construc-
tion workers’ perceptions of organizational injustice and tenure on
3 4 5 6
— — — —
— — — — —
0.92b — — — —
−0.24a −0.23a (0.94) — —
−0.57b −0.54b 0.37b (0.86) —
0.42b 0.35b −0.39b −0.42b (0.88)
J. Manage. Eng.
 Table 3. Conditional Indirect Effects
Organizational
commitment
95% confidence
Variables and steps b intervals
Indirect effects −0.10 −0.20 to −0.04
Conditional indirect effects −0.11 −0.22 to −0.04
for construction workers with
low levels of tenure
Conditional indirect effects −0.01 −0.07 to 0.03
construction workers with high
levels of tenure
Note: N ¼ 179.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
their psychological strain and subsequent organizational commit-
ment. As predicted, it was found that that organizational injustice
had a direct positive effect on workers’ psychological strain (H1),
and a direct negative effect on organizational commitment (H2).
This suggests that construction workers who experience unfairness
tend to experience more negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and/or
anger) and display withdrawal attitudes (i.e., reduced commitment
to their organizations). The results further support the role of
psychological strain as a mediator in the relationship between
organizational injustice and commitment (H3). In other words,
construction workers’ perceptions of unfairness may precipitate
psychological strain, which, in turn, can trigger psychological
detachment from the organization. These findings are in line with
the assumptions of COR theory; namely, initial resource loss
(i.e., organizational injustice) incites further resource loss
(i.e., psychological strain), which translates into resource
conservation behavior (i.e., reduced organizational commitment).
The findings further suggest that the negative indirect effect of
organizational injustice on organizational commitment, via psycho-
logical strain, was weaker for more-tenured rather than less-tenured
construction workers (H4). More specifically, more-tenured work-
ers were found to report lower levels of psychological strain in re-
sponse to organizational injustice, culminating in a weaker negative
indirect effect of organizational injustice on their organizational
commitment. This is because more-tenured construction workers’
personal resources accumulated during their time in the employing
organization (i.e., job-specific or firm-specific human capital, or
knowledge of the organization) can be leveraged to buffer this chain
of negative effects, which is in line with COR theory’s premise that
individuals who are endowed with existing resources are less
susceptible to the detrimental effects of loss (Hobfoll 1989).
These findings are consistent with prior management and
organizational behavior literature suggesting that employees’ per-
ceptions of organizational injustice are associated with increased
stress (e.g., Elovainio et al. 2001; Tepper 2001) and withdrawal
(e.g., Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001). However, this study’s
focus on construction workers offers a unique perspective to ad-
vance the organizational justice and commitment research among
temporary workers in construction. Specifically, due to unpredict-
able or irregular workflow (e.g., the uncertainty involved in
securing new projects) in the construction industry, construction
workers are often employed on a temporary (i.e., project) basis.
This temporary nature of their employment relationship can make
them more sensitive to organizational injustice (De Cuyper et al.
2008), leading to negative psychological outcomes and diminished
organizational commitment. This, in turn, can negatively affect
project performance and organizational competitiveness given
the industry’s heavy reliance on labor (Wilkinson et al. 2012).
© ASCE 04016043-7
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
Thus, it is critical for construction organizations to proactively
manage construction workers’ commitment to get “more than they
paid for” (Deckop et al. 1999, p. 420) from this temporary
workforce. Given the limited empirical research on organizational
commitment among temporary employees (De Cuyper et al. 2008),
this research further broadens and enriches understanding of the
interactive effects of organizational injustice, psychological strain,
and organizational tenure on temporary workers’ (i.e., construction
workers) organizational commitment.
Practical Recommendations
Overall, findings from this study suggest that construction workers’
injustice perceptions can have important negative affective
consequences. In particular, workers who perceive organizational
injustice can experience psychological strain, which can translate
into reduced commitment to the organization. Such diminished
psychological well-being and organizational commitment has
long been associated with counterproductive work behaviors
(e.g., absenteeism) and performance (Wright and Hobfoll 2004).
Thus, in order to build and maintain a committed and productive
labor force, it is critical for construction organizations to
proactively cultivate fair organizational practices and manage con-
struction workers’ felt-fairness and psychological well-being.
Organizational justice research (e.g., Cohen-Charash and
Spector 2001; Colquitt et al. 2001; Cole et al. 2010) suggests that
employees appraise the level of fairness in their workplace via three
interrelated considerations: fairness of outcomes (distributive
justice), outcome allocation processes (procedural justice), and
interpersonal transactions (interactional justice). As such, construc-
tion organizations are advised to incorporate all three sources of
justice evaluations into their human resource practices. Specifically,
distributive and procedural justice considerations can be integrated
into construction workers’ performance management. For example,
construction organizations should establish a reliable and valid per-
formance system where workers’ performance and quality are
evaluated based on evidence and agreed-upon criteria, so that po-
tential error and bias (e.g., deliberate harshness) in supervisory rat-
ings of performance can be minimized (Cropanzano et al. 2007).
