Printer Friendly

Justice theory & intention to quit: the case of IT/ITES & BFSI employees.

The debate of fair treatment and justice originates from the notion of social justice. Even though fair treatment may be implemented in the organizations, the employees may perceive that they are not being treated fairly by their employers. This paper analyzes the impact of perceptions of distributive and procedural justice on intention to quit among employees from IT/ITES and BFSI sector. Primary data was collected from 401 employees by using a mailed questionnaire for data collection. The results indicate that both procedural and distributive justice have significant effect on employee's intention to quit.

Introduction

Many researchers have explored the linkage between justice perceptions and intention to leave. As per Justice Theory, treatment fairness can be conceptualized in terms of distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice refers to individual's perceptions of the fairness of outcomes they receive relative to the contributions they make to the employing organization (Adams, 1965). These outcomes include, for instance, pay, promotions, and special awards. Procedural justice represents individual's perceptions of the fairness of the process used to make decisions affecting them, such as those relating to pay, promotions and punishment (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Intention to leave is one of the strongest predictors and immediate precursor of employee turnover (Dick et. al., 2004). There are not many studies on highly skilled workers such as information technology (IT/ITES) professionals or engineers, even though retention of these resources is often referred to as the most critical (Ang, Slaughter& Ng, 2002). Hence understanding the factors contributing to intention to quit will enable the organizations plan better HR interventions to retain highly qualified skilled force in Banking, Financial Services and Insurance (BFSI) and IT/ITES space.

Literature Review

Organizational justice as a term was coined by Greenberg (1987) and is defined as an individual's perception of and reactions to fairness in an organization. Researchers typically divide organizational justice into two categories: distributive justice and procedural justice. Distributive justice refers to the fairness of the outcomes an employee receives; and procedural justice describes the fairness of the procedures used to determine those outcomes (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). Another perspective of procedural justice was suggested by Bies and Moag (1986), who illustrated concerns about the fairness of decision maker's behavior during the enactment of procedures called interactional justice. Interactional justice refers to both what is said to individuals during the decision process and how it is said (Tyler & Bies, 1990).

The existing literature shows mixed results on linkage between justice perceptions and intention to quit. Some studies suggested that in response to low distributive justice employees chose to quit their job in order to end the inequity (Hendrix, Robbins, Miller& Summers, 1998). Others reported that procedural justice was negatively related to turnover beyond any specific outcomes since procedural justice reflected organizational norms of decision making (Dailey & Kirk, 1992). Coulson and Chonko (1999) found that distributive justice variables have higher impact on turnover intent than that of procedural justice variables.

Distributive Justice & Intention to Quit

Neihoff and Moorman (1993) developed a five item subscale to describe the extent to which an employee believes that his or her work outcomes are fair. These include pay level, work schedule, work load and job responsibilities. Other variables which impact justice perceptions resulting in turnover intention are reward allocation (Price, 2001), promotions (Gould, 1979), training (Owens, 2006), voice (Withey & Cooper, 1989). Hence, we hypothesize that:

H1: Higher justice perceived in work schedule will lead to lesser intention to quit.

H2: Higher justice perceived in level of pay decisions will lead to lesser intention to quit.

H3: Higher justice perceived in rewards would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H4: Higher justice perceived in job responsibility would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H5: Higher justice perceived in promotions would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H6: Higher justice perceived in postings on key assignments would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H7: Higher justice perceived in nominations for important training programs would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H8: Higher justice perceived in opportunity to voice one's concerns would lead to lesser intention to quit.

Procedural Justice & Intention to Quit

Employee's perception is impacted by how a procedure is followed to take decision in an organization (Majumdar, 2012).Other variables injustice research which impact perceptions of justice resulting in intention to quit are Consistency(Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987; Tyler & Bies, 1990), Opportunity to Perform and Job Performance (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997), Job Relatedness (Leventhal, 1980, Sheppard & Lewicki, 1987), Voice (Thibaut & Walker, 1975), Timely and informative Feedback (Tyler & Bies, 1990), Truthfulness (Bies & Moag, 1986) and justification for a decision (Leventhal, 1980). Hence we hypothesize that:

H9: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's decision making abiiity would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H10: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability in consistency of administration would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H11: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide opportunity to perform would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H12: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide job relatedness would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H13: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor providing opportunity to voice one's concerns would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H14: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide timely feedback would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H15: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's truthfulness would lead to lesser intention to quit.

