Perception of Organisational Justice as a Predictor of Organisational Citizenship

Behaviour: A Study of Employees in Benin City

Osaro R. IGBINOMWANHIA1 and Osarieme EVBUOMWAN2

1
Osaro R. Igbinomwanhia (PhD) lectures in the Department of Business Administration, Faculty
of Management Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. Email:
osarawl@yahoo.com, or osarawl@uniben.edu, Tel: +234 8027368381.
2
Osarieme Evbuomwan (Miss) is a lecturer in the Department of Business Administration,
Faculty of Management Sciences, University of Benin, Benin City, Edo.

1
 Perception of Organisational Justice as a Predictor of Organisational Citizenship
Behaviour: A Study of Employees in Benin City

Abstract

Human experience in organisations offers a variety of simple and complex behaviour that
typically has profound influence on the very survival of an organisation. Organisational
citizenship behaviour (OCB) is one of such categories of employee behaviour that possesses the
capacity to improve organisational effectiveness. However, whether or not employees will
exhibit OCB is believed to be contingent upon their perceptions of organisational justice among
several other factors. Thus, the study primarily investigated the extent to which perceptions of
organisational justice predicts OCB among selected employees in Benin City. Particularly, it
focused on how each of the dimensions of organisational justice could be said to significantly
predict overall OCB as well as the two broad categories of OCB (organisationally-focused OCB
[OCB-OF], and interpersonally-focused OCB [OCB-IF].
The study adopted the survey research design. Employees from both public and private
organisations were involved in the study. The questionnaire was used to elicit data on the
variables in the study. Data was analysed using both descriptive and inferential statistics.

The study revealed that a significant positive relationship exists between organisational justice
and OCB and that the former is a good predictor of the later. More specifically, the study
revealed that perceptions of procedural and interactional justice are the dimensions of
organisational justice that tend to impact OCB. The study also found that perception of
interactional justice singularly predicted interpersonally-focused OCB (OCB-IF), while
perceptions of interactional and procedural justice jointly predicted organizationally-focused
OCB (OCB-OF). In short, the study revealed that interactional justice was a greater predictor of
OCB-OF. It was recommended that organisations in Benin City, and by extension, Nigeria,
should take practical steps to improve the perception of organisational justice in their workplace
by ensuring the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct.

Keywords: Behaviour; Citizenship; Organisation; Organisational justice

2
1. Introduction

Human experience in organisations offers a variety of simple and complex behaviour that

typically has profound influence on the very survival of an organisation. For organisations to

survive, they must have employees that are willing to contribute efforts, sometimes, uncommon

efforts towards organisational goal attainment. This willingness of organisational participants to

exert efforts beyond the formal obligations dictated by their positions has long been recognised

by organisational writers as an essential component of effective organisational performance

(Jahangir, Akbar & Haq, 2004). In particular, Barnard (1938) posits that the willingness of

individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to the organisation was indispensable to effective

attainment of organisational goals. In the 21st century business environment, the fast pace of

change leaves no room for complacency, and organisations must constantly evolve ways to meet

the competition, particularly through the people they employ. It is often the countless acts of

cooperation exhibited by employees that prevents the organisational system from breaking down

(Katz & Kahn, 1966) under the weight of environmental dynamism, illiberality and volatility.

These countless acts of cooperation, point to the importance of a class of discretionary and

spontaneous behaviours that are beyond explicit role requirements, but are essential for

organisational effectiveness (Farh, Zhong & Organ, 2004). Thus, Organ (1988), conceptualised

these discretionary individual behaviours, which though not directly or explicitly recognised by

the formal reward system, but in the aggregate promote the effective functioning of the

organisation as organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB). Organ explains discretionary to

“mean that the behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of the role or job description, that is

the clearly specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organisation; the

3
behaviour is rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood

as punishable” (Organ, 1988:4).

A major reason for the widespread interest in OCB is its implications for organisational

effectiveness. Research has shown that OCB leads to improved organisational effectiveness

(Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994; Podsakoff, Ahearne, & MacKenzie 1997). OCB can be a key

asset for an organisation that can be difficult to imitate (Bolino & Turnley, 2003). Conceptually

thus, there are several reasons why citizenship behaviour could enhance organisational

competitiveness (Organ, 1988, 1990a; Podsakoff & MacKenzie, 1994).

