|
Article Excerpt
Employee turnover represents a practical problem to an organization in terms of loss of talent and additional recruitment and training cost. Existing literature suggests that employees' organizational commitment and intention to leave are two important predictors of employee turnover (Griffeth & Horn, 1995; Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). In particular, intention to leave has been considered as a proximal antecedent since it captures employees' perceptions and evaluations of job alternatives (Allen, Shore, & Griffeth, 2003; Mobley, Griffeth, Hand, & Meglino, 1979). A significant negative relationship was also found between organizational commitment and intention to leave (Lum, Kervin, Clark, Reid, & Sirola, 1998; Wong, Hui, & Law, 1995).
Despite their importance in affecting work attitudes and behaviours, the role of employees' justice perceptions in the turnover process has not been adequately addressed in the current literature (Griffeth et al., 2000). Past studies of organizational justice have identified two major types of justice perceptions: distributive justice, which refers to fairness perception of outcomes; and procedural justice, which refers to the fairness perception of procedures used to decide the outcome allocation. Although much research relates these two types of justice perceptions to organizational commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), only a few studies have explored their effects on intention to leave (e.g. Dailey & Kirk, 1992). Hence, the underlying processes through which organizational justice leads to employee turnover remain largely unknown.
To fill the gap in research, this study develops a model to explain the concurrent effects of distributive justice and procedural justice on organizational commitment and intention to leave. Building on a social exchange perspective and organizational support theory, we propose that both types of justice perceptions generate employees' global beliefs of being valued and cared for by the organization, termed perceived organizational support (POS; Eisenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986), which then enhances their organizational commitment and reduces their turnover intentions. In other words, we argue that POS mediates the effects of the two justice perceptions on organizational commitment and intention to leave.
The present study extends earlier research in several ways. First, by incorporating the construct of POS, we attempt to explain the link between employees' justice perceptions and their intentions to leave using the social exchange perspective. Our study contributes to the turnover literature by viewing both types of justice perceptions as significant resources in the employee-organization exchange and by highlighting POS as a salient mediator in the process of employee turnover. Second, we include distributive justice as a major antecedent of POS in our proposed model. This relationship has been largely neglected in previous studies that considered only the effect of procedural justice on POS. Third, we attempt to address the generalizability of a Western theoretical framework in a non-Western context. It has been found that Hong Kong employees focus on both types of organizational justice when evaluating their outcomes (Fields, Pang, & Chiu, 2000). By using a sample of practising solicitors in Hong Kong, we further explore the social exchange between employees and organizations in professional organizations.
Literature review
Social exchange between employee and organization
A dominant approach in explaining the employee-organization relationship is social exchange perspective, rooted in the works of Gouldner (1960) and Blau (1964). Gouldner referred to social exchange as a pattern of mutually contingent exchanges of gratification between two parties with a belief in reciprocity under a generalized moral norm. With such a norm of reciprocity, the mutuality of gratification serves to maintain a stable social system. Blau further explained the notion of social exchange by differentiating it from economic exchange. Social exchange tends to be long term, whereas economic exchange is short term and on a quid pro quo basis. Unlike economic exchange, social exchange involves less tangible or even symbolic resources, and both the time frame and nature of the expected future returns are not specified. Since the returns are unspecified obligations in social exchange, the exchange parties conform to the norm of reciprocity to discharge their obligations in future.
Organizational support theory draws on the social exchange perspective to explain employee-organization relationships. Eisenberger et al. (1986) developed POS as a central construct in understanding such an exchange process. POS refers to employees' 'global beliefs concerning the extent to which the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being' (Eisenberger et al., 1986, p. 501). POS is fostered by two important beliefs of employees: (1) the personification of organization, and (2) rewards based on the organization's discretion. Through personification of organization, employees assign human characteristics to the organization and view actions by agents in the organization (e.g. managers) as actions of the organization as a whole (Eisenberger et al., 1986). Favourable or unfavorable treatment received by employees indicates the organization's benevolent or malevolent orientation towards them. In addition, POS can only be generated as long as employees believe that the organizational rewards they receive are based on discretionary choice as opposed to external constraints beyond the organization's control (Eisenberger, Cummings, Armeli, & Lynch, 1997). Voluntary aids from the organization are highly valued by the employees since they indicate the organization's genuine respect for the employees and recognition of the employees' contributions. In brief, the above two beliefs help to identify the organizational resources available in the employee-organization social exchange.
Based on the norm of reciprocity, employees with high POS are obliged to respond favourably to the organization in the form of positive job attitudes or organizational behaviours. Existing research has found that POS is related to a variety of important outcomes such as organizational commitment (Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMastro, 1990; Settoon, Bennett, & Liden, 1996; Wayne, Shore, Bommer, & Tetrick, 2002), job satisfaction (Eisenberger et al., 1997; Stamper & Johlke, 2003), organizational citizenship behaviours (Moorman, Blakely, & Niehoff, 1998) and job performance (Randall, Cropanzano, Bormann, & Birjulin, 1999). However, there has been limited investigation of the relationship between POS and intention to leave (e.g. Allen et al., 2003; Wayne, Shore, & Liden, 1997) and more empirical work has been called for (Griffeth et al., 2000).
Justice perceptions as resources in employee-organization exchange
Distributive justice and procedural justice are considered to be distinct constructs (Colquitt et al., 2001). Early studies on organizational justice were primarily concerned with distributive justice, grounded in Adams' (1965) equity theory, which suggests that an individual calculates his/her perceived input-outcome ratio and then compares this ratio with that of a referent other. Unequal input-outcome ratios between the individual and the referent other (i.e. the presence of inequity) leads to a feeling of unfairness experienced by both parties. Motivated by this feeling of discomfort, both parties would rectify the unjust situation by reacting behaviourally (e.g. altering job performance) or psychologically (e.g. altering perception of outcomes; Greenberg, 1990). Distributive justice was found to be related to such work outcomes as pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, organizational commitment and trust in organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001).
The focus of justice research later shifted to procedural justice (e.g. Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) when scholars noted that distributive justice could not address an individual's fair procedure pursuit (Greenberg, 1990). In the organizational context, procedural justice is considered an important resource in social exchange. It influences employees' judgment of the quality of exchange relationship with their organization (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). Fasolo (1995) claimed that procedures may be evaluated by employees as discretionary actions on the part of the organization, and allowing employees' voice in decision-making procedures signifies the organization's concern and care for the employees. Shore and Shore (1995) further pointed out that repeated instances of procedural fairness in decisions have a cumulative effect on POS.
Nevertheless, the increasing attention paid to procedural justice tends to deemphasize the role of distributive justice in the employee-organization exchange. Distributive justice is often considered to be more closely related to economic exchange than social exchange (Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, and Schminke (2001) attributed such a de-emphasis of distributive justice to the practical considerations of researchers who are more apt to focus...
|
