Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.

2, 2007, 185201 202, 2007, 185201

Research Note

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System

Dae-hyok Youn
(Donga University, Dept. of Management)

This study aims at developing and empirically testing a comprehensive model of organizational justice derived from prior empirical studies on organizational justice. The study seeks to understand its antecedents to and its consequences are addressed. The first question is what characteristics of a human resource management (HRM) system determine the levels of perceived distributive and procedural justice. Hypotheses are derived from the two prominent theoretical models, the self-interests model (SIM) and the group value model (GVM). Those factors include neutrality, consistency, accuracy, ethicality, credibility, and reciprocity in the processes of making HRM decisions. All nine factors suggested by the two models are adopted for this study as major determinants of both distributive and procedural justice. The second question of this study is related to the moderating effects of individual differences on the relationship between the SIM and GVM variables and perceived distributive and procedural justice in organizational contexts. The final research question deals with the consequences of perceived organizational justice, specifically job-related attitudes and organizational climate. Job-related attitudes in this study refer to job satisfaction, job motivation, and organizational climate, i.e., the willingness to make contributions, identification with organization, and intent to stay, In examining the consequence of perceived organizational justice, the study focuses on the interaction effects of procedural and distributive justice on the above nine outcome variables. The results show that both SIM and GVM variables significantly influence distributive and procedural justice. However, hierarchical regression analyses that revealed that the GVM variables exert more influence have been focused on the consequences of perceived distributive justice with regard to outcomes provided by the organization. Keywords: job attitude, distributive justice, procedural justice, self-interest model, group value model, job involvement, job satisfaction. study of specific and systematic justice is necessary. The study based on this perceived problem will be extended to apply theoretically to the study of justice in the area of human resource management. It will examine practical methods of securing justice and increasing the effectiveness of human resource management in industrial organizations. This will be done through systematic research on the crucial factors and results of the implementation of a justice perception centering on the key principles of promotion, incentive, and evaluation as the core of human resource management.

1. Introduction
The issue of justice has been a significant theme of study till from ancient times until the present. However, previous researches about justice have been done from the macroscopic viewpoint of how to realize justice in the overall society. Those studies are not likely to suggest meaningful points in our reality that directly and indirectly relates to industrial organizations in our rapidly changing social environment. Recently the issue of justice in human resource management in industrial fields has become controversial. However, there dont seem to be many systematic studies on the matters concerning us: What is fair? What should be done to ensure fair human resource management? What will be the result of fair human resource management? Accordingly, it appears that a

2. Background
2.1 Organization fairness based on SIM
The prediction that the controlled quantity from results and advantage of procedure would have influence

185

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 by Leventhal can be predicted to be strong explanatory factors in PJ judgments. GVM also predicts a few factors that would influence PJ regardless of the unique value of group or individual. The factors are the degree to which procedures allow expression of values, and the degree to which people are treated politely and with dignity. These factors are expected to be powerful influences on PJ due because they are closely connected to basic values of PJ, in other words, cognition for standing in a group of society as their member. Moreover, GVM presumes that there is special importance to people who have unstable standing within groups. As much as the procedure puts importance on the effect of politeness and expression of value, person who is not certain of how a group looks at him/her would be especially sensitive to whether or not the group recognizes his/her standing. A person of unstable standing will strongly respond to the unfairness of procedure, when he/she sees the unfairness of procedure since his/her standing is being denied or ignored. Lind and Tyler (1988) insisted that everybody will benefit fairly if fair procedure is applied to decisionmaking. Therefore, the first suggestion from GVM perspective is focusing on whether or not the organization or manager creates a neutral area to resolve conflicts, rather than focusing on achieving favorable results in decision-making. People will give attention to impartial decisions, in other words, neutrality in certain situations (Tyler, 1989). Leventhal (1990) expressed this as bias suppression, and suggested it as a explanatory factor in fairness of procedure. Furthermore, the procedure must be applied with consistency regardless of people and time if the procedure is to be fair. Consistency means treating everyone influenced by procedure equally. Consistency for time means equal practice every time the procedure is applied. Leventhal (1990) explains this as the first standard for fairness of procedure. Also, he suggested that the procedure feels unfair when the decision is based on inaccurate information. Thus, the perceived fairness of a procedure will increase if members can confirm that the decision would be made upon accurate information, well-known opinion, or professional ideas (Lind and Tyler, 1988). Hence, fairness of procedure will improve even more when procedure of distribution is

on judging the fairness of procedure is the basic presumption of SIM. In other words, it is directly deduced from the proposition, people prefer advantageous procedures that allow them to secure positive results or directly increases their advantage. The prediction that the fairness of results is a decisive and important factor of procedure fairness is based on the presumption that fairness of distribution is demanded when one demands compromise for oneself for the long-term advantage of another person. If DJ has the importance proposed by SIM, output of fair results is one of the most important factors of the procedure, and perhaps one of the core factors meant by fair procedure. Last but not least, if the fact that the procedure presumed by this model advances harmony and decreases conflict is correct, procedures that are not considered to stimulate conflict of the procedure itself will seem most fair of all. Tyler (1998) suggested research results that advantage has influence on PJ and DJ. However, it shows that the influence of DJ is comparatively strong. He estimated advantage from the absolute and comparative aspects of the results, and explained that importance has influence on fairness on a certain level. Leung and Li (1998) treated importance as one of important conditions of process control. Thibaut and Walker (1975) studied forms of control through diverse conflict-solving procedures. They presumed that there are two forms of control in procedure of conflict solving, in other words, process and decision control. Process control means control that can be practiced while showing evidence and discussing, and decision control means control that can have influence on the results of judging. Lind, Lissak and Conlon (1983) found that process control is more important than decision control, and the crucial fact that process control is not connected to decision control. Leung and Li (1990) also found that process control decreases its importance when its results are positive, and has influence on PJ when the results are negative.