Though spontaneous, OCB is believed to be driven by several organisational factors and/or

employee characteristics. Thus, a range of employee, task, organisational, and leader

characteristics have been consistently found to predict different types of OCB across a range of

occupations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Paine & Bachrach, 2000). Perception of organisational

justice is one of the often adduced organisational-based predictor of OCB (Organ & Ryan, 1995;

Staufenbiel (2000; LePine, Erez, & Johnson, 2002). Organizational justice is a personal

evaluation about the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct (Cropanzano, Bowen, &

Gilliland, 2007). Individuals react to actions and decisions made by their organizations every

day. An individual’s perceptions of these decisions as fair or unfair can influence the individual’s

subsequent attitudes and behaviours. Fairness is often of central interest to organizations because

the implications of perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviours at work, such

as engaging in OCB. Studies in Nigeria (Onyishi, 2007, 2010; Okediji, Esin, Sanni, & Umoh,

2009; Uhiara, Njoku, Ngozi & Jimogu, 2011; Igbinomwanhia & Akinmayowa, 2014) have

4
shown that OCB exists in one form or the other in Nigerian organisations and could be predicted

by individual and/or organisational based factors. Specifically, conflicting result have emerged in

an attempt to link perception of organisational justice to OCB in the context of the Nigerian

workplace. While Uhiara et al., (2011) found no significant relationship between perceptions of

organisational justice and OCB, Igbinomwanhia and Akinmayowa (2014) found a direct positive

significant relationship between organisational justice and OCB in a Nigerian study. In addition,

none of these two studies dug in further to ascertain the degree to which each of the dimensions

of organisational justice impact or predict OCB.

Against this backdrop therefore, this study sought to find out the extent to which perceptions of

organisational justice predicts OCB among selected employees in Benin City. Particularly, the

study focused on how each of the dimensions of organisational justice could be said to

significantly predict overall OCB as well as the two broad categories of OCB (organisationally-

focused OCB [OCB-OF], and interpersonally-focused OCB [OCB-IF].

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Organisational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

Organisational writers have long recognised the willingness of organisational participants to

exert efforts beyond the formal obligations dictated by their positions as an essential component

of effective organisational performance (Jahangir et al., 2004). Particularly, Barnard (1938)

opines that the willingness of individuals to contribute cooperative efforts to the organisation

was indispensable to effective attainment of organisational goals. Katz (1964) distinguished

between dependable role performance and innovative and spontaneous behaviours. Katz and

5
Kahn (1966) further extended this argument by asserting that the organisational system would

break down were it not for the countless acts of cooperation exhibited by its employees. They

pointed to the importance of a class of discretionary and spontaneous behaviours that are beyond

explicit role requirements, but are essential for organisational effectiveness (Farh et al., 2004).

These insights prompted much of the subsequent research in OCB. Thus, relying on both the

notions of Barnard (1938), Katz (1964), and Katz and Kahn (1966), Organ (1988) developed the

concept of OCB. Organ (1988:4) defines OCB as “individual behaviour that is discretionary, not

directly or explicitly recognised by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promote

the effective functioning of the organisation.” Organ explains discretionary to “mean that the

behaviour is not an enforceable requirement of the role or job description, that is the clearly

specifiable terms of the person’s employment contract with the organisation; the behaviour is

rather a matter of personal choice, such that its omission is not generally understood as

punishable” (Organ, 1988:4).

From the outset, OCB was thought to be multidimensional. Employee discretionary extra-role

behaviours were believed to be exhibited in several and diverse ways that allowed for distinct

categorisations. Thus, several dimensions of OCB have emerged over the years. For example,

Smith, Near and Organ (1983) identified the first categories of OCB dimensions to include

altruism, or helping others, and generalised compliance. Subsequently, several other dimensions

of OCB were identified (e.g., Organ, 1988; Williams & Anderson, 1991; Podsakoff et al., 2000;

Moon, Van Dyne, & Wrobel, 2004). This paper adopts the circumplex model of OCB by Moon

et al., (2004).

6
2.2 The Circumplex Model of OCB

The Circumplex model of OCB classifies OCB in terms of the extent to which the behaviour is

organisationally or interpersonally focused, and the extent to which the behaviour is promotive

or protective. These two major axes, organisational/interpersonal and promotive/protective,

characterise the circumplex and form four general dimensions of OCB: helping (interpersonal

and promotive), innovation (organisational and promotive), sportsmanship (interpersonal and

protective), and compliance (organisational and protective). The usefulness of the Circumplex

model is that it clarifies the dimensionality and spatial configuration of the OCB construct, such

that every form of behaviour thought to have a citizenship orientation can be classified under any

of these four dimensions (Moon et al., 2004).

