RESEARCH ARTICLES

 

A critical analysis of organisational justice in the South African financial service industry

 

 

V Mrwebi^I; EE Smith^II, ; NE Mazibuko^III

^IVaal University of Technology viwem@vut.ac.za
^IINelson Mandela University Elroy.Smith@mandela.ac.za
^IIINelson Mandela University Noxolo.Mazibuko@mandela.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

Organisational justice has captured the interest of scholars in recent years since it is associated with the perceptions of an individual to the presence of fairness in an organisation. The primary objective of this study is to critically analyse organisational justice within the South African financial services industry. A quantitative research design was employed. Non-probability sampling was used and 436 usable questionnaires were returned. The empirical results reveal that trustworthiness of management, intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, organisational transparency and organisational climate have positive influence on procedural-interactional justice and organisational distributive justice, while employee engagement is founded to have no significant influence on both procedural-interactional justice and organisational distributive justice. Furthermore, both procedural-interactional justice and distributive justice were found to have a positive influence on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention in the financial services industry.

Key Phrases: Distributive justice; financial service firms; organisational justice and procedural-interactional justice

---

 

 

1. INTRODUCTION

The pace of change in financial services seems only to be increasing and mainstream financial institutions are rapidly embracing the disruptive nature of financial technology in an effort to sharpen operational efficiency and respond to customer demands for more innovative services (PWC.com. 2017). The South African financial services industry is also one of the fastest-growing industries and the largest contributor to GDP with a contribution of 20% (StatsSA 2017). Organisational justice has captured the attention of scholars in recent years. It is associated with the perceptions and reactions of an individual to the presence of fairness in an organisation and captures what that individual feels or evaluates to be morally correct rather than viewing it to be something prescriptive (Whiteside 2015:2). The concept of justice emerges in various organisational contexts, such as pay plans, selection and placement, evaluation policies (Mopalami 2015). Fairness is an influential factor behind various positive job outcomes such as turnover intentions, organisational citizenship behaviours and commitment.

Graso and Gover (2017) concur that perceived justice in the workplace can motivate employees to perform more beneficial and positive behavior for organisations, while, when experiencing injustice they might react negatively. Thus, the perceptions of being treated fairly could benefit the organisation in terms of profitability (Baldwin 2006:10), through organisational commitment, increased job performance, engagement of employees into organisational citizenship behaviour, trust in supervisors and management and reduced conflicts (Cohen-Charash & Spector 2001:280; Colquitt 2001:389; El Akremi, Vandenberghe & Camerman 2010, Konovsky 2000 and Rhoades & Eisenberger 2002). Despite these claims, Rupp, Shapiro, Folger, Skarlicki and Shao (2017:919) argue that often contemporary approaches to measuring fairness perceptions fail to capture the full domain of organisational justice and scholars should reconsider how justice is conceptualised and measured as to go beyond the constraints of the current paradigm.

Although Ledimo (2015:27) argues that measuring organisational justice in a South African context is a concern as the concept is multi-dimensional and there is no comprehensive definition, limited research was found on organisational justice, specifically in the financial services industry. Moreover, the antecedents of organisational justice are not well documented and represent a significant gap in literature. Furthermore, several characteristics of financial services, as compared to other organisational behaviour settings, suggest the need to examine organisational justice in this context (Butt & Atif 2015:36). In addition, despite the importance of service behaviours influencing customer perceptions of service quality and customer satisfaction, relatively little research has placed attention on identifying factors that affect organisational justice behaviours (Rahim, Magner, Antonioni & Rahman 2000:333). Against this background, this study will thus focus on the nature, extent and impact of organisational justice within the financial services industry in South Africa.

 

