Zehir and Erdogan (2011) believe that seemingly organizational silences implicitly imply not to have conversation while the institutional voice implicitly implies talking about organizational issues and problems. (Bagheri et al, 2012). But literature of the subject does not explain this story so simple. In fact, organizationalsilence is not defined simply as something inconsistent with organizational sound. In fact, the difference between organizationalsilence and sound is not in speaking however it is in the motivation that individuals refuse to provide information, ideas and opinions of their own. (Zerayi matin et al, 2011). In research literature three types of motivation are related to organizational sound and silence. Van Dyne et al (2003) have identified these motivations and different types of organizationalsilence and sound which continues to be addressed. In this typology, the nature of employees' behavior is classified into the two classes: passive and proactive and then motivation of people will be examined which Include: Disengaged behavior, Self-Protective behavior and Other-Oriented behavior (Van dyne et al, 2003). Finally, the employees six types of behavior were identified which Include: Acquiescent silence, Defensive silence and Pro Social silence plus Acquiescent sound, Defensive sound and pro social sound (Van dyne et al, 2003). Van dyne et al (2003) argue that silence of an employee is not a good reason to say he has a passive behavior. The researchers argue that organizationalsilence can be active, conscious, intentional, and purposeful. It could be stated that the silence that is intentional and passive is different from intentional and active Silence. Sometimes employees keep silence because of submission of the individuals to the current conditions and sometimes because of fear or conservative behaviors; and sometimes people remain silent Because of providing opportunity for others (Van dyne et al, 2003).
It was accepted by social scientists that organizationaljustice has an importance as a basic necessity for effective functioning of the organizations and personal satiation of the employees and injustice should be seen as a problem in an organizational sense . Based on this theory, many researches have been conducted, which emphasized the impact of perception of justice on employees. Studies on organizationaljustice put forth that concerns on justice can affect the attitudes and behaviors of the employees . In this sense, when employees’ perceptions about the organizational practices are fair, it causes them to exhibit positive attitudes and behaviors, while a perception of injustice may cause negative behaviors like theft and aggression, which makes it difficult for the organizations to reach its goals . Moreover, perception of justice or the way of employees' perceiving justice affects job outputs related with performance like job satisfaction, organizationalcommitment, organizationalsilence, organizational cynicism, performance, and job motivation. Former studies showed that perception about the existence of organizational injustice caused negative results like a decrease in organizationalcommitment, organizational citizenship behavior and job performance, and on the other hand, it caused an increase in organizational cynicism and quitting rates [5, 6].
3. Continuous commitment: this view considers benefits of the job and costs resulting from turnover. In other words, in this kind of a commitment, person remains committed to the organization because of the high costs of leaving the organization. Person’s attachment in this perspective is not based on emotion or feeling towards the organization (e.g., emotional commitment), or on normative beliefs about the tasks, duties and responsibilities (normative commitment), but the third concept of commitment is based solely on economic and practical considerations. Although all three types of organizationalcommitment refers to the probability of remaining individuals in their organizations, but the nature of belonging and attachment to the organization is quite different, and it depends on the type of organizationalcommitment. Now, according to the fact that in academic resources one of the variables that can affect the level of commitment is organizationaljustice, the aim of this study is to know whether this variable can affect the level of organizationalcommitment of physical education teachers in West Azerbaijan province? Essentially what is status of teachers’ understand of justice? So, with the understanding of relationship between justice and organizationalcommitment among physical education teachers in West Azerbaijan province, we offer strategies for improving organizationalcommitment of physical education teachers.
. Khalid & Ahmed (2016) similarly discovere a positive relationship between employees’ silence and organizational policies in their study. Karaca Cakinberk et al., (2014), in a study aiming to find out the relationship between faculty members’ organizational trust and their organizationalsilence, find a statistically significant relationship in negative direction close to mid-level between employees’ organizational trust perception and organizationalsilence behavior. Similarly, Fard & Karimi (2015) also find a significant and reverse relationship between organizational trust and organizationalsilence. Dedahanov & Rhee (2015) conclude that there is a relationship between organizational trust and acquiescent silence, and there is also a relationship between trust against supervision and defensive silence. They also find out that there is a strong relationship between acquiescent silence and organizationalcommitment.