Given that perceived distributive injustice or inequity arises when
employees perceive they are being underrewarded at both absolute
and relative levels, an evidence-based performance assessment
system can ensure that construction workers are compensated
and rewarded appropriately. In this regard, it may be helpful for
construction organizations to have simple allocative rules, such
as to each in accordance with contributions (Cropanzano et al.
2007). Given that employee voice, defined as the expression of con-
cerns, opinions, or suggestions about work-related issues, has long
been considered an effective way to promote perceived fairness
(Korsgaard et al. 1995), construction organizations should establish
mechanisms for construction workers to express their ideas or
grievances with regards to outcomes and decision-making proc-
esses. In this way, construction workers may feel they have re-
course to share concerns or information relevant to decisions
that impact them, which could further enhance their perceptions
of fairness (Korsgaard et al. 1995). Given that construction workers
often interact closely with their supervisors (Brunetto et al. 2014;
Lee et al. 2005), the treatment they receive from their supervisors
can directly affect their perceptions of interactional justice
(Cropanzano et al. 2007). As such, construction organizations
should invest in the training and development of supervisors’ lead-
ership capabilities so they can enact organizational policies in ways
that promote overall fairness. It may also be worthwhile to integrate
J. Manage. Eng.
 organizational justice principles into supervisors’ key performance
indicators (KPIs) to further build responsibility and accountability
for fair treatment of subordinates. Construction organizations
may also benefit from having a code of conduct that elevates
the importance of respect, dignity, and courtesy. This can help es-
tablish norms of conduct particularly with regard to interpersonal
justice (Cropanzano et al. 2007). Finally, construction organiza-
tions are also advised to establish programs, such as employee
assistance programs and workplace counseling (Lassiter 1995;
Afifi 1991), to safeguard construction workers’ psychological
well-being in cases of organizational injustice. This is particularly
important for less-tenured construction workers who may be more
vulnerable to psychological strain when exposed to organizational
injustice.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Limitations and Future Research
Although this research advances understanding of the antecedents
and processes related to construction workers’ organizational
commitment, some limitations should be acknowledged. First,
the proposed theoretical model tested only a small set of anteced-
ents of construction workers’ organizational commitment; namely,
organizational injustice and psychological strain. It is acknowl-
edged that various other factors can also influence employees’
commitment in the construction industry, such as their role-related
characteristics (e.g., role ambiguity and role conflict) and the extent
to which they agree with project or organizational goals (Leung and
Chan 2007). In addition, organizational commitment consists of the
dimensions of affective, normative, and continuance commitment
(Allen and Meyer 1990). This research focused on only affective
commitment, given its relatively stronger relationships with
employees’ workplace attitudes and performance (Chen and
Francesco 2003; Meyer et al. 2002). Future research may further
explore how different antecedents affect construction workers’ vari-
ous forms of organizational commitment. Second, this research,
along with other prior studies in the construction literature, focused
on the antecedents of organizational commitment. Future research
may extend this line of work to investigate the effects of
organizational commitment on individual-level (e.g., absenteeism
and productivity), team/project-level (e.g., team coherence and
project performance), and organizational-level outcomes. This line
of research will add to the increasing number of interdisciplinary
studies that draw from both management and organizational
behavior literatures to address long prevailing problems facing
the construction industry (Love et al. 2011; Maloney and Mcfillen
1983; Wilkinson et al. 2012). Third, this research is based on em-
pirical data collected at two time points from construction workers
in the Philippines. Although this longitudinal research design al-
lows an investigation of longer-term effects of organizational
injustice, the focus on a single country may limit the generalizabil-
ity of the findings. Thus, despite this study’s findings being highly
consistent with prior studies on organizational injustice and
commitment (e.g., Cohen-Charash and Spector 2001; Cole et al.
2010), the proposed theoretical model and hypotheses should be
further tested in construction industries in other countries to
ascertain generalizability. For example, cultural backgrounds
(e.g., individualism or collectivism; and power distance) are found
to influence employees’ perceptions of organizational injustice and
their subsequent reactions (Lam et al. 2002). It would be interesting
to investigate how construction workers in different countries per-
ceive, appraise, and respond to organizational injustice. Fourth, in
line with the need to investigate the organizational commitment of
temporary employees in modern organizations (e.g., Connelly et al.