2. PROBLEM STATEMENT

Shah, Anwar and Irani (2017:240) postulate that a feature of the global economic and financial crisis has been that many organisations were faced with the hurdle of downsizing and occasional collapse as a result of unethical behaviour by some of their employees. The problem within the services industry is that managers and employees are not fully conversant with what constitutes organisational justice and injustices, which creates an environment of misunderstanding that is not conducive for effective work relations (Buys & Van Niekerk 2014:110). Lown, Osler, Strahan and Sufi (2000) are of the opinion that managers and supervisors in the financial services industry often create a platform of favouritism and employees display negative attitudes. Managers are unconsciously unaware of these causal effects such as chronic absenteeism and sick leave. Employees in the financial services industry, especially in accounting and auditing firms are expected to work longer hours and even during weekends in order to complete work assignments. According to Wan (2017), perceptions of organisational justice are widely recognised as an influential factor in employee attitudes and behaviours in the workplace. Eib (2015) concurs that organisational justice perceptions and the nature of employment contracts and job characteristics are associated with work outcomes. Any experiences of injustice could have disastrous consequences such as increased employee absenteeism, absence without leave and even theft and sabotage by employees. Often employees on the same levels perceived a form of favouritism and unequal treatment between those been full-time employed or on a contractual basis. These perceived injustices such as favouritism, nepotism, unfair dismissal and tokenism create a situation where employees are unjustly treated. These employees often retaliate by displaying negative attitudes (Botha 2015:34).

Against this background, the main research question to be addressed in this study is: What are the nature and the extent of organisational justice in the financial services industry in South Africa?

 

3. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study is to critically analyse organisational justice within the South African financial service industry. The following secondary research objectives are identified:

• To critically review the literature pertaining to organisational justice.

• To empirically assess the views of employees and managers with regard to organisational justice in the South African financial services industry.

• To provide managerial guidelines of how organisational fairness can be effectively implemented and improved in the South African financial service industry.

 

4. PROPOSED HYPOTHETICAL MODEL AND HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY

The hypothetical model was based on three previous studies and models of organisational justice namely, Lavelle, Rupp and Brockner (2007); Kang's model (2007) and Rupp's model (2011.The proposed hypothetical model representing the various relationships or factors influencing organisational justice in the South African financial service industry, and the perceived outcomes of organisational justice is depicted in Figure 1.

 

 

The following null-hypotheses are to be addressed in this study:

First set of hypotheses: Relationships between the independent variables and the mediating variable

> H0¹: Trustworthiness of management does not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

> H0²: Employee engagement (as measured by involvement in decision-making, expression of opinions, job development and concern for well-being) does not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

> H0³: Reward systems (as measured by extrinsic and intrinsic rewards) do not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

> H0⁴: Organisational transparency does not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

> H0⁵: Two-way communication does not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

> H0⁶: Organisational climate (as measured by supervisory style and organisational support) does not influence organisational justice in the financial service industry.

Second set of hypotheses: Relationships between the mediating variable and the dependent variables (outcomes)

> H0⁷: Organisational justice does not influence organisational citizenship behaviour in the financial service industry.

>H0⁸: Organisational justice does not influence ethical behaviour in the financial service industry.

> H0⁹: Organisational justice does not influence employee retention in the financial service industry in the financial service industry.

 

5. OPERATIONALISATION OF STUDY VARIABLES

Table 1 provides a summary of the operationalisation of the study variables as indicated in the hypothetical model.

 

 

6. THEORETICAL OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE

6.1 Clarification of key concepts

6.1.1 Organisational justice (OJ)

Moliner, Cropanzano and Martínez-Tur (2017) state that organisational justice refers to how an employee judges the behaviour of the organisation and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. It refers to employee'sperceptions of the fairness of decision-making and decision-making processes and the influences of these perceptions on workplace behaviour (Colquitt & Zipay 2015). Muchinsky (2003:314) further explains that organisational justice concerns itself with the fair treatment of people within organisations. It can be regarded as a limited form of social justice that can be defined as fair and proper administration of laws that conform to the natural law that all persons irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possession, race and religion should be treated without prejudice.

6.1.2Distributive justice

Distributive justice is primarily concerned with how the outcomes of the organisation are in terms of fairness (Maiese 2013). It thus relates to the degree to which decisions by managers are in terms of distribution and allocation outcomes, for example promotions and salaries. It also relates to the degree to which managerial decisions allocate rewards in an equitable and fair manner to employees (Niehoff & Moorman 2010). Distributive justice focuses on people's belief that they have received a fair amount of pay and recognition and this could have great impact on employee's work satisfaction and motivation levels.

6.1.3Procedural justice

Procedural justice refers to the means by which outcomes are allocated but not specifically to the outcomes themselves, by establishing certain principles specifying and governing the role of participants during the decision-making process (Solum 2004:14). Procedural justice thus refers to the degree of fairness during the process of making decisions or creating procedures, and relates to perceptions that affect employees and the degree of fair methods and guidelines used when allocation decisions are made (Niehoff & Moorman 2010:356).