2.2 Organization fairness based on GVM

The PJ standard is based on not only the value of individuals recognizing GVM, but also the value of a specific group or society. According to this model, factors that show ethicality suggested as the rules of fairness

186

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System based on accurate records about contribution. Leventhal (1990) also insisted that the procedure is considered fair according to the level at which individual standards for ethicality and morality are maintained. Tyler (1989) also insisted that people prioritize their standing within organizations, and that differences in treatment among individuals provides information about standing within their organizations, and so that this is the important explanatory variable for fairness of procedure. Tyler (1989) explained trust as a concept including faith in the intention of the organization to try to treat people generously, fairly, and logically. The intention of organization is especially important, because the current interaction allows people to predict their future. Last but not least, communication within organization does not have direct influence as a factor deciding fairness of procedure, but can still induce important effects. Collecting the members opinions, providing sufficient information about the human relations policy or system, and an atmosphere for free communication seem to operate as factors deciding fairness. tween controlling variables and fairness is adjusted by standing of control. Brockner (1988) insisted that the response to stimulations that threaten desires for self-existence differs according to the level of desire. Moreover, those who have higher self-existence would prioritize participating in the process more than those who have lower self-existence, because alienation from the process is recognized as damaging to self-existence. Thus, those who have higher self-existence would prioritize GVM variables over SIM variables more than those who have lower self-existence do. Value and faith in organizations are formed according to socialization. In other words, work tenure determines the period of socialization, so the longer the job tenure is, the more deeply people can incorporate the values of, and faith in, their organizations. Lind and Tyler (1988) consider value and faith in procedure is formed by socialization according to the GVM. Therefore, it can be expected that the level of socialization can adjust the effects of cognition of fairness.

2.4 Job Attitude 2.3 Effects of worker characteristics on perception of organization fairness
Worker-specific variables affecting perceptions of organization fairness can be divided into two groups. One contains variables describing individual differences, and the other those of relation to the group. Locus of control and self-esteem are classed as variables of individual difference, and relations among group members and job tenure are classed as variables related to group membership. Standing of control means belief in the possibility of control of an individuals life. Rotter (1996) classified those who have faith that life is controllable as internalist, and those others who believe that individuals lack control as externalist. According to Spector (1992), internalists have higher levels of job satisfaction, more positive attitudes towards supervisors, feel less stress, and feel more autonomy in workplace than externalists. Also, internalists prefer supervisors who participate, and working conditions where opportunities for control are allowed more than externalists do (Ganster and Fusilier 1998). Therefore, it can be expected that the relationship beOrganizational performance can be estimated by many indexes. It can be divided into indexes of the human aspect and level of social trust, expressing economic indexes and morale of organization members in numbers, oneness, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment, and indexes of social aspects. This research studies relationships influencing fairness cognition of individual job attitudes. First, motivation means the level of desire to work better for better individual internal satisfaction, and indicates implicit job motivation. It is estimated by the level satisfaction when a task is well done, feelings of insufficiency when work is not well done, feeling proud of doing what people are doing in their jobs, and thinking of ways to work more effectively. Next, job satisfaction means the level of positive feelings for the work people do, and is estimated with satisfaction for overall work, the level of intention to select the work they are currently doing given the chance to choose a job again, achieving sufficient information to take care of their work, given chances to develop their constitution, and given sufficient authority to take care of work.

187

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 dents chose one of a 7-point measurement about factors affecting the justice of human resources management. The analysis of materials was based on Hierarchical Regression Analysis in which the variables of SIM (Self-Interest Model) and the variables of GVM (Group Value Model) in order were included in the regression equation in order to analyze the relationship between the definite variables and justice. It was also based on Moderated Regression analysis in order to find the influence of control variables and the interaction about the definite variables of distributive justice (DJ) and procedural justice (PJ).1) In order to find the influence of control variables the difference examination of interrelationship between the groups by Fisher's Z Transformation was conducted. 3.1.3 Level of Research Previous research on justice can be divided into two dimensions. On the one hand, research is either outcome oriented or process oriented; and on the other hand, research takes either objective approach or subjective approach. In studies on justice, both outcome and process are important issues. Some researchers focus on relative level of outcome compared to expectation, while others consider outcome in relation to just distribution standards (Adams, 1965, Walster, Walster & Berscheid, 1978). As shown in Table 1, the scope of this research encompasses a subjective and outcome-oriented approach to distributive justice and a process-oriented approach to procedural justice. However, more attention will be paid to the procedural approach than to distributive justice. Nonetheless, at a macro level, this research cannot be too different from what social justice theories are interested in. Ultimately, regardless of research levels, all studies pursue the same purpose-the realization of justice throughout society and promoting individual happiness. That is, studies on justice overall share the essence of improving individual subjective perception of justice and further pursuing social development.

Last but not least, job commitment means a psychological attachment people feel toward their work, and is estimated by the level of effort devoted above what their jobs demand, thinking about their work after leaving the office, finding life satisfaction from their work, and the importance of their jobs.