The Major Dimensions of the Circumplex Model of OCB

Helping as an Interpersonal and Promotive Citizenship Behaviour

In work organisations, helping is interpersonal act of voluntarily giving time and/or energy to

support co-workers (Moon et al., 2004). Early OCB research used the term altruism to define

helping as a dimension of OCB (Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988). Organ (1988) began his book

on OCB by describing how a co-worker helped him (Interpersonal target) complete a challenging

task, and as a result promoted organisational effectiveness (promotive focus). Helping a co-

worker (interpersonal) promotes overall productivity by facilitating the performance of a

particular individual (promotive) (Marinova, Moon, & Van Dyne, 2010). Helping OCB includes

assisting others with heavy workloads, helping others who have been absent, willingly giving

one’s time and help to others who have work related problems, and taking initiative to orient new

employees.

7
Sportsmanship as an Interpersonal and Protective Citizenship Behaviour

Sportsmanship is an interpersonal act that reduces or prevents negative affective events in the

workplace. Employees displaying sportsmanship are tolerant and flexible (Moon et al., 2004),

they refrain from complaining about undesirable situations, do not criticise co-workers, and

avoid focusing on negative or less than perfect aspect of their work situations (Organ, 1988).

Sportsmanship is interpersonal because its proximal beneficiaries are co-workers who benefit

from the maintenance of personal harmony, and it is protective because it involves not engaging

in certain actions (e.g. not complaining) (Marinova et al., 2010). Representative items from

established scales include: act as a peacemaker when others in the organisation have

disagreements; defends the organisation when others criticise it; and goes along with necessary

changes at work.

Innovation as an Organisational and Promotive Citizenship Behaviour

In work organisations, innovative behaviour is organisationally focused efforts to promote to

promote general change and improve products, processes, services, ideals, and relationships

(Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993). Characteristic innovative OCB include offering

constructive input, speaking up with new ideas, proactively developing new methods, and taking

charge (Moon et al., 2004). Since innovative behaviour is proactive, positive, and change-

oriented, it is promotive, and because it is directed at overall improvement of the firm, it is

organisationally focused OCB. Representative items from existing scales include: makes

innovative suggestions to improve the department; tries to adopt improved procedures for the

work of the unit/department; and make recommendations regarding issues that affect the work

group.

8
Compliance as an Organisational and Protective Citizenship Behaviour

In work organisations, compliance is organisationally-focused efforts to support and follow

established rules and regulations (both formal and informal) (Moon et al., 2004). Organ,

Podsakoff and MacKenzie (2006) defined compliance as supporting organisational norms, with

an emphasis on meeting the spirit of norms within cooperative systems. Hence, avoiding

excessive breaks, punctuality, and conscientiousness or being careful to focus productively on

work during work hours support smooth operations within the organisation. Thus, compliance is

impersonal and focuses on obedience toward written and unwritten norms (Van Dyne, Graham &

Dienesch, 1994). Specifically, compliance is OCB directed at the organisation (organisational)

and aims to support the status quo by carefully conforming to policies and procedures

(protective). Representative items from existing scales include: conscientiously follows company

regulations and procedures; produces as much as capable of at all times; always come to work on

time; and never leaves work early without permission.

2.2 Perception of Organizational Justice

Justice or fairness refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be

defined according to ethics, religion, fairness, equity, or law. People are naturally attentive to the

justice of events and situations in their everyday lives, across a variety of contexts (Tabibnia,

Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008). Essentially, organisational justice is conceptualised as the overall

fairness of the organisation reward system and the perceived fairness of the actions of individuals

responsible for implementing the rewards allocation system (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997;

Leventhal, 1976). Fairness is often of central interest to organizations because the implications of

perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviours at work, such as engaging in

9
OCB. Organizational justice is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. Three main

proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional

justice (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Distributive justice refers to the degree to which rewards are

allocated in an equitable manner (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Distributive justice is concerned

with the reality that not all workers are treated alike, that the allocation of outcomes is

differentiated in the workplace. Individuals are concerned with whether or not they received their