The staff or faculty members of the statistical community make up for the effects of perceived support and organizationaljustice with meaningful occupational and organizational outcomes. Therefore, it can be said that organizational support has a positive significant relation with citizenship behavior, job performance, job satisfaction, and organizationalcommitment, while it has a significant inverse relation with absenteeism and turnover intention. The more the faculty members perceive organizational support, the more their perception of organizational support will develop a sense of belonging in the faculty members, which will lead to the improvement of their citizenship behavior, job performance, job satisfaction, and organizationalcommitment. In explaining the results, it can be said that the more the members perceive support from their organization, the more their citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, job performance, and organizationalcommitment will be affected. Thus, members will increase their job performance, illustrate positive citizenship behaviors in the organization, and be more satisfied and committed to their organization which, in turn, will create the grounds for growth and development in the organization and human resources. Human resources with a high level of organizational support will provide the organization with excellence and scientific growth, and make the organization succeed in achieving its mission. Inversely, human resources with a low and false level of organizational support will leave the organization unsuccessful in achieving its mission (scientific development, and etc.) and provide the basis for scientific paralysis.
A deep study of material in management research shows that the productive organizational performance is in direct relationship with the motivation level and commitment level of the employees in the organization. Moti- vation of employees at workplace is influenced and shaped by many factors. Some of the factors that influence and shape the motivation of employees are organizationaljustice and provision of basic needs for the employees. Organizationaljustice is achieved when people notice that they are treated at work equally and fairly. Well known psychologists also emphasize that in social exchange, fairness produces the motivation. Because every- one will get what they deserve if everything is fair in life. Individuals compare themselves with the actions of others to determine if they are treated fairly or not. Organizationaljustice can’t be taken too lightly because it is a major source of motivation of the employees. The three main components of organizationaljustice that are discussed extensively in research are “distributive justice”, “procedural justice”, and “interactional justice”. Procedural justice means that employees perceive in their minds that the decisions made by the management are transparent and fair while allocating the resources or resolving the disputes. Distributive justice is about the fair allocation of resources and rewards .
as the process of increasing the sense of self-efficacy in individuals through identifying and removing conditions that have made employees incapable. Being capable refers to the conditions for increasing motivation of doing tasks through a strengthening sense of individual self-efficacy. Having reviewed the related studies, Thomas & Velthouse (1990) argued that empowerment is a multi-layered concept and cannot be explained by a single concept. They have defined empowerment as an increase in internal work motivation that is embodied in four areas: competence, self–determination, meaning, and impact. Competence refers to the individual’s belief in his capabilities to do occupational activities skillfully (Gist, 1987). Self–determination refers to the rate of feeling and perception of individuals of having independence for starting, regulating, and planning, occupational activities (Deci, Connell & Ryan, 1989). Meaning refers to the rate of the individuals' perception of the value of goals or occupational purposes that are judged in relation to their personal norms and ideals (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990). Impact refers to the individuals' perception of whether they are able to affect occupational strategies and enforce the results in their work or not (Ashforth, 1989). On the other hand, high perception of empowerment by the employees affects their interest in their job, their defense of the organization, and their loyalty to the work values, and these effects increase commitment to the organization and occupation (Baharlou, 2013). This finding is consistent with the results of other studies (Baharlou, 2013; Goudarzvand Chegini & Kheradmand, 2013; Ambad & Bahron, 2012; Kim, Lee, Murmann & George, 2012).
Justice is often the center of attention of organizations and human rights, because everyone in any situation and context wants fair treatment by other parties, as well as in organizations. Employees' perceptions of organizationaljustice are important predictors of employee positive work attitudes. Employees who feel treated fairly by the organization will hold commitment, have confidence in management and leadership, satisfaction, sense of belonging to each other and increase OCB employees so that they contribute to retaining employees in the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland, 2007; Greenberg, 1990).
Among the various factors affecting the behaviors of employees in an organization, the organization’s motivators have a prominent share. Depending on the degree to which organizations value the efforts of their employees, a general perception of the organization forms in their employees (Eisenberger et al., 1986). The relationship between an organization and its employees is some kind of a relationship of mutual exchange (Rousseau, 1995), and thus, employees engage in some kind of an interchange of their efforts for the rewards they expect to obtain. One of the main components of this exchange is the concept of organizational support, which is described as an organization’s support behavior perceived in the context of development, business attitudes and business outcomes (Eisenberger et al., 1986, Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002). Among the outcomes of the concept of perceivedorganizational support are job satisfaction, increase in organizationalcommitment and organizational citizenship behavior, increase in job performance levels, and decrease in such negative attitudes as absenteeism, postponement of things-to-do, and intention to quit (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Riggle et al., 2009). An important fact indicated by studies on the subject is that perceivedorganizational support is equivalent in the eyes of the employees to the perception that the employer “will offer a fair pay for their efforts, will help them whenever needed, and is willing to provide favorable working conditions” (Aube et al., 2007). Acting on this idea, it is anticipated that employees’ positive behaviors have a positive effect on organizational support and the following relationship is established.