© ASCE 04016043-8
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
2007; De Cuyper et al. 2008), this research focuses on the effects of
temporary (i.e., project-based) construction workers’ perceived
organizational injustice on their psychological well-being and com-
mitment. Future research may extend this line of work to include
permanent full-time employees (e.g., professional and/or technical
staff) in the construction industry. A comparative study on the
organizational commitment of permanent full-time and temporary
workers may also allow construction organizations to develop cus-
tomized managerial strategies for these two distinctive groups
(Felfe et al. 2008). Finally, as workers’ employment relationships
with the construction organizations may be mediated by different
parties (e.g., subcontractors and unions), it may be interesting to
explore the antecedents and outcomes of workers’ various forms
and levels of commitment to them (Connelly et al. 2007).
Conclusions
Given the construction industry’s labor-intensive nature, organiza-
tions that can secure and maintain a committed workforce will have
a stronger competitive advantage. This is because committed
workers are more likely to stay with their organization (Wright
and Hobfoll 2004) and thus reduce turnover costs and ensure
the accumulation of industry expertise within an organization.
Committed workers are also willing to exert additional effort to-
ward work tasks (Wright and Hobfoll 2004), which can directly
enhance productivity. However, the role of organizational
commitment has received little systematic attention in the construc-
tion literature. Addressing this shortcoming, this research investi-
gated relationships among organizational injustice, psychological
strain, and organizational tenure in predicting organizational
commitment among construction workers. The research findings
contribute to a better understanding of organizational commitment
in the construction industry (Leung and Chan 2007; Liu et al.
2007), and offer novel practical strategies focused on enhancing
construction workers’ commitment. By building upon an increas-
ingly important organizational theory (e.g., COR theory), this re-
search also answers calls for more interdisciplinary approaches to
addressing long prevailing issues in the construction industry (Love
et al. 2011; Phua 2013; Maloney and Mcfillen 1983; Wilkinson
et al. 2012).
Acknowledgments
It is acknowledged that the first and second authors contributed
equally to this work.
References
Afifi, S. (1991). “Factors affecting professional employee retention.” J.
Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)9742-597X(1991)7:2(187), 187–202.
Allen, N. J., and Meyer, J. P. (1990). “The measurement and antecedents of
affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.”
J. Occup. Psychol., 63(1), 1–18.
Anvuur, A. M., Kumaraswamy, M., and Fellows, R. (2012). “Perceptions
of status and TMO workgroup cooperation: Implications for project
governance.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 30(9), 719–737.
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. (1986). “The moderator–mediator variable
distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and
statistical considerations.” J. Pers. Social Psychol., 51(6), 1173–1182.
Beehr, T. A., and Newman, J. E. (1978). “Job stress, employee health, and
organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model, and literature
review1.” Pers. Psychol., 31(4), 665–699.
Bies, R. J., and Moag, J. S. (1986). “Interactional justice: Communication
criteria of fairness.” Res. Negot. Organ., 1(1), 43–55.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Bollen, K. A. (1989). “A new incremental fit index for general structural
equation models.” Sociol. Method. Res., 17(3), 303–316.
Brislin, R. W. (1980). “Translation and content analysis of oral and written
material.” Handbook Cross-Cult. Psychol., 2(2), 349–444.
Brunetto, Y., Xerri, M., and Nelson, S. (2014). “Building a proactive,
engagement culture in asset management organizations.” J. Manage.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000251, 04014014.
Campbell, N. S., Perry, S. J., Maertz, C. P., Allen, D. G., and Griffeth, R. W.
(2013). “All you need is : : : resources: The effects of justice and support
on burnout and turnover.” Hum. Relat., 66(6), 759–782.
Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., and Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business
research qualitative and quantitative methods, Wiley, Milton, QLD,
Australia.
Chen, Z. X., and Francesco, A. M. (2003). “The relationship between the
three components of commitment and employee performance in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
China.” J. Vocat. Behav., 62(3), 490–510.
Chih, Y., Kiazad, K., Zhou, L., Capezio, A., Li, M., and D. Restubog, S.
(2016). “Investigating employee turnover in the construction industry:
A psychological contract perspective.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage.,
10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001101, 04016006.
Chow, P., Cheung, S., and Ka Wa, Y. (2014). “Impact of trust and satis-
faction on the commitment-withdrawal relationship.” J. Manage.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000331, 04014087.
Cohen-Charash, Y., and Spector, P. E. (2001). “The role of justice in
organizations: A meta-analysis.” Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec., 86(2),
278–321.
