Linking Justice Trust and Innovative Work Behaviour To Work Engagement

Personnel Review
Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement

Upasna A. Agarwal
Article information:
To cite this document:
Upasna A. Agarwal , (2014),"Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement", Personnel Review,
Vol. 43 Iss 1 pp. 41 - 73
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-02-2012-0019
Downloaded on: 01 September 2015, At: 09:00 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 179 other documents.
Downloaded by SAUDI DIGITAL LIBRARY (SDL) At 09:00 01 September 2015 (PT)
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 1923 times since 2014*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Upasna A. Agarwal, Sumita Datta, Stacy Blake-Beard, Shivganesh Bhargava, (2012),"Linking LMX, innovative work
behaviour and turnover intentions: The mediating role of work engagement", Career Development International, Vol. 17 Iss
3 pp. 208-230 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241063
Fabian O. Ugwu, Ike E. Onyishi, Alma M. Rodríguez-Sánchez, (2014),"Linking organizational trust with employee
engagement: the role of psychological empowerment", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 3 pp. 377-400 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-11-2012-0198
Piyali Ghosh, Alka Rai, Apsha Sinha, (2014),"Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage in
public sector banks in India", Personnel Review, Vol. 43 Iss 4 pp. 628-652 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/PR-08-2013-0148
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:586319 []
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.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
Linking justice,
Linking justice, trust and trust and
innovative work behaviour to behaviour
work engagement
41
Upasna A. Agarwal
NITIE, Mumbai, India Received 3 February 2012
Revised 17 February 2013
23 July 2013
24 August 2013
Abstract Accepted 26 September
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of contextual variables – 2013
organisational justice (procedural justice, interactional justice and psychological contract) and trust –
on work engagement.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper reports a quantitative study of 323 managers
working in manufacturing and pharmaceutical organisations based in western India. Drawing from
social exchange theory, this paper tests the mediating role of trust in the justice-engagement
relationship. The paper also investigates the effect of work engagement on employees’ innovative
work behaviour.
Findings – Results suggest that procedural justice, interactional justice and psychological contract
fulfilment are positively related to work engagement with trust as the mediating element. Engagement
significantly influences employees’ innovative work behaviour
Research limitations/implications – The data were collected cross-sectionally, which means that
causal inferences must be made with caution. Moreover, the data were collected from a single source.
Nevertheless, the findings have implications for contemporary leadership and organisational
psychology research and practice in a novel geographic context.
Originality/value – This study is one of the rare attempts to examine the influence of three justice
variables and trust on work engagement. The study also contributes in terms of its context. With an
increasing number of multinationals starting operations in India, an understanding of employee
motivation has become an important concern. This research examines engagement levels of Indian
managerial employees.
Keywords Justice, Psychological contract, Quantitative, Work engagement
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Employment is essentially an exchange between an employee and an organisation
(Blau, 1964), where, “each (party) has the chance to gain something” (Porter, 1985,
p. 160) from the relationship. Prior to the 1980s, the employee-employer relationship
was stable and predictable. Job security and promotion were offered by the employer
(Herriot and Pemberton, 1996; Sims, 1994). In exchange, employees completely
invested themselves in their companies, worked 60 to 70 hours a week whenever
needed, relocated at short notice, and did whatever the company asked (Whyte, 1956).
Recent years have witnessed fundamental shifts in the nature of the
employee-organisation relationship (Cascio, 2006; Maguire, 2002). Contemporary
Personnel Review
Vol. 43 No. 1, 2014
The author would like to thank the Associate Editor Professor Penny Dick and anonymous pp. 41-73
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
reviewers for their helpful comments. Special thanks to Professor Vishal Gupta for help with 0048-3486
empirical analysis. DOI 10.1108/PR-02-2012-0019
PR organisations need their employee pool to expand or shrink according to their current
43,1 needs and according to the rules of the market. Competition has forced organisations to
control costs (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002). As a result, the traditional terms of employment
(Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Maguire, 2002), such as lifelong job security, guaranteed pay
increases, assured career opportunities and pensions, are obsolete (Singh, 1998).
Employees are no longer paid on the basis of their level, position or status, but on the
42 basis of their contribution to the firm (Kanter, 1989). Changing demography has altered
employee expectations of their organisations as well. After many years of a distinct
preference for security and stable employment (which usually resulted in very long
careers within a single company), employees now prefer other benefits. Further,
increasing numbers of urban nuclear families and higher participation of women in the
workforce have significantly altered employee career-growth expectations. The move

from institutional reliance to self-reliance (Lawler and Hall, 1970; London and Stumpf,
1986) has upset the relationship between organisational and career commitments
(Blau, 1964, 1968), resulting in a different employee-organisation dialogue.
Work engagement has captured the attention of business practitioners, academic
researchers and governments, since it is considered an optimal redefinition of the
emerging individual-organisation relationship, which, while fostering individual
loyalty and satisfaction, also contributes to the firm’s performance (Schohat and
Vigoda-Gadot, 2010). While organisations need to recruit and retain top talent, they
also need their talented employees to be physically and emotionally engaged with their
work (Bakker and Leiter, 2010). An engaged workforce is considered to be a
cornerstone of sustaining a competitive advantage (Macey et al., 2011). Although there
is increasing interest in the concept of work engagement, “there [remains] a surprising
dearth of research on employee engagement in the academic literature” (Saks, 2006,
p. 600). Specifically, while job resources (for example, autonomy, supervisory coaching,
performance feedback) and personal resources (for example, optimism, self-efficacy,
self-esteem) have been shown to predict engagement (Bakker et al., 2008), the extant
research has failed to “capture psychological experiences employees have that most
significantly impact their engagement” (Macey et al., 2011, p. 159). By taking an
integrative approach to examining the work engagement, the present study examines
the antecedents, outcome and psychological experiences that impact work
engagement.
The evolving nature of employment contracts and concurrent changes in work
arrangements has foregrounded management discussions of justice (Viswesvaran and
Ones, 2002). However, these factors have not been sufficiently considered in recent
employee engagement conceptualisations (Bakker et al., 2008; Chughtai and Buckley,
2008). This paper addresses this gap by examining the impact of justice on employee
engagement levels. Macey et al. (2009, p. 13) argued that employees will be engaged
only, “when they feel they will be treated fairly in terms of distribution of rewards,
procedures by which decisions to rewards are made and finally whether bosses and
colleagues display courtesy, warmth and support in their interactions”. However,
limited efforts have been made to examine the justice-engagement relationship. This
study examines the effects of justice on work engagement.
Employees who feel engaged and display engagement behaviour are taking some
risk in doing so (Macey et al., 2011). This may be because engagement involves
investing one’s energy in pursuit of organisational goals. Unless employees trust their
organisations, they will not be motivated to engage with their task. For instance Linking justice,
Hofmann et al. (2009) demonstrated that nurses are less likely to seek advice from trust and
experts in the absence of trust.
Although studies have examined the direct effects of trust on work engagement, behaviour
trust has not been examined as a mediator in the justice-engagement relationship.
Trust is a manifestation of social exchange, which underpins expressing mutual
loyalty, goodwill and support (Aryee et al., 2002). Employee perception of justice makes 43
organisations trustworthy, which in turn influences employee behaviour (Blau, 1964).
In a recent study, Schneider et al. (2009) proposed a model of work engagement with
trust as a mediator between the justice climate and work engagement. Building on
Kahn (1990), the authors argued that being engaged is a risk that employees take,
which they do to the extent that they feel psychologically safe. Employees’ experiences
of fair work conditions, among other factors, lead them to trust their co-workers,
supervisors and the system. That is, while other factors in the work environment can
lead people to feel engaged, they depend on trust.
This study examines trust as the mediating variable influencing the justice-work
engagement relationship. Work engagement is individual-driven (Kahn, 1990) and
motivational concept. On the other hand, perceived fairness and trust operate at the
organisational level and explain the motivational process of work enragement, which
takes place at the individual level. Examining individual-contextual variables
broadens the range of antecedents associated with work engagement. In addition, few
scholars have made an attempt to offer and empirically test a theoretical framework
that investigates the predictors (procedural, interactional justice and psychological
contract and trust) and outcome (innovative work behaviour) of engagement
simultaneously in one overall model.
The current rate of technological, social and institutional changes has resulted in
shorter life cycles of current products, services and business processes, making
continuous innovation a business compulsion. In recent years, nations and firms are
increasingly mobilizing their technical skills, knowledge and experience, to innovate
products, processes and services (Kay, 1993). The recently released Global Innovation
Index (GII) report (2013) prepared by INSEAD along with Cornell University and other
institutions, suggests that despite the difficult state of the global economy, dynamic
innovation hubs are multiplying around the world.
One option for organisations to become more innovative is to encourage their
employees to be innovative. Innovative behaviour is defined as the “intentional
creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role, group, or
organisation, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the organisation”
(Janssen, 2000, p. 202). Many practitioners and scientists now endorse the view that
innovation by individual employees is a means by which to foster organisational
success (e.g. Van de Ven, 1986; Smith, 2002). Since constant innovation has emerged as
a critical source of organisational survival, firms are increasingly interested in
examining factors which foster innovative work behaviour. The present paper aims to
improve the understanding of individual innovation by investigating work
engagement as a correlate with innovative work.
Furthermore, most previous work engagement research has been conducted in
western countries where cultures are typically individualist and low in power distance
(Hofstede, 1997). Since work engagement itself can differ across cultures (Abrams et al.,
PR 1998), exploring different working populations is important. Finally, this study focuses
43,1 on managers. Studies suggest that compared to traditional workers, managers are
motivated by intrinsic rewards (Kuvaas, 2006), perceived opportunity for growth and
achievement on the job (Thompson and Heron, 2005), and relationships with
co-workers and supervisors (May et al., 2002). Managers are typically highly educated,
have a team responsibility and engage in cognitively complex tasks. They are
44 responsible for interpreting and implementing organisational strategies, facilitating
change, creating effective working environments, ensuring smooth running of
operations, building teams and motivating subordinates (Delmestri and Walgenbach,
2005; Zhang et al., 2008). Firms depend on engaged managers’ creativity and
innovation to survive (Dutton et al., 1997). Thus, as a valuable resource, managers’
engagement levels would be an important requisite for an effective organisation.