“just share” (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Procedural justice refers to the means by which outcomes

are allocated, but not specifically to the outcomes themselves (Cropanzano et al., 2007). It is the

degree to which those affected by allocation decisions s perceive them to have been made

according to fair methods and guideline (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990). When

individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics

such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced

(Leventhal, 1980). Interactional justice is the treatment that an individual receives as decisions

are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news

with sensitivity and respect (Bies & Moag, 1986). A person is interactionally just if he or she

appropriately shares information and avoid rude or cruel remarks. Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,

Porter, and Ng (2001) suggest that interactional justice should be broken into two components:

interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and

propriety in one’s treatment. It reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness,

dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or

determining outcomes. On the other hand, informational justice relates to the adequacy of the

explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness. It focuses on

10
explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a

certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion.

2.3 Organisational Justice and OCB

The perception of justice in the organisation may influence OCB through a social exchange

process. Employees perceiving fair treatment and trust from managers and are confident that

such fair treatment will continue, are likely to go beyond the call of duty and voluntarily perform

acts that benefit the organisation (Deluga, 1994; Organ & Konovsky, 1989). While Moorman

(1991) concludes that perceptions of fairness are positively related to OCB. Masterson, Lewis,

Goldman, and Taylor (2001), Colquitt et al., (2001) specifically found in their study that

interactional justice affected interpersonal OCBs while procedural justice affected organisational

OCBs. In other related studies, Jafari and Bidarian (2012), Goudarzvandchegini, Gilaninia, and

Abdesonboli (2011), and Abdul Rauf (2014) all found a significant positive relationship between

the components of organisational justice and OCB. Similarly, Noruzy, Shatery, Rezazadeh, and

Hatami-Shirkouji (2011) found that organisational justice directly and significantly influenced

OCB, while in an Iranian study Rangriz (2012) also found a positive relationship between

organisational justice and OCB. In a Nigerian study however, Uhiara, Njoku, Ngozi, and Jimogu

(2011) concluded that organisational justice was not significantly related to OCB and is therefore

not a good predictor of OCB, while Igbinomwanhia and Akinmayowa (2014) found a direct

positive significant relationship between organisational justice and OCB. Thus, this study

addressed the following hypotheses:

H1: There is a significant relationship between distributive justice and OCB

H2: There is a significant relationship between procedural justice and OCB

11
H3: There is a significant relationship between interactional justice and OCB

H4: There is a significant relationship between interactional justice and interpersonally-focused

OCB.

H5: There is a significant relationship between procedural justice and organisationally-focused

OCB.

3. Methodology

This study adopted the cross-sectional survey research design. Employees from twenty (20)

public and private (formal) organisations in Benin City (ten (10) from each sector) were involved

in the study. Moon, Van Dyne and Wrobel (2004) 24-item OCB scale was used to measure OCB,

while organisational justice was measured using Price and Mueller’s (1986) 6-item Distributive

Justice Index (DJI) and by Moorman (1991) 12-item Procedural and Interactional Justice

Measure for distributive justice, procedural and interactional justice respectively. All items

measuring the study variables on Likert-scale of 1 to 7 with higher scores representing more

endorsement of the construct with the exception of items that are reversed-coded, in which case,

lower scores will represent more endorsement of the construct. Reversed-coded items are stated

in the negative, whereas, all other items are stated in the positive. Given that the population of

study was infinite (>50,000), we adopted the sample size determination formula for infinite

population (Godden, 2004) to arrive at sample of six hundred (600) which was thereafter

randomly drawn in equal number of thirty (30) from twenty randomly selected organisations (ten

each from both the private and public sector). The questionnaire was used to collect data and was

administered on both managerial and non managerial employees. Data was analysed using both

12
descriptive and inferential statistics. First, descriptive statistical analysis was performed on all

variable items. Thereafter, correlation analysis was performed to ascertain whether a linear

relationship exist between the study variable. Based on the result of the correlation analysis, a

regression analysis was performed to determine if perception of organisational justice

significantly predict OCB.

4. Data Presentation and Analysis

Five hundred and thirty-six (536) questionnaires, representing 89.3% of the total number of

questionnaires administered were returned and found usable. A majority of the respondents were

males. This category of respondents accounted for 62.3% of the total number of respondents,

while 37.7% of the respondents were females. The mean age of the respondents was 39.1 years,

while the mean number of years the respondents have spent with their organisations was 13.3

years.

