RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
DOI https://doi.org/10.18551/rjoas.2018-11.15
THE EFFECT OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON JOB SATISFACTION AND
IMPACT ON TURNOVER INTENTION
Dewi Ida Ayu Anggia Wedya*, Supartha I Wayan Gede
Management Program, University of Udayana, Bali, Indonesia
E-mail: anggiawedyadewi@yahoo.co.id
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to determine the effect of distributive justice, procedural justice,
and interactional justice on employee job satisfaction and turnover intention at Batan Waru
Restaurants Lippo Mall Kuta. The study was conducted on employees Batan Waru by the
number of respondents as many as 42 employees. The test results distributive justice
positive and significant impact on employee satisfaction, procedural fairness positive and
significant impact on employee satisfaction, interactional fairness positive and significant
effect on employee satisfaction. Distributive justice negative and significant impact on
turnover intention, procedural fairness negative and significant impact on turnover intention,
interactional fairness negative and impact on turnover intention, employee satisfaction
negative and significant impact on turnover intention. The limitation of this study is the
location of this research will be in the scope of the restaurant industry in Batan Waru Lippo
Mall, Kuta, so the results of this study cannot explain the circumstances of the other
restaurants besides restaurants Batan Waru Lippo Mall, Kuta.
KEY WORDS
Distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, job satisfaction, turnover
intention.
Turnover intention can be interpreted as an employee's intention to leave the
organization, either in the form of resignation or dismissal. With high turnover, it can cause
an organization to be less effective because of the loss of experienced employees (Andini,
2006). Previous research from Yucel (2012) on 250 manufacturing company employees in
Turkey stated that if job satisfaction is high and turnover intention is lower, then there is a
negative influence on job satisfaction on turnover intention. The same thing was stated by
Alniacik et al. (2011) and Syahronica et al (2015) that job satisfaction has a negative
relationship to turnover intention. Therefore a company is required to be able to retain its
employees, such as being able to provide high remuneration and understand things that are
able to make its employees comfortable and enthusiastic in working.
Job satisfaction is one of the employees' attitudes that has become a lot of research
material that is associated with organizational justice. The biggest challenge faced by
companies is how to retain competent employees. Job satisfaction is needed to produce
functional employee behavior in the company. For companies, employee job satisfaction
means they are motivated and committed to achieving high performance. Job satisfaction is
an evaluation that describes a person feeling happy or unhappy, satisfied or dissatisfied at
work (Rivai and Jauvani, 2009).
Cropanzo et al. (2002) stated that organizational justice is a key factor in understanding
employee attitudes and behavior in an organization. Job satisfaction is one of the variables
most often used in organizational behavior (Arti et al., 2009). Some studies have found
results that organizational justice influences job satisfaction. Al'zubi (2010) conducted
research with objects on employees of the Electrical Industrial Companies and the result was
distibutive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice had a positive and significant
effect on job satisfaction. In line with the research, Elamin and Alomaim (2011) also obtained
the same results when conducting research on local employees and outside employees
working in different organizations in Saudi Arabia, that organizational justice has a positive
effect on job satisfaction. In line with the study, Bakhshi et al. (2009), Memarzadeh and
133
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
Mahmoudi (2010), and Al-Zu'bi (2010) also obtained the same results when conducting
research with these variables.
Cropanzano et al. (2007) states that there are three main reasons why employees care
about this justice problem. First, long-term benefits, employees prefer consistent justice,
because with that justice employees can predict the results that will be obtained in the future.
Employees also want to receive unfavorable rewards as long as the payment process they
feel fair and get dignified treatment. Second, social considerations, everyone expects to be
accepted and appreciated by their superiors not in a rude and unexploited manner. Third,
ethical considerations, people believe that justice is a morally appropriate way to treat
someone.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Justice Theory. This theory suggests that a person will feel satisfied and dissatisfied,
depending on the presence or absence of justice (Equity) in a situation especially the work
situation. The justice theory has been successfully used in explaining various forms of
attitudes and behaviors at various levels in an organization. There are three main dimensions
in organizational justice, namely distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional
justice (Colquitt, 2001: 390). The first dimension is distributive justice related to the
distribution of resource allocation and decision outcomes, for example about salary provision,
incentives and rewards. The second dimension, procedural justice focuses on the process
used to determine the outcome of decisions, such as promotion procedures, collecting
information before making decisions, and terminating employment. The three interactional
justice focuses on employees' perceptions of interpersonal treatment from leaders conducted
during the representation of procedures and decisions, for example leaders can provide
explanations.
Distributive Justice. Distributive justice is related to the perception of fairness about
organizational allocation and outcomes (Saunders et al., 2002). Distributive justice is a
perception of fairness in the ratio of the results of contributions to employees and comparison
of ratios with other members of the organization (Adams, 1965). Distributive justice refers to
perceived justice from the results received by individuals from the organization (Al’zubi,
2010). Distributive justice involves a comparison of salaries, benefits, promotions, power,
rewards, and satisfaction (Rai, 2013).
Procedural Justice. Procedural justice is related to the perception of fairness in the use
of processes, procedures and methods in making decisions (Thibaut and Walker, 1975).
According to Robbin and Judge (2008) procedural justice is perceived justice from the
process used to determine the distribution of benefits. According to Noe et al. (2011)
procedural justice is a justice concept that focuses on the methods used to determine the
rewards received. This mechanism is considered reasonable to the extent that they are
consistent, accurate, correct, and ethical (Leventhal, 1980). Procedural justice is an
embodiment of accepted normative principles such as consistency of procedures for offering
compensation, consistency of regulations, avoiding personal interests in the distribution
process, timeliness, and ethics (Badawi, 2012).
Interactional Justice. Interactional justice is defined as the interpersonal quality that
people receive when procedures are applied and results are distributed (Bies and Moag,
1986). According to Robbins and Judge (2008), interactional justice is defined as an
individual's perception of the degree to which an employee is treated with dignity, attention
and respect. Interactional justice focuses on the individual on interpersonal treatment
received from the leader, two important elements of the perception of interactional justice,
namely whether the reasons underlying the resource allocation decision are clear and honest
and can provide an explanation to the affected individuals (Kadaruddin et al., 2012). The
same treatment in the workplace is considered as one of the most fundamental rights of
employees (Svensson and Genugten, 2013).
Job satisfaction. McShane and Von Glinow (2008) stated that job satisfaction is an
individual's evaluation of the task and the context of his work. According to Martoyo (2007:
134
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
156) job satisfaction is an emotional state of employees where there is no meeting point
between employee compensation from a company or organization and the level of return for
services that is indeed desired by the employee concerned. According to Ardana et al. (2009:
23) Job satisfaction is the difference from something that should exist with something that is
actually there (factual), the smaller the difference in conditions that should exist with the
actual conditions (factual) someone tends to feel more satisfied. Bakhshi, et al. (2009) stated
that job satisfaction is one of the variables most widely used in organizational justice
research.
Turnover Intention. Behavioral and behavioral intentions such as absenteeism, exit,
and rejection are often grouped into withdrawal. Tett and Meyer (1993) state that intention to
exit is conscious awareness and desire to leave the organization. It can be described as a
psychological response to the particular conditions of the organization that move along the
continuum rather than just imagining going out of the organization until it actually physically
leaves the organization. Hom and Griffeth (1991) define intention as the possibility that the
employee predicts that he has consciousness and intentionally wants to permanently leave
the organization at some time. Jaros (1997) states that exit intention is seen as an
employee's affective commitment to the organization. Employees who are not committed and
not bound by their work prefer to leave the organization. This is an important factor to
determine the quality of individual contributions, and especially its productivity.
Hypotheses:
H1: Distributive justice has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction;
H2: Procedural justice has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction;
H3: interactional justice has a positive and significant effect on job satisfaction;
H4: Distributive justice has a negative and significant effect on turnover intention;
H5: Procedural justice has a negative and significant effect on turnover intention;
H6: Interactional justice has a negative and significant effect on turnover intention;
H7: Job satisfaction has a negative and significant effect on turnover intention.
METHODS OF RESEARCH
The population in this study was 42 Batan Waru Lippo Mall Restaurant employees.
The sampling technique uses a census method that involves all members of the population.
Census methods may be used because the population is relatively small and the data
obtained is more complete because it reflects the nature of the whole population. The
number of questionnaires sent is 42 to all employees, with a return rate of 100% or return
entirely. . Saturated or census sample method is used if all populations are used as
respondents. The sample used is the entire population that is used as a sample so that the
number of samples in this study was 42 people. Data analysis in this study used Partial Least
Square (PLS) approach. PLS is an equation model for Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)
based on components or variants. PLS is almost like a regression but more than that, it
simultaneously combines the Structural Path model (the theoretical relationship between
latent variables) while measuring the path (the relationship between the latent variable and
the indicator).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Model valuation with PLS begins by looking at R-square for each dependent latent
variable. Changes in R-square values can be used to assess the effect of certain exogenous
latent variables on endogenous latent variables that have substantive influence. Table 5.10
shows the results of R-square estimation using Smart PLS.
Table 1 – R-Square
Variable
Job satisfaction
Turnover Intention
R Square
0,864
0,937
Primary Data, 2018.
135
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
Table 1 shows the R-square construct value of employee job satisfaction of 0.864 in
Table 5.9 can be interpreted that 86.40% construct variability of employee job satisfaction is
explained by the construct of distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice,
while 13.60% is explained by variables outside model. Likewise, the turnover intention
construct with R square value of 0.937 means that 93.70% of the variability is explained by
distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, and job satisfaction, while 6.30%
is explained by variables outside the model.
The basis used in testing hypotheses is the value found in the output for inner weight.
Table 2 provides estimated outputs for structural model testing.
Table 2 – Result for Inner Weight
Hypotheses
H1
H2
H3
H4
H5
H6
H7
Original Sample (O)
0.373
0.317
0.295
-0.172
-0.183
-0.325
-0.341
T Statistics (|O/STERR|)
3.382
2.952
2.720
1.988
2.558
4.190
3.049
P Values
0.001
0.003
0.007
0.047
0.011
0.000
0.002
Description
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Accepted
Source: Primary data, 2018.
The effect of Distributive Justice on Job Satisfaction. The results of testing the first
hypothesis shows that distributive justice influence on satisfaction shows the path coefficient
value of 0.373 with a P Value of 0.001 significance value or P Value of 0.001 is much smaller
than 0.05 indicating that there is a positive and significant influence between the variables of
distributive justice and satisfaction. The path coefficient shows that distributive justice has a
positive and significant effect on satisfaction, meaning that the better the distributive justice
perceived by the employee, the job satisfaction will increase.
The effect of procedural justice on job satisfaction. The results of the third hypothesis
testing show that the influence of procedural fairness on satisfaction shows the path
coefficient value of 0.317 with a P Value of 0.003. The significance value or P value of 0.003
is much smaller than 0.05, indicating that there is a positive and significant influence between
procedural justice variables on satisfaction. The path coefficient shows that procedural
justice has a positive and significant influence on satisfaction, meaning that the better
procedural justice perceived by employees, the more job satisfaction will increase.
The effect of Interactional Justice on Job Satisfaction. The fifth hypothesis testing
results show that the effect of interactional justice on satisfaction shows the path coefficient
value of 0.295 with a P Value of 0.007. significance value or P Value of 0.007 far smaller
than 0.05 indicates that there is a positive and significant influence between the variables of
interactional justice on satisfaction. The path coefficient shows that interactional justice has a
positive and significant influence on satisfaction, meaning that the better interactional justice
perceived by employees, the more job satisfaction will increase.
The effect of Distributive Justice on Turnover Intention. The results of the second
hypothesis testing show that the effect of distributive justice on turnover intention shows the
path coefficient value of -0.172 with a P Value of 0.047. significance value or P Value of
0.047 smaller than 0.05 indicates that there is a negative and significant influence between
distributive justice and turnover intention variables, meaning that as good as the distributive
justice perceived by employees, the lower the intention of the employee to leave the
company.
The effect of Procedural Justice on Turnover Intention. The fourth hypothesis test
results show that the influence of procedural justice on turnover intention shows the path
coefficient value of -0.183 with a P Value of 0.011. Significance value or P Value of 0.011 is
much smaller than 0.05 indicating that there is a negative and significant influence between
procedural justice variables on turnover intention. The path coefficient shows that procedural
justice has a negative and significant effect on turnover intention, meaning that the better the
136
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
distributive justice perceived by the employee, the smaller the intention of the employee to
leave the company.
The effect of Interactional Justice on Turnover Intention. The test results of the sixth
hypothesis show that the effect of interactional justice on turnover intention shows the path
coefficient value of -0.325 with a P Value of 0.000. the significance value or P Value of 0.000
is much smaller than 0.05 indicating that there is a negative and significant influence
between the variables of interactional justice on turnover intention. The path coefficient
shows that interactional justice has a negative and significant influence on satisfaction,
meaning that the better interactional justice perceived by employees, the smaller the
intention of the employee to leave the company.
The effect of Satisfaction on Turnover Intention. The results of testing the intended
hypothesis indicate that the effect of satisfaction on turnover intention shows the path
coefficient value of -0.341 with a P Value of 0.002. significance value or P Value of 0.002 is
much smaller than 0.05 indicating that there is a negative and significant influence between
satisfaction variables on turnover intention. The path coefficient shows that satisfaction has a
negative and significant influence on turnover intention, meaning that the more employees
feel satisfied, the smaller and the intention of the employee to leave the company.
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTIONS
Based on the results of the analysis of the research conducted in CHAPTER V, the
conclusions are obtained as follows:
Distributive justice has a positive and significant effect on the job satisfaction of Batan
Waru Lippo Mall restaurant employees. This influence means that the better the
distributive justice felt by employees, the better the job satisfaction felt by Batan Waru
Lippo Mall restaurant employees;
Procedural justice has a positive and significant effect on the job satisfaction of Batan
Waru Lippo Mall restaurant employees. This means that the better procedural
fairness felt by employees, the better the job satisfaction felt by Batan Waru Lippo
Mall restaurant employees;
Interactional justice has a positive and significant effect on the job satisfaction of
Batan Waru Lippo Mall restaurant employees. This means that the better interactional
justice that employees feel, the better the job satisfaction felt by Batan Waru Lippo
Mall restaurant employees;
Distributive justice has a negative and significant effect on Batan Waru Lippo Mall
restaurant staff turnover intention. This influence means that the higher the level of
distributive justice perceived by employees, the lower the desire of employees to
leave the company;
Procedural justice has a negative and significant effect on Batan Waru Lippo Mall
restaurant employee turnover intention. This influence means that the higher the level
of procedural fairness, the lower the desire of employees to leave the company;
Interactional justice has a negative and significant effect on Batan Waru Lippo Mall
restaurant employee turnover intention. This influence means that the higher the level
of interactional justice, the lower the desire of employees to leave the company;
Job satisfaction has a negative effect on turnover intention. This means that the
higher the employee feels job satisfaction, the lower their desire to leave the
company.
Based on the results of the study, here are some suggestions that can be used as a
consideration for the management of Batan Waru Restaurant in determining future policies,
especially those relating to distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, job
satisfaction, and turnover intention.
Organizations must pay more attention to distributive factors, the allocation of
contributions to employees, such as paying attention to the benefits received by employees
must reflect the effort given by employees in their work. Referring to respondents'
137
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
perceptions of procedural fairness, namely fairness in the use of processes, procedures, and
methods in making decisions, management is expected to pay attention to matters such as
allowing employee unions to oversee the application of regulations in the company.
Referring to respondents' perceptions of interactional justice that is about the degree to
which an employee is treated with dignity, attention and respect. It is hoped that
management will pay more attention to matters such as procedures for treating employees
with dignity so that each employee can feel valued in his workplace. Referring to
respondents' perceptions of job satisfaction, it is suggested that management can improve
job satisfaction through providing rewards that are in accordance with the contributions that
have been given by employees to the company, giving employees the opportunity to express
their opinions, treating employees with dignity and management so refrain from saying
inappropriate to employees so that it can improve employee job satisfaction.
Referring to employees' perceptions of turnover intention, the management was
suggested to be able to overcome and provide solutions to the level of employee desire to
quit their job and find another job. As for if the management is able to overcome and resolve
problems - problems faced by employees will have an impact on increasing employee job
satisfaction and automatic turnover intention will be lower.
Subsequent research is suggested to enrich the findings of the study to examine the
role of other variables that influence job satisfaction and are influenced by job satisfaction. In
the research location, researchers only researched in restaurants located in Kuta, so it was
suggested that further research could expand the orientation in the scope of a larger
organization or wider population.
Research Limitations:
This study uses respondents who are in the restaurant service industry, so it is
important for future research to complement and enrich empirical studies related to
this topic by conducting research on other service companies;
This study was only carried out in one restaurant so that the results of this study
might not be applied in other restaurants that have the same problems or the results
of this study cannot be generalized to similar service sector companies or other
sectors;
The scope of research is limited to the Kuta area, so the results of this study cannot
be generalized to research outside the Kuta area.
REFERENCES
1. Adams, S. J. (1965). “Inequity in Social Exchange”. in Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, pp: 269-297
2. Alniacik, Umit. Ersan Cigerim. Kultigin Akcin. Orkun Bayram .(2011). Independent and
joint effects of perceived corporate reputation, affective commitment and job satisfaction
on turnover intentions.Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 24.1177–1189.
3. Andini, Rita. 2006. Analisis Pengaruh Kepuasan Gaji, Kepuasan Kerja, Komitmen
Organisasional Terhadap Turnover Intention (Studi Kasus Pada Rumah Sakit Roemani
Muhammadiyah Semarang). Tesis. Program Studi Magister Manajemen Universitas
Diponogoro.
4. Badawi. (2012). Peran Emosi Memediasi Keadilan Distributif, Keadilan Prosedural, and
Interaksional Terhadap Kepuasan Pemulihan Layanan. Jurnal Manajemen and
Akuntansi. Vol. 1(1), h: 13-26
5. Bakhshi, A., Kumar, K., & Rani, E. 2009. Organizational Justice Perceptions as Predictor
Of Job Satisfaction And Organization Commitment. International Journal of Business and
Management, Vol. 4, No. 9, pp. 145-154.
6. Bies, R.J. (2005). Are Procedural Justice & Interactional Justice Conceptually Distinct?,
Handbook Of Orgnizational Justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
7. Bakotic, Danica; and Babic, Tomislav. 2013. Relationship between Working Condition
and Job Satisfaction: The Case of Croatian Shipbuilding Compani. International Journal
of Business and Social Science. 4(2), pp: 206-212.
138
RJOAS, 11(83), November 2018
8. Chen, Zhen Xiong., and Anne Marie Francesco. (2000). Employee Demography,
Organizational Commitment, and Turnover Intentions in China: Do Cultural Difference
Matter?. Human Relations Vol. 53 No. 6: 869-887.
9. Colquitt, J.A. (2001). On The Dimensionality Of Organizational Justice: A Construct
Validation Of Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 (3), pp. 386-400.
10. Cropanzo, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational
justice. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48.
11. Cropanzano, Russell, Cynthia A. Prehar and Peter Y. Chen. (2002). Using Social
Exchange Theory to Dstinguish Procedural from Interactional Justice. Group &
Organizational Management. Vol. 27 (3), pp: 324-351.
12. Elamin, Abdallah M. and Alomaim Nasser (2011). Does Organizational Justice Influence
Job Satisfaction and Self-Perceived Performance in Saudi Arabia Work Environment?
International Management Review, Vol. 7(1)
13. Hom, P.W. et al, 1984. The Validity of Mobby‟s (1977) Model of Employee Turnover.
Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, Vol. 34, pp. 141 – 174
14. Hom, P.W. & Griffeth, R.W. 1991. Structural Equation Modelling Test of a Turnover
Theory: Cross-Sectional & Longitudinal Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76,
No. 3, pp. 350-366.
15. Jaros, S.J. 1997. An Assessment of Meyer and Allen‟s (1991) Three-Component Model
Of Organizational Commitment Turnover Intentions. Journal Of Vocational Behavior, Vol.
51, pp. 319 – 337
16. Kumar, R., Charles, R., and Peter Y. 2011. A Study on Turnover Intention in Fast Food
Industry: Employees’ Fit to the Organizational Culture and the Important of their
Commitment. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social
Sciences, 2 (5), pp: 9-42
17. Martoyo, Susilo. 2007. Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Edisi Kelima.
BPFEYogyakarta.
18. McShane, S.L. & Von Glinow, M.A. 2008. Organizational Behavior: Emerging Realities
for The Workplace Revolution, 4th Edition, McGrawHill/Irwin.
19. Nadiri, Halil., and Tanova, Cem. 2010. 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, pp: 33-41
20. Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.M. (2011). Manajemen Sumber
Daya Manusia: Mencapai Keunggulan Bersaing, Edisi 6. Penerbit Salemba Empat.
21. Rai, G. S. (2013). Impact of organizational justice on satisfaction, commitment and
turnover intention: Can fair treatment by organizations make a difference in their workers’
attitudes and behaviors? International Journal of Human Sciences, 10(2), 260-284
22. Robbins, S.P. (2008). Perilaku Organisasi, Edisi 2. Penerbit Salemba Empat.
23. Saunders, M. N. K., Thornhill, A., & Lewis, P. (2002). Understanding employees'
reactions to the management of change: an exploration through an organizational justice
framework. Irish Journal of Management, 23(1), 85-108
24. Svensson, Jorgen and Marieke van Genugten. (2013). Retaliation Againts Reporters of
Unequal Treatment: Failing Employee Protection In The Netherlands. Equality, Diversity
and Inclusion An International Journal. Vol. 32 (2), pp: 129-143.
25. Tett, R.P. & Meyer, J.P. 1993. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, Turnover
Intention, & Turnover: Path Analyses Based On Meta – Analytic Findings. Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46, pp. 259 – 293.
26. Thibaut, J. W. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawerence Eribaus Associates.
27. Yucel, Ilhami. 2012. Examining the Relationship among Job Satisfaction, Organizational
Commitment, and Turnover Intention: An Empirical Study. International Journal of
Business and Management, 7(20), pp: 44-58.
139