Accordingly, the overall purpose of this study is to contribute to engagement research
by exploring its antecedents among managers in an Indian context.
In sum, the current study examines antecedents to work engagement within one of
the fastest-emerging economies, that is, India, and for a segment of the workforce, a
manager, that forms the basis for an organisation’s competitive advantage (Alvesson,
1995; Tushman and O’Reilly, 1996). Such initial steps are necessary for strengthening
the nomological networks and for establishing research implications and practical
applications.
The conceptual model representing the proposed relationships is depicted in
Figures 1-3. The model suggests that employee perceptions of organisational justice
will be reciprocated in employees’ engagement with their work. Furthermore, it
proposes that the relationships between justice variables and work engagement levels
will be mediated by trust in the organisation.
The context of the study: India

The Indian economy is the tenth-largest in the world in terms of nominal GDP and the
third-largest by purchasing power parity (PPP). India is one of the G-20 major
economies and a member of BRICS. On a per capita income basis, in 2011, India ranked
140th by nominal GDP and 129th by GDP (PPP), is the nineteenth-largest exporter and
tenth-largest importer in the world, according to the IMF (The Economist, 2010).
Figure 1.
Model 1: fully mediating
model
Linking justice,
trust and
behaviour
45
Figure 2.
Model 2: partially
mediating model
Figure 3.
Model 3: non-mediating
model
India is one of the most attractive destinations for business and investment due to its
huge manpower base, diversified natural resources and strong macro-economic
fundamentals. India’s so-called “demographic dividend” of a younger population
compared to developed countries is an opportunity for most firms. According to an
IMF working paper (Aiyar and Mody, 2011), India will be one of the few countries in
the world with a working age population that exceeds its number of retirees. By 2020,
the average Indian will be only 29 years of age, compared with 37 in China and the
USA, 45 in Western Europe, and 48 in Japan. By 2050, the percentage of people above
the age of 65 will be 39 per cent in the US, 53 per cent in Germany and 67 per cent in
Japan. By contrast, only 19 per cent of Indians will be aged above 60 (Samorodov,
1999).
In 1991, India opened its economy to international trade, eliminating the License
Raj, a pre- and post-British era mechanism of strict government control on setting up
new industry. The economy thereafter grew at 9.5 per cent which helped raise the GDP
from 8.5 to 9 per cent per annum. Although the 2008 global financial crisis lowered
India’s GDP to 6.8 per cent, the Indian economy rallied with 7 per cent growth in
2012 –13. The famous Goldman Sachs report BRIC Lane: the Road Ahead predicted
that by 2050 India would emerge to be one of the world’s ten largest economies.
According to the McKinsey Global Institute (Choudhary et al., 2012), if India continues
on its current high-growth path, it will undergo a major transformation over the next
PR two decades. Income levels will almost triple, and India will climb from its position as
43,1 the twelfth-largest consumer market today to become the world’s fifth-largest
consumer market by 2025. In several product and market categories, India could
account for more than 20 per cent of global revenue growth in the next decade. In other
words, the future of many multinationals depends on their ability to succeed in India.
As with countries in the west, India has undergone significant transformations
46 since 1991, precipitating many changes in employee-organisation relationships
(Ahluwalia, 2002). Post-liberalisation, Indian companies faced stiff competition; to cut
costs, they had to withdraw many benefits that they traditionally provided, such as job
security and provisions for retirement, time-based career growth, etc. A further result
of the economic liberalisation was women’s presence in professional roles, resulting in
a steady growth in working couples (Komarraju, 1997). The need to manage work and
family obligations (D’Cruz and Bharat, 2001; Rajadhyaksha and Bhatnagar, 2000;
Ramu, 1989) altered employee expectations in terms of work-life balance, career
growth, etc.
The organisational milieu and values of people in collectivist societies like India are
starkly different from those typically found in a Western context and feature great
associative and nurturing needs (Hui et al., 2004). There is respect for hierarchy as well
as personal relationships; management style is typically paternalistic and employees
see the organisation as a symbolic family representation (Aycan et al., 2001). Justice
and trust in particular have immense significance in Indian society and keeping one’s
word is viewed as a defining characteristic of dignity and upbringing (Shah, 2000).
Therefore, an examination of the emergence and functioning of social exchange
processes in collectivist Eastern cultures would enhance our understanding of the
motivational underpinnings of employee work attitudes and behaviours in a
competitive globalised economy.
The concept of work engagement

Work engagement is a positive organisational behaviour concept that has emerged in
the past decade. Positive organisational behaviour (POB) is defined as:
[. . .] the study and application of positively oriented human resource strengths and
psychological capacities that can be measured, developed, and effectively managed for
performance improvement in today’s workplace (Luthans, 2002; p. 59).
Macey et al. (2009, p. 5) defined engagement as a “psychic kick of immersion, striving,
absorption, focus and involvement”. Engagement is discretionary effort, achieved
through the investment of physical, cognitive, and emotional energy in work roles
(Cameron et al., 2003; Kahn, 1990). Engagement involves investing “hands, head, and
heart” (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1995, p. 110) in active, full-work performance.
The conceptual basis for work engagement was provided by Kahn’s (1990)
ethnographic study of an architecture firm. He defined engagement as, “the harnessing
of organisation members” selves to their work role by which they employ and express
themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during work performances’ (Kahn,
1990, p. 694). The most accepted definition of work engagement is from Schaufeli et al.
(2002, p. 465) as, “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterised by
vigour, dedication, and absorption.” Vigour refers to high energy and mental resilience
while working, a willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even in the
face of difficulties. Dedication refers to a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, Linking justice,
pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterised as being fully concentrated and trust and
deeply engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulty
detaching from work. Empirical studies provide evidence for a one-factor, behaviour
parsimonious structure of work engagement (Wefald and Downey, 2009). In this
study, absorption, vigour, and dedication are combined into an aggregate engagement
measure. 47
Kahn (1990) found that there were three psychological conditions associated with
work engagement: meaningfulness, safety, and availability. In other words, workers
were more engaged at work in situations that offered them more psychological
meaningfulness and safety, and when they were more psychologically available. In the
only study to empirically test Kahn’s model, May et al. (2004) found that
meaningfulness, safety, and availability were significantly related to engagement.
Despite the proliferation of engagement-related research, a number of writers have
argued against viewing it as a new construct, calling it “old wine in a new barrel”
(Macey and Schneider, 2008; Newman and Harrison, 2008), resulting in “Jangle
Fallacy” (Kelley, 1927). Engagement as a concept has faced scrutiny due to near
redundancy with three classic job attitudes: job satisfaction ( JS), organisation
commitment (OC) and job involvement ( JI). Organisational commitment is:
[. . .] the relative strength of the individual’s identification with and involvement in a
particular organisation . . . characterised by at least three related factors:
(1) a strong belief in and acceptance of the organisation’s goals and values
(2) a willingness to exert considerable effort on behalf of the organisation; and
(3) a strong desire to maintain membership in the organisation (Mowday et al., 1982; p. 226).
Job involvement, on the other hand, focuses on the cognitive energy individuals invest
to maintain identities related to work; a job-involved person sees her or his job “as an
important part of his self-concept” (Lawler and Hall, 1970; p. 311). Job satisfaction
refers to, “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s
job or job experience” (Locke, 1976, p. 1300). Work engagement, on the other hand, is
defined as the harnessing of an employee’s full self in terms of physical, cognitive, and
emotional energies to work role performances (Kahn, 1990).
Delineating the differences between work engagement and other psychological
constructs, Inceoglu, Fleck, and Albrecht (2010) and Yalabik et al. (2013) noted that
while engagement is characterised by high arousal, job satisfaction and organisation
commitment are characterised by less-activated positive feelings such as contentment
and comfort. Further, while job involvement focuses on the cognitive energy
individuals invest to maintain identities related to work, job satisfaction focuses on
affective reactions and the need to maintain happiness; organisation commitment is an
affective-cognitive dimension. Rich et al. (2010) argued that none of the old constructs
accounts for the possibility that individuals can choose to invest their affective,
cognitive, and physical energies simultaneously into role performance as with work
engagement. Hallberg and Schaufeli (2006), using confirmatory factor analysis, also
showed that engagement, job involvement and commitment are distinct constructs.
In addition, studies have found that engagement is also not the same as
“workaholism” (Schaufeli et al., 2007). Unlike with workaholics, engaged employees do
PR not work hard because of a strong and irresistible inner drive, but because working is
43,1 fun. Although related, engagement is also not in the same conceptual space as
organisation citizenship behaviour (OCB) (Macey and Schneider, 2008). Bakker et al.
(2011a) noted that work engagement is different from work-related flow in that it refers
to a longer performance episode; flow typically refers to a peak experience that may
last only one hour or even less.
48 Recently, Albrecht (2010) revisited the arguments asking whether engagement
represents “same lady, different dresses”. The author drew borders among the
competing concepts of OC, JI, and OCB and emphasised work engagement, suggesting
that:
.
its scope is larger than the other three;
.
its source of behaviour is related much more to work and organisation;
.
its personality type is high on “active coping”;
.
its basic orientation is non-submissive;
. its situational compatibility is unlimited; and
.
it is high on inter-organisational transferability (see Table I).
To summarise, while it is important to acknowledge some overlap between

engagement and other similar constructs, there is enough empirical evidence to
suggest that work engagement is much more than a repackaging of related constructs
(Bakker et al., 2011b). At an aggregate level, none of the old psychological constructs
accounts for the possibility of investment of cognitive, emotional, and physical energy
simultaneously; therefore, work engagement provides a more comprehensive
explanation for job performance than do concepts that depict the self more
narrowly. Work engagement is also considered a better job performance predictor than
many old constructs (Rich et al., 2010). Clearly, it is a unique construct that deserves the
same theoretical and practical attention as other, more established organisational
constructs (Bakker et al., 2011b).
Relationship between organisation justice, trust, work engagement and innovative work
behaviour: a research model
Psychological safety has been described as one of the important conditions for work
engagement. Kahn (1990, p. 708) noted that psychological safety is being able, “to show
and employ one’s self without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status or
career. People (in the research effort) felt safe when they trusted that they would not
suffer from their personal engagement”. Macey et al. (2009, p. 13) argued that
psychological safety matters because, “if employees feel that they are vulnerable and
unsafe in the organization and the risks of being engaged require people to assume
“hero” personas they will not be motivated to be engaged”. Barsky and Kaplan (2007)
argued that in a psychologically safe environment, employees are less likely to
experience negative emotions associated with failure. On the contrary, when
employees feel psychologically unsafe, they will be preoccupied with the possible
embarrassment by others about their actions (Spreitzer et al., 2010). As a result,
employees in such an environment would be extremely cautious and self-monitoring,
which requires directed attention, and, consciously or unconsciously this depletes
energy. Employees who are psychologically unsafe would be less willing to take risks
Dimension OC JI OCB EE
Scope Intra-role Intra-role Extra-role Intra-and extra-role