Cole, M. S., Bernerth, J. B., Walter, F., and Holt, D. T. (2010). “Organi-
zational justice and individuals’ withdrawal: Unlocking the influence of
emotional exhaustion.” J. Manage. Stud., 47(3), 367–390.
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.” J. Appl. Psychol., 86(3), 425–445.
Connelly, C. E., Gallagher, D. G., and Gilley, K. M. (2007). “Organiza-
tional and client commitment among contracted employees: A replica-
tion and extension with temporary workers.” J. Vocat. Behav., 70(2),
326–335.
Crook, T. R., Todd, S. Y., Combs, J. G., Woehr, D. J., and Ketchen Jr, D. J.
(2011). “Does human capital matter? A meta-analysis of the relation-
ship between human capital and firm performance.” J. Appl. Psychol.,
96(3), 443–456.
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., and Gilliland, S. W. (2007). “The manage-
ment of organizational justice.” Acad. Manage. Perspect., 21(4), 34–48.
Deckop, J. R., Mangel, R., and Cirka, C. C. (1999). “Research notes.
Getting more than you pay for: Organizational citizenship behavior
and pay-for-performance plans.” Acad. Manage. J., 42(4), 420–428.
De Cuyper, N., De Jong, J., De Witte, H., Isaksson, K., Rigotti, T., and
Schalk, R. (2008). “Literature review of theory and research on the
psychological impact of temporary employment: Towards a conceptual
model.” Int. J. Manage. Rev., 10(1), 25–51.
Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M., and Helkama, K. (2001). “Organizational
justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain.” J. Appl.
Psychol., 86(3), 418–424.
Felfe, J., Schmook, R., Schyns, B., and Six, B. (2008). “Does the form of
employment make a difference?—Commitment of traditional,
temporary, and self-employed workers.” J. Vocat. Behav., 72(1), 81–94.
Halbesleben, J. R., and Bowler, W. M. (2007). “Emotional exhaustion and
job performance: The mediating role of motivation.” J. Appl. Psychol.,
92(1), 93–106.
Halbesleben, J. R., Neveu, J. P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., and Westman,
M. (2014). “Getting to the “COR” understanding the role of resources in
conservation of resources theory.” J. Manage., 40(5), 1334–1364.
Hayes, A. F. (2012). “PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for ob-
served variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process model-
ing, white paper.” 〈http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf〉
(Mar. 10, 2016).
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach, Guilford
Publications, New York.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). “Conservation of resources: A new attempt at
conceptualizing stress.” Am. Psychol., 44(3), 513–524.
© ASCE 04016043-9
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
Hobfoll, S. E. (2001). “The influence of culture, community, and the nested
self in the stress process: Advancing conservation of resources theory.”
Appl. Psychol. Int. Rev., 50(3), 337–421.
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1995). “Evaluating model fit.” Structural
equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications, H. Rick, ed.,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA, 76–99.
Hunter, L. W., and Thatcher, S. M. (2007). “Feeling the heat: Effects of
stress, commitment, and job experience on job performance.” Acad.
Manage. J., 50(4), 953–968.
Jaccard, J., and Wan, C. K. (1996). LISREL approaches to interaction
effects in multiple regression, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Janssen, O., Lam, C. K., and Huang, X. (2010). “Emotional exhaustion and
job performance: The moderating roles of distributive justice and
positive affect.” J. Organ. Behav., 31(6), 787–809.
Judge, T. A., and Colquitt, J. A. (2004). “Organizational justice and stress:
The mediating role of work-family conflict.” J. Appl. Psychol., 89(3),
395–404.
Kiazad, K., Seibert, S. E., and Kraimer, M. L. (2014). “Psychological
contract breach and employee innovation: A conservation of resources
perspective.” J. Occup. Organ. Psych., 87(3), 535–556.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., and Sapienza, H. J. (1995). “Building
commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams:
The role of procedural justice.” Acad. Manage. J., 38(1), 60–84.
Lam, S. S., Schaubroeck, J., and Aryee, S. (2002). “Relationship between
organizational justice and employee work outcomes: A cross-national
study.” J. Organ. Behav., 23(1), 1–18.
Lassiter, R. (1995). “Taking the pain out of performance appraisals.”
J. Manage. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(1995)11:1(16), 16–18.
Lee, C., Pillutla, M., and Law, K. S. (2000). “Power-distance, gender and
organizational justice.” J. Manage., 26(4), 685–704.
Lee, T., Lee, D., Lee, H., and Park, H. (2005). “Superior-subordinate
relationships in Korean civil engineering companies.” J. Manage.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2005)21:4(159), 159–163.