3. Research Design
3.1 Methodology
3.1.1 Data Collection The data form the study has been collected from employees of 15 manufacturing companies located at Busan for approximately 25 days (Feb. 8, 2005 to Mar. 3). For the survey methodology, the researcher visited in person, distributed the questionnaires, explained the ways to answer and collected responses after three days. In each case, personnel or project managers on behalf of the researcher conducted the survey in the same way evenly by positions and occupational categories. Among 1,250 sets of questionnaires distributed, 967 were collected, and 816 sets have been analyzed after excluding 151 sets with invalid responses. 3.1.2 Research Scope and Analytic Method Most previous research on organizational justice has been conducted in laboratories or social areas except for a few cases dealing with large organizations or corporations. Therefore, they are limited in proposing suggestions related to the aspect of company management. This study deals with corporations and members' justice perception about human resource management (HRM) system. While it is desirable to study all subsystems of HRM system, that would generate too many variables, so the systems that can be considered as core subsystems were selected and studied. These are the promotion, compensation, and evaluation systems. Through theoretical review of previous literatures, a research model of justice study was created extending previous methods to overcome some limitations. Also, hypotheses were set and tested by an empirical study based on a survey. In the questionnaire the respon-

Table 1: Location of this Research Objective approach (normative) Outcome oriented Process oriented Social Justice Approach 188

Subjective approach (psychological) distributive justice procedural justice

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System

3.2 Verification of Reliability and Correlation coefficients of variables used in this study
In order to verify the reliability of variables set in the study, the internal consistency has been calculated according to "Cronbach's " as seen in Table 2. Table 2 shows the average and standard deviation and reliability. Most variables have high reliability in general, because incorrectly specified items had been deleted and confusing expression corrected according to results of a pre-survey on 70 persons of 3 companies. However, the favorableness items are the lowest as .602, and items for importance are .662 respectively. Other variables show high reliability. Especially for justice, the core variable of this study, the distributive justice is .937, and procedural justice .869 showing very high reliability. On the whole there are satisfactory reliability while the reliability of a few variables is low. Therefore, the result of analysis is judged as reliable. The between variables correlation coefficients of variables used in this study are shown in Table 3.

on the influence of various factors on justice perception this study will offer significant suggestions for setting up a standard scheme to enhance the justice of human resource management.

3.3.2 Setting up hypothesis The hypothesis of this study is set up in accordance with SIM and GVM as follows; Hypothesis I: SIM variables affect perception of justice in human resource management. (1) SIM variables affect DJ. (2) SIM variables affect PJ. Hypothesis II: GVM variables affect perception of justice in human resource management. (1) GVM variables affect DJ. (2) GVM variable affect PJ. Hypothesis : self-esteem, locus of control, and job tenure affect the relationship between independent variables coefficient of variable and justice. (1) self-esteem affects justice perception. (2) locus of control affects justice perception. (3) job tenure affects perception of justice. Hypothesis : Perception of justice in human resource management affects job attitude. (1) DJ affects job attitude. (2) PJ affects job attitude.

3.3 Study Models and Setting Up Hypothesis

3.3.1 Study Models
This study examines the levels of some characteristics of human resource management and their important operations in recognizing PJ and DJ. With practical research

Table 2: Credibility of Variables name of variable Favorableness Importance Control Neutrality Consistency Accuracy Ethicality Trust Reciprocity Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Job Motivation Job Satisfaction Job Involvement no. of items 3 3 6 6 6 6 4 4 6 12 5 6 6 4 Average 3.27 3.67 2.44 3.78 3.63 3.22 4.10 4.13 3.71 3.52 3.53 5.24 4.07 4.53 189 standard deviation .89 .72 1.04 1.15 1.16 1.00 1.07 1.03 .90 .93 1.02 .89 1.07 1.00 reliability (Cronbachs ) .602 .662 .810 .656 .880 .831 .805 .807 .702 .937 .869 .843 .841 .754

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 Table 3: Between Variables Correlation Analysis
1 2 -.011 -.068 .127** .028 .327** -.004 .438** .109* .259** .128** .250** .038 .360** -.118** .298** -.020 .342** .208** -.074 .178** .194** .212** .076 .172** -.049 .045 -.002 .033 .104* -.351** .282** .186** .227** .305** .223** .328** -.083 .065 -.065 -.036 .039 .018 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Favorableness 2. Importance 3. Control 4. Neutrality 5. Consistency 6. Accuracy 7. Ethicality 8. Trust 9. Reciprocity 10. Distributive Justice 11. Procedural Justice 12. Job Motivation 13. Job Satisfaction 14. Job Involvement 15. Self-esteem 16. Locus of control 17. Job Tenure
.

-.077 .329** .108** .242** .324** .238** .209** .228** .519** .319** .067 .125** .058** .033 .104 .038

.689** .397** .443** .394** .424** .362** .136** .189** .068 .047 .028 -.050

.496** .511** .477** .563** .757** .122** .245** .107** .048 .057 -.021

.807** .668** .404** .513** .313** .388** .227** .218** .211** -.034

.696** .393** .535** .318** .397** .247** .183** .189** -.022

.387** .490** .173** .393** .172** .134** .182** .045

.608** .073 .171** .020 -.028 .117** -.021

11 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Job Motivation Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Self-esteem Locus of control Job Tenure .174** .216** .138** .072* .086* -.054

12 .442** .556** .382** .269** -.041

13 .455** .282** .183** .061

14

15

16

17

.365** .206** .265** .008 -.024 .031

Note 1) *: P<.05, **: P<.01

Figure 1. Study models

4. Results and Interpretation of Empirical Analysis

4.1 The present condition analysis
4.1.1. Age and Justice Perception When the difference in perception of justice by age was examined, as shown in Table 4 distributive justice was found to be significantly different by age (P<0.01), and Table 5 shows that this is attributed to the fact

that members in their 20s and 30s perceive distributive justice at higher levels than those in their 40s. Whereas, as seen in Table 4, procedural justice has no significant difference by age. 4.1.2. Sex and Justice Perception When the difference in justice perception by sex is examined, a significant difference in distributive justice is found between men and women, as shown in Table 6