Source of behaviour Role identification/ Job identification Voluntary, non-specific Dispositional/
internalization motivational
Personality type Team player Care and understanding Respect toward people, authority and Optimistic/proactive
institutions
Basic orientation Social compliance/ Normative compliance and Normative compliance and Initiative and
collaborative participation participation enterprise
Assistance target Unit/organisation Unit/organisation Personal/team/work-group/unit Organisation
Situational compatibility Unlimited Job knowledge, skills, Personal/team interdependence Unlimited
experience
Inter-organisational Low Medium Medium High
transferability
Guiding principle Industrial organisational Industrial organisational Management, political science Social and behavioural
psychology psychology science
Source: Schohat and Vigoda-Gadot (2010)
behaviour
Linking justice,
trust and
49
Table I.
PR lest mistakes go against them or be held against them in terms of the rewards,
43,1 promotions or treatment they receive from management.
Psychological safety stems from experiences of social situations that are predictable
and consistent (Kahn, 1990). Organisational justice is considered as an important
source of psychological safety (Macey et al., 2009). Employees perceive organisations to
be psychologically safe if they perceive or experience justice in terms of the
50 distribution of tangible rewards, consistency and predictability in decisions made and
treatment bosses and co-workers display. Organisational justice as a concept, has
received much attention from management scholars (Colquitt et al., 2007; Colquitt,
2001). Previous scholars have divided organisational justice into three categories:
distributive justice, procedural justice (Greenberg et al., 2004; Greenberg, 1993) and
interactional justice (Bies and Moag, 1986; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).
Distributive justice is one of the dominant aspects of organisational justice (Adams
et al., 2002; Greenberg et al., 2004) and is “one of the oldest forms of justice” (Moon et al.,
2008, p. 85). It is defined as employees’ perceptions of the general balance between the
comprehensive scope of investments made and rewards received at work (Janssen,
2003). Procedural justice refers to justice in the process by which outcomes such as
promotions or budgetary allocations are made (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).
Interactional justice pertains to the treatment employees receive from the decision
makers. This dimension itself includes two sub-dimensions, interpersonal and
informational justice. While interpersonal justice refers to respectful treatment,
informational justice refers to decision explanation truthfulness, and adequacy. These
two dimensions are highly interrelated (Colquitt, 2001) with some authors arguing that
they are very similar (Cropanzano and Ambrose, 2001).
Previous scholars have concluded that organisational justice impacts employee’
workplace attitudes and behaviours (Colquitt, 2001; Folger and Skarlicki, 1999). While
scholars have recognised the positive effects of organisational justice (Lowe and
Vodanovich, 1995; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992), they have also found that failure to
implement organisational justice can produce negative behaviours (Cropanzano et al.,
1999; Hollinger and Clark, 1983; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997).
Few studies have examined the relationship between justice perceptions on
employee engagement. Among those that have, Saks (2006) tested the effect of
procedural and distributive justice on work engagement and found no association
between these variables. The present study examines the relationship between
psychological contract fulfilment and engagement. Examining psychological contract
instead of distributive justice was relevant for this study because while distributive
justice refers to the justice of outcomes or final decisions compared to what others
receive (Deutsch, 1975, 1985), a psychological contract is a broader construct that is
based on the perception of justice of individual outcomes and encompasses not only
obligations established via a formal or an implied contract, but also via more implicit
means (Morrison and Robinson, 1996). Engagement is a discretionary effort that is not
directly or indirectly recognised by the formal reward system. One answer to the
question “why would employees give that extra time and energy?” could be that
employees voluntarily invest because “that is the deal”; in other words, it is the
psychological contract between the individual and the organisation (Macey et al., 2009).
When employee expectations (both implicit and explicit) have been met, it is reasonable
to assume that the employee will perform at high levels consistent with their
interpretations of the implicit contract. In this view, engagement is reciprocation for Linking justice,
fulfilment of expectations. Unlike a psychological contract, however, distributive trust and
justice does not necessarily address the promissory element of employees’
expectations. Therefore, it is appropriate to include psychological contract as an behaviour
antecedent of work engagement.
This study simultaneously examines the effects of three types of justice perceptions
on employee engagement. The relationships between justice dimensions and work 51
engagement can be viewed from the social exchange theory perspective. Unlike
economic exchange, a social exchange is not based on a quid pro quo and the
reciprocation is unspecified; nonetheless, as noted by Blau (1964), social exchange
partners have trust in each other’s fair intentions. The exchange partners abide by
“rules of exchange”, or the norm of reciprocity (Cotterell et al., 1992), in which an