H16: Higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide adequate information would lead to lesser intention to quit over and above other primary variables.

Dependent variable

The focus of the study is to understand how the perception of fairness leads to intention to quit and hence the paper treats Intention to quit as the dependent variable.

Independent Variable

These variables can be categorized as related to:

a) Distributive Justice

b) Procedural Justice

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

After evaluating the Justice Theory variables, the research framework is as in fig. 1.

Data Collection

Questionnaire-based survey was used for data collection across IT/ITES and BFSI organizations across six locations in India. Total number of 17 variables was studied with 56 items in the survey questionnaire. Data from 401 questionnaires were used for the final analysis.

Measures

Standard Scales were used for measurement in the study. The responses were obtained using 5-point Likert-type scale where l=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree. The distributive justice variables were used from five item measure of Niehoff and Moorman (1993). The measure of procedural justice was used from Moorman (1991). The reported Cronbach's Alpha for the scale was in the range of 0.92 to 0.94.Intention to quit was measured by three items developed specifically for the study (McCloskey & McCain, 1987): "This organization is a wonderful place to work for next 5-7 years", "This organization requires some improvements for capable people to continue to work here" and "This organization needs significant improvements for capable people to continue to work here". The Cronbach's Alpha of the scale in the study was 0.88.

Data Analysis

The preliminary data analysis involved descriptors by mean and standard deviation. The Cronbach Alpha value was checked for each variable to ascertain internal consistency. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was done to arrive at factors. Multivariate correlations analysis between variables was used for exploring hypothesized relationships and stepwise regression was used for testing the hypotheses.

Results

Descriptive statistics for all variables are shown in Section A in Appendix 1. The mean score for Level of Pay (3.59), Nominations for Important Training Programs (3.6), Consistency (3.6), Voice (3.58), Providing Timely Feedback (3.74), Being Truthful (3.86), Providing Adequate Information (3.79) indicated relatively high levels of satisfaction on these variables. The correlations (Appendix-Section B) show that results are consistent with hypotheses. Work Schedule, Level of pay, Rewards, Job Responsibility, Promotions, Posting on Key Assignments and Voice have a significant negative correlation with intention to quit. Nominations to Training Programs have a positive correlation with intention to quit. The correlations for procedural justice variables are also in line with hypotheses. Opportunity to Perform, Job Relatedness, Voice, Timely Feedback, Being Truthful and Providing Adequate Information have significant negative correlations with intention to quit.

Results of the stepwise regressions for Hypotheses 1 to 8 are shown in Table 1. Distributive justice variables like promotions, job responsibility, nominations to important training programs and level of pay are found to have a statistically significant relationship with Intention to quit (Table 1).

The perception of fairness of level of pay has negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = - 0.097, p = 0.039) which supports hypothesis H2 i.e. higher justice perceived in level of pay decisions will lead to lesser intention to quit. The perception of fairness of job responsibility has negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = - 0.227, p = 0.000) which supports hypothesis H4 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in job responsibility would lead to lesser intention to quit. The perception of fairness of promotions has negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = - 0.316, p = 0.000) which supports hypothesis H5 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in promotions would lead to lesser intention to quit. The perception of fairness of nominations for training program has positive relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = + 0.164, p= 0.000); which does not support hypothesis H7 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in nominations for important training programs would lead to lesser intention to quit is not accepted.

The variables that could not find place in the regression equation are work schedule, rewards, postings on key assignments and voice (Table 2). Hence hypothesis H1, H3, H6 and H8 have not been accepted.

The reasons for exclusion of these variables could be varied. The work schedule in IT/ITES sector provides a good work life balance and hence it appears to be a low driver for intention to quit. Employees have expressed higher need for promotions and job responsibility and once that need is fulfilled, their perception of justice for rewards, posting on key assignments and voice is, by and large, positive and does not significantly contribute to intention to quit.