6.1.4Interactional justice

Muzumdar (2012:31) states that interactional justice refers to how one person treats another. A person is considered interactional if he or she appropriately shares information and avoids rude or cruel remarks. According to Colquitt (2001:428), there are two aspects of interactional justice. The first part is called informational justice and refers to whether one is truthful and provides adequate justifications when things go wrong. The second part is called interpersonal justice and refers to the respect and dignity with which one treats others.

6.2 Antecedents of organisational justice

An understanding of events that arouse a sense of injustices in organisations could allow one to appreciate the richness of justice dynamics. Bies (2001:104) and Cohen (2015) researched organisational justice and identified four categories of injustice: derogatory judgements, deception, invasion of privacy and disrespect (e.g. such as inconsiderate actions, abusive words and coercion). Another significant abusive action, which could lead to perceptions of injustices, includes prejudicial statements such as racist remarks. Being a target of these kinds of insults can arouse a sense of injustice (Bies 2001:105). Coercion which refers to psychological effect that management practises might have on employees, where an employer compels an employee to perform a task which they both know will arouse a sense of injustice. Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001:135) propose that the employee will compare his or her expectations to the actual outcomes to exercise this judgment. Employees will feel that the outcomes were fair if his or her expectations have been met or exceeded. However, when expectations have been violated and the outcomes falls short of what was anticipated he/she would experience a sense of injustice. Procedures in which people are treated differently are unusually considered as unfair. Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001:138) found that three rules could be applied in the distribution that could be considered as fair, namely, equity, equality and need.

• An equity rule suggests that everyone should receive the same reward on their contribution.

• The equality rule states that all are equal and should have an equal chance of receiving a particular outcome or reward.

• Some individuals can quite fairly receive more favourable treatment than another if it is used to address an imbalance. Distribution could be allocated to meet the employee who has the most need.

 

7. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

7.1 Research paradigm

This study adopted the positivistic research design by means of quantitative research. This means that quantitative data are collected; aspects of the social world and social phenomena are measure; causal relationships between different aspects of the social world are sought; and large data and statistical analysis are used (Wilson 2010:13-14).

7.2 Research approach

Given the nature of the study, the research approaches followed in this study are exploratory and descriptive in nature. The aim is to explore a relatively new area and describe respondent's perceptions regarding organisational justice in the South African financial services industry.

7.3 Population and sampling

The population in this study comprised of all banks, auditing and accounting firms and insurance firms in the financial service industry within the four provinces of the Eastern Cape, Western Cape, Gauteng and Kwazulu-Natal in South Africa. For the purposes of this study, non-probability sampling was used, specifically convenience and judgemental sampling, as there is no data base of financial service firms available in South Africa. These firms were selected on the basis of accessibility and availability and judgement of the researchers.

7.4 Data collection

Secondary data sources for the literature review were obtained through the use of journal articles, textbooks and internet. The primary data was obtained using the survey method by means of self-administered structured questionnaires. Primary data was collected by the researchers with the assistance of four fieldworkers recruited for this exercise. Questionnaires were distributed to the respondents by means of hand delivery and electronic mail and were collected after completion. The fieldworkers were trained prior to data collection so as to administer the questionnaires correctly and to observe ethical issues. The aim was to target 800 employees in financial services firms (200 employees from Eastern Cape, Kwa-Zulu Natal, Gauteng and Western Cape). A total of 436 useable questionnaires were obtained (effective response rate of 54%). Ethical clearance was obtained from the NMMU before the empirical study was conducted.

7.5 Questionnaire design

The questionnaire consisted of four sections:

• Section A used an ordinal scale to analyse the role of the six independent variables on organisational justice using a seven-point Likert scale (47 statements).

• Section B analysed perceptions regarding organisational justice in the financial services industry in South Africa by means of a seven-point Likert-type scale (15 statements).

• Section C analysed the impact of organisational justice on the dependent variables (outcomes) using a seven-point ordinal Likert-type scale (15 statements).

• Section D consisted of nominal-scaled questions meant to solicit background information of respondents (biographical characteristics) such as gender, age, ethnic group, educational background and employment level (nine variables).