individual will be paid back in currency that he/she values. If one party does not
reciprocate, an imbalance is created (Cropanzano et al., 2003) and the relationship
gradually dissolves and disappears. Accordingly, when individuals receive economic
and socio-emotional resources from their organisation, they feel obliged to respond in
kind (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005). According to Organ (1988, p. 553), “the inherent
ambiguity of such a relationship frees the individual to contribute in discretionary
fashion without thinking that this would be acquiescence or exploitation”.
Social exchange in an employment relationship may be initiated by an
organisation’s fair treatment of its employees. Employees care about being treated
fairly, because justice serves psychological needs, including “control, belonging,
self-esteem and meaningful existence” (Cropanzano et al., 2001, p. 175). This favour or
spontaneous gesture of goodwill on the part of the organisation engenders an
obligation on the part of employees to reciprocate the good deeds of the organisation.
When the company provides fair and just supervision treatment, people will
reciprocate, because people fundamentally believe in reciprocation. Engagement in this
sense is a payback or reciprocation for what the company has provided.
The justice-engagement link can also be explained from the equity theory
perspective. Adams’ (1965) equity theory suggests that conditions of injustice create
tension within a person, which he or she will attempt to resolve. Work engagement
could be considered as an input for an individual’s equity ratio. Thus, we hypothesise
that:
H1a. Psychological contract fulfilment is positively related with work engagement.
H1b. Procedural justice is positively related with work engagement.
H1c. Interactional justice is positively related with work engagement.
To cope with global competition and environmental uncertainty, organisations need
employees who not only fulfil their formal job requirements, but also engage in
innovative behaviour (Janssen, 2000). Innovative work behaviour is defined as the
intentional creation, introduction, and application of new ideas within a work role,
group, or organisation, in order to benefit role performance, the group, or the
organisation (West and Farr, 1990, p. 17). The central role of innovation in the
long-term survival of organisations (Ancona and Caldwell, 1992) has provoked
continued interest among social scientists and practitioners alike.
PR Studies on innovative behaviour are still embryonic. Those that pertain to
43,1 leadership, individual problem-solving style, and work group relations (Scott and
Bruce, 1994), distributive and procedural justice ( Janssen, 2004), supervisor
supportiveness (Janssen, 2003), and self-leadership, income and job tenure skills
(Carmeli et al., 2006) have been examined to determine whether they affect employee
innovation. Recently, some efforts have been made to examine the link between work
52 engagement and innovative work behaviour (Agarwal et al., 2012; Hakanen et al.,
2008). Replicating past studies, we hypothesise that:
H2. Work engagement will be positively related to innovative work behaviour.
Trust is defined as:
[. . .] the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another party based on the
expectation that the other will perform a particular action important to the trust or,
irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712).
Trust is important in all spheres of social life. It binds friendships (Gibbons, 2004),
facilitates bargaining and negotiations (Olekalns and Smith, 2005), reduces transaction
costs in inter-firm exchanges (Bharadwaj and Matsuno, 2006), and even resolves
international political conflicts (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000). It is a fundamental
ingredient in any positive and productive social process. Central to the survival of any
social exchange is mutual trust. An employment relationship involves many
unspecified obligations that cannot be negotiated in a court of law. Since theoretically
reciprocal beneficial acts are not negotiated, social exchange entails risk and
uncertainty because the exchange partner might never reciprocate. The diffuse nature
of social exchange obligations makes trust an essential condition for their
establishment. As Blau (1964, p. 94) has noted, “since there is no way to assure an
appropriate return for a favour, a social exchange requires trusting others to discharge
their obligations”.
Studies have found that organisation instability, inadequate working conditions,
and poor treatment (Kiefer, 2005) or job insecurity (Wong et al., 2005), as well as
structure, human resource policies and procedures, and organisational culture affect
employees’ trust perceptions (Whitener, 1998). Organisational justice (Aryee et al.,
2002; Barkhuizen and Rothmann, 2006; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994) and psychological
contract are confirmed to be significant predictors of trust (Morrison and Robinson,
1997; Robinson and Morrison, 2000; Robinson, 1996). A narrative review by Lewicki,
Wiethoff, and Tomlinson (2005, p. 253) noted that, “the volume of both theoretical and
empirical work over the last 15 years clearly points to a strong relationship between
trust and justice”. Meta-analyses in literatures of both justice and trust concepts have
also pointed to a range of correlations from moderate to strongly positive
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001; Dirks and Ferrin, 2002). In line
with prior work, this study examines the justice-trust relationship among managerial
employees in a novel geographical context. We hypothesise:
H3a. Psychological contract fulfilment is positively related with trust.
H3b. Procedural justice is positively related with trust.
H3c. Interactional justice is positively related with trust.
Trust has been found to be an important predictor of outcomes such as cooperative Linking justice,
behaviour (Shockley-Zalabak et al., 2000), organisational citizenship behaviour (Van trust and
Dyne et al., 2000), organisational commitment (Aryee et al., 2002), and employee loyalty
(Costigan et al., 1998). Trust in organisations is also a critical driver for engagement. behaviour
When employees contribute their time, talent and energy, they want to be sure that
they are investing efforts in support of their organisation and they are making a wise
decision and will not be cheated. Trust is what enables employees to make or evaluate 53
these decisions. If employees trust their organisation, it frees them to put their full
energy and commitment to work. Conversely, when there isn’t trust, employees spend
much of their time protecting themselves (Macey et al., 2009). Studies in past have
examined the direct effects of organisational trust and work engagement (Chughtai
and Buckley, 2008; Lin, 2010). In line with previous studies, we state:
H4. Trust is positively associated with work engagement.
Since social exchange requires trusting others to reciprocate, the initial problem is
proving oneself trustworthy (Blau, 1964). Studies suggest that an organization’s fair
treatment of the other initiates a social exchange relationship with the employees,
which over a period of time, reinforces trustworthiness of the exchange partner. When
employees experience fair organization policies and procedures, they perceive a
trustworthy organization and, commensurate to the norm of reciprocity, they
reciprocate to the organization. Organizational fairness is confirmed to be a significant
predictor of trust (Barkhuizen and Rothmann, 2006; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Aryee
et al., 2002). Previous studies have also found engagement as one of the outcomes of
organizational trust (Chughtai and Buckley, 2008; Lin, 2010). Based on this evidence,
we propose that trust mediates the organizational fairness and work-engagement
relationship. Consequently, the hypothesis regarding the influence of organizational
trust on work engagement can be stated as follows.
H5a. Trust will mediate the direct relationship between Psychological contract
fulfilment and work engagement.
H5b. Trust will mediate the direct relationship between Procedural justice and
work engagement.
H5c. Trust will mediate the direct relationship between Interactional Justice and
work engagement.
Method
Sample and study procedure
The study surveyed employees who were working in manufacturing and
pharmaceutical companies in India. These organisations were situated in and
around Mumbai, the financial capital of India. Data was collected from managers as
they make important economic contributions to their organisations (Nelson and
Cooper, 2007). For the purpose of this study, managerial employees with a team
responsibility (at least three subordinates) were selected. The human resource (HR)
departments of these two organisations assisted researchers in identifying prospective
managers who fitted this criterion. Thereafter, stratified random sampling was used to
represent managers across age, gender, tenure, education level, hierarchical levels and
PR functions. In total, 500 managers were sent personal invitations by the HR team of the
43,1 respective organisation to volunteer for the study. A total of 450 employees
participated.
In order to facilitate efficient data collection, groups were constituted in each
organisation according to employee convenience. The questionnaire was prepared in
English and administered directly by the researchers. Attached to each questionnaire
54 was a cover letter that explained the objective of the study and assured respondents that
the study was voluntary and that their responses would be confidential. Out of 450 total
responses, 323 were usable for further analysis, forming a response rate of 71.1 per cent.
Of the 323 valid responses, 165 were from manufacturing organisations. Of the
respondents, 65 per cent were men and 35 per cent were women. Respondents had an
average age of 35.7 years (SD ¼ 1:1) and an average job tenure of eight years (SD ¼ 1:7).
Regarding employee education levels, 68.6 per cent were graduates and 31.4 per cent
were post-graduates. Employees represented diverse functional backgrounds, including
accounting/finance, engineering (8.3 per cent), sales/marketing (16.8 per cent),
production/manufacturing (44.3 per cent), human resources/administration (9.9 per
cent), and research and development (13.1 per cent). In terms of their level in the
management hierarchy, 45 per cent were lower-level managers, 44 per cent were
middle-level managers, and 11 per cent were senior/top-level managers.
Measures
Indicators were used for each latent variable. Unless otherwise indicated, all measures
used a response scale ranging from 1, which was “strongly disagree”, to 5, which was
“strongly agree”.
Work engagement. Work engagement was measured with the nine-item version of
the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) (Schaufeli et al., 2007) on a seven-point
Likert scale. The UWES reflects three underlying dimensions, which were measured
with three items each: vigour (for example, “at my work, I feel bursting with energy”),
dedication (for example, “my job inspires me”) and absorption (for example, “I get
carried away when I am working”). The three engagement dimensions were combined
to create an overall work engagement scale. High scores on all three dimensions
indicated high work engagement. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.88.
Psychological contract fulfilment. Psychological contract fulfilment was measured
using Robinson and Morrison’s (2000) five-item scale on a five-point likert scale. The
Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.92.
Trust. A seven-item scale by Gabarro and Athos (1976, 1978) was used to measure
trust in the organisation. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.79.
Procedural justice (PJ). A seven-item abbreviated version of a scale by Niehoff and
Moorman (1993) that reflects the presence of formal procedures for making decisions
was used to measure procedural justice. The scale’s alpha reliability in this study was
0.93.
Interactional justice (IJ). A six-item abbreviated version of a scale developed by
Niehoff and Moorman (1993) that reflects the fair use of procedures by an employee’s
supervisor was used to measure interactional justice. The scale’s alpha reliability in
this study was 0.82.
Innovative work behaviour (IWB). The innovative behaviour of the respondents was
rated using the nine-item measure of Janssen (2000). The respondents indicated how
often they performed innovative activities, including “creating new ideas for difficult Linking justice,
issues” (idea generation), “mobilising support for innovative ideas” (idea promotion), trust and
and “transforming innovative ideas into useful applications” (idea realisation). The
three dimensions of innovative work behaviour were combined additively to create an behaviour
overall innovative behaviour scale. The Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was 0.92.
Solitary work preference. A three-item measure of solitary work preference from
Ramamoorthy and Flood (2004) was chosen as a marker variable for confirmatory 55
factor analysis (CFA).
All measures were adopted into self-report format and randomly ordered. Although
multiple ratings are advised for outcome variables (in this case, innovative work
behaviour and work engagement), it was not feasible to have supervisors/peers rate
employee behaviours since our methodology assured participant anonymity and there
was no reasonable way to follow-up and match individuals. Further, Coyne and Ong
(2007) argued that discretionary behaviour has multiple recipients, and supervisors
and peers might observe only one dimension of the behaviour. Moreover, as suggested
by Janssen (2000), Ng and Feldman (2012), and Shalley et al. (2009), employees are best
suited to self-report work behaviours because they are the ones who are aware of the
subtle things they do that enable them to perform better. Self-reported measures of
innovative work behaviours are not uncommon in the management literature (Axtell
et al., 2000; Ng and Feldman, 2012) and have been found to converge with supervisory
ratings and objective workplace behaviour measures (Axtell et al., 2000; Ng et al., 2010).
In the case of work engagement, the participant himself/herself will be the only person
to know how much and which engagement dimensions – that is, vigor, dedication or
absorption –he/she has actually displayed. Thus, a self-report measure may be more
appropriate than supervisor or peer ratings.
However, self-reported data can lead to common method bias. To investigate the
extent to which the self-reported measures may have inflated the relationships between
the study variables, we followed the procedure presented by Williams and Anderson
(1994) and applied by Carmeli and Schaubroeck (2007). Application of the marker
variable technique requires the inclusion of a variable that is theoretically unrelated to
at least one of the focal variables. The correlation observed between the marker
variable and the unrelated variable is interpreted as an estimate of CMV (Lindell and
Whitney, 2001).As suggested by Richardson et al. (2009), four models were estimated
for each simulated independent-dependent construct pair: a baseline model, a method-C
model, a method-U model, and a method-R model. Briefly, the baseline model forced the
correlations between the marker construct and both the independent and dependent
constructs in the given set to zero; in addition, it fixed marker construct and marker
item loadings to the unstandardised values obtained from a basic CFA model. The
method-C model was identical to the baseline model, but with the addition of factor
loadings from the marker construct to each independent/dependent construct item.
These loadings were constrained to be equal; that is, non-congeneric. The method-U
model was identical to the method-C model, but the marker
construct-independent/dependent item loadings were freely estimated; that is, were
congeneric. Finally, the method-R model was identical to the method-C/U model;
however, the independent –dependent construct correlation was constrained to its
unstandardised value from the baseline model.
PR We chose the three-item solitary work preferences subscale (Ramamoorthy and
43,1 Flood, 2004) as the marker variable, because solitary work preference was not expected
to be related to the work engagement antecedents and outcomes. The fit statistics for
the method-C model, method-U model and method-R model were not better than those
for the baseline model (Table II). Specifically, the Chi-square difference tests comparing
the baseline model with method-C, method-U and method-R models were not
56 significant. Thus, it is unlikely that the effect of CMV on the relations among the
variables is a large concern in our study.
Control variables. Since research suggests that age, gender, education, job level and
tenure are related to engagement levels (Schaufeli et al., 2002), these variables were
controlled in order to rule out alternative explanations. These variables were measured as:
Gender (0 ¼ Male; 1 ¼ Female), job level (0 ¼ junior; 1 ¼ middle; 2 ¼ senior) and

education level (0 ¼ graduate; 1 ¼ post-graduate). Tenure and age were reported in years.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table III provides the descriptive statistics (including means and standard deviations)
and correlations for the study variables. As can be seen, the alpha reliabilities were 0.79
or higher and, therefore, satisfactory for structural equation modelling (Bollen, 1989).
The study demonstrated a significant relationship between demographic variables and
several of the variables of this study. Age was significantly related to work
engagement, trust and psychological contract fulfilment. Job level was related
significantly to all the core variables and tenure was significantly related to work
engagement and procedural justice. Therefore, these effects were controlled for in
further analysis by adding only the significant paths in the structural model.
In general, the zero-order correlation results were all in the expected direction,
indicating preliminary support for the relationships depicted in Figures 1-3.
Psychological contract fulfilment (r ¼ 0:40, p , 0:01), interactional justice (r ¼ 0:32,
p , 0:01) and procedural justice (r ¼ 0:11, p , 0:01) were positively related to work
engagement. These findings support hypotheses H1a, H1b and H1c. As hypothesised,
work engagement was positively related to innovative work behaviour (r ¼ 0:34,
p , 0:01), supporting H2. Trust was positively associated with work engagement
(r ¼ 0:54, p , 0:01), supporting H4. Psychological contract fulfilment (r ¼ 0:40,
p , 0:01), interactional justice (r ¼ 0:13, p , 0:01) and procedural justice (r ¼ 0:32,
p , 0:01) were positively related to trust, supporting hypotheses H3a, H3b and H3c.
Using the procedures recommended by Baron and Kenny (1986), and Kelloway
(1995) for testing mediation, a fully-mediated model is tested against the partially
mediated and non-mediated model (see Figures 1-3 as a summary of the alternative
models).
Model x2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA Dx2
Baseline model 10,000 3,489 0.93 0.09 0.04 2.8

Table II. Model- C 9,887 2,500 0.93 0.08 0.05 3.8 ns
Test of common method Model-U 9,501 2,000 0.94 0.07 0.04 14.7 ns
variance Model-R 9,980 1,000 0.94 0.06 0.03 59.9 ns
Solitary
Job work
Mean SD Age Gender Edu Tenure level PCF IJ PJ WE TRUST IWB preference
Age 35.7 1.1 1