Results of the stepwise regressions for hypotheses 9 to 16 are shown in Table 3. Procedural justice variables--opportunity to perform, decision making, job relatedness, consistency and providing timely feedback-are found to have a statistically significant relationship with intention to quit (Table3).

The perception of fairness of opportunity to perform has a negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = - 0.433, p = 0.000) which supports H11 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide opportunity to perform would lead to lesser intention to quit. The perception of fairness of decision making has a positive relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = +0.2850, p=0.000) which does not support hypothesis H9 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's decision making ability would lead to higher intention to quit. The perception of fairness of job relatedness has a negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = 0.446, p=0.000) which supports hypothesis H12 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide job relatedness would lead to lesser intention to quit. The perception of fairness of consistency has a positive relationship with intention to quit ([beta] = + 0.418, p=0.000) which does not support hypothesis H10 i.e. higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability in consistency of administration would lead to higher intention to quit. The fairness of providing timely feedback has a negative relationship with intention to quit ([beta]= -0.213, p=0.000) which supports hypothesis H14i.e. higher perceptions of justice in supervisor's ability to provide timely feedback would lead to lesser intention to quit.

The variables that could not find place in the regression equation are voice, being truthful and providing adequate information. Hence hypotheses H13, H15 and H16 have not been accepted (Table 4).

The reasons for exclusion of these variables could be varied. When employees have higher perception of justice for opportunity to perform and job relatedness, their perception of justice towards their voice being heard and providing adequate information by their supervisor is high and does not contribute to intention to quit. Also when employees have high perception of justice for decision making and consistency they begin to have high perception of their supervisor being truthful to them. When these decisions are not in line with their expectations, being truthful contributes to intention to quit, though at a very insignificant level.

Discussion

This study explores the role of justice perceptions in intention to quit. Organizational justice has received a large amount of attention in the literature because many important organizational attitudes and behaviors can be directly linked to employee's perceptions of justice. The study results supported that level of pay creates significant negative impact on employee's intention to quit. A large amount of literature is available which confirms that pay level is one of the important, dimensions of employee satisfaction and reducing the employee's intention to quit (Bhal & Gulati, 2007). Blau (1982) called level of pay as an extrinsic reward creating significant negative impact on employee's intention to quit. Level of pay can work as a hygiene factor for employees with low or average performance and motivating factor for high performance employees (Winterton, 2004).

Promotions were found to create significant negative impact on employee's intention quit. Several studies have also confirmed the positive impact of actual or expected promotion opportunities on employee satisfaction and commitment and negative impact on intention to quit (Porter & Steers, 1973). Promotions can be termed as an extrinsic reward creating significant negative impact on employee's intention to quit (Blau, 1982). Valuation of this dimension represents a worker's desire for advancement and recognition.

A large number of research studies are available signifying negative the impact of training and development activities on employee turnover (Owens, 2006). In this study, nominations for training program were found to create significant positive impact on employee's intention to quit. This finding is in line with Winterton's (2004) work which signified the importance of training and development activities that leads to create positive impact on employee turnover. In the short run training programs lead to generate the feelings of personal development. In the long run, training programs enhance employee's skills thereby increasing their marketability. In case of information technology industry, high staff turnover is related to the high incidence of poaching brought about by a shortage of trained personnel (Firth et al., 2004). So, highly trained employees have a better probability of seeking external opportunity that leads to higher intention to quit.

Decision making, consistency were found to create significant positive impact on employee's intention quit, while opportunity to perform, job relatedness and providing timely feedback involve the interaction of employees with supervisors and were found to create significant negative impact on employee's intention quit. Decision making is one of the important aspects to bring fairness in evaluation of employee's performance. The kind of policies the supervisors follow while decision making and dissemination of information about them to employees create significant impact on employee's perceived fairness about the organizational system. Consistency in decision making variable creates significant positive impact on employee's intention to quit. It means the employees do not prefer fair procedures as those that are stable across persons and time. This suggests that the employees prefer procedural differentiation instead of procedural consistency. The root of discrimination might be based on expectations of performance based pay, rewards or promotions. Lack of consistency in formal rules places high value on interpersonal relations.