190

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Table 4: ANOVA Results of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice by Age DF Sum of Squares Mean Squares F ratio DJ 2 10.35 5.175 5.98 between groups PJ 2 .67 .3335 3.2 DJ 766 642.26 .8385 within group PJ 787 792.87 1.0074 Table 5: Difference in Distributive Justice by Age 2 3 Mean * 3.55 * 3.59 3.23

P .003 .724

1 20s 30s 40s

rank 2 1 3

(P<.01). Men's perception of distributive justice (mean: 3.56) is higher than women's (mean: 3.31), and procedural justice is also significantly different (mean values for men: 3.58 for women: 3.28). This indicates that the differential treatment by sex exists in South Korean companies. 4.1.3 Education and Justice Perception The difference in justice perception by educational attainment is examined, and as shown in Table 7, a significant difference was found in distributive justice by educational attainment (P<0.1). In the case of procedural justice, university graduates showed a higher mean value than high-school graduates and two-year college graduates, which is interpreted to mean that

differential treatment by educational attainment exists in South Korean companies. Significant difference in justice perception is found in the order of four-year university graduates, two-year college graduates, postgraduates, and high-school graduates. 4.1.4. Years in Employment and Justice Perception The difference in justice perception by the number of years in employment is examined and, as shown in Table 9, no significant difference was found in procedural justice perception, while significant difference was found in distributive justice perception (P<.01).

Table 6: ANOVA Results of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice by Sex Sum of DF Mean Squares F ratio Squares DJ 1 6.7505 6.7505 7.7703 between groups PJ 1 9.3044 9.3044 9.1053 DJ 753 651.4487 .8651 within group PJ 767 788.8789 1.0285 Table 7: ANOVA Results of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice by Education Sum of DF Mean Squares F ratio Squares DJ 3 14.95 4.9833 5.86 PJ 3 15.95 5.3167 5.23 DJ 753 638.07 0.8472 PJ 765 781.89 1.0220 Table 8: Procedural Justice by Education 1 2 3 4 1. 2. 3. 4. high-school graduates two-year college graduates four-year university graduates postgraduates

P .0053 .0028

P .000 .001

between groups within group

Mean 3.32 3.38 3.67 3.35

Rank 4 2 1 3

191

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2

Table 9: ANOVA Results of Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice by the Number of Years in Employment Sum of DF Mean Squares F ratio P Squares DJ 5 19.65 .390 4.66 .000 Between groups PJ 5 8.35 1.67 1.61 .155 DJ 747 637.17 0.853 Within Group PJ 758 788.37 1.040 Table 10: Difference in Procedural Justice by the Number of Years in Employment 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean 3 Years and less * * * 3.71 4-5 Years 3.55 6-7 Years 3.50 8-10 Years 3.36 10-15 Years 3.26 15 Years and more 3.23 (P<.01).

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

rank 1 2 3 4 5 6

4.1.5. Occupation and Justice Perception When the difference in justice perception by occupation is examined, as shown in Table 11, no significant difference was found in distributive justice (P<.01), but there was a significant difference in procedural justice (P<.01). Especially, those in office management were found to have relatively high perception of procedural justice. 4.1.6 Position and Justice Perception The difference in justice perception by position was examined, and as seen in Table 13, neither distributive nor procedural justice showed significant differences

4.2 Verification of Hypothesis

The relationship between independent variables and justice has been analyzed through multiple regression analysis. Hypothesis 1 and I have been verified by examining the significance of standardized regression figures of the Full Model in Table 14. A look at the Full Regression Model independent variable and DJ shows that the independent variables included in the regression formula explain 47.8% of DJ. Looking at the independent variables individually, favorableness, importance and accuracy are shown to af-

between groups within group

DJ PJ DJ PJ

Table 11: Difference in Procedural Justice by Occupation Sum of DF Mean Squares F ratio Squares 3 8.88 2.96 3.46 3 25.19 8.397 7.98 747 645.67 0.864 768 778.37 1.014 Table 12: Difference in Procedural Justice by Occupation 1 2 3 4 mean * * * 3.71 3.23 3.45 3.33 Table 13: Difference in Procedural Justice by Perception Sum of DF Mean Squares F ratio Squares 3 1.18 .3933 .46 3 3.89 1.297 1.29 745 655.18 0.8794 766 788.93 1.0299 192

P .019 .000

1. 2. 3. 4.

Office Management Sales Technical position Research

rank 1 4 2 3

P .726 .278

between groups within group

DJ PJ DJ PJ

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Table 14: Relationship between Independent Variables and Distributive Justice Independent Variables Reduced Model Full Model Favorableness .471** .368** SIM Variables Importance -.081** -.104** Control .138** -.038 Neutrality .038 Consistency .032 Accuracy .345** GVM Variables Ethicality .100 Trust .030 Reciprocity .043 F .39.59 P .000 R2 .181 105.04 69.81 F .000 .000 P .298 .478 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

fect DJ. The higher favorableness is, the higher DJ perception is ( = .368). And the higher importance is, the lower DJ (=-.104). Accordingly it turns out to be in contrast to the hypothesis. While the higher accuracy is, the higher DJ is (=.345), the relationships of other variables and DJ are all rejected. On the other hand, concerning the relationship of independent variables and PJ as in the Full Model of Table 15 the independent variables explain 63.9% of PJ while favorableness, neutrality, consistency and ethicality affect PJ positively. First, the coefficient on higher favorableness is =.072, neutrality is =.068, consistency is =.166, accuracy is =.513, ethicality is =.083. The hypothesis that higher accuracy generates higher PJ is accepted, while the hypotheses about other variables are rejected.