Gender 0.15 0.36 20.06 1
Education 2.0 1.2 0.03 2 0.02 1
Tenure 8.6 1.7 20.16 2 0.03 0.02 1
Job level 1.6 0.4 20.01 2 0.04 0.01 0.08 1
PCF 3.5 0.76 0.17 * * 0.07 0.32 0.07 0.12 * 1(0.92)
IJ 4.1 1.3 0.25 0.01 0.34 0.07 0.13 * 0.15 * * 1(0.82)
PJ 4.9 1.2 0.26 0.06 0.07 0.12 * 0.16 * 0.26 * * 0.43 * * 1(0.93)
Work
engagement
(WE) 5.7 1.0 0.23 * * 2 0.10 0.08 0.19 * * 0.16 * 0.40 * * 0.32 * * 0.11 * * 1(0.88)
Trust
behaviour 3.5 0.6 0.14 * * 0.32 0.07 0.07 0.17 * 0.40 * * 0.13 * * 0.32 * * 0.54 * * 1 (0.79)
IWB 2.1 1.2 0.21 1.2 0.03 0.05 0.23 0.13 * * 0.54 * * 0.32 * * 0.34 * * 0.21 * * 1(0.92)
Solitary
work
preference 5.8 0.85 * 0.03 0.02 20.02 2 0.04 2 0.01 0.15 * 0.23 * 0.32 * * 0.23 0.12 2 0.23 * * 1(0.82)
Notes: *p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01; * * *p , 0:001; n ¼ 323, alpha reliabilities are given in the parentheses
behaviour
Linking justice,
correlations
Means, standard
deviations, and
trust and
Table III.
57
PR Figure 1 Model 1, included, the mediating model, paths from antecedents ( justice
43,1 perceptions and psychological contract) on trust which in turn positively influenced
work engagement. Path from work engagement to the outcome (innovative work
behaviour) was given.
Model 2 was the partially mediating model (see Figure 2). To state, Model 2 included
paths from antecedents (justice perceptions and psychological contract) to trust as well
58 as work engagement. Therefore according to this model, work engagement was
influenced both by antecedents as well as trust. Trust in turn positively influenced
work engagement and work engagement was the antecedent of innovative work
behaviour.
Model 3 was the non-mediating model (see Figure 3). The non-mediated model,
examined the direct relationship between (antecedents- justice perceptions and

psychological contract to work engagement, but their direct impact on work
engagement was not mediated by Trust. The model included path from work
engagement to innovative.Three criteria were used to compare the models: fit indices,
path coefficients, and the percentage of explained variance for each model separately.
Fit indices of the models are described in Table III.
The Chi-square test (x 2) is the first and most basic test for evaluating the model’s
fit. The smaller the value of the scale and the significance, the closer the model is to
being a perfect fit. Model 1 showed a lower x 2 value than model 2 and model 3
(x 2 ¼ 504:2, p , 0:01 and x 2 ¼ 652:6, x 2 ¼ 550, p , 0:01 respectively).
The second indicator tests the ratio between x 2 and the number of degrees of
freedom in the model. If this ratio is 2.0 or less, the model is considered to be a good fit.
The ratio of Model 1, mediating model was lower (x 2 ¼ 504:2, df ¼ 246; x 2 =df ¼ 2:0)
than model 2 (x 2 ¼ 652:6, df ¼ 200; x 2 =df ¼ 3:2) and Model 3 (x 2 ¼ 550, df ¼ 201;
x 2 =df ¼ 2:4). Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-normed Fit Index (NFI), Goodness of
Fit Index (GFI), Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and Standardised
root mean square residual (SRMR) were additionally considered to assess the model fit.
Hu and Bentler (1999) suggested that for CFI, NFI, and GFI, values 0.95 and above
indicate good fit. SRMR values below 0.08 suggest an acceptable model fit. For
RMSEA, values less than 0.05 generally indicate good fit, while values between 0.05
and 0.08 suggest acceptable fit (Kline, 2005). In model 1, the GFI was 0.82, the CFI was
0.99, the NFI was 0.96 and the SRMR was 0.05. The RMSEA value was 0.03. Model 2,
the partially mediating showed good fit (GFI ¼ 0:72, CFI ¼ 0:76, NFI ¼ 0:86 and
SRMR ¼ 0:08). The RMSEA value was 0.07. Model fit of model 3, non-mediating model
were (GFI ¼ 0:82, CFI ¼ 0:83, NFI ¼ 0:91 and SRMR ¼ 0:06). The RMSEA value was
0.03. According to this criterion, again model 1 proved a better fit than Model 2 and 3
(Table IV).
Examining the level of coefficients paths found in the model 1 (Figure 4) showed
that all of the existing paths in the model were significant and were in line with the
x2 df x2/df SRMR GFI NFI CFI RMSEA
Model 1: Mediating model 504.2 246 2 0.05 0.82 0.96 0.99 0.03
Table IV. Model 2: Partially mediating model 652.6 200 3.2 0.08 0.72 0.86 0.76 0.07
Goodness-of-fit indexes Model 2: Non-mediating model 550 201 2.7 0.06 0.813 0.91 0.83 0.03
Linking justice,
trust and
behaviour
59
Figure 4.
The emerging model
hypotheses. Psychological contract fulfilment (b ¼ 0:22, p , 0:01), procedural justice

(b ¼ 0:15, p , 0:01) and interactional justice (b ¼ 0:16, p , 0:01) were positively
related to trust, supporting H3a, H3b and H3c. Trust was positively associated with
work engagement (b ¼ 0:36, p , 0:01), supporting H4. Work engagement was
positively related to innovative work engagement (b ¼ 0:26, p , 0:01), supporting H2.
Compared with model 1, model 2 exhibited less significant paths. According to
model 2, Psychological contract fulfilment (b ¼ 0:06, p , 0:05), procedural justice
(b ¼ 0:02, p , 0:05) and interactional justice (b ¼ 0:03, p , 0:05) were positively
related to trust, however, compared to Model 1, the b value and value significance
levels dropped, partially supporting H3a, H3b and H3c, respectively. Psychological
contract fulfilment (b ¼ 0:22, p ¼ n:s) and procedural justice (b ¼ 0:15, p ¼ n:s) were
not found to be significantly related to work engagement. Interactional justice
(b ¼ 0:10, p , 0:05) was positively related to work engagement, supporting only H1c.
Trust was positively associated with work engagement (b ¼ 0:16, p , 0:01),
supporting H4. Finally, work engagement was found to be significantly related to
innovative work behaviour (b ¼ 0:16, p , 0:01), supporting H2 but the b value
dropped as compared to Model 1.
According to model 3, Psychological contract fulfilment (b ¼ 0:03, p ¼ n:s:) and
procedural justice (b ¼ 0:01, p ¼ n:s:) were not significantly related to work
engagement, thus H1a and H1b were not supported. Though interactional justice
(b ¼ 0:01, p , 0:05) was positively related to work engagement, supporting H1c;
however the coefficients and significance level had fallen compared to Model 2. Finally,
work engagement was found to be significantly related to innovative work behaviour
at a lesser regression co-efficient (b ¼ 0:06, p , 0:01), but the b value dropped. Thus
H2 was supported.
The percentage of explained variance is a third criterion for evaluating competing
models. In model 1, the direct model, 42 per cent of trust and 21 per cent of engagement
was explained by the independent variables; 25 per cent of variance in innovative work
behaviour was explained by work engagement. In model 2, the indirect model, 21 per
cent of the trust variance, and 10 per cent of the engagement variance and 5 per cent of
innovative work behaviour variance was explained by the independent variables. In
model 3, the non-mediating model, 13 per cent of variance in engagement and 7 per cent
of innovative work behaviour variance was explained by the independent variables.
Overall, model 1 scored better on the x 2 test, the number of degrees of freedom it
demonstrated, as well as on the coefficients and in terms of the variance explained,
PR compared to model 2 and 3. Hence, trust has an important mediating effect on the
43,1 relationship between perceptions of justice and work engagement (Figure 4)
Discussion
Management wants engaged employees because such behaviour is an important
foundation for organisation effectiveness (Schneider et al., 2009). There is a
60 demonstrated relationship between employee engagement and performance at the
individual (Bakker et al., 2004), unit (Harter and Schmidt, 2008) and organisational
level (Schneider et al., 2009) of analysis (see Bakker et al. 2008). Given the critical role of
engagement, there continues to be a need among executives and scholars alike for a
better understanding of the factors that stimulate engagement levels.
The present study set out to investigate the antecedents of work engagement by
employing the assumptions of social exchange theory. The starting point was that
social exchange in an employment relationship may be initiated by an organisation’s
fair treatment of its employees. Given the uncertainty and non-specificity of exchange,
in a social exchange trust was considered to be the underlying mechanism.
Accordingly, trust in the organisation was examined as an explanatory mechanism in
the justice-work engagement relationship. Commensurate to the norm of reciprocity, it
was argued that this favour or spontaneous gesture of goodwill on the part of the
organisation (in terms of a fair work environment) engenders an obligation on the part
of employees to reciprocate (in terms of work engagement).
The results of the study revealed that employees’ perception of justice as well as
fulfilment of promissory expectations influences their engagement levels through
trust. These findings resonate with findings of Saks (2006) and Parzefall et al., (2008)
that suggested that social exchange theory-based concepts of justice, psychological
contract fulfillment and trust can positively influence employee work engagement.
The findings of this study can also be examined from the job-demand resource
( JDR) theory perspective (Demerouti et al., 2001). According to the JDR model, every
job has its demands that hinder, and resources that aid, employees in their work
(Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004). In other words, employees’ perceptions of organisational
justice and fulfilment of promissory expectations can be viewed as a resource that the
employees expect the employer to provide.
This study makes important theoretical contributions to four different bodies of
knowledge: work engagement, justice, trust and innovative work behaviour. In the
domain of work engagement, the study joins a small, but growing body of research
that addresses factors that influence employee engagement. By examining the role of
justice and trust on work engagement, the study significantly expands knowledge
about organisational resources that can foster employees’ willingness to dedicate their
efforts and abilities to the work task. Finally, by identifying work engagement as
potential antecedent of innovative work behaviour, this study also extends research on
innovative work behaviour.
With regard to the justice literature, the present study investigates work
engagement as its potential outcome, thereby complementing the extant literature.
Although a few studies in the past have examined the role of justice variables
(Parzefall and Hakanen, 2010; Saks, 2006), there have been no studies that have
examined all three justice variables simultaneously. This is an important contribution
since employing a tripartite conceptualisation of organisational justice simultaneously
results in fuller understanding of the social exchange basis of employee work attitudes Linking justice,
and behaviours (Aryee et al., 2002). trust and
Another important theoretical contribution is in positioning organisation trust as
the mechanism between justice-engagement relationships. The mediating effect behaviour
suggests that trust is of paramount importance (Simpson, 2007). If employees realise
that their organisation has fulfilled its promised inducements (or policies), this results
in building organisational trust (Robinson, 1996), leading to work engagement. 61
Examining trust justice provides deeper understanding of the construct.
The mediating role of trust in the justice-engagement relationship can also be
viewed from a contextual perspective. Relationships and promises have immense
significance in Indian society. Keeping one’s word is viewed as a defining
characteristic of dignity and upbringing (Shah, 2000): Pranjaye par vachannajaye (I

can let go of my life but not my promise). Although employees in collectivistic societies
have a higher threshold for the perception of injustice, once injustice is perceived,
employees’ trust toward the organisation is shaken, which in turn has negative
consequences on employee attitudes and behaviours (Thomas et al., 2003). Since
employee engagement is considered an important managerial responsibility in today’s
competitive landscape, the findings of this study highlight how employee perceptions
of organisational justice influence individuals trust in management, which in turn
motivates them to be engaged in their tasks. With increasing numbers of multinational
corporations opening their businesses in India, the understanding of what may be
emphasised in a hierarchal and relational society is an important contribution of this
study.
Implications for managers

