A theoretical revision of the influence of fairness on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior : (the impact on service quality)

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS: INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………….. 3 CHAPTER 1. LITERATURE REVIEW IN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS………………………………………………... 5 1.1. What is organizational justice ……………………………………………........... 5 1.2.Types of organizational justice ………………………………………………….. 6 1.3.The impact of organizational justice on organizational behavior ………………. 9 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW IN ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT………………………………………………………….... 10 2.1.Organizational commitment ……………………………………………………. 10 2.2.Factors of organizational commitment …………………………………………. 11 2.3.Concepts of organizational commitment ……………………………………….. 12 CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW IN ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR…………………………………………….... 15 3.1. Conceptualization of Organization Citizenship behavior ……………………… 16 3.2.Measures of organizational citizenship behavior ……………………………..... 19 CHAPTER 4. THE INFLUENCE OF FAIRNESS ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY…….... 20 CHAPTER 5. THE INFLUENCE OF FAIRNESS ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB): THE CASE OF THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY…………………………………………….... 24 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………….. 30 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………….. 32 2 LIST OF TABLES: Table 1. Definitions of organizational justice ………………………………………………. 5 Table2. Types of organizational justice …………………………………………………….. 8 Table 3.Definitions of organizational commitment ………………………………………... 10 Table 4. Factors of organizational commitment …………………………………………… 11 Table 5. Definitions of organizational citizenship behavior ……………………………….. 16 LIST OF FIGURES: Figure 1.The structure of organizational commitment ……………………………………. 14 3 INTRODUCTION Tourism has wide acceptance as one of the main contributions to the national economy in many countries, for example in Spain, placing hotels in the most competitive segment of the tourism market in that country (INE 2010). However, tourism to Spain from domestic and international travelers has declined since the beginning of the worldwide recession in 2008. UNWTO (2013) reported that the global economic crisis causes a negative effect from the decrease in demand for tourism. In particular, Western Europe (e.g., Spain) encountered a sharp decline in the flow of tourists, and consequently caused a rise in unemployment (Instituto de EstudiosTurísticos, 2010). Similarly, hotel companies seem to be less stable and their profitability has become unpredictable from the challenges of a maturing market and a reduction of competitiveness as a destination for attracting tourists (Atkinson and Brander 2001; Perles-Ribes et al., 2013; Aguiar-Quintana, Park and Araujo, 2014). In this context with increasing international competition, the importance of managing human resources management has become a crucial factor in the competitiveness of hospitality industry. It is crucial for managers to increase employees‟ perceptions of justice and commitment to the organization because it will lead to an increase of the extra-role behavior of the employees through organizational citizenship behavior and it will also contribute to better performance in hospitality sector organizations. The concept of organizational justice and its consequences need to be understood by managers in the services sector in general and in the hospitality industry in particular where this concept is especially important for organizations that hope to develop institutionalized policies and procedures (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010). Organizational justice is considered the measure of how fairly employees feel treated at work in terms of outcomes and processes. Since the 1975s, a large number of studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal and organizational citizenship behavior (Colquitt et al., 2001). In addition, Organizational commitment has long been considered a key predictor of organizational citizenship behaviour (Meyer et al., 2002). In the modern world the number of hotels is increasing more and more and each hotel is focused on its strengths as a competitive advantage. In such conditions it is very difficult to stay competitive and one of the main factors that contribute to better results in hotels or any other companies is qualitative management of employees. Although there are a lot of management theories, it becomes increasingly important to focus on issues that are directly related to personnel management, which is the main resource that determines the success of the organization, so the study of certain aspects that affect human resource management is crucial. A lot of studies were performed and are still performing about justice, organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. If employees are committed to their organization, share its goals and focus on doing everything possible to ensure its success, it will result in better customer satisfaction. That will increase their loyalty and therefore the organizational profits by increasing their sells. If the employees do not care and are dissatisfied with their working conditions and job prospects, they will try to find another job, they won´t pay attention to customers‟ expectations and therefore they will not meet the customers‟ needs. The aim of the current Master Thesis is to examine the relationship of justice perceptions of employees with various work-related variables such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behaviors and make some conclusions about this relationship in the 4 hospitality context. The research of the influence of fairness on organizational commitment and the influence of organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior in the tourism sector is very scarce with few works that analyze the relationships between those variables (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010; Hemdi and Nasurdin, 2007). This lack of research leads us to develop a theoretical research to analyze the impact of justice on commitment and the influence of commitment on organizational citizenship behavior in the hospitality industry. The current study analyzes how strongly the different types of justice (procedural, distributive and interactional) influence different types of commitment (affective, continuous and normative) and citizenship behaviors in its forms: altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue. The structure of this thesis included a literature review of organizational justice and fairness in the first chapter, a theoretical revision of organizational commitment in the second chapter, and a literature review of organizational citizenship behaviour and the types of these organizational outcomes in chapter 3. Then review of the influence of fairness on organizational commitment was made in chapter 4 and across the chapter 5 a revision of the influence of fairness on organizational citizenship behaviour was developed. To study the influence of fairness on organizational commitment and on organization citizenship behaviour, we focused on some empirical studies that were developed in the hospitality industry (Cohen-Carash and Spector, 2001; Simons and Roberson, 2003; Ibrahim and Perez, 2013; Hemdi and Nasurdin, 2007; Nadiri and Tanova, 2009). Therefore we can establish some conclusions about the importance of fairness in the hospitality industry and we find a strong support of the influence of fairness on organizational commitment and on organizational citizenship behavior. 5 1. LITERATURE REVIEW IN ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE 1.1. What is organizational justice Fairness in the organization is very important, as in the management the relationship between workers and employees must be justice, honesty. In hotels or organizations, managers should rightly manage and distribute responsibilities. Not only in the workplace but also in relations to each other or in case of wages, for example there should be justice. Also, employees need to do the work honestly. Justice defines the very essence of individuals‟ relationship to their employers. So, justice decisions determine the relationship between workers to colleagues. For this reason, the higher workers estimate the fair on organizational decisions, the more they respect and trust to their manager, the more affection they feel for him, and the more positive relations with their colleagues. Most of the authors support the idea that only then the service will be implemented with high quality and productive work that will provide a hotel or a company a good reputation and profit. Justice or fairness defines an action or determination as morally right, which may be intended according to law, ethics, conscience or equity. People are naturally attentive to the justice of events and situations in their everyday lives, across a variety of contexts (Tabibnia, Satpute, and Lieberman, 2008). Initially, Thibaut and Walker‟s (1975) research showed that fairness is important for decision-making and practices for individuals. Simons and Roberson‟s (2003) study shows that fair policies and good treatment of employees can increase the possibility of an organization to meet the customer‟s needs. Also, fair treatment of employees may raise organizational competitiveness. Contrarily, if it is injustice in the organization it will be hurtful to individuals and harmful to organizations (Cropanzano et al., 2007). That‟s why justice is one of the key parameters of the assessment of organizational interaction. It has an impact on attitudes, emotions, and organizational behavior of employees (Gulevich, 2012). Therefore, we can predict that employees that perceive more justice from their direct supervisors are more motivated to increase their efforts at work and will be more satisfied at their jobs. As a consequence, they will improve