Opportunity to perform creates significant negative impact on employee's intention to quit. The activities required for the successful performance of an individual's job can have a significant impact on his decision to remain with organization. Winterton (2004) found that providing employees with opportunities to take up high responsibility acts as a motivating factor for higher job satisfaction. The perceived opportunity to fully utilize one's abilities on the job as well as perceived importance of work performed is negatively related to intention to quit (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Hence supervisors have a crucial role in motivating employees so that they perform those tasks successfully.

Job relatedness and task identity have been used interchangeably in literature (Porter & Steers, 1973). The clarity about the task to be performed creates a significant negative impact on employee's intention to quit. It is very important that supervisor clearly mentions the roles and responsibilities to employees and provide explanations for important decisions regarding work. Providing timely feedback leads to generate greater trust in supervisors. First, Zander (1957) investigated the impact of feedback on employee's intention to quit. He stated that the supervisor has a major role to play in knowing as well as fulfilling the expectations of employees. Informing employees of performance appraisal criteria in advance makes employee clear about what is expected out of them after task completion. This can prove a significant factor contributing to employees' trust in their performance evaluation during later stage. The lack of information communication and feedback leads to generate role ambiguity about one's job responsibility among employees, which leads to create more job dissatisfaction and intention to quit.

Implications for Managers

The results indicate that the turnover intention of the IT/ITES and BFSI professionals simultaneously get influenced by their perceived justice of recognition of their efforts through equity rule like promotions, job responsibility, level of pay and fairness of procedures used in making decisions like opportunity to perform, timely feedback and consistency of decision making. In managing these skilled professionals, management will need to design systems which motivate employees through timely career growth--both vertical and lateral. Also, investing in employees by nominating them for important training programs is a way to recognize their contribution.

Managers will also need to ensure that compensation is benchmarked against comparable skill sets in the market. The role of managers becomes very crucial in staying connected with the employee's needs at work and providing timely feedback and facilitating performance improvement. Managers will need to stay engaged with employees with effective communication on decision making. They will need to seek constant feedback and provide rationale wherever required.

Conclusion

This research attempted to study the perceptions of organizational justice and influence on employee's intention to quit. The distributive justice variables like level of pay and promotions are instrumental in determining intention to quit. The role of supervisor has emerged critical in exerting influence over the decision to make employees satisfied with respect to job requirements and methods for performance improvement. The supervisors must follow fair decision making and evaluation process, which may generate the feelings of justice, dignity and self-respect among employees. These observations are particularly important in technically-skilled employees in BFSI and IT/ ITES sectors. Employees with these skills have high job mobility and if employees perceive distributive and procedural inequities, they may have high intention to quit.

References

Adams, J. S. (1965)' "Inequity in Social Exchange", in L. Berkowitz, (ed) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2. AcademicPress, New York,

Ang, S., Slaughter, S.& Ng, K. Y. (2002), "Human Capital and Institutional Determinants of Information Technology Compensation: Modeling Multilevel and Cross-level Interactions", Management Science, 48: 1427-46.

Bhal K.T.& Gulati N. (2007),"Pay Satisfaction of Software Professionals in India", Vikalpa, 32(3):9-12.

Bies, R.J, & Moag, J.S. (1986),"Interactional Justice: Communication Criteria off Fairness". Research on Negotiation in Organizations, 1: 43-55.

Blau, J. R.& Blau, P. M. (1982),"The Cost of Inequality: Metropolitan Structure and Violent Crime" American Sociological Review, 47: 45-62.

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, 12:317-72.

Dailey, R.C., Kirk D. J. (1992),"Distributive and Procedural Justice as Antecedents of Job Dissatisfaction and Intent to Turnover", Human Relations, 45(3): 305-17.

Firth, Lucy, Mellor, David, Moore, Kathleen A & Loquet, Claude (2004), "How Can Managers Reduce Employee Intention to Quit?" Journal of Managerial Psychology, 19(2): 170-87.