In order to analyze the effects of the three variables selected as moderating variables self-esteem, locus of control, and job tenure as stated in Hypothesis - the groups were divided into the one with high moderation effect and the other with low moderation effect, and correlation coefficients between the two groups were compared. Here Fishers Z transformation was used to test the difference in correlation coefficients. First, the difference in correlation coefficient between one group with high self-esteem and the other group with low self-esteem was tested in order to test the hypothesis that self-esteem affects the relationship between independent variables and justice perception. First, the correlation coefficients between independent variables and distributive justice and procedural justice by self-esteem are shown in Table 16, and a significant

Table 15: Relationship of Independent Variables and Procedural Justice independent variables Reduced Model Full Model Favorableness .072** SIM Variables Importance -.104** Control -.023 Neutrality .075** .068 Consistency .167** .166** Accuracy .524** .513** GVM Variables Ethicality .087* .083* Trust .066 .065 Reciprocity .047 .048 F 3.61 P .013 R2 .006 207.76 131.72 F .000 .000 P .638 .639 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

193

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2

N1: The sample size of the group with high variables N2: The sample size of the group with low variables r1: Correlation coefficient of the group moderating variables r2: Correlation coefficient of the group moderating variables
values of moderating values of moderating with high values of with low values of

difference is found in perception of both distributive justice and procedural justice. As seen in Table 16, it was found that self-esteem affects the relationship between six independent variables including advantage, control, accuracy, morality, reliability, and reciprocality and both distributive and procedural justice. This result is further supported by the idea that persons with high self-esteem perceive participation in process more than those with low selfesteem and they consider being isolated from process as undermining their self-esteem. Next, the groups were divided into internalizers and externalizers and the difference in correlation coefficients between the two groups was tested in order to analyze the effect of locus of control on justice perception, and the result is shown in Table 17. As seen in Table 17, locus of control did not have any significant difference in the relationship between distributive justice and independent variables, but it had a significant effect on the relationship between procedural justice and independent variables in terms
SE H L d Advantage .5942 .3924 .4496 .2544 2.5994*** 1.9748** control .3621 .4125 .2150 .2667 2.0948*** 2.1624** importance -.0685 -.0087 -.1527 -.0528 1.1156 .8046 neutrality .2258 .3682 .2250 .2749 .0117 1.3640

of neutrality, accuracy, and reliability. This can be explained by the commonly accepted fact that internalizers prefer a participation-style supervisor more than externalizers, and it shows that internalizers, compared to externalizers, place relatively more importance on GVM variables than SIM variables. Also, the effect of job tenure on justice perception and independent variables was analyzed by dividing members into one group with senior employees and the other group with non-senior employees and testing the correlation coefficients between the two groups, and the result is as seen in Table 18. Table 18 shows that job tenure has little effect on justice perception and independent variables. It was found that only mutuality has an effect, indicating that persons with longer job tenure have a strong relationship between mutuality and distributive justice, while persons with shorter job tenure has a strong relationship between mutuality and procedural justice. Verification of hypothesis has been attempted by examining significance of standardized regression figconsistency .4521 .6696 .4137 .6067 .6193 1.3871 accuracy .6125 .6125 .5022 .5022 2.0963** 3.4668*** morality .4889 .5688 .3287 .4325 2.5443** 2.3867** reliability reciprocality .4548 .5887 .3422 .4351 1.7689* 2.7424*** .4387 .5631 .3188 .3736 1.8823* 3.2089***

Table16: Correlation coefficients between independent variables and distributive justice and procedural justice by selfesteem

Note) *: p<.1, **: p<.05, ***: p<.01

Table 17: Correlation coefficients between independent variables and distributive justice and procedural justice by locus of control
LOC IC EC d advantage .41981 .3119 .5691 .3365 -.2417 -.3553 control .2653 .3523 .3556 .3341 -1.1126 -.1257 importance -.0775 -.0007 -.1747 -.0645 1.2602 .8307 neutrality .2019 .2092 .2654 .2654 -.7818 1.6555* consistency .4163 .6426 .4582 .6215 -.6519 .45684 accuracy .5663 .7787 .3676 .7072 .1619 2.0370** morality .4139 .5051 .3678 .4818 .6907 .3948 reliability reciprocality .4137 .5888 .3417 .4353 1.0539* 1.6793* .3842 .5630 .3696 .3736 .2175* 1.1237

Note) *: p<.1, **: p<.05, ***: p<.01

194

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Table 18: Correlation coefficients between independent variables and distributive justice and procedural justice by job tenure
JT IC EC d advantage .5401 .3278 .5155 .3117 .4276 .2288 control .2937 .3113 .3858 .3655 .0959 -.7582 importance -.1099 -.0316 -.1396 -.0463 .3734 -.7352 neutrality .3145 .3145 .1799 .1799 1.7738* -1.7326* consistency .4167 .6245 .4142 .6407 .0322 -.4066 accuracy .5338 .7687 .5596 .7183 -.4485* 1.3989 morality .3786 .4812 .4148 .5401 -.5464 -1.0021 reliability reciprocality .3576 .5022 .4013 .5252 -.6321 -.4062 .3646 .4567 .3868 .5253 -.3181 -.1112