7.6 Data analysis

Data collected was transferred to an Excel spread sheet and analysed by means of the Statistica computer programme. Various statistical methods were used in this study. Descriptive statistics through measures of central tendency (mean) and dispersion (standard deviation) were used. Frequency distributions expressed as percentages were presented in the form of tables. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were used to assess the internal reliability of the study variables (cut-off point 0.80). Both face and content validity were be assessed through a pilot study, expert judgement (management, ethics and statistical experts) and a thorough literature study. Exploratory factor analysis was used to assess construct validity. A cut-off point of 0.5 was used and at least three items should load per factor to be regarded as acceptable. Regression analysis was used to test relationships between the dependent and independent variables and to test the stated null-hypotheses of the study.

 

8. EMPIRICAL RESULTS

8.1 Demographical information

The demographical results are depicted in Table 2 below.

 

 

Table 2 clearly shows that the majority of the respondents were males, from African ethnicity, with a national diploma, N-certificate or bachelor's degree, employed as ordinary employees for between six and 15 years in their current employment. The majority of the respondents were also employed in medium-sized and large organisations and most of the organisations at which respondents belong to have been in existence for between 6 and 15 years. In terms of type of financial service industry, 36% are insurance firms and 35% accounting or auditing firms.

8.2 Exploratory factor analysis results

Exploratory factor loadings are depicted in Table 3 below. Perceptions of employees regarding the independent variables, organisational justice and the dependent variables (outcomes) are presented. Factor loadings of greater than 0.5 were considered significant and many items were thus deleted and not considered for further analysis.

 

 

The EFA analysis revealed that respondents viewed trustworthiness of management, employee engagement, organisational transparency and organisational climate as possible factors that could impact organisational justice in the financial service industry in South Africa. As indicated in Table 3, some items loaded onto other factors as initially anticipated and indicated in the hypothetical model and measuring instrument. Respondents also viewed the reward system as a two-dimensional construct, consisting of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. The items of two-way communication did not load as a separate factor, but onto organisational transparency and organisational climate respectively. One item (DM1) which was expected to measure decision making as a dimension of employee engagement, did not load to a significant extent (p < 0.05) and this led to the deletion of this item and was not considered for further analysis. One item (EXT5) which was expected to measure extrinsic rewards, did not load to a significant extent (p < 0.05) was deleted and not used in subsequent analyses.

Table 3 further indicates that the respondents perceived organisational justice as a two-dimensional construct. All four items (PJ1, PJ2, PJ3 and PJ4) which were meant to measure procedural justice and items which were meant to measure interactional justice (IJ1, IJ2, IJ3 and IJ4) loaded onto one factor and are termed procedural-interactional justice (PIJ). All five items (EB1, EB2, EB3, EB4, EB5) which were meant to measure ethical behaviour and all five items which were meant to measure employee retention loaded onto one another factor and are termed reputable employee retention. As a results of the discriminant validity assessment with the exploratory factor analysis new variables were formed, thus the original theoretical model had to be adapted.

8.3 Reliability of the measuring instrument

Table 4 indicates the Cronbach's alpha coefficients of the latent variables based on the comprehensive exploratory factor analysis as well as the descriptive statistics of the latent variables.

 

 

The study retained trustworthiness of management (TM), employee engagement (EE), extrinsic rewards (EXT), intrinsic rewards (INT), organisational transparency (OT), organisational climate (OC), procedural interactional justice (PIJ), distributive justice (DJ), organisational citizenship behaviour (OCB) and reputable employee retention (RER), as their Cronbach's alpha values were above the cut-off point of 0.80, indicating that all these variables are internally reliable.

According to Table 4, it appears that the mean values of all the variables cluster around point five (agree somewhat). Respondents thus agree to a certain extent that the independent variables impact on two types of organisational justice, namely procedural-interactional justice and distributive justice and resulting in two outcomes (OCB and reputable employee retention). Reputable employee retention (RER) obtained the highest mean value and OCB the lowest mean value. It also appears that there is some variability around the mean scores (all above one). OCB obtained the highest standard deviation score.

8.4 Regression analysis

8.4.1 The influence of trustworthiness of management, employee engagement, extrinsic rewards and intrinsic rewards, organisational transparency and organisational climate on procedural-interactional justice

Table 5 shows the results of the independent variables on procedural-interactional justice.

 

 

According to Table 5, extrinsic rewards (b=0.168, p < 0.001) and intrinsic rewards (b=0.171, p < 0.001) are statistically significantly related to procedural-interactional justice. Extrinsic rewards are also important and there should be fairness during the process of making decisions or creating procedures. Organisational transparency (b = 0.133, p < 0.05) is also significantly related to procedural-interactional justice, as shown in Table 5. It is further shown that organisational climate (as measured by supervisory style, organisational support and two-way communication) (b=0.360, p < 0.001), is significantly related to procedural-interactional justice. According to Table 5, trustworthiness of management and employee engagement as measured by decision making expression of opinions and job development (r=0.037, NS) do not exert a significant influence on procedural-interactional justice. The R² of 0.579 explains 58% of variability in the models as explained by the moderating variable (procedural-interactional justice).