4.1 Means, standard deviations, and Intercorrelations for all study variables

Table 4.1 shows the mean responses, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all study

variables. The table reveals that on a possible 7-point rating, perception of distributive justice,

procedural justice, and interactional justice all reported a mean greater than 4 (M=4.31,

SD=1.17; M=4.91, SD=1.52; M=5.19, SD=1.18 respectively). However, the respondents

perceive interactional justice to be more in their organisations in comparison to distributive and

procedural justice. The overall mean for organisational justice was 4.40 (SD=1.15). This means

generally, that the participants’ perceptions of organisational justice are positive. Also, the mean

for overall OCB as well as its basic dimensions were all greater than 5. Specifically, overall

OCB; interpersonally-focused OCB; and organisationally-focused OCB had M=5.54 (SD=.70);

13
M=5.33 (SD=.77); M=5.73 (SD=.81) respectively. It can be deduced from the table that the

study participants tend to exhibit organisationally-focused OCB more than they do

interpersonally-focused OCB. Given the mean of the responses, we can generally say that the

level of OCB among the participants is moderately high.

In terms of the relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship

behaviour among the study participants, table 4.1 again shows that a direct positive significant

relationship exists between organisational justice and OCB in aggregate terms at p<0.01.

Similarly, distributive, procedural, and interactional justice all showed a direct positive

significant relationship with interpersonally-focused, organisationally-focused, and aggregate

OCB at p<0.01. However, correlation analysis measures a relationship or association and does

not define a cause-and-effect relationship. To establish the predictive power of organisational

justice over the participants’ OCB, we turn to the multiple regression analysis in table 4.2a, 4.2b,

and 4.2c.

4.2 Regression Analysis

The summary of the regression analysis for OCB on Distributive justice, Procedural justice and

Interactional justice are shown in tables 4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c in the appendix. Table 4.2a revealed

that procedural justice (β=0.149, ρ < 0.002), and interactional justice (β=0.303, ρ = 0.0005) are

the dimensions of organisational justice that have significant positive relationships with OCB in

terms of their ability to predict or influence employees’ OCB. In other words, when a positive

increase is observed in procedural justice and interactional justice, a positive increase can be

observed in employees’ OCB. Table 4.2a also showed that distributive justice (β=0.013, ρ <

0.779) is not a significant predictor of OCB among the selected participants. It thus appears that

14
the predictive ability of organisational justice for OCB is to be found in procedural justice and

interactional justice. Thus, we accept H2 and H3, and reject H1. Furthermore, the beta value for

the significant predictor variables showed that interactional justice had the greatest impact on

OCB.

The ANOVA table for the regression model is presented in table 4.2b. The table showed simply

that the model is significant (F3, 528=13.926, ρ < 0.0005). Furthermore, table 4.2c shows the

coefficient of determination for the regression model. Adjusted (R2) for the regression model is

.155 or 15.5%. This means that 15.5 % of the variance in OCB is explained by employees’

perception of procedural justice and interactional justice.

With respects to H4 and H5 table 4.3a, revealed that interactional justice (β=0.299, ρ < 0.0005),

significantly predicts interpersonally-focused OCB, and thus, we accept H4. Furthermore, table

4.3b and 4.3c respectively shows that the model is significant. An adjusted (R2) 0.114 showed

that interpersonal justice accounted for 11.4% of the variance in interpersonally-focused OCB.

From table 4.4a, we see that procedural justice significantly predicted organizationally-focused

OCB (β=0.180, ρ < 0.0005) and thus we accept H5. However, table 4.4a also showed that

interactional justice significantly predicted organizationally-focused OCB (β=0.240, ρ < 0.0005).

In short, the beta value for interactional justice showed that it had a greater impact on

organizationally-focused OCB than procedural justice, contrary to our expectations. In addition,

table 4.4b and 4.4c respectively shows that the model is significant and an adjusted (R2) 0.131

showed that interactional justice and procedural justice accounted for 13.1% of the variance in

organizationally-focused OCB.