The relationships discussed above seem to imply the mediating effect of organizationalcommitment in the correlation between POS and service-oriented OCBs. The concepts of social exchange mechanism indicate that employees who perceive that their organization values and cares about them may feel that they ought to be committed to their organization, and in turn reciprocate by exhibiting behaviors that are beneficial to their organization [Organ, 1990; Wayne et al., 1997]. On the basis of the reciprocity norm, POS should create a felt obligation to care about the organization’s welfar e [Eisenberger et al., 2001]. The obligation to exchange caring for caring may enhance employees’ affective commitment to the organization. Employees who have high levels of affective commitment identify with the organization, feel emotionally attached, and share the organization’s values and goals [Allen and Meyer, 1990]. As a result, they are inclined to behave in a manner that helps the organization.
Licensed under Creative Common Page 104 Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and path analysis. LISREL computer software was used to perform the structural equation analysis applying maximum likelihood method. Data was fitted against several competitor models. The most reasonable model provided GFI (goodness of fit index) = 81% and RMR (root mean square residual) = 0.00. Results of path analysis presented in Table 5 show a significant direct positive effect of procedural justice on organizational trust, (t = 4.59, P = 0.00) organizational citizenship behavior, (t = 3.19, P = 0.00), and adherence to rules (t = 9.98, P = 0.00). These results provide support for hypotheses 1, 2, 4, and 6.
This study is conducted to provide evidence about the effects of organizationaljustice and psychological empowerment on perceivedorganizational performance and to test the mediating effect of organizational citizenship behaviour among them. Quantitative approach is used in this study and a questionnaire based on two sections in which first section was about the demographics and second section was about the questions related to the variables. For the purpose of this study, 300 questionnaires were distributed and 260 were returned by the respondents. It is a general consideration that characteristics of population are represented by the sample chosen from that population.
Survey Questionnaire which was used for this study comprised of two sections. Section one was related to demographics and section two was about other study variables. Demographics asked in questionnaire were gender, age, marital status, sector, size of particular organization, and tenure in organization. Whereas second section asked questions about organizationalcommitment, perceivedorganizational support, work environment and self-monitoring by using five point Likert scale. For the measurement of organizationalcommitment 18-items revised scale was used in this study, which is developed by . 13 items scale was used to measure the Self-monitoring which was developed by . Results were analyzed with the help of SPSS (16.0), and AMOS 18.
while perceivedorganizational support found to be associated with both trust and organizationalcommitment. Hence, the study concluded that the behavior of sharing knowledge could be encouraged and increased via organizationalcommitmentperceived and organizational support. Chiang et al. (2011)In the chinses IT companies Context (Wang & Zhang, 2012)considered the lack of organizationalcommitment and motivation, as the main cause that lead to lack of sharing tacit knowledge among people in general. The proposed model was validated and tested on software company employees in Shandong province China. Similarly, in the USA context, Borges (2013) examined the organizational factors that influence knowledge sharing. The researcher applied partial least square to analyze 143 questionnaire responses of IT professionals. The results indicate that employees who had high organizationalcommitment tend to share their tacit knowledge. Also, in the Chinese context also Li, Zhang, Zhang, and Zhou (2017) carried out an empirical study, aimed to identify predictors to share knowledge. The results indicated that justice positively associated with knowledge sharing, and organizationalcommitment has a mediating role in the relationship. Additionally, Howell (2008) published a review article summarized some results of a doctoral dissertation. The aim of the review was to examine the relationship between knowledge sharing and the different levels of organizationalcommitment. The results found statistically significant and positive association between Knowledge sharing and Normative and Affective Commitment. Respectively, Rosen et al. (2007) conducted interviews as well as used a questionnaires on virtual teams, to identify the barriers of knowledge sharing among virtual teams
The purpose of this study is to examine the perceptions about organizational politics held by members of different organizations and how these affect their perceptions of organizational jus- tice and decisions relating to employee turnover. For this study, 259 completed surveys were ob- tained from various public and private sector personnel. After the measures used in the study were verified through confirmatory factor analysis, correlation and regression analyses were then conducted in order to determine the relationship between variables. As a result of the study, it was found out that organizational politics had a significant effect on perceivedorganizational jus- tice and intention to leave. In addition to those results, a significant relationship was further found between perceivedorganizationaljustice and intention to leave.
the levels of trust, distributive justice is not. Interestingly Konovsky (2000) found that in the presence of strong leader member exchanges with the supervisor, employees demonstrated high trust whether perceived distributive justice was high or low. The variable supervisor support had relatively a low mean and standard deviation values (M = 17.9, SD = 3.11) than other predictors showing that majority of the secondary school teachers in this sample were perceiving low support from their superiors. The researchers, therefore, concluded that individuals in this sample did not have satisfactory relationships with their superiors that caused them to be more intolerant of distributive injustice and demonstrating low levels of OCBs.