The conceptual model developed in this study has important implications for
organisations. Since work engagement is an essential state with relevant
organisational consequences, firms must find a way to create and then sustain the
level of energy and passion that people bring to work. The findings of this study
suggest that one of the primary tasks for organisations that cultivate competitive
advantage through employee engagement is to create a fair and trustworthy work
environment. Fair treatment of employees not only engenders trust, but also directly
influences employee engagement levels.
In order to build perceptions of justice among employees, organisations should be
transparent in terms of the distribution of rewards and recognition. Organisations
should also regularly communicate with people, keeping them informed about
decisions made and the reasons for the same. However, when organisations are
compelled to revise an existing policy or procedure due to uncontrollable external
factors, they should offer social accounts to explain job-related decisions. This can
effectively prevent perceptions of injustice (Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999).
Practices that promote fair treatment of employees constitute sources of trust
(Whitener, 1998). Organisational systems and procedures put in place should be done
in consultation with those who would be affected by them. There should also be a
process of determining employee’s preferences and their satisfaction levels by
conducting surveys from time to time and providing feedback about the actions taken.
Regularly updating the set of mutual obligations, and providing explanations are
important strategies to maintain an environment of justice and trust.
PR People in decision-making capacities have an important role in fostering a fair and
43,1 healthy work environment. Employees, particularly in collectivist countries such as
India, look up to their organisation for support and care. Supervisors play a critical role
in the employee-organisation relationship. Therefore organisations should conduct
programmes for training supervisors to treat their subordinates fairly and politely, and
to improve their supervisory and interpersonal skills. Managers should also be given
62 training in providing adequate justification and explanation for managerial decisions
and how to treat employees with respect to the decision-making process. People in top
management also should be approachable and pleasant in their day-to-day
interactions.
Engagement cannot exist without trust. If management wants to reap the benefits of
having an engaged workforce, it needs to attend to all features that promote and
sustain trust, and conversely, avoid those actions that erode trust. In addition, it needs
to recognise trust as a two-way street. When people trust management, they believe
they can be counted on to protect them and work in their favour, even if they are not
there to see if this in fact happens. When employees trust organisations, it creates a
sense of psychological safety: they feel unafraid of investing their energy in their work.
The importance of feeling safe enough to engage is heightened in times of
organisational stress. Trust must be built and can happen or fail to happen very
quickly, especially for newcomers. This suggests that great care must be taken
regarding the on-boarding/socialisation experiences of newcomers because they arrive
with implicit expectations; that is, they have a psychological contract (Rousseau, 1995)
to be fairly treated and to be trusting. What is crucial is that people learn to trust based
on not only what happens or fails to happen to them, but also by observing what
happens to others. This means that management must carefully attend not only to
what happens to people but also to what happens around them. The clear implication is
that the work group must be continuously monitored if trust is to be developed, and
sustained. Organisations can cultivate a climate of trust by expressing recognition,
displaying sensitivity to employee needs and concerns, and establishing effective
communication channels (Handley et al., 2006). In line with the group value model, a
sense of trust and justice can also be restored by offering employees voice with regard
to decision-making processes (Lindell and Whitney, 2001).
Limitations and future research

Despite substantive theoretical contributions, the study is not without limitations. First
the cross-sectional design does not allow determining the direction of causality among
the variables. This limitation means that the arrows that suggested association among
the variables should not be interpreted as causal relations, but as associations that
might suggest certain ordering that should be confirmed in future longitudinal
research. The fact that the alternative model showed a poor fit to the data suggests that
this causal ordering is less likely. However, only longitudinal research can adequately
disentangle cause and effect.
With this realisation, the study followed some of the procedural remedies advocated
by Podsakoff et al. (2003). For instance, to reduce evaluation apprehension and prevent
response distortion, the participants were guaranteed complete confidentiality of their
responses. Furthermore, all the study variables were measured with established scales,
which can mitigate measurement error, thereby decreasing common method bias
(Spector, 2006). Finally, the results of the post hoc CFA marker technique (Richardson Linking justice,
et al., 2006; Williams et al., 2010) and confirmatory factor analysis showed that trust and
common method bias was not a serious concern. Nevertheless, the issue of social
desirability still remains and is a possible study limitation. Future studies should behaviour
collect data from multiple sources to avoid such potential problems.
Finally, since the data was collected only from manufacturing and pharmaceutical
organisations in western India, we cannot be sure of the generalisability of results to 63
firms in other sectors or locations. Future studies might evaluate the research model in
diverse geographical and occupational settings in order to enhance external validity.
This study offers avenues for future research. The literature on work engagement
differentiates between two types of engagement: work and organisation engagement. It
has been found that work engagement and organisation engagement are related, but
distinct constructs (Saks, 2006). Saks also found that there were differences between
job and organisation engagements vis-à-vis their antecedents and outcomes. This study
focused on examining the antecedents of work engagement. Future studies should
investigate the antecedents of work and organisational engagement separately. The
increasing pragmatic status of social exchange as a framework for understanding the
motivational underpinnings of employee work attitudes and behaviours advocates
continued research. This study is limited in terms of the number of social exchange
concepts that it examined. Future research should examine a more comprehensive
social exchange model that incorporates a multi-level model of organisational trust
examining trust in top management, immediate supervisor and co-worker, and other
social exchange constructs such as perceived organisation support (POS) and
leader-member exchange (LMX). Further research evidence suggests that reactions to
justice perceptions are moderated by gender. For example, Brockner and Wiesenfeld
(1996) reported that men tend to be more sensitive to issues of distributive justice than
women. Similarly, the relationship between trust and work engagement is mutually
reinforcing.
Conclusion
Scholars such as Cheng (1994) and Tsui (2004) have strongly advocated the need for
context-embedded research in order to contextualize the current global management
knowledge, especially in contexts that differ from the typical North American or
Western European locations in terms of legal, economic, social and cultural systems,
such as those in Asian countries (Tsui, 2004). This has led to a growing interest in
indigenous management theories; that is, relevant management theories and practices
based on local conditions and socio-cultural factors (Rousseau and Fried, 2001). The
present study provides evidence that justice and trust are important for increasing
employee engagement among managers in India. The results may be useful for guiding
the future theory development of work engagement in a cross-cultural context.
References
Abrams, D., Ando, K. and Hinkle, S. (1998), “Psychological attachment to the group:
cross-cultural differences in organizational identification and subjective norms as
predictors of workers’ turnover intentions”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 1027-1039.
PR Adams, G.L., Ammeter, A.P., Treadway, D.C., Ferris, G.R., Hochwarter, W.A. and Kolodinsky,
R.W. (2002), “Perceptions of organizational politics: Additional thoughts, reactions, and
43,1 multi-level issues”, Research in Multi Level Issues, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 287-294.
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Agarwal, U.A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S. and Bhargava, S. (2012), “Linking LMX, innovative
64 work behaviour and turnover intentions: the mediating role of work engagement”, Career
Development International, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 208-230.
Ahluwalia, M.S. (2002), “Economic reforms in India since 1991: has gradualism worked?”, Journal
of Economic perspectives, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 67-88.
Aiyar, S. and Mody, A. (2011), Demographic Dividend: Evidence from the Indian States,
International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

Albrecht, S.L. (2010), Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and
Practice, Edward Elgar Publishing, Aldershot.
Alvesson, M. (1995), Cultural Perspectives on Organizations, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Ancona, D.G. and Caldwell, D.F. (1992), “Demography and design: predictors of new product
team performance”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 321-341.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P.S. and Chen, Z.X. (2002), “Trust as a mediator of the relationship between
organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 267-285.
Ashforth, B.E. and Humphrey, R.H. (1995), “Emotion in the workplace: a reappraisal”, Human
relations, Vol. 48 No. 5, pp. 97-125.
Axtell, C.M., Holman, D.J., Unsworth, K.L., Wall, T.D., Waterson, P.E. and Harrington, E. (2000),
“Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and implementation of ideas”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 5, pp. 287-294.
Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. and Kurshid, A. (2001), “Impact
of culture on human resource management practices: a 10-country comparison”, Applied
Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 192-221.
Bakker, A.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2010), Work Engagement, Psychology Press, Hove.
Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands-resources model to
predict burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 83-104.
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P. and Taris, T.W. (2008), “Work engagement: an
emerging concept in occupational health psychology”, Work and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 6,
pp. 187-200.
Bakker, A., Albrecht, S. and Leiter, M. (2011a), “Key questions regarding work engagement”,
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-28.
Bakker, A.B., Albrecht, S.L. and Leiter, M.P. (2011b), “Work engagement: Further reflections on
the state of play”, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 6,
pp. 74-88.
Barkhuizen, N. and Rothmann, S. (2006), “Work engagement of academic staff in South African
higher education institutions”, Management Dynamics, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 38-48.
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.
Barsky, A. and Kaplan, S.A. (2007), “If you feel bad, it’s unfair: a quantitative synthesis of affect Linking justice,
and organizational justice perceptions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1,
pp. 286-321. trust and
Bharadwaj, N. and Matsuno, K. (2006), “Investigating the antecedents and outcomes of customer behaviour
firm transaction cost savings in a supply chain relationship”, Journal of Business Research,
Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 62-72.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”, 65
Research on Negotiation in Organizations, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 43-55.
Blau, P.M. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Transaction Publishers, New York, NY.
Blau, P.M. (1968), “Interaction: social exchange”, International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences,
Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 452-458.