15
5. Discussion of Findings and Conclusion

The objective of this study was to find out the extent to which organisational justice predicts

OCB among selected employees in Benin City. Particularly, the study focused on how each of

the dimensions of organisational justice could be said to significantly predict overall OCB as

well as the two broad categories of OCB (organisationally-focused OCB [OCB-OF], and

interpersonally-focused OCB [OCB-IF]. To achieve the above objective, we first ascertained the

level of OCB among the study participants and found that a moderately high level of OCB

existed among the employees. Also, it was found that the employees tend to exhibit more of

organisationally-focused OCB than they do interpersonally-focused OCB. The level at which the

participants exhibited OCB is considered an interesting finding because the reverse would have

been expected considering the general belief that on the average, many Nigerian employees have

poor attitude to work. On the degree to which organisational justice predicts OCB, the study

found that organisational justice positively and significantly impact employee OCB. This finding

in consonance with Moorman (1991), Igbinomwanhia and Akinmayowa (2014), Jafari and

Bidarian (2012), Goudarzvandchegini, Gilaninia, and Abdesonboli (2011), Abdul Rauf (2014),

Noruzy, Shatery, Rezazadeh, and Hatami-Shirkouji (2011), and Rangriz (2012), who all found a

significant positive relationship between the component of organisational justice and OCB. The

finding contradicts Uhiara et al., (2011), who concluded that organisational justice was not

significantly related to OCB and is therefore not a good predictor of OCB. It is our strong view

however, that when justice exists in an organisation and applies to all in a consistent manner

OCB will be enhanced. Employees perceiving fair treatment and trust from managers and are

confident that such fair treatment will continue, are likely to go beyond the call of duty and

16
voluntarily perform acts that benefit the organisation (Deluga, 1994; Organ & Konovsky, 1989).

It is important to point out that this study revealed that procedural justice and interactional justice

are the dimensions of organisational justice that tend to impact OCB.

With respects to how the different dimensions of organisational justice related to the broad

dimensions of OCB (OCB-IF and OCB-OF), the study found that interactional justice affected

interpersonally-focused OCB (OCB-IF). This finding is in agreement with the findings of

Masterson et al., (2001) and Colquitt et al., (2001). The study also found that procedural justice

affected organisationally-focused OCB (OCB-OF) and this again confirms the findings of

Masterson et al., (2001) and Colquitt et al., (2001) with respects to the relationship between

procedural justice and OCB-OF. However, our study found that OCB-OF was not only predicted

by procedural justice but also by interactional justice. In other words, perception of interactional

justice and procedural justice jointly predicted OCB-OF. In short, the study revealed that

interactional justice was a greater predictor of OCB-OF.

The study has shown that the perception of justice in the organisation influences OCB through a

social exchange process. Particularly, procedural and interactional justice significantly predicts

OCB among employees. Organisations in Benin City, and by extension, Nigeria, should take

practical steps to improve the perception of organisational justice in their workplace by ensuring

the ethical and moral standing of managerial conduct. Where the means by which outcomes are

allocated are free of bias, consistent, accurate, and ethical (procedural justice); and information

about decisions are shared as the decisions are made and promoted by providing explanations for

17
decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (interactional justice), OCB will be

fostered.

18
References

Abdul Rauf, F.H. (2014). Perception of organisational justice as a predictor of organisational

citizenship behaviour: An empirical study of schools in Sri Lanka. European journal of

Business and Management, 6(12), 124-130.

Barnard, C.I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bies, R.J., & Moag, J.S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R.J.

Lewicki, B.H. Sheppard, and M.H. Bazerman (eds.), Research on negotiations in

organisations, 1, 43-55, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Bolino, M.C., & Turnley, W.H. (2003). Going the extra mile: Cultivating and managing

employee citizenship behaviour. Academy of Management Executive, 17(3), 60-71.

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H., & Ng, K.Y. (2001). Justice at the

millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organisational research. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D.E., & Gilliland, S.W. (2007). The management of organisational

justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 18, 34-48.

Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through

the maze. In C.L. Cooper, and I.T. Robertson (Eds.). International Review of Industrial

and Organizational Psychology, 12, 317-72.

Deluga, R.J. (1994). The relationship between trust in the supervisor and subordinate

organizational citizenship behavior. Military Psychology, 46(17), 45–63.

Farh, J.L., Zhong, C.B., & Organ, D.W. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviour in the

People’s Republic of China. Organizational Science, 15, 241-253.

19
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions

to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.

Godden, B. (2004). Sample size and confidence interval. Tutorial. Retrieved 30/12/2012 from

http://williamgodden.com.

Goudarzvandchegini, M., Gilaninia, S., & Abdesonboli, R. (2011). Organisational justice and

organisational citizenship behaviour case study: Rasht Public Hospitals. International

Journal of Business Administration, 2(4), 42-49.