8.4.2 The influence of trustworthiness of management, employee engagement, extrinsic rewards and intrinsic rewards, organisational transparency and organisational climate on distributive justice

Table 6 shows the results of the independent variables on distributive justice.

 

 

Table 6 indicates that trustworthiness of management (b = 0.180, p < 0.001), is significantly related to distributive justice in the financial service industry. This indicates that management should make decisions in a fair manner and should be seen as trustworthy when distributing outcomes. Furthermore, extrinsic rewards (b = 0.213, p < 0.001) is also significantly related to distributive justice in the financial service industry. Table 6 further shows that organisational climate as measured by supervisory style, organisational support and two-way communication (b = 0.386, p < 0.001) is positively related to distributive justice in the financial service industry. Table 6 also indicates R² of 0.456 and it explains 46% of variability in the model as explained by the moderating variable (distributive justice). Employee engagement as measured by decision making, expression of opinions and job development (r = - 0.037, NS), intrinsic rewards (r = 0.039, NS) and organisational transparency (r = -0.090, NS) do not exert a significant influence on distributive justice in the financial service industry.

8.4.3 The influence of procedural-interactional justice (PIJ) on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention

Table 7 shows the regression analysis results of procedural-interactional justice (PIJ) on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention.

 

 

Although Table 7 shows that procedural-interactional justice (b = 0.120, p < 0.05) has a positive relationship with organisational citizenship behaviour, the R² of 0.010 indicates that only 1% of the variability in the model is explained by the variable 'organisational citizenship behaviour'. This indicates that this relationship is not sufficiently significant. Table 7 also shows that the R² of 0.492 indicates that 49% of the variability in the model is explained by the variable 'reputable employee retention'. This indicates that procedural-interactional justice has a positive relationship with reputable employee retention (b = 0.643, p < 0.001).

This indicates that respondents feel that procedural interactional justice is effectively practised when all employees strictly follow rules and policies in their organisations.

8.4.4 The influence of distributive justice (DJ) on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention

Table 8 shows that the R² of 0.014 indicates that 1% of the variability in the model is explained by the variable 'organisational citizenship behaviour'. Although distributive justice has a positive relationship with OCB (b = 0.124, p < 0.05), this relationship is weak. Table 8 further shows that the R² of 0.379 indicates that 38% of the variability in the model is explained by the variable 'reputable employee retention'. This indicates that distributive justice has a positive relationship with reputable employee retention (b = 0.533, p < 0.001).

 

 

As a result of the formulation of the adapted models, the original hypotheses had to be reformulated.

8.6 Findings of hypothesised relationships

Figure 2 indicates the findings of the hypothesised relationships between the newly or renamed variables

 

 

9. RECOMMENDATIONS

Financial service firms that apply procedural-interactional justice make decisions in an unbiased manner, treat employees with dignity and respect, are sensitive to the personal needs of employees and provide complete information when requested by employees. For distributive justice to be effective in the financial service industry, the organisation should ensure that work schedules are fair in accordance with job descriptions, compensate employees according to acquired skills, base recognition on the merit of each employee's performance and consistently apply promotion criteria equally to all employees. Table 9 provide some managerial guidelines regarding organisational justice practices, based on the study variables used in the measuring instrument.

 

 

10. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE RESEARCH

Some of the contributions of this study relevant to this article are identified below:

• The findings of this study have contributed to the body of knowledge by developing a theoretical model of organisational justice in the financial services industry.

• The results of this study could also be replicated by other industries as to ensure successful implementation of fairness and organisational justice practices.

• The findings can inform financial services firms about financial services policy formulations so as to assist with the implementation of organisational justice programmes.

• The study provided useful and practical guidelines to organisations as to ensure effective strategising and management of organisational justice that could enhance their local and global competitiveness and long-term survival.