Bollen, K.A. (1989), Structural Equations with Latent Variables, Wiley, New York, NY.
Brockner, J. and Wiesenfeld, B.M. (1996), “An integrative framework for explaining reactions to
decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 120
No. 61, pp. 189-201.
Cameron, K.S., Dutton, J.E. and Quinn, R.E. (2003), “An introduction to positive organizational
scholarship”, Positive Organizational Scholarship, Berrett-Koehler, San Francisco, CA.
Carmeli, A. and Schaubroeck, J. (2007), “The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative
expectations on individual involvement in creative work”, The Leadership Quarterly,
Vol. 18, pp. 35-48.
Carmeli, A., Meitar, R. and Weisberg, J. (2006), “Self-leadership skills and innovative behavior at
work”, International Journal of Manpower, Vol. 27 No. 64, pp. 75-90.
Cascio, W.F. (2006), “10 global performance management systems”, in Stahl, G.L. and Björkman, I.
(Eds), Handbook of Research in International Human Resource Management, Edward
Elgar, Aldershot, pp. 345-367.
Cheng, J.L.C. (1994), “On the concept of universal knowledge in organizational science:
implications for cross-national research”, Management Science, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 162-168.
Choudhary, V., Kshirsagar, A. and Narayanan, A. (2012), “How multinationals can win in India”,
McKinsey Quarterly, available at: www.mckinseyquarterly.com/India/How_multinationals_
can_win_in_India_2938 (accessed 25 June 2012).
Chughtai, A.A. and Buckley, F. (2008), “Work engagement and its relationship with state and
trait trust: a conceptual analysis”, Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management, Vol. 10
No. 1, pp. 47-71.
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. 6, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a
measure”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 386-398.
Colquitt, J.A., Scott, B.A. and LePine, J.A. (2007), “Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity:
a meta-analytic test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance”,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 4, pp. 909-934.
Costigan, R.D., Iiter, S.S. and Berman, J.J. (1998), “A multi-dimensional study of trust in
organizations”, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 303-317.
Cotterell, N., Eisenberger, R. and Speicher, H. (1992), “Inhibiting effects of reciprocation wariness
on interpersonal relationships”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 4,
pp. 658-687.
PR Coyle-Shapiro, J.A.M. (2002), “A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship
behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 927-946.
43,1
Coyne, I. and Ong, T. (2007), “Organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover intention:
a cross-cultural study”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 1085-1097.
Cropanzano, R. and Ambrose, M.L. (2001), “Procedural and distributive justice are more similar
66 than you think: a monistic perspective and a research agenda”, Advances in Organizational
Justice, Vol. XVIII No. 284, pp. 119-151.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E. and Byrne, Z.S. (2003), “The relationship of emotional exhaustion to
work attitudes, job performance, and organizational citizenship behaviors”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 6, pp. 160-180.
Cropanzano, R., Howes, J.C., Grandey, A.A. and Toth, P. (1999), “The relationship of
organizational politics and support to work behaviors, attitudes, and stress”, Journal of
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Mohler, C.J. and Schminke, M. (2001), “Three roads to organizational
justice”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 1-113.
D’Cruz, P. and Bharat, S. (2001), “Beyond joint and nuclear: the Indian family revisited”, Journal
of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 167-194.
Delmestri, G. and Walgenbach, P. (2005), “Mastering techniques or brokering knowledge? Middle
managers in Germany, Great Britain and Italy”, Organization Studies, Vol. 26 No. 3,
pp. 197-220.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., Nachreiner, F. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2001), “The job demands-resources
model of burnout”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, p. 499.
Deutsch, M. (1975), “Equity, equality and need: what determines which value will be used as the
basis of distributive justice”, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 137-149.
Deutsch, M. (1985), Distributive Justice, A Social Psychological Perspective, Yale University Press,
New Haven, CT.
Dirks, K.T. and Ferrin, D.L. (2002), “Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications
for research and practice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 7, pp. 611-633.
Dutton, J.E., Ashford, S.J., O’Neill, R.M., Hayes, E. and Wierba, E.E. (1997), “Reading the wind:
how middle managers assess the context for selling issues to top managers”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 407-423.
(The) Economist (2010), “India’s surprising economic miracle”, available at: www.economist.
com/node/17147648?story-id¼17147648andfsrc¼rss30 (accessed 15 January 2013).
Folger, R. and Skarlicki, D.P. (1999), “Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as
mistreatment”, Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 35-50.
Gabarro, A. and Athos, P. (1978), Interpersonal Relations and Communications, Prentice Hall,
New York, NY.
Gabarro, J.J. and Athos, J. (1976), Interpersonal Relations and Communications, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Gibbons, D.E. (2004), “Friendship and advice networks in the context of changing professional
values”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 238-262.
Greenberg, J. (1993), “The intellectual adolescence of organizational justice: you’ve come a long Linking justice,
way, maybe”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 135-148.
Greenberg, J., Roberge, M.-É., Ho, V.T. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Fairness in Idiosyncratic
trust and
work arrangements: justice as an I-deal”, Research in Personnel and Human Resources behaviour
Management, Vol. 23 No. 15, pp. 1-34.
Hakanen, J.J., Schaufeli, W.B. and Ahola, K. (2008), “The job demands-resources model: a three-year
cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement”, Work 67
and Stress, Vol. 22 No. 32, pp. 224-241.
Hallberg, U.E. and Schaufeli, W.B. (2006), “‘Same same’ but different?: Can work engagement be
discriminated from job involvement and organizational commitment?”, European
Psychologist, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 119-127.
Handley, K., Sturdy, A., Fincham, R. and Clark, T. (2006), “Within and beyond communities of
practice: making sense of learning through participation, identity and practice”, Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 641-653.
Harter, J.K. and Schmidt, F.L. (2008), “Conceptual versus empirical distinctions among
constructs: implications for discriminant validity”, Industrial and Organizational
Herriot, P. and Pemberton, C. (1996), “Contracting careers”, Human Relations, Vol. 49 No. 3,
pp. 757-790.
Hofmann, D.A., Lei, Z. and Grant, A.M. (2009), “Seeking help in the shadow of doubt: the
sensemaking processes underlying how nurses decide who to ask for advice”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 5, pp. 1261-1274.
Hofstede, G. (1997), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY.
Hollinger, R.C. and Clark, J.P. (1983), “Deterrence in the workplace: perceived certainty, perceived
severity, and employee theft”, Social Forces, Vol. 62 No. 34, pp. 398-418.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1999), “Cut off criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analyses:
conventional criteria versus new alternatives”, Structural Equation Modelling, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 1-55.
Hui, C., Lee, C. and Rousseau, D.M. (2004), “Psychological contract and organizational citizenship
behavior in China: investigating generalizability and instrumentality”, Journal of Applied
Janssen, O. (2000), “Job demands, perceptions of effort-reward fairness and innovative work
behaviour”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 287-302.
Janssen, O. (2003), “Innovative behaviour and job involvement at the price of conflict and less
satisfactory relations with co-workers”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Janssen, O. (2004), “How fairness perceptions make innovative behavior more or less stressful”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 201-215.
Kahn, W.A. (1990), “Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 692-724.
Kanter, R.M. (1989), “The new managerial work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 67 No. 3, p. 85.
Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success: How Business Strategies Add Value, Oxford
University Press, Oxford.
Kelley, T.L. (1927), Interpretation of Educational Measurements, World Book, Yonkers-on-Hudson,
NY.
PR Kelloway, E.K. (1995), “Structural equation modeling in perspective introduction”, Journal of
43,1
Kiefer, T. (2005), “Feeling bad: antecedents and consequences of negative emotions in ongoing
change”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 875-897.
Kline, R.B. (2005), Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed., Guildford
Press, New York, NY.
68 Komarraju, M. (1997), “The work-family interface in India”, in Greenhaus, J.H., Parasuraman, S.
and Greenhaus, J. (Eds), Integrating Work and Family: Challenges for a Changing World,
Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), “Citizenship behavior and social exchange”, Academy of

Kuvaas, B. (2006), “Work performance, affective commitment, and work motivation: the roles of
pay administration and pay level”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 13,
pp. 365-385.
Lawler, E.E. and Hall, D.T. (1970), “Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement,
satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54 No. 4,
pp. 305-312.
Lewicki, R.J., Wiethoff, C. and Tomlinson, E.C. (2005), “What is the role of trust in organizational
justice?”, in Colquitt, J.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Justice, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Publishers, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 247-270.
Lin, C.-P. (2010), “Modeling corporate citizenship, organizational trust, and work engagement
based on attachment theory”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 94 No. 3, pp. 517-531.
Lindell, M.K. and Whitney, D.J. (2001), “Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 21, p. 114.
Locke, E.A. (1976), “The nature and causes of job satisfaction”, Handbook of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 1319-1328.
London, M. and Stumpf, S.A. (1986), “Individual and organizational career development in
changing times”, Career Development in Organizations, Vol. 21 No. 12, pp. 49-56.
Lowe, R.H. and Vodanovich, S.J. (1995), “A field study of distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction and organizational commitment”, Journal of Business and
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior”, Journal of
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), “Research notes. distributive and procedural justice as
predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of
Macey, W.H. and Schneider, B. (2008), “The meaning of employee engagement”, Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 3-30.
Macey, W., Schneider, B., Barbera, K. and Young, S. (2009), Employee Engagement: Tools for
Analysis, Practice and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Macey, W.H., Schneider, B., Barbera, K.M. and Young, S.A. (2011), Employee Engagement: Tools
for Analysis, Practice, and Competitive Advantage, Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA.
Maguire, H. (2002), “Psychological contracts: are they still relevant?”, Career Development
International, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 167-180.
May, D.R., Gilson, R.L. and Harter, L.M. (2004), “The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, Linking justice,
safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work”, Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 11-37. trust and
May, T.Y.M., Korczynski, M. and Frenkel, S.J. (2002), “Organizational and occupational behaviour
commitment: knowledge workers in large corporations”, Journal of Management Studies,
Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 775-801.
Mayer, R.C., Davis, J.H. and Schoorman, F.D. (1995), “An integrative model of organizational 69
trust”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 709-734.
Moon, H., Kamdar, D., Mayer, D.M. and Takeuchi, R. (2008), “Me or we? The role of personality
and justice as other-centered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within
organizations”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 3, p. 84.
Morrison, E.W. and Robinson, S.L. (1997), “When employees feel betrayed: a model of how
psychological contract violation develops”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 57 No. 3,
pp. 226-256.
Mowday, R.T., Porter, L.W. and Steers, R.M. (1982), Employee-organization Linkages: The
Psychology of Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Nelson, D. and Cooper, C.L. (2007), Positive Organizational Behavior, Sage Publications, London.
Newman, D.A. and Harrison, D.A. (2008), “Been there, bottled that: are state and behavioral work
engagement new and useful construct ‘wines’?”, Industrial and Organizational Psychology,
Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 31-35.
Ng, T.W.H. and Feldman, D.C. (2010), “Idiosyncratic deals and organizational commitment”,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 419-427.
Ng, T.W. and Feldman, D.C. (2012), “A comparison of self-ratings and non-self-report measures
of employee creativity”, Human Relations, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 1021-1047.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 527-556.
Olekalns, M. and Smith, P.L. (2005), “Moments in time: Metacognition, trust, and outcomes in
dyadic negotiations”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 1696-1707.
Organ, D.W. (1988), “A restatement of the satisfaction-performance hypothesis”, Journal of
Parzefall, M.R. (2008), “Psychological contracts and reciprocity: a study in a Finnish context”,
International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 19 No. 9, pp. 1703-1719.
Parzefall, M.-R. and Hakanen, J. (2010), “Psychological contract and its motivational and
health-enhancing properties”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 4-21.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Jeong-Yeon, L. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003), “Common method
biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
Porter, M. (1985), Competitive Strategy, Free Press, New York, NY.
Rajadhyaksha, U. and Bhatnagar, D. (2000), “Life role salience: A study of dual-career couples in
the Indian context”, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 489-511.
Ramamoorthy, N. and Flood, P.C. (2004), “Individualism/collectivism, perceived task
interdependence and teamwork attitudes among Irish blue-collar employees: a test of
the main and moderating effects?”, Human Relations, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 347-366.
PR Ramu, G.N. (1989), Women, Work, and Marriage in Urban India: A Study of Dual-and
Single-earner Couples, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
43,1
Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on
job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 5, pp. 617-635.
Richardson, A.M., Burke, R.J. and Martinussen, M. (2006), “Work and health outcomes among
police officers: the mediating role of police cynicism and engagement”, International
70 Journal of Stress Management, Vol. 13 No. 7, p. 555.
Richardson, H.A., Simmering, M.J. and Sturman, M.C. (2009), “A tale of three perspectives:
examining post hoc statistical techniques for detection and correction of common method
variance”, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 762-800.
Robinson, S.L. (1996), “Trust and breach of the psychological contract”, Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 574-599.