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of

Management, 16(2), 399-432.

Igbinomwanhia, O.R. & Akinmayowa, J.T. (2014). The determinants of citizenship behaviour in

Nigerian organisations. European Journal of Business and Management, 6(35), 155-

167.

Jafari, P., & Bidarian, S. (2012). The relationship between organisational justice and

organisational citizenship behaviour. Procedia Social and Behavioural Sciences, 47,

1815-1820.

Jahangir, N., Akbar, M.M., & Haq, M (2004). Organisational citizenship behaviour: Its nature

and antecedents. BRAC University Journal, 1(2), 75-88.

Katz, D. (1964). Motivational basis of organizational behaviour. Behavioural Science, 9, 131-

146.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

20
LePine, J.A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D.E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational

citizenship behaviour: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 87(1), 52-65.

Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C.

Carson (Eds.), Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology, Morristown, NJ: General

Learning Press.

Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study

of fairness in social relationships. In K.S. Gergen, M.S. Greeberg, and R.H. Willis

(eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, pp. 27-55. New York:

Plenum Press.

Marinova, S.V., Moon, H., & Van Dyne, L. (2010). Are all good soldiers behaviour the same?

Supporting multidimensionality of organisational citizenship behaviour based on

rewards and roles. Human Relations, 63(10), 1463-1485.

Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M., & Taylor, M.S. (2001). Integrating justice and

social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work

relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.

Moon, H., Van Dyne, L., & Wrobel, K. (2004). The circunplex model and the future of

organisational citizenship behaviour research. In D.L. Turnipseed (eds.), Handbook of

Organisational Citizenship Behaviour, pp. 1-22, New York: Nova Science.

Moorman, R.H. (1991). The relationship between organisational justice and organisational

citizenship behaviours: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?

Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.

21
Niehoff, B.P. (2004). A motive based view of organisational citizenship behaviour: Applying an

old lens to a new class of organisational behaviours. Paper presented at the 28th Annual

National Agriculture Education Research Conference. Retrieved 02/05/2012 from:

www.sba.muohio.edu/management/mwacademy/2000/3c.pdf

Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between

methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of

Management Journal, 36,527-556.

Noruzy, A., Shatery, K., Rezazadeh, A., & Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. (2011). Investigating the

relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour:

The mediating role of perceived organisational support. Indian Journal of Science and

Technology, 4(7), 842-847.

Okediji, A.A., Esin, P.A., Sanni, K.B., & Umoh, O.O. (2009). The influence of personality

characteristics and gender on organisational citizenship behaviour. Global Journal of

Social Sciences, 8 (2), 69-76.

Onyishi, I.E. (2007). Development and validation of organizational citizenship behaviour scale

in Nigeria. ESUT Journal of Psychological Studies, 2(1), 55-78.

Onyishi, I.E. (2010). The impact of contingent employment on organizational citizenship

behaviour. Ife Psychologia, 18(2), 303-323.

Organ, D.W. (1988). Organisational citizenship behaviour: The good soldier syndrome.

Lexington, MA: Lexington.

Organ, D.W. (1990a). The motivational basis of organizational behaviour. In B.M. Staw & L.L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organisational behaviour, 12, 43-72.

22
Organ, D.W., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Cognitive versus affective determinants of organizational

citizenship behaviours. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 157-164.

Organ, D.W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional

predictors of organizational citizenship behaviour. Personnel Psychology, 48, 775-800.

Organ, D.W., Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (2006). Organizational citizenship

behaviour: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Podsakoff, P.M, MacKenzie, S.B, Paine, J.B., & Bachrach, D.G. (2000). Organisational

citizenship behaviour: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and

suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26(3), 513-563.

Podsakoff, P.M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1994). Organizational citizenship behaviour and sales unit

effectiveness. Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 351-363.

Podsakoff, P.M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S.B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behaviour

and the quantity and quality of group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,

262-270.

Price, J.L., & Mueller, C.W. (1986). Handbook of organisational measurement, Marshfield, MA:

Pittman.

Rangriz, H. (2012). Relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship

behaviour in Iran. Kuwait Chapter of Arabian Journal of Business and Management

Review, 1(11), 43-51.

23
Sharma, J.P., & Bajpai, N. (2011). OCB in public and private sector and its impact on job

satisfaction: A comparative study in India perspective. International Journal of

Business and Management, 6(1), 67-75.

Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W., & Near, J.P. (1983). Organisational citizenship behaviour: Its nature

and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663.

Staufenbiel, T. (2000). Antecedents and consequences of voluntary work engagement.

Gruppendynamik-Zeitchrift Fur Angewandte Soziapsychologie, 31(2), 169-183.

Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A.B., & Lieberman, M.D. (2008). The sunny side of fairness: Preference

for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control

circuitry). Psychological Science, 19, 339-347.

Uhiara, A.C., Njoku, J.C., Ngozi, A.S., & Jimogu, S.C. (2011). The relationship between

organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour in a small Nigerian

sample. Journal of Research and Development, 3(1), 133-138.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J., & Dienesch, R.M. (1994). Organisational citizenship behaviour:

Construct redefinition, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal,

37, 765-802.

Williams, L.J., & Anderson, S.L. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as

predictors of organisational citizenship and in-role behaviours. Journal of Management,

17, 601-617.

Woodman, R.W., Sawyer, J.E., & Griffin, R.W. (1993). Towards a theory of organisational

creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18, 293-321.

24
 Appendix

Table 4.1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations for all variables

s/n Scale/Moderator M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Organisational 4.80 1.15 1
Justice
2.. Distributive Justice 4.31 1.17 .819** 1

3. Procedural Justice 4.91 1.52 .822** .476** 1

4. Interactional Justice 5.19 1.18 .717** .375** .448** 1

5. OCB 5.54 .70 .349** .195** .291** .376** 1

6. Interpersonally- 5.33 .77 .283** .154** .217** .338** .880** 1

focused OCB
7. Organisationally- 5.73 .81 .333* .190** .297** .328** .891** .568** 1
focused OCB
Note: M=Mean; SD=Standard Deviation; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; (N=536)

Table 4.2a The Coefficientsa of Correlation

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.237 .133 31.777 .000

DISTBTVJUST .006 .020 .013 .281 .779

PRCDRALJUST .069 .022 .149 3.102 .002

INTERJUST .181 .027 .303 6.646 .000

a. Dependent Variable: OCB

25
Table 4.2b ANOVAb for the regression model

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 41.778 3 13.926 33.451 .000a

Residual 219.813 528 .416

Total 261.592 531

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST, PRCDRALJUST

b. Dependent Variable: OCB

Table4.2c The Coefficient of determination for regression model

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .400a .160 .155 .6452232

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST,

PRCDRALJUST

Table 4.3a The Coefficientsa of correlation

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.097 .150 27.237 .000

DISTBTVJUST .002 .022 .004 .080 .936

PRCDRALJUST .042 .025 .082 1.667 .096

INTERJUST .196 .031 .299 6.405 .000

a. Dependent Variable: INTERPERSONALLY-FOCUSED OCB

Table 4.3b ANOVAb for the regression model

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 37.944 3 12.648 23.867 .000a

Residual 279.807 528 .530

Total 317.751 531

26
Table 4.3b ANOVAb for the regression model

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 37.944 3 12.648 23.867 .000a

Residual 279.807 528 .530

Total 317.751 531

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST, PRCDRALJUST

b. Dependent Variable: INTERPERSONALLY-FOCUSED OCB

Table 4.3c The Coefficient of determination for regression model

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .346a .119 .114 .72797

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST,

PRCDRALJUST

Table 4.4a The Coefficients a of correlation

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 4.376 .156 28.020 .000

DISTBTVJUST .009 .023 .019 .402 .687

PRCDRALJUST .096 .026 .180 3.690 .000

INTERJUST .165 .032 .240 5.178 .000

a. Dependent Variable: ORGANISATIONALLY-FOCUSED OCB

Table 4.4b ANOVAb for the regression model

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 47.258 3 15.753 27.574 .000a

Residual 301.638 528 .571

Total 348.896 531

27
Table 4.4b ANOVAb for the regression model

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 47.258 3 15.753 27.574 .000a

Residual 301.638 528 .571

Total 348.896 531

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST, PRCDRALJUST

b. Dependent Variable: ORGANISATIONALLY-FOCUSED OCB

Table 4.4c The Coefficient of determination for regression model

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate

1 .368a .135 .131 .75583

a. Predictors: (Constant), INTERJUST, DISTBTVJUST,

PRCDRALJUST

28