Folger. R.& J. Greenberg (1985),"Procedural Justice: An Interpretive Analysis of Personnel Systems", in K. Rowland &G. Ferris (eds). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 3. JAI Press, Greenwich

Gould, S (1979),"An Equity-Exchange Model of Organizational Involvement", Academy of Management Review, 4:53-62

Greenberg, J. (1987), "A Taxonomy of Organizational Theories", Academy of Management Review, 12(1): 9-22.

Hendrix, William H., Robbins, T., Miller J., Summers, T.P. (1998),"Effects of Procedural and Distributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover", Journal of Social Behavior &Personality, 13(4): 611-32.

Leventhal, G.S. (1980),"What Should Be Done with Equity Theory"? in K.J. Gergen, M.S. Greenberg & R.H. Wills (Eds.), Justice and Social Interaction, Pringer-Verlag.

McCloskey, Joanne & Bruce McCain (1987),"Satisfaction, Commitment and Professionalism of Newly Employed Nurses" Image, 19:20-24

Moorman, R. H. (1991),"Relationship between Organisational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship"? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6): 845-55.

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(3): 527-56.

Owens, Patrick L, Jr, (2006), "One More Reason Not to Cut Your Training Budget: The Relationship between Training and Organizational Outcomes", Public Personnel Management; Summer; 35(2): 163.

Porter, L.W. & Steers, R.M (1973)."Organizational, Work, and Personal Factors in Employee Turnover and Absenteeism", Psychology Bulletin, 80: 151-76

Price, J.L. (2001),"Reflection on the Determinants of Voluntary Turnover", International Journal of Manpower, 22(7/8): 600-24.

Roberts, J.A., Coulson, K.R.& Chonko, L.B. (1999),"Salesperson Perception of Equity and Justice and Their Impact on Organizational Commitment and Intent to Turnover", Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 7(1): 1-16.

Ross, I.C. & Zander, A. (1957), "Need Satisfaction and Employee Turnover", Personnel Psychology, September: 327-38,

Sheppard, B.H. & Lewicki, R.J. (1987),"Towards General Principles of Managerial Fairness", Social Justice Research, 1:161-76.

Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, in Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,

Tyler, T.R. & Bies R.J. (1990),"Beyond Formal Procedures: The International Context of Procedural Justice", in J.S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology and Organizational Settings,. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., Wagner, U., Ahlswede, O., Grubba, C. Dick & V R. Van (2004), "Should I Stay or Should I Go? Explaining Turnover Intentions with Organizational Identification and Job Satisfaction", British Journal of Management, 15: 351-60.

Winterton, J, (2004), "A Conceptual Model of Labor Turnover and Retention". Human Resource Development International, 7(3): 371-90

Withey, M.J.& W.H. Cooper (1989), "Predicting Exit, Voice, Loyalty and Neglect", Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 521-39.

Sunil Maheshwari is Professor, Personnel & Industrial Relations (P&1R), Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad.Email:sunilm@iimahd. emet.in. Rupinder Bhinder is Research Scholar, DDIT, Nadiad, Emaii:rupinderbhinder@gmail.com

Appendix 1 Descriptive Statistics
Section A

Variables                        N     Mean   Standard Deviation

Work Schedule                    401   3.00                 0.84
Level of Pay                     401   3.59                 0.82
Reward                           401   3.40                 0.74
Job Responsibility               401   3.48                 0.65
Promotions                       401   3.18                 0.65
Posting on Key Assignments       401   3.21                 0.76
Nominations for Important        401   3.60                 0.68
  Training Programs
Voice                            401   3.40                 0.74
Decision Making                  401   3.47                 0.80
Consistency                      401   3.60                 0.92
Opportunity to Perform           401   3.40                 1.01
Job Relatedness                  401   3.44                 1.03
Voice                            401   3.58                 0.90
Providing Timely Feedback        401   3.74                 0.67
Being Truthful                   401   3.86                 0.76
Providing Adequate Information   401   3.79                 0.72
Intention to Quit                401   3.09                 0.95

Section B
Correlations for Distributive Justice

                                        Work       Level     Rewards
                                    Schedule      of pay

Work              Pearson Corr             1      .103 *      .126 *
Schedule          Sig. (2-tailed)                   .039        .011