Note) *: p<.1, **: p<.05, ***: p<.01

ures for individual job variables such as motivation and job satisfaction. The hypotheses about DJ and PJ have been verified by examining significance of R2 through Moderated Regression Analysis. The relationship of justice perception and motivation can be studied through significance of standardized regression figures () of the Reduced Model in Table 4. Results show that DJ does not affect motivation positively while PJ does. (=.208, P .01.) Accordingly it turns< out that the higher PJ is, the higher motivation is. However, there is limited significance since the amount that motivation can explain DJ and PJ is just 3.3%. On the other hand, the verification of hypothesis

about the interactional effects of DJ and PJ can be examined through significance of R2 in Full Model of Table 4, in which the favorable interactional effects about motivation of PJ and DJ are positive (F=5.66, P=.018, R2=.007). Consequently the hypothesis about interaction of PJ and DJ would affect motivation may be accepted. The relationship of justice perception on job satisfaction can be examined through the significance of standardized regression figures () of the Reduced Model in Table 20. PJ affects job satisfaction positively (=.178, P .01) while DJ does not). Therefore the hypothesis that interaction of PJ and DJ would affect job satisfaction has been adopted.

Table 19: Relationship of Justice and Motivation Motivation (JM) Dependent Variables Independent Variables Reduced Model Full Model Distributive Justice (DJ) -.052 -.282** Procedural Justice (PJ) .208** 0.054 DJ PJ .449* F 5.66 P .018 R2 .007 12.69 10.40 F .000 .000 P .033 .040 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

Table 20: Relationship of Justice and Job Satisfaction Dependent Variables Job Satisfaction (JS) Independent Variables Reduced Model Full Model Distributive Justice (DJ) 0.66 -.359** Procedural Justice (PJ) .178** -.307 DJ PJ .831** F 5.89 P .000 R2 .025 19.92 20.31 F .000 .000 P .050 .075 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

195

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 variables, only favorableness (=.433) and accuracy ( =.250) affect DJ positively. Accordingly DJ about promotion system implies justice felt about one's own promotion reflected by responsibilities, experiences, number of years of service, effort etc. that the standard of promotion management is reasonably set up. Moreover it is found that DJ can be enhanced by conducting promotion decisions with correct materials and information in accord with the standard. In PJ about promotion system, explanatory factors explain PJ of 51.1% (R2=.511). For each explanatory factor accuracy (=.479), neutrality (=.080), consistency (=.090) and ethicality (=.089) affect PJ positively. (2) Result Factors of Justice Perception of Promotion System The analysis results of multiple regression in order to find the influence of justice perception about promotion system on the job attitude (motivation, job satisfaction and job involvement) are as followings in Table 22. Regarding the influence of DJ and PJ in promotion system on motivation, DJ and PJ explain only 2.2% (R2=.022) of motivation. And PJ (=.120) only affects motivation positively. In the influence of DJ and PJ in promotion system on job satisfaction, DJ and PJ explain 4.1% (R2=.041) of job satisfaction. And DJ does not affect job satisfaction positively, while PJ (=.168) does. The influence of DJ and PJ in promotion system on job involvement is shown to be very low (R2=.010). Only PJ (=.083) only affects job involvement positively. DJ does not.

4.3 Result of Analysis on Justice Perception and Personnel

This study has measured the members' perceptions of justice in promotion, compensation and evaluation in human resource management to determine the explanatory factors and resulting factors as follows. 4.3.1 Justice Perception on Promotions Promotion is the most crucial system among human resource management systems. The issue of promotional justice is a crucial factor influencing the justice of human resource management in the situation where the importance of positions are highly evaluated and wages are significantly affected by promotion in the system after long service. Accordingly, the effort to enhance the justice of promotion system is a direct way to heighten the overall justice of human resource management. (1) Explanatory Factors in Perception of Justice in the Promotion System The explanatory factor for perception of justice in promotion has been analyzed. Nine factors have been extracted based on the preceding studies and the theoretical examination and their influences on justice perception. Table 21 is the result of multiple regression analysis with dependent variables as DJ and PJ and independent variables as 9 explanatory variables. Having a look at DJ for promotion systems in Table 6, the 9 explanatory variables set up by this study explains 39% (R2=.395) of DJ. Among the explanatory

Table 21: Relationship of Justice Perception and Explanatory Factors Dependent Variables Independent Variables Distributive Justice (DJ) Procedural Justice (PJ) Favorableness .433** .031 Importance -.002 .020 Control -.003 .038 Neutrality .016 .080** Consistency .030 .090* Accuracy .250** .479** Ethicality .086 .089* Trust .048 .078 Reciprocity .048 .049 F 51.88 83.04 P .000 .000 R2 .395 .511
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

196

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Table 22: Relationship of Justice Perception about Promotion System and Variables of Duties and Organization Dependent Variables Motivation Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Independent Variables (JM) (JS) (JI) Distributive Justice (DJ) Procedural Justice (PJ) F P R2 0.43 .120** 8.09 .000 .022
2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

.062 .168** 16.43 .000 .041

.028 .083* 3.79 .023 .010

Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked.

4.3.2 Perception of Justice in the Compensation System The compensation system, like the promotion system, is a very significant component of the human resource management system. In general, those in lower position and production workers, compared to those in higher positions and office worker s, regard wage rather promotion as important. Compensation systems usually have focused on DJ in the past, but the importance of PJ has been emphasized considerably in recent research. (1) Explanatory Factors in Perception of Justice in the Compensation System The 9 explanatory factors of justice perception on compensation system have been chosen based on preceding studies and theoretical considerations to facilitate analysis of effects on perception of justice. DJ of the compensation system includes the level of justice felt about one's wage reflecting on responsibilities, experiences, the year of service, efforts, etc. by job performing, other hand PJ means the level of justice felt about the process and procedure of wage management.