are not contributing to the baseline of performance. This model is found to be in the hearts of those organizations which always take measures towards cost cutting. Merit pay is not always effective and downsizing has malicious effects in the long run and workers are strait jacketed by bureaucratic management that results in decreasing innovation in organization. One should take into consideration economic matters but to the extent of duty. Quid pro quo exchange also includes ethical compulsions that one party has to the other. Employees look towards benefits but employer looks to the output more. Organizationaljustice is about the perception of employee about organization that how they are being treated. It works like glue to keep people together and work effectively. On the other hand, there is injustice that works as harsh solvent and melts the bonds within organization and society. Injustice is not only injurious to individual but also to the organization. In organizationaljustice, procedural justice is considered to be central determinants of job satisfaction. Procedural justice plays its role in the overall evaluation of an organization such as trust in supervisor, organizationalcommitment and citizenship behavior. Procedural justice explains the means to determine the output/outcome. Procedural justice is about the perceived fairness of process used to make decision and distributive justice is concerned with the perceived fairness of outcome to be rewarded. Thus distributive justice is a motivating force for employee. Procedural justice is associated with the organizational system evaluation such as pay system, organizationalcommitment and process satisfaction, whereas distributive justice is pertinent to organizational outcome such as pay satisfaction, outcome (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Greenberg, 1990).
organization were the two organization characteristics and education was one of the employee’s characteristic that predicted the organizationalcommitment. Romzek (1989) illustrated that employee feels committed due to time and money attached in an organization in the form of retirement plan. Bowen et.al (1994) institute that married employees remains highly committed to the organization than those who are single. Pettaway (2015) said an organization will be effective when the working condition of employees, job safety, comfort facilities available to employees along with support services are according to the employee’s expectations. Perceived autonomy, experimentation, and collaboration were the factors which influenced affective commitment positively, while confrontation and experimentation were the factors affecting normative commitment positively. Authenticity was found to have links with continuance commitment. (Gabrani et.al, 2016) said that when employees of an organization are satisfied with their pay, promotion, supervisors and co-workers they will feel emotionally attached with the organization.
Perception is reality. Management of each and every organization and at all level has to be intensely aware of employees’ perceptions because at every organization, an employee’s action is based on his perceptions (Loi et al., 2006). Umpteenth examples can be found in the literature which reveals that justice in judgments really matters in the workplaces. For example, research studies exposed when workers perceive that decision making process is transparent, and that they have been given fair treatment, resulted a high level of job performance and organizationalcommitment (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Employees indulge in destructive, harmful and unethical practices so as to re-balance the balance of justice and get better their own results at the cost of organization, when they perceive the organization to be unfair. On the other hand, when it is perceived by the employees in the organization that they are being treated with justice, they reciprocate by doing more in addition of their routine duty to help management (Treviño and Weaver, 2001; Jaffe, 2002).
justice, particularly in staff management practices (distribution of rewards, political relations, promotions, and appointment) is important for personnel. In development of fair treatment process, and more important, in shaping sense of justice in employees, it is important to recognize how behavior based on justice influences organizational behavior, including organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, etc. studying justice in the workplace has dramatically increased in recent years. Studies have shown that justice processes play an important role in the organization and how to deal with people may influence their beliefs, feelings and attitudes. Due to the extent of the consequences of justice, examining perceptions of justice in organizations is interesting for many researchers of human resources, organizational behavior and organizational / industrial psychology. Organizationaljustice is related to the employee's perspective that whether the organization deal with them with justice or not? The overall organizationaljustice theories and research are detectable in three main waves. First wave is centered on distributive justice, the second wave is based on procedural justice, and the third wave is based on interactive justice. Based on evidence, at least these three types of justice have been accepted by experts and scholars. These three dimensions or aspects of justice, interacting with each other, create the overall justiceperceived by the people in the workplace. Distributive Justice is perceivedjustice of organizational outcomes. Procedural justice is concerned with justice in the methods used to make decisions about the allocation and outcomes. Interpersonal Justice is related to the quality of interpersonal behavior that is felt by every person (Afjeh, 1385, p 332). Organizationaljustice research has shown that many potential variables related to organizational civil behavior are explained by organizationaljustice, and one of the most important consequences of organizationaljustice that has recently been considered is organizational civil behavior and different aspects of it. Organizational civil behavior is behavior that is intended to help colleagues or organizations. Several investigators have proposed five dimensions of organizational civil behavior (OCB). These dimensions include altruism, loyalty, humility, and courage and citizens dignity. Work ethics is a behavioral in favor of the organization, not oneself. It is related to the extent that the person chooses high goals for himself/herself to obtain successful results of work and create targeted behaviors.