Justice theory & intention to quit: the case of IT/ITES & BFSI employees.
Maheshwari, Sunil ; Bhinder, Rupinder
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:
[email protected]
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