 

11. CONCLUSIONS

The empirical results indicated that employees perceive procedural-interactional justice as good practice and is more effective when all their concerns are heard before final decisions are made and employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by their supervisors. Employees also believe that everyone should be treated with kindness and consideration and management should be sensitive to their personal needs. The empirical findings also revealed that employees believe that distributive justice is effectively practised when their work schedule is fair in accordance with their job description and they are compensated according to the skills required for their jobs and when recognition is based on the merit of each employee's performance and when promotion criteria are consistently applied equally to all employees.

The empirical results of this study thus demonstrated that four independent variables of the study namely, extrinsic rewards, intrinsic rewards, organisational transparency and organisational climate could influence procedural-interactional justice which ultimately could have an impact on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention in the South African financial services industry. Three independent variables namely, trustworthiness of management, extrinsic rewards and organisational climate could influence distributive justice which ultimately could have an impact on organisational citizenship behaviour and reputable employee retention in the South African financial services industry. Employee engagement was founded to have no significant influence on both procedural-interactional justice and organisational distributive justice, whilst two-way communication also did not load as a separate independent variable. Ethical behaviour also did not load as a separate dependent variable (outcome) but rather as part of reputable employee behaviour.

Organisational justice should thus be advocated as a core value of an organisation's management philosophy and enacted through a set of internally consistent management practices. This can build a culture of justice and commitment that is valuable and unique in the eyes of all stakeholders and may ultimately lead to a competitive advantage. Managers are constantly involved in the development and implementation of organisational policies and processes that are supposed to reflect just and fair practices.

 

REFERENCES

AL-TIT AA & HUNITIE M. 2015. The mediating effect of employee engagement between its antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management Research 7(5):47-62.         [ Links ]

BALDWIN S. 2006. Organisational justice. Brighton: Institute for Employment Studies.         [ Links ]

BIES RJ. 2001. Interactional justice: The sacred and profane advances in organisational justice. California: Stanford University Press.         [ Links ]

BUYS PW & VAN NIEKERK E. 2014. The South African financial services industry's integrated reporting compliance with global reporting initiative framework. Bank and Bank System 9(4):107-115.         [ Links ]

BOTHA C. 2015. Sharing insight on key industry issues. The Southern Africa Financial Services Journal. New York: Price Waterhouse & Coopers.         [ Links ]

BUTT S & ATIF M. 2015. Exploring the role of organisational justice as an antecedent of psychological ownership. Transactions on Education and Social Sciences 7(1):36-50.         [ Links ]

COHEN A. 2015. Fairness in the workplace: A global perspective. New York: Springer.         [ Links ]

COHEN-CHARASH Y & SPECTOR P. 2001. The role of justice in organisations: A meta-analysis. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decisions Processes 86(2):278-321.         [ Links ]

COJOCARU DN & STOICAN C. 2010. Diagnosis of organisational climate as mean of management of communication. International Journal of Administration 19(1): 5-26.         [ Links ]

COLQUITT JA. 2001. On the dimensionality of organisational justice: A construct validation of measure. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(3):386-400.         [ Links ]

COLQUITT JA & RODELL JB. 2011. Justice, trust and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating the theoretical perspective. Academy of Management Journal 54(6):1183-1206.         [ Links ]

COLQUITT JA & ZIPAY KP. 2015. Justices, fairness and employee reactions. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 2:11.1-11.25.         [ Links ]

COOPER CL, CARTWRIGHT S & EARLEY PC. 2001. The international handbook of organisational culture and climate. Chichester: Wiley.         [ Links ]

CRAWSHAW JR, CROPANZANO R, BELL CM & NADISIC D. 2013. Organisational justice: New insight from behavioural ethics. Human Relations 66(7): 885-904.         [ Links ]

CROPANZANO R & AMBROSE ML. 2001. Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A Monistic perspective and a research agenda. California: Stanford University Press. (119-151.         [ Links ])

CROPANZANO R, BOWEN DE & GILLILAND SW. 2007. The management of organisational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives 21(4):34-48.         [ Links ]

DE CREMER D, MAYER D & SCHMINKE M. 2010. On understanding ethical behaviour and decision making: A behavioural business ethics approach. Business Ethics Quarterly 20(1):1-6.         [ Links ]

EIB C. 2015. Process of Organizational Justice: Insights into the perception and enactment of justice. Stockholm: Department of Psychology, Stockholm University. (Unpublished doctoral thesis.         [ Links ])

EL AKREMI A, VANDENBERGHE C & CAMERMAN. 2010. The role of justice and social exchange in workplace deviance: Test of a mediated model. Human Relations 63(11):1687-1717.         [ Links ]

