Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to apply social exchange theory to predict the effects of procedural and interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Specifically, it is predicted that organizational commitment mediates the effects of procedural justice on turnover intentions and that supervisory commitment mediates the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Design/methodology/approach -Surveys were administered to 212 call center employees to measure the effects of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, organizational commitment, supervisory commitment and turnover intentions. Mediation effects were tested using Baron and Kenny's methodology. Findings -Support was found for a partial mediation effect of organizational commitment on the effect of procedural justice on turnover intentions; and for a full mediation effect of supervisory commitment on the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Practical implications -Reduction of turnover is a major problem for the call center industry, as considerable resources are spent training new employees. This research suggests that turnover intentions can be reduced by addressing problems with organizational procedures and with the treatment of employees by supervisors. Originality/value -The findings of this study replicate the mediation effects of organizational commitment on the effect of procedural justice on turnover intentions in call centers. In addition, this is the first study of its kind to show the mediation effects of supervisory commitment on the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions.

The self-interest and relational models of organizational justice were tested to explain the relationship between benefit plan type and organizational justice. Benefit plan types considered were flexible and traditional plans. In support of the self-interest model employees in flexible benefit plans had significantly higher perceptions of procedural justice than employees in traditional benefit plans. There were no significant differences in perceptions of distributive justice between the plan types.This study tests two competing theories to explain the nature of the relationship between benefit plan type and organizational justice. The plan types examined are flexible and standard plans. The organizational justice theories considered are the self-interest model (Thibaut and Walker, 1975) and the relational model (Lind and Tyler, 1988).Organizational justice is related to both procedural and distributive justice (Cropanzano and Greenberg, 1997). Distributive justice relates to the perceived fairness of outcomes or allocations that an individual receives. The outcomes considered in this research are life insurance, long-term disability, health insurance, dental insurance, and pensions. Procedural justice relates to perceptions of fairness regarding the methods, mechanisms, and processes used to determine these outcomes (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). The procedures considered in this study are those for making benefit claims, design of benefit plans, communication of benefit information, and making amendments to benefit plans.Organizational justice is important in general terms because perceptions of organizational justice have been found to affect a number of behaviors and attitudes including organizational commitment (

No abstract

Summary.-Employees in three call centers were surveyed about their perceptions of organizational justice. Four factors were measured: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Structural equation modeling was employed to test whether a two-, three-, or four-factor model best fit the call center data. A three-factor model of distributive, procedural, and informational justice provided the best fit to these data. The three-factor model that showed the best fit does not conform to any of the more traditional models identified in the organizational justice literature. This implies that the context in which organizational justice is measured may play a role in identifying which justice factors are relevant to employees. Findings add to the empirical evidence on the dimensionality of organizational justice and imply that dimensionality of organizational justice is more context-dependent than previously thought.

This article considers potential conflicts between the principles of equity, equality and need in perceptions of fairness regarding employee benefits, based on self-interest bias, and makes specific predictions regarding perceptions of distributive justice in specific benefit plans. It includes predictions regarding perceptions of procedural justice. A survey of 497 employees in seven Canadian organizations tested the predictions. Findings indicate that need is still an important criterion for assessing distributive justice in employee benefits, although the survey also found evidence of self-interest bias. Perceptions of procedural justice were found to be significantly higher in plans with extensive communication and employee participation in plan design. Organizations that take a proactive approach to understanding how employees determine their perceptions of procedural and distributive justice in employee benefits, and design a benefit plan accordingly, can potentially increase employees’ perceptions of justice regarding employee benefits and reap associated benefits including improved employee retention, enhanced ability to hire and increased benefit satisfaction.