the services they provide and this will be reflected in better perceptions of service quality from the customers‟ point of view. How employees perceive the overall fairness and justice determine their decisions about relationships with the organization. When employees realize justice in the organization, they are less addicted to searching opportunities to balance things out by increasing their own benefits at the company‟s expense (Trevino and Weaver, 2001). Also, when employees are treated fairly, they are “more willing to prostrate their own short-term individual interests to the interests of a group or organization” (Lind and Tyler, 1988, p. 191). In Table 1, we provide a set of definitions taken from the organizational justice literature: Table 3. Definitions of organizational justice Organizational justice Author (year) “an employee‟s perception of their organization‟s behaviors, decisions, and actions and how these influence the employees own attitudes and behaviors at work” Greenberg (1987) “focuses on the role of fairness as a consideration in the workplace, has Colquitt et al. (2001) 6 demonstrated that fair treatment has important effects on individual employee attitudes, such as commitment and citizenship behavior” “describes the individuals‟ (or groups‟) perception of the fairness of treatment received from an organization and their behavioral reaction to such perceptions” James (1993) “has the potential to create powerful benefits for organizations and employees alike. These include greater trust and commitment, improved job performance, more helpful citizenship behaviors, improved customer satisfaction, and diminished conflict” Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007) “consistent relationships between perceptions of fairness and various individual work outcomes. According to the group value model of procedural justice, fair procedures are believed to affirm an individual‟s status in a group , thereby strengthening that individual‟s level of identification with, and attachment to, the group” Lind and Tyler (1988) “perceptions of procedural fairness strengthen individuals‟ commitment to the organization as a whole” Brockner et al. (1990) Mc Farlin and Sweeney (1992) Source: own elaboration 1.2. Types of organizational justice. The study of fairness in organizations and its typologies has been studied by organizational researchers. Justice or fairness has its roots in multiple areas of knowledge, and that strikes anyone who has experienced disrespect. In business organizations, considerations of fairness appeal to managers, employees, and other organizational stakeholders who see fairness as a unifying value providing fundamental principles that can link together conflicting parties and create stable social structures. Procedural Justice refers most generally to how an allocation decision is made. Procedural Justice is contrasted with Distributive Justice, which refers to the fairness of the decision outcome. Procedural justice can refer to objective or subjective conditions. Objective Procedural Justice refers to actual or factual justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and subjective Procedural Justice refers to perceptions of objective procedures or to the capacity of an objective procedure to enhance fairness judgments (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991). Procedural Justice researchers most frequently measure subjective procedural justice and its effects (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Summarizing the main outputs derived from the different justice perceptions we can point out the followings: distributive, procedural and interactional justice 7 Distributive justice is equity of rewards and punishments of interaction between employees. Distributive justice refers to the "perceived fairness of organizational outcomes" (CohenCharash and Spector, 2001, p. 280); it evaluates employees' perceptions of whether or not outcomes are equitably distributed or comparable with their inputs (Gilliland, 1994). Cropanzano et al. (2007) divided distributive justice in three forms: equity (Rewarding employees based on their contributions); equality (Providing each employee roughly the same compensation.) and need (Providing a benefit based on one‟s personal requirements. Equity theory. Perhaps the earliest theory of distributive justice can be attributed to Aristotle. In his Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher maintained that just distribution involved “something proportionate,” which he defined as “equality of ratios.” Adams (1965) represented his equity theory of distributive justice with the following equation: 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙′𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑢𝑎𝑙′𝑠𝑜𝑤𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑠 =𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑟′𝑠𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑛𝑒𝑟′𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑠 Generally Cropanzano et al. (2007) divide three allocation rules that can lead to distributive justice if they are applied appropriately: equality (to each the same), equity (to each in accordance with contributions), and need (to each in accordance with the most urgency). These rules map onto Aristotle‟s famous dictum that all men wish to be treated like all other people (equality), like some other people (equity), and like no other person (need). Procedural justice deals with the organization of the decision (norm control of the process and the result, the monotony, the neutralization of prejudice, the accuracy and completeness of the information, the possibility of appeal, ethics). Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the formal procedures of organizational decision making and how these are processed, such as the explanation of the procedures and the associated interpersonal treatment (Greenberg, 1990; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Gilliland, 1994; Johnson, 2007). It has been found that employees perceive that there has been procedural justice when supervisors provide an adequate explanation for their decisions (Greenberg, 1994). Moorman (1991) describes two factors that constitute procedural justice: formal procedures and interactional procedures. Formal procedure measures the perceived fairness of organizational procedures and interactional justice measures the perceived fairness of interpersonal communication between the manager and employee during the procedures. Leventhal et al. (1976, 1980) distinguished some core attributes that make procedures fair as: (1) Consistency (all employees are treated the sameway);(2) Lack of Bias (no person or group is singled out for discrimination or ill-treatment); (3) Accuracy (Decisions are based on accurate information); (4) Representation of All Concerned (appropriate stakeholders have input into a decisión);(5) Correction (there is an appeals process or another mechanism for fixing mistakes); (6) Ethics (Norms of professional conduct are not violated) Leventhal and his colleagues (Leventhal, 1976, 1980; Leventhal, Karuza, and Fry, 1980) established some core attributes that make procedures just; these are displayed in Table 2. A justice process is one that is applied consistently to all, free of bias, accurate, representative of relevant stakeholders, correctable, and consistent with ethical norms. Interactional justice depends on employees‟ reaction to the manner in which their direct supervisors carry out formal procedures (Greenberg, 1987). A person will be interactional in a fair way, if he or she appropriately shares information and avoids rude or cruel remarks. There are two categories of interactional justice (Colquitt et al., 2001): 8 ● Interpersonal Justice: Treating an employee with dignity, courtesy, and respect. ● Informational Justice: Sharing relevant information with employees. The first part, called interpersonal justice, refers to the respect and dignity with which one treats another. The second part is informational justice that refers to whether one is truthful and provides adequate justifications when things go badly (Cropanzano et al., 2007). Also, there are important explanations of organizational justice types. According to the research of Gulevich (2012), that evaluates the validity of organizational interaction, people are guided by a set of rules that affect the process of decision making. This is showed in Table 2. Table4. Types of organizational justice Distributive justice Procedural justice Interactional justice It is fair that the more ... Fair such a procedure ... Fair such an interaction in which manager ...  the amount of work done by a person the higher reward (impartiality)  which makes it possible to collect accurate and complete information about the people of interaction action (the accuracy and completeness of information)  behave politely (courtesy)  effort person puts in the performance of work the higher reward (effort)  Participants who have the ability to influence its issue (control of result)  shows respect for the other participants, it gives them the opportunity (respect)  ability and knowledge of the person the higher reward (the ability)  in which all interested parties have an opportunity to express their opinion (process control)  the needs of the person the higher reward (needs)  which makes it possible to change the wrong decisions, for example, to give them an appeal (correction)  It is fair that all employees receive the same result (equality)  which can be used in different situations and for different members (uniformity)  where the decision does not depend on existing prejudices of a manager (neutralization of prejudice)  which consistent with existing ethical norms in society (ethics) Source: own elaboration from Gulevich (2012) In distributive justice, rewards are allocated between employees performing any work. It is used in assessing the behavior of manager who makes decisions on the amount of material and non-material incentives for workers. In the organizational context, the most important are equity, the distribution of needs and efforts, according to which employee remuneration depends on its contribution to the work. 9 Procedural justice concerns the collection and analysis of information on the activities of employees. It contains seven basic rules shown in Table 2. According to the North American and Western European studies, these principles form in the minds of the whole staff. At the same time Russian respondents (Lind, Tyler, 1988; Thibaut, Walker, 1975) are divided on procedural fairness "traceability" (control over the process and the result of correction) and "equal rights" (uniformity, neutralization of prejudice). Interactional justice concerns how a person is treated. It includes two rules - courtesy and respect. The above components of equity have an effect on the general assessment of the organizational justice.Thus, Nadiri and Tanova (2010) explained that the perception of the fairness of the distribution of employees will have an effect on their motivation. The workers will have certain beliefs and ideas about how the organization will take and implement decisions. In situations when it is necessary to make belief as solutions and how they actually made different, workers can feel cognitive dissonance, and as a result staff will feel uncomfortable, which may lead to dissatisfaction. 1.3.The impact of organizational justice on organizational behavior. Justice has a dual interaction impact on people's behavior. On the one hand, it increases the productivity of a person, and on the other hand it defines the style of his communication with others. In particular, the observance of distributive justice raises staff motivation (Bell et al., 2006), contributes to take responsibility for their actions (Moon et al., 2008). However, its impact depends on the specific regulations. The distribution of rewards in accordance with the contribution and the ability to increase the motivation of the most effective workers, but decreases - of less efficient. At the same time the distribution of remuneration in accordance with the requirements provide the opposite impact. Thus, the theory describes the behavior of the impartiality of successful people. The higher the motivation of the person, the more effort he puts in the performance of tasks that, in turn, improves the quality and increases the amount of performed work (De Dreu and Nauta, 2009). The dependence of the quality of justice on compliance has been noticed by Leventhal, who devoted great attention to standards of impartiality and distribution efforts. He believed that those rules enhance the productivity of individual work in the long term. However, when it comes to performing the task that requires cooperation or a rapid but short-term increasing in productivity, the rate of impartiality may be compromised in favor of equality and distribution needs. Recent studies show that the quality of the work depends on the distributive and procedural justice. Perhaps this is because employees are not always able to accurately assess the validity of the outcome and judgment, focusing on the process of interaction. In addition to efficiency, fairness affects the nature of communication: it is becoming more intense, friendly and cooperative. Also, the more appreciated staff give justice cooperation, the less selfish they behave, the less force is applied in order to gain power, the less involved in litigation with the organization and the less demanding compensation from her (Judge et al. , 2006; Roberts, Markel, 2001). In addition, when employees highly estimate the fair business communication and tend to come together for a common goal, they will less demonstrate social laziness often choose 16 service (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012). Organizational citizenship behavior is shown in an effort of employee to provide an assistance and support to colleagues in their work, to take on additional responsibilities for the best performance of tasks, participate actively in the life of the organization, voluntarily follow the existing rules and regulations (Barinov Denis, 2011, p.3). Next in the Table 5 we establish the different definitions that can be found in the literature: 3.1. Conceptualization of Organization Citizenship behavior Table 5. Definitions of organizational citizenship behavior Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Author (year): “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” Organ (1988, p. 4) “an employee‟s willingness to go above and beyond the prescribed roles that he or she has been assigned” Organ (1990) “behavior that (a) goes beyond the basic requirements of the job, (b) is to a large extent discretionary, and (c) is of benefit to the organization” Lambert, S.J. (2006, p. 503-525). “an employee behavior that, although not critical to the task or job, serve to facilitate organizational functioning” Lee and Allen (2002, p. 132) 17 “beneficial and desirable from an organizational perspective, but managers have difficulty eliciting their occurrence or punishing their absence through contractual arrangement and formal rewards because the behaviors are voluntary” Moorman and Blakely (1995, p.127) “discretionary behaviors by which employees make extra efforts in their daily work to go beyond the requirements and duties of their job. An employee who engages in citizenship behavior voluntarily makes efforts beyond the specific requirements of their work" Katz (1964, p.131 ) Source: own elaboration Smith et al. (1983) and Katz (1964) proposed that to achieve effective organizational productivity, the three kinds of behaviors are necessary: employee willingness to remain with the organization, employee actions that surpass their job description, and employee proactive behavior beyond job responsibilities. The first and second kinds of behaviors are with workers role, but the third goes without, to enable team work between colleagues, selfdevelopment, and establishing a positive organizational image. For hotel industry or any organization to function effectively, innovative and spontaneous behaviors are very important. These behaviors, even so not required for job performance, can be contributed to the productivity and implementation of an organization (Chiang and Hsieh, 2012). Organ‟s (1988) study on organizational citizenship behavior determined five concepts of OCB. In any organization, there can be these qualities in employees: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, civic virtue. 1. Altruism is a сare about the welfare or interests of others. It describes the moral principle associated with the selfless help of others and sacrificed their interests for the common good or the interests of individuals. Altruism is the opposite of the word "selfishness". Helping other members of the organization in their tasks. An example might be that one employee helping his colleague without expectation money or services in return. Thus altruistic improve the working atmosphere and team spirit. Outside of a business context, altruism would be in that case when someone who drives a neighbor to work when their car has broken down or in any other problems, while not expecting any reward or money. In a business setting, this kind of behavior is shown in any situation related to the work or any team projects. In a group setting there can be a volunteer to work on certain special projects; he or she may help other employees with their work or any other tasks. Altruism in the organization causes to productivity and effectiveness of work because it stimulate good relationship between workers; also it can eliminates the stress, when a worker is overwhelmed without a little help. 2. Courtesy is politeness and respect toward others. By respecting each other employees create a pleasant situation in collective. Preventing problems deriving from the work relationship. Courtesy outside of a workplace includes behavior like asking colleague‟s welfare, asking the health of a neighbor‟s child. In the organization, courtesy shown in such situation when worker is asking if a coworker is having ant trouble or problems with a certain work, and suggest his or her help for any kind of problem related with work. Courtesy 18 supports positive social relationship between employees, which develop the work atmosphere, also it can exclude potential stress that can be appear from employee who doesn‟t have courtesy to inform their coworkers about issue such as upcoming absences from work. 3. Sportsmanship is a positive person, who doesn‟t complain if something goes wrong. It is a character of a person who always keeps its promises and do not cause deliberate harm to others. A person watches that he does not harm others and does not to create unpleasant implications for others. Sportsmanship is a person, who obeys organizational regulations, tolerating imperfect situations without complaint. Outside of the organization, sportsmanship is most commonly associated with sports and games, for example, it might occur when a player in any team doesn‟t complain or argue when his or her team loses a game. In the workplace, sportsmanship is related to potential complaints about work in addition to negativity surrounding work-related surprises. For example, a worker who is doing project or service, expecting it to be well received and accepted by his or her manager, but unfortunately, it is rejected, and an employee instead of complaining, he or she shows good sportsmanship by not complaining about the situation to other coworkers who may report his or her behavior to others for the business. 4. Conscientiousness is a person who is faithfully fulfill obligations, responsibilities. It works with a clear conscience, and always follows the rules without breaking them. Conscientiousness is a dedication to the job and desire to exceed formal requirements in aspects such as, punctuality or conservation of resources, in addition to complying with organizational rules, going beyond minimum requirements through hard work (e.g. working long days). Conscientiousness is a behavior that proposes a reasonable level of self-control and discipline. In a business context, conscientiousness is noticed when an employee meets their employer‟s requirements such as coming work on time or completing tasks on time and so on. 5. Civic virtue suggests that employees responsibly participate in the political life of the organization (e.g. attending meetings, keeping up with changes in the organization, taking the initiative to recommend how procedures can be improved). In addition it is determined as a behavior which shows how well an employment represents an organization with which they are associated, also how well that employee supports their organization outside of an official capacity. For example, a worker‟s civic virtue appears on how he or she represents their business and how he or she may support that business. In the context of organization, civic virtue includes speaking only good sides of the organization to others; signing up for business events like charity walking events or fundraiser parties; and always representing the organization to the best of their ability even when a worker is not working in that organization. Besides these concepts on the above, Bettencourt, Gwinner, and Meuter (2001) developed a typology of “service oriented” that is Bettencourt and Brown‟s creation which means “discretionary behaviors of contact employees in servicing customers that extend beyond formal role requirements” (1997, p. 41), organizational citizenship behavior with three dimensions: loyalty, participation, and service delivery. In loyalty service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, workers act as defenders to outsiders of their organization‟s products, services, and image. Through participation service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, employees take individual initiative to develop their own 19 service delivery and that of their organization and coworkers as well. In service delivery service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior, workers behave themselves fairly in activities surrounding service delivery to customers. Also many other researchers developed different categories of organizational citizenship behavior. Williams and Anderson (1991) divided organizational citizenship behavior into two categories: organizational citizenship behavior of individuals (OCB-1) and organizational citizenship behavior toward organizations (OCB-0). Podsakoff et al. (1997) distinguished three dimensions: helping behavior (altruism), sportsmanship, and civic virtue. Van Dyne and LePine (1998) categorized into two dimensions: helping behavior and voice behavior. Also Posakoff et al. (1990) used five dimensions proposed by Organ (1988) to estimate organizational citizenship behavior. 3.2.Measures of organizational citizenship behavior Scholars have evolved different measures of organizational citizenship behavior. But before to measure it has to be determined. The conceptual definitions of organizational citizenship behavior used by scholars differ from study to study. One of the first researchers whose undertake the measurement of organizational citizenship behavior was Bateman and Organ (1983). Their definition of organizational citizenship behavior “includes any of those gestures that lubricate the social machinery of the organization but that do not directly in here in the usual notion of task performance” (Bateman and Organ, 1983, p. 588). Based on this definition, they built a 30-item organizational citizenship behavior scale, which measures: altruism, conscientiously following the rules of the organization, cooperation, compliance, punctuality, protecting company property, and reliability. Using all of these 30 items, the participants asked to rate their opinion with 7 point scale from negative 3 to positive 3. Smith et al.‟s (1983) study was more complicated measurement, which shows in several stages scale. The managers in manufacturing organizations were interviewed and asked them to “identify instances of helpful, but not absolutely required behavior”, to improve scholars 16-item scale (Smith et al., 1983, p. 656). In addition to the Bateman and Organ‟s (1983) scale, they established a 20-item scale based on the interviews. The next step included 67 students who had managerial experience to complete the scale while thinking of someone who currently, or had in the past, worked for them. They scaled their responses about person‟s work behavior. At the end after factor analysis, four items were dropped resulting in the 16-item scale. After the dong the results of this scale, the authors found the two distinct dimension of organizational citizenship behavior: altruism and generalized compliance. Examples of items in Smith et al.‟s (1983) scale include: helps others who have been absent; gives advance notice if unable to come work; assists supervisor with his or her work; attend functions not required but that help company image. Another important study was Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Moorman, and Fetter (1990), which used the five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: altruism, courtesy, sportsmanship, conscientiousness, and civic virtue. They distinguished a 24-item scale by having 10 of their colleagues sort each of the 24-items into one of the five organizational citizenship behavior dimensions or the category “other” if they thought that the item did not appropriate any of the five conceptual dimensions. Using a 7-point scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”, participants marked their answers. This five-factor structure significantly helped for organizational citizenship behavior research. Examples of items in Podsakoff et al.‟s (1990) scale include: 20  Obeys company rules and regulations even when no one is watching.  Attends meetings that are not mandatory, but are considered important.  Mindful of how his/her behavior affects other people‟s jobs.  Willingly helps others who have work related problems. 4. THE INFLUENCE OF FAIRNESS ON ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITMENT: THE CASE OF HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY First of all, we will mention the general studies about this relationship in different contexts. Then we will address this question in the hotel context.Generally, people expect to be treated fairly and appreciate it. In many ways to increase the level of loyalty, it is important the way in which valuable resources are distributed. It is a key factor to establish how much reward system is fair. Employees are also expected to be treated with dignity and respect, and will meet the favor of organizations that treat them that way. Abidance of the organizational justice is necessary for the protection of labor rights and interests of workers, for the protection of their moral and physical health, which is the first key to the prosperity of the organization. Organizational justice is manifested in the form of equitable behavior and the relationship between the staff, as well as for the team and its individual members to other organizations and their employees, which affect to the organizational commitment. This view is supported by representatives of the philosophical concept of justice. Thus, the need for organizational justice is obvious and there is no doubt, because without its presence, the implementation of other principles of social, organizational and labor welfare (such as the priority of organizational commitment, organizational values, job satisfaction, customer satisfaction and productivity of direct contact with customers) is impossible. An employee, who has developed some sense of teamwork and organizational commitment, faithfully fulfills his or her obligations. Even it is possible to say that he or she performs his or her responsibilities on a voluntary basis, without specifying manual or coercion (Hoseinkhani, 2014). Organizational justice research, which focuses on the role of fairness as a contemplation in the organization, has showed that justice handling has significant effects on individual worker relations, such as satisfaction and commitment (Colquitt et al., 2001).Also, according to Cowherd and Levine (1992), analysis show that when workers perceive high level of fairness they become more committed towards their organizations. Greenberg (1994) in his work shows on the one hand, the relationship between the level of organizational justice, and on the other the level of organizational commitment and faithful implementation of their official obligation the employees. Justice in many behaviors of management of staffs (rewards distribution, supervisory relations, promotion and appointment) is important for employees. In the process of fair behavior development and more importantly in shaping their sense of justice, it is important to understand how to behavior based on a scale of justice, satisfaction, staff motivation and commitment (Sareshkeh et al., 2012). Recent studies show that the commitment of the employees and quality of the work depends on the distributive and procedural justice. Perhaps this is due to the fact that employees are not always able to accurately assess the validity of the outcome and judgment, focusing on the process of interaction. In addition to efficiency, fairness affects the nature of communication: it is becoming more intense, friendly and cooperative, thereby increasing affection of employees to the organization. Thus, the higher workers assess the validity of the 21 interaction, the more they are prepared to continue it: they refuse to change their job, plan to build a career within the organization, even if the organization is experiencing economic difficulties (Ambrose and Cropanzano, 2003; De Cremer and Den Ouden, 2009; Phillips, 2002; Riolli and Savicki, 2006). Some studies showed that distributive justice and procedural justice were influential in predicting workers‟ job satisfaction (Fatt, Khin, and Heng, 2010; Bakhshi, Kumar, and Rani, 2009; Shamsuri 2004; Clay-Warner, Reynolds, and Roman 2005) and organizational commitment (Fatt, Khin, and Heng, 2010; Bakhshi, Kumar, and Rani, 2009; Shamsuri 2004; Clay-Warner, Reynolds, and Roman 2005; Hassan, 2002). It was suggested that by implementing fairness and organization rules and awards to all workers based on work and competence beyond personal tendency, would have a positive distributive and procedural justice perception, leading to a higher satisfaction and commitment. Some studies showed that procedural justice is a more important predictor of job satisfaction than distributive justice (Clay-Warner, Reynolds, and Roman, 2005). Some studies determined a significant positive relationship of distributive and procedural justices with organizational commitment (Seyed Javadin, Faraahi, and Taheri, 2009) or the study in Iran Sport Organization examined that organizational justice and it‟s three dimensions (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) had a positive significant relationship with organizational commitment (Safania, Sabaghan-Rad, and Ghorbanalizadeh 2010). Organizational justice has shown that perceptions of procedural fairness strengthen individuals‟ commitment to the organization as a whole (Brockner, DeWitt, Grover, and Reed, 1990; McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). A relationship between interpersonal justice and organizational commitment also has to be obtained, but this relationship can be indirect. For example, Barling and Philips (1993) determined in a vignette research of students, that interactional justice has an impact on organizational commitment. Masterson et al. (2000) provided evidence that procedural justice influences attitudes about the organization through perceived support whereas interactional justice influences attitudes about the manager through leader-member exchange. Colquitt (2001) hypothesized and determined that connection between interpersonal justice and leader evaluations. Therefore, Simons and Roberson (2003) expect that interpersonal justice is connected with organizational commitment and that association is mediated by worker attitudes about their manager. However, the relationships among justice types and commitment are translated to the organizational level. Organizational policies and procedures can form shared bases for workers‟ procedural justice perceptions, and supervisors‟ behavioral norms can form a shared basis for workers‟ interpersonal justice perceptions (Schminke et al., 2000). These shared fairness perceptions, can establish a climate that contributes or restrains positive attitudes and worker affective commitment to the organization. Worker social norms may be approved and display workers satisfaction with observation and caring for the organization. Simons and Roberson (2003) expected satisfaction with supervision to mediate the influence of interpersonal justice on organizational commitment. Affective commitment (emotional affection to the organization) is an organization wide outcomeand, hence, usually predicted to be related mainly to procedural justice rather than to distributive justice (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991). Continuance commitment (affection to the organization that is based on an impossibility to leave rather than on positive maintenance of the organization), on the other hand, is usually predicted to be unrelated to justice (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991). 22 Recently, Nadiri and Tanova (2009) establish that when the job satisfaction of employees is high, they may become highly committed to their organizations which in turn results in lower turnover rates. After their analysis, they suggested that in the hospitality industry in North Cyprus managers should understand clarity in fairness of firm‟s procedures and rewards and it can develop more loyal and committed employees. As authors mentioned about the importance of fairness, it is necessary to know not only for the managers in North Cyprus, but for every manager in a hospitality industry. Mossholder, Bennett, and Martin (1998) investigated justice perceptions within and between organizational work units at a financial services organization. Their study determined whether workers belonging to the same job unit shared perceptions of procedural justice and whether a job unit measure of organizational justice was connected with worker reports of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The results showed that individuals belonging to units with higher aggregate perceptions of procedural justice reported greater job satisfaction. Cohen-Carash and Spector‟s (2001) study “the role of justice in organization: metaanalysis” relates about the relations between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and their relation to organizational variables in their meta-analysis. The study of fairness, justice in the organizations has been increasing in last several years. Using analysis of other scholars about justice authors decide to summarize it by quantitative method of metaanalysis. They made a meta-analysis to examine the importance of fairness and the types of justice on organization and on organizational behavior such as organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Methodology of Cohen-Charash and Spector included 190 samples based on 64,626 participants. There were 101 samples for distributive justice, 161 for procedural justice, and 26 for interactional justice. They used several methods to collect data for their meta-analysis such as bibliographic search in the PsychInfo and ABI databases, from journals that publish studies about organizational justice. Results of Cohen-Charash and Spector show affective commitment to be significantly more strongly related to procedural justice than to distributive justice or to interactional justice. However distributive justice and interactional justice are also related to organizational commitment. In addition the results show that continuance commitment to be negatively related to procedural and interactional justice. Because when workers realize justice in procedures and respectful handling, they perceive themselves to have more investments in the organization. On the contrary when the procedures and treatment are injustice, employee will feel that there is little to lose by moving to a new employer. Authors results show that justice manage employees to feel affection to the organization. Finally, from that analysis we know that multiple aspects of commitment are related to multiple justice types, so the fairness plays in organizational commitment stronger role than the role usually assumed. Simons and Roberson (2003) made a study about the impact of fairness on organizational outcomes in their article “Why managers should care about fairness: the effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes”. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of collective procedural and interpersonal justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. They contribute in the literature review of organizational justice and climate research. The authors, using previous studies of different researchers, expected interpersonal and procedural justice perceptions to be strongly connected with each other. They hypothesized that “aggregate justice perceptions affect objective organizational outcomes”. The authors developed a quantitative study in the topic of fairness. Surveys were collected from 111 different hotels in the USA and Canada. The response rate was 67% with 23 a total of 8832 completed surveys returned. Justice perceptions (procedural justice and interpersonal justice) were measured using scales based on Niehoff and Moorman (1993). Procedural justice was measured with a three-item scale and interpersonal justice was measured with four-item scale. Affective commitment was measured using a six-item scale form Mowday et al. (1979). The results of the studies are consistent with the notion that aggregate justice perceptions affect organizational-level outcomes. Correlations between justice perceptions and attitudinal outcomes and between commitment and intent to remain increased through the aggregation process. This article gives important practical implications for managers. The analysis shows that fair policies and treatment of workers in organizations can increase the possibility of the organization to meet the needs of its customers. Fair treatment of workers appears both workers retention and improved customer service, as workers are more committed to the organization and its aims and both worker retention and customer service satisfaction affect profitability (Simons and McLean Parks, 2000). Based on this study, allowing greater worker participation in the design of work procedures or treating workers respectfully and fair may have “spillover effects” (Bowen, Gilliland, and Folger, 1999), in which higher level of worker commitment can order to more customer-oriented behaviors then customer satisfaction and retention. Another article about the influence of fairness on organizational commitment is Ibrahim and Perez‟s (2013) work: “Effects of Organizational Justice, Employee Satisfaction, and Gender on Employees' Commitment: Evidence from the UAE”. Most of the researches have been exerted in the West, but this study has paid attention in other cultures such as United Arab Emirates organizational justice and organizational commitment. Metle (1997) distinguished that the relationship among personal characteristics and concern to their work can be differing between workers in various countries with different cultures. This supervision confirms the insertion of some variables representing personal characteristics in the study of the relationship between organizational justice, job satisfaction, and commitment. The authors explored the effects of organizational justice and job satisfaction on employee commitment in UAE service organizations. The organizational justice is used to show the degree to which workers accept the general organizational rules, procedures and policies. It includes three dimensions (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice). Based on the literature review, authors formulated the hypothesis: “There is no relationship between each of the three types of organizational justice and employee‟s commitment”. For this purpose, the authors used as the sampling frame the UAE business directory by a database company lists more than 300000 companies in UAE and their contact information such as telephone number and e-mails. They selected randomly twelve employees from each organization and distributed a total of 336 questionnaires. The questionnaire included four parts. In first part respondents were asked to provide some demographic data such as gender, age, nationality, marital status, and educational level. In second part the respondents were asked to score with an item on a seven point scale ranging from one (strongly disagree) to seven (strongly agree). This measure perceived organizational commitment was taken from the scale of Allen and Meyer (1996). In third part participants were asked to choose between seven statements the one that best represents his opinion or perception. Results show that personal attributes and organizational justice do not affect organizational commitment. Therefore, authors infer that satisfaction has a significant statistical impact on organizational commitment. Accordingly, the results fail to reject the hypothesized no relationship between organizational justice. The article tested the direct effect of organizational justice, personal attributes, and job satisfaction on organizational commitment. 24 The results obtained indicate that there were no significant direct effects of organization justice and personal attributes on organizational commitment. Thus, authors concluded that job satisfaction is instrumental in reflecting the effects of organizational justice on organizational commitment. Also, Sareshkeh, Ghaziani, and Tayebi (2012) mentioned about the influence of fairness on organizational commitment in their article: “Impact of Organizational Justice Perceptions on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: The Iranian Sport Federations Perspective”. That study investigated the impact of organizational justice perceptions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment in Iranian sport federations‟ employees. Therefore, the aim of the authors was to achieve through an experimental test of the effect of each dimension of organizational justice on dimensions of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Authors made a randomly distributed among the Iranian Sports Federation workers and they collected 131 confirmed samples. Three dimensions of perceived organizational justice were measured: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice with Cronbach‟s alpha score. All of the measures of justice used a seven point Likert-type scale with response categories (1 = Strongly Disagree; 7 = Strongly Agree). Three dimensions of organizational commitment were measured in this study: affective commitment, continuance commitment, and normative commitment with Cronbach‟s alpha score. All of the measures of commitment used a 5-point Likert-type scale with response categories (1 = Strongly Disagree; 5 =Strongly Agree). The path analysis method applying SPSS software used to examine the three models of our research, an alternative method developed by Wright (1934) based on simple and multiple regression analysis. According to the results, organizational justice affects directly I.R.Iran sport federations‟ workers‟ general organizational commitment. Furthermore, three dimensions of organizational justice can examine general organizational commitment. Besides, both distributive justice and interactional justice have a direct effect on overall organizational commitment. These results indicated that the unfairness perceptions can cause negative reactions to the organization and by consequence, weak job satisfaction and low commitment. Also the authors supervised that distributive justice has a direct effect on continuance commitment and interactional justice has a direct and an indirect effect on affective commitment. 5. THE INFLUENCE OF FAIRNESS ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR (OCB): THE CASE OF THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY Organizational justice stimulates employee productivity. Farmer in his work (2004) concludes that the procedural justice and job satisfaction have the greatest impact on the performance of obligations, provide enthusiasm and efficient workforce. Employees are concerned with both the fairness of the outcomes that they receive and the fairness of their treatment within the organization. Organ (1988) has proposed that perceptions of fairness can be related to organizational citizenship behavior because such perceptions are instrumental in developing the levels of trust and faith needed for workers to provide the beneficial, yet discretionary, behaviors that determine citizenship. In addition, some studies made by Farh, Podsakoff, and Organ (1990), Moorman (1991), Konovsky and Folger (1991), and Niehoff 25 and Moorman (1993) suggested a strong relationship between justice perceptions and different forms of employee citizenship. In relation to the different dimensions of justice, Organ (1990) proposed that distributive justice relations can affect citizenship according to predictions derived from equity theory (Adams, 1965).If employees perceive unfair compensation, then they may be less likely to perform organizational citizenship behavior because such behaviors are discretionary, falling outside an employee‟s formal role requirements. Failure to fulfill organizational citizenship behavior is less likely than failure to perform a duty in the work description to result in official sanctions or in the sacrifice of additional rewards provided by the formal reward system (Hemdi and Nasurdin, 2007). Organ (1990) also suggested that comprehended procedural unfairness alters a worker‟s attitude towards the organization from one social exchange (Blau, 1964), in which citizenship behaviors are likely, to one of economic exchange, in which workers do only what is required. Moorman (1991) offered that procedural justice includes the fairness of the procedures to examine the outcomes for workers. According to Moorman (1991), procedural justce is related with both the organization‟s formal procedures and the worker‟s cooperation with or participation in the decision-making process. In accordance with research involving procedural justice, perceptions of procedural fairness may affect a variety of organizational outcomes such as organizational citizenship behavior and job performance (Williams, 1999; Alexander and Ruderman, 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989). Thus, studies show that organizational justice has a close relationship with labor productivity. In addition, one of the most important results is the presence of organizational justice organizational citizenship behavior and its different aspects. Along with this organizational justice defines friendliness/aggressive communication. The higher employees estimate the current interaction, the more favorably they communicate with their colleagues, the less offend and try to take revenge (Aquino et al., 2006; Skarlicki et al., 2008); more often choose strategies of constructive conflict, rarely show a destructive and deviant behavior (Krings and Facchin, 2009; Thau et al., 2007). In general, the validity of interaction increases the cohesion of the groups (Chansler et al., 2003). The dependence of the quality of work on compliance of justice was noted by Leventhal, who devoted much attention to standards of impartiality and distribution efforts. He believed that those rules increase the productivity of individual work. The construct related to the occurrence of organizational citizenship behavior and more susceptible to managerial influence is organizational justice, or employee perceptions of fairness (Moorman, 1991; Moorman, Niehoff and Organ, 1993; Organ and Moorman, 1993; Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Moorman, Blakely and Niehoff, 1998). Perceived procedural justice and interactional justice are hypothesized to be the major predictors of OCB (Moorman, 1991). For this reason, one of the most studies relationships is the one between organizational justice and the components of organizational citizenship behavior (altruism, sportsmanship, courtesy, conscientiousness, and civic virtue). Both procedural justice and distributive justice are significant predictors of work consequences, and organizational scholars should explore both types of justice (Greenberg, 1987). Fairness of the procedure was better intelligible variable for organizational citizenship behavior (Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Moorman 1991). However, interactional justice has a dual effect on people's behavior. On the one hand, it increases the productivity of a person, and on the other hand it improves the style of his communication with others. In particular, the observance of distributive justice raises labor and training staff motivation (Bell et al., 2006), contributes to take responsibility for their actions (Moon et al., 2008). 32 REFERENCES 1. http://www.iet.tourspain.es/en-EN/Paginas/default.aspx 2. http://www.ine.es/ 3. http://www.wikipedia.org 4. Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 267–299. New York: Academic Press. 5. Aguiar-Quintana, T., Park, S., & Araujo, Y. C. (2014). Assessing the effects of leadership styles on employees‟ outcomes in international luxury hotels. Journal of Business Ethics, 129, 469-489. 6. Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198. 7. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. 8. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276. 9. Ambrose M.L., Cropanzano R. (2003). A longitudinal analysis of organizational fairness: an examination of reactions to tenure and promotion decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 266–275. 10. Aquino K., Tripp T.M., & Bies R.J. (2006). Getting even or moving on? Power, procedural justice, and types of offense as predictors of revenge, forgiveness, reconciliation, and avoidance in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 653– 668. 11. Aryee S., Chen Z.X., Sun L.-Y., & Debrah Y.-A. (2007). Antecedents and outcomes of abusive supervision: test of atrickle-down model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 191–201. 12. Atkinson, H., & Brander B. J. (2001) "Rethinking performance measures: assessing progress in UK hotels". International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 13, 128 - 136 13. Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. (2009). International Journal of Business and Management, 4, 145-154. 14. Barinov, D. A. (2011). Organizational citizenship behavior of employees in organization management. (Dissertation) 15. Barling, J., & Philips, M. (1993). International, formal and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656. 16. Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee "citizenship".Academy of Management Journal, 26, 587-595. 17. Becker, H. S. (1960). Notes on the concept of commitment. American Journal of Sociology, 66, 32-42. 18. Bell B.S., Wiechmann D., & Ryan A.M. (2006). Consequences of organizational justice expectations in a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 455–466. 19. Bettencourt, L. A., & Brown, S. W. (1997). Customer-contact employees: Relationships among workplace fairness, job satisfaction and prosocial service behaviors. Journal of Reading, 73, 39-61. 20. Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictions of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 29-41. 33 21. Blader S.L., & Tyler T.R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extra-role behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 445–464. 22. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley. 23. Bowen, D. E., Gilliland, S. W., & Folger, R. (1999). How being fair with employees spills over to customers. Organizational Dynamics, 27, 7-23. 24. Brockner, J., DeWitt, R. L., Grover, S., & Reed, T. (1990). When it is especially important to explain why: Factors affecting the relationship between managers‟ explanations of a layoff and survivors‟ reactions to the layoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 26, 389-407. 25. Chansler P.A., Swamidass P.M., & Cammann C. (2003). Self-managing work teams: An empirical study of group cohesiveness in “natural work groups” at a HarleyDavidson Motor Company plant. Small GroupResearch, 34, 101–120. 26. Chiang, C.-F., & Hsieh, T.-S. (2012). The impacts of perceived organizational support and psychological empowerment on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 31, 180–190. 27. Cho, S., & Johanson, M. M. (2008). Organizational citizenship behavior and employee performance: a moderating effect or work status in restaurant employees. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 32, 307-326. 28. Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Social Justice Research, 18, 391409. 29. Cohen, A. (2003). Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Mahwah, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 30. Cohen, A. (2006). The relationship between multiple commitments and organizational citizenship behavior in Arab and Jewish Culture. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60, 105-118. 31. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321. 32. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425–445. 33. Cooper-Hakim, A., & Viswesvaran, C. (2005). The construct of work commitment: Testing an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 241-259. 34. Cowherd, D., & Levine, D. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower-level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 302–320. 35. Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology, 2, 317-372. New York: Wiley. 36. Cropanzano, R., Bowen, E. D., & Gilliland, S.W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives. 37. De Cremer D., &Den Ouden N. (2009). When passion breeds justice: procedural fairness effects as a function of authority‟s passion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 384–400. 38. De Cremer D., & Tyler T.R. (2007).The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639–649. 34 39. De Dreu C. K. W., & Nauta A. (2009). Self-interest and other-orientation in organizational behavior: implications for job performance, prosocial behavior, and personal initiative. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 913–926. 40. Fahr, J. L., Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1990). Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior: leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction. Journal of Management, 16, 705-721. 41. Fatt, C. K., Khin, S. E. V., & Heng, N. T. (2010). American Journal of Economics and Business Administration,2, 56-63. 42. Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects or procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130. 43. Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701. 44. Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. 45. Greenberg, J. (1987). Reactions to procedural injustice in payment distributions: do the means justify the ends? Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 55-61. 46. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice; yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16, 399-432. 47. Greenberg, J. (1994). Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 288-97. 48. Gulevich, O. A. (2012). Justice in the organization: The conditions and consequences. Organizational Psychology. 49. Hassan, A. (2002). Asian Academy of Management Journal, 7, 55–66. 50. Hemdi, M. A., & Nasurdin, A. M. (2007). Investigating the influence of organizational justice on hotel employees‟ organizational citizenship behavior intentions and turnover intentions. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 7, 1-23. 51. Hendrix, W. H., Robbins, T., Miller, J., & Summers, T. P. (1998). Effect of procedural and distributive justice on factors predictive of turnover. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 13, 611-632. 52. Hoseinkhani M. (2014). Place of organizational fairness and its influence on the organizational employees‟ conduct: (Organizational fairness as a step to social justice). Philosophy Science and Cultural Studies, 27, 330-334. 53. Hunt, S. D., Wood, V. R., & Chonko, L. B. (1989). Corporate Ethical Values and Organisational Commitment in Marketing. Journal of Marketing Science, 53, 79-90. 54. Hwang, P. C. (2005). The effects of transformational leader behaviors on psychological empowerment and service oriented citizenship behaviors: a model and test of potential differences between full-time and part-time restaurant employees. Journal of Tourism and Leisure Studies, 11, 233-258. 55. Ibrahim, M. E., & Perez, A. O. (2013). Effects of Organizational Justice, Employee Satisfaction, and Gender on Employees' Commitment: Evidence from the UAE. International Journal of Business and Management, 9, 45-59. 56. James, K. (1993). The social context of organizational justice: cultural, intergroup and structural effects on justice behaviors and perceptions. 57. Johnson, J. S. (2007). Organizational justice, moral ideology, and moral evaluation as antecedents of moral intent. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. 58. Judge, T. A., LePine, J. A., & Rich, B. L. (2006) „The narcissistic personality: Relationship with inflated self-ratings of leadership and with task and contextual performance‟. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 762–776. 35 59. Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. Behavioral Science, 9, 131-146. 60. Keeley, M. (1988). A social-contract theory of organizations. University of Notre Dame Press. 61. Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). The perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 698-707. 62. Konovsky, M. A., & Folger, R. (1991). The effects of procedural and distributive justice on organizational citizenship behavior. Unpublished manuscript, A. B. Freeman School of Business, Tulane University. 63. Konovsky, M. A., & Pugh, S. D. (1994). Citizenship behavior and social exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 436-449. 64. Koys, D. J. (2001). The effects of employee satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior, and turnover on organizational effectiveness: a unit-level, longitudinal study. Personnel Psychology, 54, 101-114. 65. Krings, F., & Facchin S. (2009). Organizational justice and men‟s likelihood to sexually harass: the moderating role of sexism and personality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 501–510. 66. Lambert, S.J. (2006). Both art and science: Employing organizational documentation in workplace-based research. In Pitt-Catsouphes, M., Kossek, E.E., & Sweet, S. (Eds.). The work and family handbook: Multi-disciplinary perspectives, methods, and approaches. (503-525). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 67. Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131142. 68. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Justice in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (211–240). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. 69. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of justice in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, and R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in experimental and social psychology,9, 91–131. New York: Plenum. 70. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond justice: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (167–218). New York: Springer-Verlag. 71. Li, A., & Cropanzano R. (2009). Fairness at the group level: justice climate and intraunit justice climate. Journal of Management, 35, 564–599. 72. Lind, E., & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. 73. Magura, M., & Kurbatova, M. (2003). Secrets of motivation or motivation without secrets. Personnel Management. 74. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-749. 75. Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171-194. 76. McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637. 36 77. McGee, G. W., & Ford, R. C. (1987). Two (or more?) dimensions of organizational commitment: Reexamination of the affective and continuance commitment scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 638-642. 78. Metle, C. (1997). The relationship between age and job satisfaction: A study among female bank employees in Kuwait. International Journal of Management, 14, 654–666. 79. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J., (1984). Testing the “side-bet theory” of organizational commitment: some methodological considerations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 372-378. 80. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J., (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1, 61-89. 81. Meyer, J. P., & Herscovitch, L. (2001). Commitment in the workplace: Toward a general model. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 299-326. 82. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002): «Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates and consequences». Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61, 20-52. 83. Moon H., Kamdar D., Mayer D.M., & Takeuchi R. (2008). Me or we? The role of personality and justice as othercentered antecedents to innovative citizenship behaviors within organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 84–94. 84. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855. 85. Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human relations, 46, 759-776. 86. Moorman, R. H., & Blakely, G. I. (1995). Individualism-collectivism as an individual difference predictor of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 127-142. 87. Moorman, R. H., Blakely, G. L., & Niehoff, B. P. (1998). Does perceived organizational support mediate the relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior? Academy of Management Journal, 41, 351-357. 88. Morrow, P. C. (1993). The theory and measurment of work commitment. Greenwich, CT: Jai Press Inc. 89. Mossholder, K. V., Bennett, N., & Martin, C. (1998). A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 131-141. 90. Mowday, R. T., Steers, R., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational commitment. Journal of Vocation Behavior, 14, 224-247. 91. Murphy, K., & Tyler T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behavior: the mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652–668. 92. Murphy S.M., Wayne S., Liden R.C., & Erdogan B. (2003). Understanding social loafing: the role of justice perceptions and exchange relationships. Human Relations, 56, 61–84. 93. Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2009). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 29, 33-41. 94. Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”. Academy of management journal, 36, 527-39. 95. O‟Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 492-499. 37 96. Organ, D. W., (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. 97. Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In: Staw, B. M., Cummings, L. L. (Eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 43-72. JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. 98. Organ, D. W., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Fairness and organizational citizenship behavior: What are the connections? Social Justice Research, 6, 5-18. 99. Panaccio, A., Vandenberghe, C., & Ben Ayed, A. (2014). The role of negative affectivity in the relationships between pay satisfaction, affective and continuance commitment and voluntary turnover: A moderated mediation model. Human Relations, 67, 821-848. 100. Pare, G., & Trenblay, M. (2007). The influence of high-involvement human resources practices, procedural justice, organizational commitment, and citizenship behaviors on information technology professionals‟ turnover intentions. Group and Organization Management, 32, 326-357. 101. Perles-Ribes, J. F., Ramón-Rodríguez, A. B., Rubia-Serrano, A., & MorenoIzquierdo, L. (2013). Economic crisis and tourism competitiveness in Spain: permanent effects or transitory shocks? Current Issues in Tourism, 1-25 102. Phillips J.M. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice perceptions in hierarchical decision making teams. Small Group Research, 33, 32–64. 103. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Moorman, R. H., & Fetter, R. (1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1, 107142. 104. Podsakoff, P. M., Ahearne, M., & MacKenzie, S. B. (1997). Organizational citizenship behavior and the quantity and quality of work group performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 262-270. 105. Porter, L.W.; Steers, R.M.; Mowday, R.T.; & Boulian, P.V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 603-609. 106. Ravichandran, S., Gilmore, S. A., Strohbehn, C. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior research in hospitality – current status and future research directions. Journal of Human Resources in Hospitality and Tourism, 6, 59-78. 107. Reichers, A. (1985). “A review and reconceptialitzion of organizational commitment”. The Academy of Management Review, 10, 3, 465-476. 108. Riolli L., Savicki V. (2006). Impact of fairness, leadership, and coping on strain, burnout, and turnover in organizational change. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 351–377. 109. Roberson, Q.M., & Williamson I.O. (2010). The fairness of differences: how team composition affects the emergence of justice climates. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 13, 275–297. 110. Roberts, K., & Markel, K. S. (2001). Claiming in the name of fairness: Organizational justice and the decision to file for workplace injury compensation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 332-347. 111. Robins, S. P. (2001). Organizational behavior. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 112. Rupp D.E., & Paddock E.L. (2010). From justice events to justice climate: a multilevel temporal model of information aggregation and judgment. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 13, 245–273. 113. Safania, A. M., Sabaghan-Rad, L., & Ghorbanalizadeh, F. G. (2010). Jahesh, 2, 51-59. 38 114. Sareshkeh, S. K., Ghaziani, F. G., & Tayebi, S. M. (2012). Impact of Organizational Justice Perceptions on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment: The Iranian Sport Federations Perspective. Annals of Biological Research, 3, 4229-4238. 115. Schminke, M., Ambrose, M. L., & Cropanzano, R. S. (2000). The effect of organizational structure on perceptions of procedural fairness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 294-304. 116. Seyed Javadin, S. R., Faraahi, M. M., & Taheri, A. G. (2009). Journal of Business Management, 1, 55-70. 117. Shamsuri, N. A. (2004). MSc thesis, Utara University (Malaysia). 118. Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why should managers care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Pshychology. 119. Skarlicki D.P., Barclay L.J., & Pugh D. (2008). When explanations for layoffs are not enough: employer‟s integrity as a moderator of the relationship between informational justice and retaliation. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 123–146. 120. Smirnova, V. V. (2008). Organizational commitment as a characteristic of reference relations in organization. 121. Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature and antecedents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 653-663. 122. Somers, M. J. (1993). A test of the relationship between affective and continuance commitment using non-recursive models. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 185-192. 123. Stamper, C. L., & Van Dyne, L. (2003). Organizational citizenship: a comparison between part-time and full-time service employees. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 44, 33-42. 124. Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The sunny side of fairness: Preference fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates selfcontrol circuitry). Psychological Science, 19, 339-347. 125. Thau S., Aquino K., & Wittek R. (2007). An extension of uncertainty management theory to the self: the relationship between justice, social comparison orientation, and antisocial work behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 250–258. 126. Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsade, NJ: Erlbaum. 127. Trevino, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2001). Organizational justice and ethics program „follow-through‟ influences on employees‟ harmful and helpful behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11, 651-71. 128. Tyler, T. R. (1989). The psychology of procedural justice: a test of the group value model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 830-838. 129. Umphress, E.E., & Stoverink A.C. (2010). Collective reactions to bad bosses: status and interpersonal justice at the group-level. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 13, 299–330. 130. Vandenberghe, C., Bentein, K., & Stinglhamber, F. (2004). Affective commitment to the organization, supervisor, and work group: Antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 64, 47-71. 131. Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: evidence of construct and predictive validity. The Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108-119. 132. Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: a normative view. Academy of Management Review, 7, 418-428. 39 133. Walz, S. M., & Niehoff, B. P. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: their relationship to organizational effectiveness. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 24, 301-319. 134. Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizenship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17, 601-617. 135. Williams, S. (1999). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on performance. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 183-193. 136. Williams, S., Pitre, R., & Zainuba, M. (2002). Justice and organizational citizenship behavior intentions: Fair rewards versus fair treatment. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 33-44. 137. World Tourism Organization. (2012). UNWTO tourism highlights. Edition 2012. 138. Yang J., Mossholder K.W., & Peng T.K. (2007). Procedural justice climate and group power distance: anexamination of cross-level interaction effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 681–692.