GRASO M & GROVER SL. 2017. Organizational justice comes of age: review of the oxford handbook of justice in the workplace. Social Justice 51:1-10.         [ Links ]

HALIRU M & MOKHTAR SSM. 2015. The mediating effect of perceived safety and trust on the relationship between perceived justice and customer loyalty in the Nigerian airline industry. International. Journal of Management Sciences and Business Research 4(10): 1-7.         [ Links ]

HAUSKNECHT J, RODDA JM & HOWARD MJ. 2009. Targeted employee retention. Performance based and job related differences in reported reasons for staying. Human Resources Management 48(2):269-288.         [ Links ]

KANG D. 2007. Perceived organisational justice as predictor of employee motivation to participate in training. Research and Practise in Human Resources Management 15(1):89-107.         [ Links ]

KHAN I, SHAHID M, NAWAB S & WALI SS. 2013. Influence of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards on employee performance: The banking sector of Pakistan. Academic Research International 4(1):282-291.         [ Links ]

KONOVSKY MA. 2000. Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organisations. Journal of Management 26(3):489-512.         [ Links ]

KONOVSKY MA & PUGH SD. 1994. Citizenship behaviour and social exchange. Academy Management Journal 37(1):656-669.         [ Links ]

LAVELLE JJ, RUPP DE & BROCKNER J. 2007. Taking a multi-foci approach to the study of justice, social exchange and citizenship behaviour: The target similarity model. Journal of Management 33(1):841-866.         [ Links ]

LEDIMO O. 2015. Development and validation of an organisational justice measurement instrument for a South African context. Risk governance & control: financial markets & institutions 5(1): 27-38.         [ Links ]

LOWN CS, OSLER CL, STRAHAN PE & SUFI M. 2000. The changing landscape of financial services industry. What lies ahead? FRB of New York Economic Policy Review 6(4):39-55.         [ Links ]

MAIESE M. 2013. Distributive justice: Beyond intractability. Colorado: University of Colorado.         [ Links ]

MARKOS S & SRIDEVI M. 2010. Employee engagement: The key to improving performance. International Journal of Business Management 5(12):89-96.         [ Links ]

MARTINS N & VON DER OHE H. 2003. Organisational climate measurement - new and emerging dimensions during a period of transformation. South African Journal of Labour Relations 27(3/4):41-58.         [ Links ]

MOLINER C, CROPANZANO R & MARTÍNEZ-TUR V. 2017. Organizational justice: International perspectives and conceptual advances. Oxon: Routledge.         [ Links ]

MORSING M & SCHULTZ M. 2006. Corporate social responsibility communication: Stakeholder information, response and involvement strategies. Business Ethics: A European Review 15(4):323-338.         [ Links ]

MOPALAMI KC. 2015. A South African case study of the relationship between perceived fairness in human resource management practices and employees' psychological empowerment. Bloemfontein: Central University of Technology, Free State. (Unpublished MTech Human Resource Management.         [ Links ])

MUCHINSKY PM. 2003. Psychology applied to work. Belmont: Thomson Learning.         [ Links ]

MUZUMDAR P. 2012. Influence of interactional justice on the turnover behavioural decision in an organisation. Journal of Behavioural Studies 5(1):31-41.         [ Links ]

NIEHOFF BP & MOORMAN RH. 2010. Does perceived support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organisational citizenship behaviour? Academy of Management Journal 41 (3):351-357.         [ Links ]

NOORDIN F, OMAR S, SEHAN S & IDRUS S. 2010. Organisational climate and its influence on organisational commitment. International Business and Economics Research Journal 9(2):1-10.         [ Links ]

NWOKOCHA I & IHERIOHANMA EBJ. 2012. Trends in Employee retention strategies in a Globalizing Economy: Nigeria in Focus. Asian Social Science 8(10):198-207.         [ Links ]

ORGAN DW, PODSAKOFF PM & MACKENZIE SB. 2006. Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature, antecedents, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.         [ Links ]

PETTIGREW AM. 2014. The politics of organisational decision-making. Oxon: Routledge.         [ Links ]

PWC.COM. 2017. Redrawing the lines: FinTech's growing influence on financial services. London: Global FinTech Report 2017.         [ Links ]

RAHIM MA, MAGNER NR, ANTONIONI D & RAHMAN S. 2000. Do justice relationships with organisation-directed reactions differ across U.S. and Bangladesh employees? The International Journal of Conflict 12(4):333-349.         [ Links ]