Leung, M. Y., and Chan, H. K. (2007). “Antecedents of commitment
in construction management.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 25(2),
113–127.
Lind, E. A., and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural
justice, Springer, New York.
Lingard, H., and Lin, J. (2004). “Career, family and work environment
determinants of organizational commitment among women in the
Australian construction industry.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 22(4),
409–420.
Lingard, H. C., Francis, V., and Turner, M. (2010). “Work-family
enrichment in the Australian construction industry: Implications for
job design.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 28(5), 467–480.
Liu, A. M., Chiu, W. M., and Fellows, R. (2007). “Enhancing commitment
through work empowerment.” Eng. Constr. Archit. Manage., 14(6),
568–580.
Loosemore, M., and Tan, C. C. (2000). “Occupational bias in construction
management research.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 18(7), 757–766.
Love, P., Edwards, D., and Wood, E. (2011). “Loosening the Gordian knot:
The role of emotional intelligence in construction.” Eng. Constr. Archit.
Manage., 18(1), 50–65.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., and Williams, J. (2004). “Confidence
limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling
methods.” Multivariate Behav. Res., 39(1), 99–128.
Malone, E., and Issa, R. (2013). “Predictive models for work-life balance
and organizational commitment of women in the U.S. construction
industry.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862
.0000809, 04013064.
Maloney, W., and McFillen, J. (1983). “Research needs in construction
worker performance.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 10.1061/(ASCE)
0733-9364(1983)109:2(245), 245–254.
Maslach, C., and Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach burnout inventory,
Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., and Topolnytsky, L. (2002).
“Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organiza-
tion: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences.”
J. Vocat. Behav., 61(1), 20–52.
J. Manage. Eng.
 Moorman, R. H. (1991). “Relationship between organizational justice and
organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence
employee citizenship?” J. Appl. Psychol., 76(6), 845–855.
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., and Porter, L. W. (1979). “The measurement
of organizational commitment.” J. Vocat. Behav., 14(2), 224–247.
Ng, T. W., and Feldman, D. C. (2010). “Organizational tenure and job per-
formance.” J. Manage., 36(5), 1220–1250.
Ohana, M. (2014). “A multilevel study of the relationship between organi-
zational justice and affective commitment: The moderating role of
organizational size and tenure.” Pers. Rev., 43(5), 654–671.
Onukwube, H. N. (2012). “Correlates of job satisfaction amongst quantity
surveyors in consulting firms in Lagos, Nigeria.” Australas. J. Constr.
Econ. Build., 12(2), 43–54.
Ostroff, C., and Rothausen, T. J. (1997). “The moderating effect of tenure
in person-environment fit: A field study in educational organizations.”
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by New York University on 09/08/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
J. Occup. Organ. Psychol., 70(2), 173–188.
Phua, F. T. (2013). “Construction management research at the individual
level of analysis: Current status, gaps and future directions.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 31(2), 167–179.
Preacher, K. J., and Hayes, A. F. (2004). “SPSS and SAS procedures for
estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models.” Behav. Res.
Meth. Instrum. Comput., 36(4), 717–731.
Rafferty, A. E., Restubog, S. L. D., and Jimmieson, N. L. (2010). “Losing
sleep: Examining the cascading effects of supervisors’ experiences of
© ASCE 04016043-10
J. Manage. Eng., 04016043
injustice on subordinates’ psychological health.” Work Stress, 24(1),
36–55.
Riketta, M. (2002). “Attitudinal organizational commitment and job perfor-
mance: A meta-analysis.” J. Organ. Behav., 23(3), 257–266.
Rousseau, D. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Under-
standing written and unwritten agreements, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
SPSS Statistics V22.0 [Computer software]. IBM, New York.
Tepper, B. J. (2001). “Health consequences of organizational injustice:
Tests of main and interactive effects.” Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec.,
86(2), 197–215.
Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., and Stinglhamber, F. (2004). “Affective
commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Anteced-
ents and outcomes.” J. Vocat. Behav., 64(1), 47–71.
Wilkinson, A., Johnstone, S., and Townsend, K. (2012). “Changing
patterns of human resource management in construction.” Constr.
Manage. Econ., 30(7), 507–512.
Wright, T. A., and Hobfoll, S. E. (2004). “Commitment, psychological
well-being and job performance: An examination of conservation of
resources (COR) theory and job burnout.” J. Bus. Manage., 9(4),
389–406.
Zhao, X., Lynch, J. G., and Chen, Q. (2010). “Reconsidering Baron and
Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis.” J. Consum.
Res., 37(2), 197–206.
J. Manage. Eng.