Robinson, S.L. and Morrison, E.W. (2000), “The development of psychological contract breach
and violation: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 8,
pp. 525-546.
Rousseau, D. (1995), Psychological Contracts in Organizations: Understanding Written and
Unwritten Agreements, Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Rousseau, D.M. and Fried, Y. (2001), “Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational
research”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Rousseau, D.M. and Tijoriwala, S.A. (1999), “Assessing psychological contracts: issues,
alternatives and measures”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 19, S1, pp. 679-695.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 600-619.
Samorodov, A. (1999), Ageing and Labour Markets for Older Workers, Employment and
Training Department, International Labour Office, available at: www.ilo.int/wcmsp5/
groups/public/_emp/documents/publication/wcms_120333.pdf
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T.W. and Van Rhenen, W. (2007), “Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well-being?”, Applied
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach”, Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 71-92.
Schneider, B., Macey, W.H., Barbera, K.M. and Martin, N. (2009), “Driving customer satisfaction
and financial success through employee engagement”, People and Strategy, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 22-27.
Schohat, L.M. and Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010), “‘Engage me once again’: is employee engagement for
real, or is it ‘same lady – different dress’?”, Handbook of Employee Engagement:
Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice, Edward Elgar, Aldershot, p. 98.
Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1994), “Determinants of innovative behavior: a path model of
individual innovation in the workplace”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 580-607.
Shah, S. (2000), “Caste, commitments, and change”, in Rousseau, D. (Ed.), Psychological Contracts
in Employment: Cross-national Perspectives, Sage, Newbury Park, CA, p. 104.
Shalley, C.E., Gilson, L.L. and Blum, T.C. (2009), “Interactive effects of growth need strength, Linking justice,
work context, and job complexity on self-reported creative performance”, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 52 No. 3, pp. 489-505. trust and
Shockley-Zalabak, P., Ellis, K. and Winograd, G. (2000), “Organizational trust: what it means, behaviour
why it matters”, Organization Development Journal, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 56-78.
Simpson, J.A. (2007), “Psychological foundations of trust”, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 264-268. 71
Sims, R.R. (1994), “Human resource management’s role in clarifying the new psychological
contract”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 373-382.
Singh, R. (1998), “Redefining psychological contracts with the US work force: a critical task for
strategic human resource management planners in the 1990s”, Human Resource

Skarlicki, D.P. and Folger, R. (1997), “Retaliation in the workplace: the roles of distributive,
rocedural, and interactional justice”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3,
pp. 434-443.
Smith, G.P. (2002), The New Leader: Bringing Creativity and Innovation to the Workplace, Chart
Your Course, Conyers, GA.
Spector, P.E. (2006), “Method variance in organizational research truth or urban legend?”,
Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 221-232.
Spreitzer, G.M., Lam, C.F. and Fritz, C. (2010), Engagement and Human Thriving:
Complementary Perspectives on Energy and Connections to Work, Routledge, London.
Thomas, D.C., Au, K. and Ravlin, E.C. (2003), “Cultural variation and the psychological contract”,
Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 451-471.
Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2005), “The difference a manager can make: organizational justice
and knowledge worker commitment”, The International Journal of Human Resource
Tushman, M.L. and O’Reilly, C.A. III (1996), “Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change”,
California Management Review, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 8-28.
Tsui, A.S. (2004), “Contributing to global management knowledge: a case for high quality
indigenous research”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 491-513.
Van de Ven, A. (1986), “Central problems in the management of innovation”, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 590-607.
Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M.E. and Cummings, L.L. (2000),
“Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as predictors of organizational
citizenship in a non-work setting”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 3-23.
Viswesvaran, C. and Ones, D.S. (2002), “Examining the construct of organizational justice: a
meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors”, Journal of
Business Ethics, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 193-203.
Wefald, A.J. and Downey, R.G. (2009), “Job engagement in organizations: fad, fashion, or
folderol?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 141-145.
West, M.A. and Farr, J.L. (1990), Innovation and Creativity at Work: Psychological and
Organizational Strategies, John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Whitener, E.M. (1998), “The impact of human resource activities on employee trust”, Human
Resource Management Review, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 389-404.
Whyte, W.H. (1956), The Organizational Man, Simon and Schuster, New York, NY.
PR Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1994), “An alternative approach to method effects by using
latent-variable models: applications in organizational behavior research”, Journal of
43,1 Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 323-331.
Williams, L.J., Hartman, N. and Cavazotte, F. (2010), “Method variance and marker variables:
a review and comprehensive CFA marker technique”, Organizational Research Methods,
Vol. 13 No. 7, pp. 477-514.
72 Wong, Y.-T., Wong, C.-S., Ngo, H.-Y. and Lui, H.-K. (2005), “Different responses to job insecurity
of Chinese workers in joint ventures and state-owned enterprises”, Human Relations,
Vol. 58 No. 2, pp. 1391-1418.
Yalabik, Z.Y., Popaitoon, P., Chowne, J.A. and Rayton, B.A. (2013), “Work engagement as a
mediator between employee attitudes and outcomes”, The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

Zhang, A.Y., Tsui, A.S., Song, L.J., Li, C. and Jia, L. (2008), “How do I trust thee? The
employee-organization relationship, supervisory support, and middle manager trust in the
organization”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 111-132.
Further reading
Bhatnagar, J. (2007), “Talent management strategy of employee engagement in Indian ITES
employees: key to retention”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 640-663.
Bollen, K.A. (1990), “Overall fit in covariance structure models: two types of sample size effects”,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 107 No. 2, pp. 256-259.
Hofstede, G.J. and Minkov, M. (1991), Cultures and Organizations, McGraw-Hill, London.
Huy, Q.N. (2002), “Emotional balancing of organizational continuity and radical change: the
contribution of middle managers”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 31-69.
Inceoglu, I., Fleck, S. and Albrecht, S.L. (2010), “Engagement as a motivational construct”, The
Handbook of Employee Engagement: Models, Measures and Practices, Vol. 5 No. 3,
pp. 74-86.
Jaeger, A.M. and Kanungo, R.N. (1990), Management in Developing Countries, Routledge, London.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1973), “Analysis of covariance structures”, in Krishnaiah, P.R. (Ed.), Multivariate
Analysis – III, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 263-285.
Kickul, J.R., Neuman, G., Parker, C. and Finkl, J. (2001), “Settling the score: The role of
organizational justice in the relationship between psychological contract breach and
anticitizenship behavior”, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 77-93.
Krosgaard, M.A. and Roberson, L. (1995), “Procedural justice in performance evaluation: the role
of instrumental and non-instrumental voice in performance appraisal discussions”, Journal
of Management, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 657-669.
Kumar, P. and Ghadially, R. (1989), “Organizational politics and its effects on members of
organizations”, Human Relations, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 305-314.
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. 3, pp. 738-748.
Organ, D.W. (1997), “Organizational citizenship behavior: it’s construct clean-up time”, Human
Performance, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 85-97.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S. and Hayday, S. (2004), The Drivers of Employee Engagement, Linking justice,
Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Rosen, C.C., Levy, P.E. and Hall, R.J. (2006), “Placing perceptions of politics in the context of the
trust and
feedback environment, employee attitudes, and job performance”, Journal of Applied behaviour
Saavedra, R. and Kwun, S. (2000), “Affective states in job characteristics theory”, Journal of
Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 131-146. 73
Sobel, M.E. (1986), “Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance
structure models”, Sociological Methodology, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 159-186.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 115-191.
Van den Bos, K. (2001), “Uncertainty management: The influence of uncertainty salience on
reactions to perceived procedural fairness”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 931-941.
Vigoda, E. (2000), “Organizational politics, job attitudes, and work outcomes: exploration and
implications for the public sector”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 57 No. 5,
pp. 326-347.
Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2007), “Leadership style, organizational politics, and employees’ performance:
an empirical examination of two competing models”, Personnel Review, Vol. 36 No. 1,
pp. 661-683.
Corresponding author
Upasna A. Agarwal can be contacted at: upasnaaagarwal@gmail.com
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:
1. Yun Zhu, Congcong Liu, Bingmei Guo, Lin Zhao, Fenglan Lou. 2015. The impact of emotional
intelligence on work engagement of registered nurses: the mediating role of organisational justice. Journal
of Clinical Nursing 24:10.1111/jocn.2015.24.issue-15pt16, 2115-2124. [CrossRef]
2. Sumita Rai. 2015. Organizational justice and employee mental health’s moderating roles in organizational
identification. South Asian Journal of Global Business Research 4:1, 68-84. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Joana Kuntz, Abigail Roberts. 2014. Engagement and identification. Strategic Outsourcing: An International
Journal 7:3, 253-274. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Linking Justice Trust and Innovative Work Behaviour To Work Engagement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linking Justice Trust and Innovative Work Behaviour To Work Engagement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Personnel Review

Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement

To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com

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

workforce have significantly altered employee career-growth expectations. The move

engagement levels would be an important requisite for an effective organisation.

The context of the study: India

The concept of work engagement

To summarise, while it is important to acknowledge some overlap between

Scope Intra-role Intra-role Extra-role Intra-and extra-role

“rules of exchange”, or the norm of reciprocity (Cotterell et al., 1992), in which an

Gender (0 ¼ Male; 1 ¼ Female), job level (0 ¼ junior; 1 ¼ middle; 2 ¼ senior) and

Model x2 df CFI SRMR RMSEA Dx2

Baseline model 10,000 3,489 0.93 0.09 0.04 2.8

Age 35.7 1.1 1

examined the direct relationship between (antecedents- justice perceptions and

x2 df x2/df SRMR GFI NFI CFI RMSEA

hypotheses. Psychological contract fulfilment (b ¼ 0:22, p , 0:01), procedural justice

characteristic of dignity and upbringing (Shah, 2000): Pranjaye par vachannajaye (I

Implications for managers

Limitations and future research

International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 452-458.

Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-669.

Quarterly, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 574-599.

Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 61-69.

Resource Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 1-25.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

You might also like