RAWLINS B. 2008. Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public Relations Journal 2(2):1-21.         [ Links ]

REICHE BS, CARDONA P LEE YT & CANELA M. 2014. Why do managers engage in trustworthy behavior? A multilevel cross-cultural study in 18 Countries. Personnel Psychology 67(1):61-98.         [ Links ]

RHOADES L & EISENBERGER R. 2002. Perceived organisational support: A review of literature. Journal of Applied Psychology 87(4):698-714.         [ Links ]

ROY SK, DEVLIN JF & SEKHON H. 2015. The impact of fairness on trustworthiness and trust in banking. Journal of Marketing Management 31 (10):996-1017.         [ Links ]

RUBINA Y, UMAR F & FAHAD A. 2013. Impact of reward on organizational performance: Empirical evidence from telecom sector of Pakistan. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research 3(5):938-946.         [ Links ]

RUPP DE. 2011. An employee-cantered model of organisational justice and social responsibility. Organisational Psychology Review 1(1):72-94.         [ Links ]

RUPP DE, SHAPIRO DL, FOLGER R, SKARLICKI DP & SHAO R. 2017. A critical analysis of the conceptualization and measurement of organizational justice: Is it time for reassessment? The Academy of Management Annals 11(2): 919-959.         [ Links ]

SAMUEL MO & CHIPUNZA C. 2009. Employee retention and turnover: Using motivational variables as panacea. African Journal of Business Management 3(8):410-415.         [ Links ]

SCHNAKENBERG AK & TOMLINSON EC. 2014. Organisational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organisation: Stakeholder relationships. Journal of Management (1): 1 -27.         [ Links ]

SHAH N, ANWAR S & IRANI Z. 2017. The impact of organisational justice on ethical behaviour. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research 12(2): 240-258.         [ Links ]

SHARMA H & YADAV R. 2018. The relationship between organisational justice and work engagement: Trust as a mediator. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management 11 (3): 50-61.         [ Links ]

SMIT PJ & CRONJE DJ. 2002. Management principles: A contemporary edition for Africa. London: McGraw-Hill.         [ Links ]

SNELGAR RJ, RENARD M & VENTER D. 2013. An empirical study of the reward preferences of South African employees. SA Journal of Human Resource Management/SA Tydskrif vir Menslikehulpbronbestuur 11 (1):84-97.         [ Links ]

SOLUM LB. 2004. Procedural justice. Georgetown: Georgetown Law Faculty Publications.         [ Links ]

STATSSA. 2017. Economic sectors that contribute to South Africa's GDP: Q3 2017. Pretoria: Statistics South Africa.         [ Links ]

STURGES P. 2007. What is this absence called transparency? Pretoria. (Proceedings of the International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) Conference.) (5-7 February.         [ Links ])

TARAN P & GÄCHTER A. 2012. Achieving equality in intercultural workplaces. Dublin: Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission.         [ Links ]

TREVIÑO KL, BUTTERFIELD KD & MCCABE DL. 2001. The ethical context in organizations: Influences on employee attitudes and behaviors, IN John Dienhart, Dennis Moberg, Ron Duska (ed.) The Next Phase of Business Ethics: Integrating Psychology and Ethics 3:301-337.         [ Links ]

TREVIÑO LK, WEAVER GR & REYNOLDS SJ. 2006. Behavioural ethics in organisations: A review. Journal of Management 32(6):951-990.         [ Links ]

VELOSO EFR, DA SILVA RC, DUTRA JS, FISCHER AL & TREVISAN LN. 2014. Talent retention strategies in different organizational contexts and intention of talents to remain in the company. Journal on Innovation and Sustainability (1):49-61.         [ Links ]

VERSOSA CC & GARCIA HR. 2009. Building commitment to reform through strategic communication: The five key decisions. Washington: The World Bank.         [ Links ]

WAN HL. 2017. Relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour: examining the mediating role of job satisfaction. (DOI: 10.17626/dBEM.ICoM.P00.2015.p062.         [ Links ])

WHITESIDE DB. 2015. Promoting fairness in the workplace: Identifying and overcoming the barriers to managerial fairness in organizations. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University.         [ Links ]

WILSON J. 2010. Essentials of business research: A guide to doing your research project. London: Sage.         [ Links ]

 

 

* Corresponding author