Table 23 shows the results of multiple regression analysis with DJ and PJ as dependent variables, and 9 explanatory variables as independent variables. For DJ on compensation system the 9 independent variables set up in this study explain DJ of 44.9% (R2=.449). Taking a more detailed look at each explanatory variable, favorableness (=.399), importance (=.087), accuracy (=.262) and ethicality (=.145) affect DJ positively. The lower the perception of importance of wage, the higher the perception of DJ. Considering PJ on compensation system the explanatory variables describe PJ of 49.6% (R2=.496). For more detailed looking at each explanatory variable, accuracy (= .427), consistency (=.223), reciprocity (=.111), favorableness (=.091) and neutrality ( =.080) are shown to influence PJ positively. (2) Result Factors of Justice Perception on Compensation System In order to examine the influence of the justice perception of the compensation system on organizational effectiveness, Table 24 describes the result of multiple regression analysis with DJ and PJ of the compensation system as independent variables, and motivation, job

Table 23: Relationship between Justice Perception and Explanatory Factors on Compensation System Dependent Variables Explanatory Variables Distributive Justice(DJ) Procedural Justice(PJ) Favorableness .399** .091** Importance .087** .016 Control -.013 .012 Neutrality .034 .080** Consistency .052 .223* Accuracy .262** .427** Ethicality .145** .030* Trust -.018 .018 Reciprocity .018 .111** F 65.63 80.36 P .000 .000 R2 .449 .496
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

197

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 both the process and result of the evaluation system are procedural aspects of the whole human resource management system. Hence how reasonably and justly the evaluation system and other human resource management systems function helps determine the effectiveness and validity of the whole human resource management system. (1) Explanatory Factors for the Evaluation System Nine explanatory factors of perception of justice in the evaluation system have been chosen based on preceding studies and theoretical considerations to facilitate analyis of their effect on perception of justice. Table 25 shows the results of multiple regression analysis with DJ and PJ as dependent variables, and the 9 explanatory variables as independent variables. Considering DJ of the evaluation system, the 9 explanatory variables set up in this study 37.2% (R2=.372) of DJ. Consideration of individual explanatory variables, favorableness (=.323), accuracy (=.131), consistency (=.221) and importance (=-.094) are shown to influence DJ in the evaluation system positively. Hence DJ of the evaluation system is highly perceived as the criteria or principles of personnel evaluation are not often changeable but consistent that those criteria and prin-

satisfaction and job involvement as dependent variables as follows. For the impact of DJ and PJ in compensation system on motivation, DJ and PJ explain motivation of 2.8% (R2=.028) that the power of explanation about motivation is low. And both PJ (=.185) and DJ(=-.131) affect motivation positively. The influence of DJ and PJ in the compensation system on organization immersion is estimated at 2.1% (R2=.021) of organization immersion with low power of explanation. Both PJ (=.152) and DJ (=-.131) affect organization immersion positively. Accordingly the influence of justice perception in compensation system on individual job variables is generally low. However, DJ and PJ both affect motivation and organization positively while PJ only does so in the case of job satisfaction. Therefore, in order to improve all individual job variables, DJ and PJ should be enhanced at the same time. 4.3.3 Justice Perception on Evaluation System The evaluation system affects the promotion system via its influence on promotion and raise decisions while it affects the compensation system via its impacts on decisions of salary class, bonus and allowance. Likewise

Table 24: Relationship between Perception of Justice in the Compensation System and Individual Job Variables Dependent Variables Motivation Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Independent Variables (JM) (JS) (JI) Distributive Justice (DJ) -.131** .027 -.131** Procedural Justice (PJ) .185** .139** .152** F 10.64 9.67 8.02 P .000 .000 .000 R2 .028 .024 .021
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

Table 25: Relationship between Justice Perception and Explanatory Factors on Evaluation System Dependent Variables Explanatory Variables Distributive Justice(DJ) Procedural Justice(PJ) Favorableness .323** .010 Importance -.094** -.016* Control -.023 .042 Neutrality .034 .074 Consistency .221** .189** Accuracy .131** .373** Ethicality .065 .133** Trust -.078 .044 Reciprocity .050 .183** 47.26 77.78 F .000 .000 P .372 .491 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

198

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Table 26: Relationship of Justice Perception and Individual Job Variables on Evaluation System Dependent Variables Motivation Job Satisfaction Job Involvement Independent Variables (JM) (JS) (J.I) Distributive Justice (DJ) -.075 .137** -.025 Procedural Justice (PJ) .098** .156** .139** 8.574 25.46 6.67 F .000 .000 .000 P .023 .062 .018 R2
Notes: 1) Standardized regression figures (Beta) are marked. 2) *: p<.05, **: p<.01

ciples are coherently applied to all employees, and as the criteria of personnel evaluation are reasonably established and performed according to accurate materials and information coinciding with the criteria. Also it is likely to perceive DJ lower as the importance of personnel evaluation is perceived highly. Considering PJ and evaluation system the explanatory variables describe PJ of 49.1%(R2=.491). For more detailed looking at each explanatory variable, accuracy(=.373), consistency(=.189), ethicality ( =.133), reciprocity(=.183) and importance (=-.016) are shown to influence PJ in the evaluation system positively. (2) Result Factors of Justice Perception on Evaluation System In order to examine the influence of justice perception of the evaluation system on motivation, job satisfaction, and organization immersion Table 26 describes the result of multiple regression analysis as follows; For the influence of DJ and PJ in evaluation system on motivation, they describe 2.3% (R2=.023) of motivation with low power of explanation, in which PJ( =.098) only affects motivation positively. For the influence of DJ and PJ in evaluation system on job satisfaction, they describe 6.2% (R2=.062) of job satisfaction, in which both PJ (=.156) and DJ (=.137) in P .01 affect job satisfaction positively. For the influence of DJ and PJ in evaluation system on organization immersion, there are shown very low influence (R2=.018). And PJ (=.137) in P < .01 only affects job involvement positively. Therefore the influence of justice perception in evaluation system on individual job variables is turned out to be very low in general. However, both DJ and PJ of the evaluation system influence job satisfaction positively with relatively high power of explanation. Furthermore it is generally judged that DJ and PJ influence significantly on all individual job variables rela-

tively.