Level             Pearson Corr        .103 *           1     .271 **
of pay            Sig. (2-tailed)       .039                    .000

Rewards           Pearson             .126 *     .271 **          *1
                  Sig. (2-tailed)       .011        .000

Job               Pearson            .150 **     .255 **     .315 **
Responsibility    Sig. (2-tailed)       .003        .000        .000

Promotions        Pearson            .210 **     .351 **     .190 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .000        .000

Posting on        Pearson Corr       .152 **     .227 **     .235 **
Key Assignments   Sig. (2-tailed)       .002        .000        .000

Nominations       Pearson               .047        .068     .135 **
to Training       Sig. (2-tailed)       .347        .176        .007
Programs

Voice             Pearson            .215 **     .436 **     .535 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .000        .000

Intention         Pearson           -.146 **    -.255 **    -.159 **
to Quit           Sig. (2-tailed)       .003        .000        .001

                                               Job   Promotions
                                    Responsibility

Work              Pearson Corr             .150 **      .210 **
Schedule          Sig. (2-tailed)             .003         .000

Level             Pearson Corr             .255 **      .351 **
of pay            Sig. (2-tailed)             .000         .000

Rewards           Pearson                  .315 **      .190 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)             .000         .000

Job               Pearson                        1      .415 **
Responsibility    Sig. (2-tailed)                          .000

Promotions        Pearson                  .415 **            1
                  Sig. (2-tailed)             .000

Posting on        Pearson Corr              .126 *      .546 **
Key Assignments   Sig. (2-tailed)             .012         .000

Nominations       Pearson                  .242 **      .156 **
to Training       Sig. (2-tailed)             .000         .002
Programs

Voice             Pearson                  .465 **      .468 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)             .000         .000

Intention         Pearson                 -.344 **     -.419 **
to Quit           Sig. (2-tailed)             .000         .000

                                        Posting   Nominations
                                         on Key            to
                                    Assignments      Training
                                                     Programs

Work              Pearson Corr          .152 **          .047
Schedule          Sig. (2-tailed)          .002          .347

Level             Pearson Corr          .227 **          .068
of pay            Sig. (2-tailed)          .000          .176

Rewards           Pearson               .235 **       .135 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)          .000          .007

Job               Pearson                .126 *       .242 **
Responsibility    Sig. (2-tailed)          .012          .000

Promotions        Pearson               .546 **       .156 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)          .000          .002

Posting on        Pearson Corr                1          .065
Key Assignments   Sig. (2-tailed)                        .192

Nominations       Pearson                  .065             1
to Training       Sig. (2-tailed)          .192
Programs

Voice             Pearson               .158 **       .300 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)          .002          .000

Intention         Pearson              -.255 **          .053
to Quit           Sig. (2-tailed)          .000          .289

                                       Voice   Intention
                                                 to Quit

Work              Pearson Corr       .215 **    -.146 **
Schedule          Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .003

Level             Pearson Corr       .436 **    -.255 **
of pay            Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .000

Rewards           Pearson            .535 **    -.159 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .001

Job               Pearson            .465 **    -.344 **
Responsibility    Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .000

Promotions        Pearson            .468 **    -.419 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .000

Posting on        Pearson Corr       .158 **    -.255 **
Key Assignments   Sig. (2-tailed)       .002        .000

Nominations       Pearson            .300 **        .053
to Training       Sig. (2-tailed)       .000        .289
Programs

Voice             Pearson                  1    -.246 **
                  Sig. (2-tailed)                   .000

Intention         Pearson           -.246 **           1
to Quit           Sig. (2-tailed)       .000

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlations for Procedural Justice

                                Decision    Consistency    Opportunity
                                  Making                    to Perform

Decision      Pearson                  1        .690 **        .665 **
Making        Sig. (2-tailed)                      .000           .000

Consistency   Pearson            .690 **              1        .589 **
              Sig. (2-tailed)       .000                          .000

Opportunity   Pearson            .665 **        .589 **              1
to Perform    Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000

Job           Pearson            .606 **        .641 **        .626 **
Relatedness   Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000           .000

Voice         Pearson            .265 **        .241 **        .333 **
              Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000           .000