5. Discussion of Study Results

This study measures the level of justice perception felt by members and analyzes the explanatory factors and job attitude based on promotion system, compensation system and evaluation system, the 3 main systems in human resource management. That is, examining which factors affect justice perception, influences them, how they affect and on which result variables justice perception influences and how, this study attempts to understand profoundly DJ and PJ as follows; Firstly, the result of analysis on the relationship between explanatory variables and justice perception shows that SIM variables affect DJ more while GVM variables affect PJ more. Secondly, for the relationship of each explanatory variable on justice perception favorableness, accuracy and importance together affect DJ and PJ positively. Finally, a positive interaction between the result variables DJ and PJ is discovered. Moreover this study grants some suggestions in terms of practical management and administration as follows; Initially, considering the significant influence of PJ on result variables, the attempt to enhance PJ is needed in human resource management. This study found that accuracy and consistency, highly affecting PJ, should be enhanced in order to raise PJ. In the second place it would have the opposite effect when only DJ is raised. So DJ along with PJ should be enhanced in order to heighten motivation. Thirdly, both PJ and DJ should be promoted in order to raise job satisfaction. Lastly, both PJ and DJ should be enhanced too in order to improve job involvement. On the other hand, this study does not consider the range of occupational classification models for convenience that the models are not evenly distributed. An-

199

Research Note

Japanese Journal of Administrative Science Volume 20, No.2 the value consensus paradox. Social Justice Re-

other limit of the study is not to control the difference of organizations despite perception on human resource management system is personal. Accordingly the further study would have more accurate result if for control of organizational difference it has small number of organizations with more number of models per organization to research justice. Additionally to have more comprehensive understanding on justice it is necessary that the study take to analyze all theoretically relevant variables in individual variables and organizational variables as control variables.

search, 4, 65-86.
Bernardin, H. J. 2003 Human resource management:

An experiential approach. 3rd ed., New York:

McGraw-Hill. Deutch, M. 1996 Equity, quality and need: what determines which value will be used as the basis for distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 5, 137149. Greenberg, J. and Tyler, T. R. 1987 Why procedural justice in organization? Social Justice Research, 1, 17-12. Henerman, R. L. 1992 Merit pay: Linking pay increases

References
Kang, Sungmo 1998 The positive study on the effec-

to performance ratings. Addison Wesley Publishing

Company, Inc. Henderson, R. 2000 Compensation management in a

tiveness of human resource management in oversea branching out enterprises. Ph. D. Dissertation
Inha University. Kim, Myungun, and Lee, Hyunjung 1992 Organization justice: Relationship between evaluation standard, and perceived justice, job satisfaction, organization immersion and wage satisfaction. Korean Psychol-

knowledge-based world. 8th ed., Englewood Cliffs:

Prentice-Hall. Lawler , E. E. 1990 Strategic Pay. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mathis, R. L. & Jackson, J. H. 2003 Human resource

ogy School, 6, 11-18.

Kim, Sukhoe 2001 21 century's organization action, Moyok Publishing Co. Choi, Kwang 1991 Distribution justice and finance pol-

management. 10th ed., Cincinnati: ThompsonSouth Western. Milkovich, G. T. & Newman, J. M. 2002 Compensation.

7th ed., New York: McGraw-Hill.

Mondy, R. W., Noe, R. M. & Premeaux, S. R. 2002 Hu-

icy. Seoul, Korea Economic Research Center, Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Hwang, Kyungsik (tr.) 1990 A theory of justice. (John Rawls, 1971). Hwang, Ilchung (ed) 1992 Injustice and equilibrium in

man resource management. 8th ed., Englewood

Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Murray, B. C. & Gerhart, B. 1998 An empirical analysis of a skill-based pay program and plant performance outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 68-78. Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J. R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. M. 2003 Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage. 4th ed., New York McGraw Hill. Raymond, B. 1992 Sentiments of justice. Social Justice

Korean society. Seoul, Naman.

Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. 1987 The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198. Barney, J. B. and Wright, P. M. 1995 On becoming a

strategic partner: The role of human resource in gaining competitive advantage. Working Paper,
The Ohio State University. Delery, J. E. and Doty, D.H. 1995 Theoretical frame-

Research, 6, 113-135.
Spencer, Jr., L. M. & Spencer, S. M. 1993 Competence

work in strategic human resource management: Universalistic, contingency and configuration perspectives. Working Paper, University of Arkansas.
Barrett-Howard, E. and Tyler, T. 1986, Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation decisions. Journal of

at work: Models for superior performance. New

York: John Wiley & Sons. Stoner, J.A.F. and Freeman, R. E. 1997 Management. Prentice-Hall. Tyler, T. R. 1989 The psychology of procedural justice: a test of group-value model. Journal of Psychology and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838.

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 296-304.

Berned Wegener 1990 Equity, relative deprivation, and 200

The Effects on Job Attitude of Perception of Justice in the HRM System Beechler, S. and Napir, N. 1996 Toward an integrated theory of strategic international human resource management. Academy of Management Review, 21, 959-985 17122819529

201