Timely        Pearson            .398 **        .507 **        .504 **
Feedback      Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000           .000

Being         Pearson            .286 **        .213 **        .297 **
Truthful      Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000           .000

Providing     Pearson Corr       .407 **        .346 **        .415 **
Adequate      Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000           .000
Information

Intention     Pearson              -.070          -.035       -.384 **
to Quit       Sig. (2-tailed)       .163           .485           .000

                                        Job       Voice      Timely
                                Relatedness                Feedback

Decision      Pearson               .606 **     .265 **     .398 **
Making        Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000

Consistency   Pearson               .641 **     .241 **     .507 **
              Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000

Opportunity   Pearson               .626 **     .333 **     .504 **
to Perform    Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000

Job           Pearson                     1     .266 **     .499 **
Relatedness   Sig. (2-tailed)                      .000        .000

Voice         Pearson               .266 **           1     .284 **
              Sig. (2-tailed)          .000                    .000

Timely        Pearson               .499 **     .284 **           1
Feedback      Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000

Being         Pearson               .259 **     .276 **     .323 **
Truthful      Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000

Providing     Pearson Corr          .428 **     .400 **     .464 **
Adequate      Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000
Information

Intention     Pearson              -.383 **    -.194 **    -.329 **
to Quit       Sig. (2-tailed)          .000        .000        .000

                                   Being      Providing    Intention
                                Truthful       Adequate      to Quit
                                            Information

Decision      Pearson            .286 **        .407 **        -.070
Making        Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .163

Consistency   Pearson            .213 **        .346 **        -.035
              Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .485

Opportunity   Pearson            .297 **        .415 **     -.384 **
to Perform    Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .000

Job           Pearson            .259 **        .428 **     -.383 **
Relatedness   Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .000

Voice         Pearson            .276 **        .400 **     -.194 **
              Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .000

Timely        Pearson            .323 **        .464 **     -.329 **
Feedback      Sig. (2-tailed)       .000           .000         .000

Being         Pearson                  1        .638 **      -.108 *
Truthful      Sig. (2-tailed)                      .000         .031

Providing     Pearson Corr       .638 **              1     -.215 **
Adequate      Sig. (2-tailed)       .000                        .000
Information

Intention     Pearson            -.108 *       -.215 **            1
to Quit       Sig. (2-tailed)       .031           .000

* Correlation is significant at 0.05 level (2-tailed)

** Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed)

Table 1 Coefficients of Regression Equation

Independent Variables             [beta]       T      Sig.

Promotions                        -0.316    -6.319    0.000
Job Responsibility                -0.227    -4.603    0.000
Nominations to Training Program    0.164     3.633    0.000
Level of Pay                      -0.097    -2.069    0.039

Adjusted [R.sup.2] for the equation is 0.237

Table 2 Excluded Variables in Regression Equation

Independent Variables         [beta]       T      Sig.

Work Schedule                 -0.045    -1.000    0.318
Rewards                       -0.026    -0.557    0.578
Postings on Key Assignments   -0.062    -1.172    0.242
Voice                          0.001     0.023    0.981

Table 3 Coefficientsof Regression Equation

Independent Variables     Beta        T      Sig.

Opportunity To Perform   -0.433    -7.270    0.000
Decision Making           0.285     4.569    0.000
Job Relatedness          -0.446    -7.662    0.000
Consistency               0.418     6.760    0.000
Timely Feedback          -0.213    -4.315    0.000


Adjusted [R.sup.2] for the equation is 0.365

Table 4 Excluded Variables in Regression Equation

Independent Variables             Beta        T      Sig.

Voice (Procedural Justice)       -0.054    -1.259    0.209
Being Truthful                    0.041     0.955    0.340
Providing Adequate Information   -0.008    -0.176    0.860
COPYRIGHT 2015 Shri Ram Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Maheshwari, Sunil; Bhinder, Rupinder
Publication:Indian Journal of Industrial Relations
Article Type:Statistical data
Geographic Code:9INDI
Date:Jul 1, 2015
Words:4871
Previous Article:Work engagement & work alienation: distinct or opposites?
Next Article:Talent management in Indian IT & ITES sectors.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters