Impact of Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment

informational justice is found a good predictor of organizational commitment as compared to interpersonal justice.

This study was designed to check the relationship of organizational commitment, and organizational justice. Organizational commitment is an expression that intends to make clear human feelings and behaviors at work (Mathews & Shepherd, 2002). It is an additional emotional commitment of the workers to the organization on benevolent base (Chovwen, 2012). For attaining their objectives, organizations can help those workers who are being continuously committed to the organization and share its plans and principles which are critical (Buluc, 2009). Lack of organizational commitment is considered as a basic problem which exists due to the extremely competitive business environment (Kleinman, et al., 2001). Business firms are more and more focused on their employees by providing a competitive environment (Woolridge, 2000). Modifying, or scientific development, academic progress, employee's assortment and organizational reforms are the main source of gaining their competitive advantages. Organizational commitment is "defined as the degree of an individual's relations and experiences as a sense of loyalty toward one's organization". Same as loyalty, organizational commitment covers a person's readiness to the long determination for more output of the organizations and described the unit of configuration the firms with their objectives and standards (Mowday, et al., 1979). Meaning of organizational commitment is "the level to which workers builds up a connection and feel a sense of commitment to her or his employer" (PSUWC, 2014). The emotional affection of an employee with their employer will facilitates to develop strong commitment (Bagga & Srivastava, 2014). The research which was carried out in 2013 revealed that 60 percent employees were not satisfied and committed up to some extent and 40 percent employees were highly satisfied and committed (Bagga & Srivastava, 2014).This means that only 40% employees are committed and non-commitment level of 60 % employees was very low. This means that organizational commitment is a serious issue for the organizations. Alarmingly, organizational commitment is decreasing. Harris's study proved that 65% salaried workers were less loyal to their organizations (Nussbaum 1986) and findings of the second study concluded that commitment level of managers was reduced noticeably in the 1980s (Kiechel, 1985). Further, senior managers' mobility between firms is at exceptional levels due to the reduction of their commitment level (Randall, 1987). From above it also concluded that organizational commitment is also a critical problem for the organizations and employees. Organizational justice is significant in common conditions for the reason that discernment of organizational justice has been establishing to influence a numeral behaviors and attitudes as well as organizational satisfaction (Fryxell & Gordon, 1989), organizational commitment (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1992), satisfaction (Sheppard et al., 1992), intention to leave and job satisfaction (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987), evaluation of leadership (Tyler & Caine, 1981;Alexander & Ruderman, 1987), response to layoffs (Brockner, 1990), response to organizational grievance system (Aryee & Chay, 2001), and employee stealing (Greenberg, 1990). It is significant to think about worker 's benefits when learning perceptions of procedural justice and distributive justice (White & Becker, 1980). The concepts of distributive justice and procedural justice are valuable when the employees are compensated by considering them as 48 they are important, highly deserved for compensation this will result in 41 % costs of workforce (US Chamber of Commerce, 1994). Worker's benefits are frequently used to attract new workers, and pension policies can turn into significant factor for retaining the employees in all the phases of careers (White & Becker, 1980). From the best of researcher knowledge, no previous study was conducted to check the relationship of four kinds of organizational justice with organizational commitment. In this regard, current research has proposed the following questions to be answered.
1. Does the relationship between organizational justice and its kinds with organizational commitment matter in the banking sector of Pakistan?

Literature Review Organizational Commitment
As reported by Porter, who primarily defined and introduced organizational commitment was the comparative power of person's recognition with and participation in a specific firm'' (Strawser & Ketchand, 2001). Later Porter's perception, little researchers identified that organizational commitment might not particularly organize, but rather it can be of several dimensions as a result of workers' diverse assessments of their organizations (Bulutlar & Oz, 2009). Organizational commitment defined as a psychosomatic relation among the workers and her or his firm that creates it little probable that the worker will willingly go away from the firm (Allen & Meyer 1996). They also recommended a three-dimensional model of organizational commitment; normative, continuance, and affective commitment. Affective commitment introduces to workers' psychological linking to, participation in and recognition by the organization. The worker feels pleasure being in the organization: The workers stay in the firm as she /he desire it (Allen & Meyer, 1990). In persistent commitment, workers formulate estimate regarding the cost of exiting from the firm. The workers stay as he/she wants to fulfill it. At last, in the normativecommitment, worker experiences a sense of responsibility to stay in the firm. This kind of commitment is a collection of assigned normative stress to do something in a manner that able with firm's objective and benefit. In this instance, persons remain in the firm because they consider it is the ''correct'' and ''ethical object to make'' (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Consequently, the workers stay in the firm as she /he have to (Conway, 2004). In organizational theory, the organizational commitment is an essential variable by reasons they have developed a powerful relation in a scarce years of study (Mathieu & Zajac, 1990). As stated earlier, organizational commitment is a higher steady variable accepting job satisfaction (Jordan & Perryer, 2005). When the workers are committed to the organization they are expected to accomplish better, work tough and more competently, and keep in their works (Mowday, 1998).

49
The concept of the justice or fairness has to turn into growing essential construct in management and behavior from last 20 years because it is important for the personal and organizational outcome (Bolat, et al., 2010). Inspired by researchers accomplished by (Adams, 1963) study of organizational justice has shown that, interpersonal behavior; organizational procedures and supposed fairness of rewards are related to personal feelings and behavior (Greenberg, 1990). As admitting of the four-fold perception of organizational justice, a lot of researchers have not checked all four dimensions of justice at the same time. Organizational justice is used to construct defining the worth of public relations at work. Greenberg (1990) was introduced the expression of organizational justice. Organizational justice explains the person's (or group) judgment of the equality of treatment expected from firm and their behavioral response to that judgment. Express in other words, the word organizational justice defines that workers are treated fairly at their place of work (Heponiemi et al., 2007). As reported by Foster (2010) Organizational justice defined as individual awareness of equality inside the organizations. Distributive justice is the old type of justice and is a concept established on the basis of equity theory of Adams (1963). It defined as to recognize fairness and assessment of opinion outcomes for example rewards, salary, performance appraisal, remuneration, and appreciation (Okpu & Basuo, 2019). Procedural justice is the level in which gestures of the decision procedure are evaluated to be unbiased. In additional terms, procedural justice contains the judgment of fairness of organizational measures through which results are shared, or results are prepared (Liu, et al., 2021). As defined by Greenberg (1990) procedural justice define as the judgment of fairness of rules and measures are used to construct decisions in the workplace. The writing on management and worker affairs explain that workers suppose the organization to care for him/her through honesty, dignity, equal treatment, and respect gives to all employees (Jonkman, et al., 2018). Attribute to this idea as interactional justice, which is the judgment of the fairness of treatment worker, except when rule and measures are applied in the place of work. Interactional justice is defining as the interpersonal treatment person accepts as measures are enacting (Bies, 1986). Informational justice is next to thenew form of justice which targets on clarification given to people that express facts regarding why measure was applied in a specific manner or why the resultswere assigned in a specific way (Greenberg, 1990). In additional terms, informational justice defined as honesty and explanation of information given to employees. The appraisal of that information is insufficient or false direct to the judgments of unfairness. Informational justice is thinking to contain afactor that improves personal judgment of efficacy of clarification given by the organizational manager. These elements contain in truth information share regarding the organizational affairi.e. just keeping workers well informed is frequently observed by people as a fairness problem. Greenberg (1990) conveyed a new viewpoint to this discussion by implying a four-element frame of organizational justice. He recommended that the sensitivity and respect part of interactional justice might best be sighted as an interpersonal 50 aspect of distributive justice because they alter reaction to decision outcomes (i.e. sensitivity can make sense better about the adverse result). He additionally recommended that the clarification feature of interactional justice might best be viewed as an informational aspect of procedural justice because explanations frequently give the information required to assess structural feature of the process. Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which peopleare treatedwith dignity courtesy, and respect by the establishment and third parties concerned in accomplishing procedures or determining the result (Colquitt, 2001). Organizational justice features are normally used as explanatory variables with respect to official education (Sweeney & McFarlin, 1992). As specified by Cremer (2005), organizational justice is described as "theme of ruling in structural life". Its might be described as "justice states that to the views of workers regarding unbiased behavior get from institution and their behavioral response to those views" (DeConinck, & Stilwell, 2004). According to that (Greenberg, 1987) organizational justice have three types called as (1) distributive justice (2) procedural justice and (3) interactional justice. Many researchers determined that procedural justice and interactional justice are interrelated (Choen-Charash & Spector, 2001). According to Choen-Charash and Spector (2001) interactional justice emphasizes that how management works together with people in the division of organization's rewards and resources. Bies (1986) specified that, researches about justice were largely paid devotion in process and results. These studies moreover emphasized those earlier studies which had not focused on the social relations. Due to this basis, they suggested the additional kind of justice termed like interactional justice. Bies (1986) suggested interactional justice is distinct as of another type of justice such as the distributive justice and the procedural justice. As a result of these findings, they proposed as a distinct aspect of distributive justice and procedural justice. Researcher proved that interactional justice had a significant positive effect on the employees' work performances and perceptions (Ambrose, 2002). It's useful to consider that interactional justice such as the third type of organizational justice. Researchers determined that interactional justice had a distinct aspect to clarify the many organizations outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001, Choen-Charash & Spector, 2001. According to the Colquitt, (2001) interactional justice has two types such as interpersonal justice and informational justice. In present study, informational and interpersonal justice aremeasured as the dimensions of organizational justice.

Hypotheses Development
There is positive effect of organizational justice on organizational commitment (Leow & Khong, 2015). In detail, Leow and Khong (2015) has proved that distributive and the procedural justice

Organizational Commitment
Organizational justice ➢ Distributive justice ➢ Procedural justice ➢ Interactional justice ➢ Informational justice has a positive influence on the organizational commitment. Aquino (1995) has confirmed that distributive justice and procedural justice has a positive relationship with affective commitment. Furthermore, it is also seen that organizational justice has a positiverelationship with organizational commitment (Masterson et al., 2000). In a meta-analysis of organizational justice, Colquitt et al. (2001) has confirmed that 3 different kinds of organizational justice i.e., procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice are correlated with the organizational commitment. From the best of researcher knowledge, previous study has not checked the relationship of four kinds of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, Interpersonal justice and Informational justice) with organizational commitment especially the relationship of two kinds of justice i.e., informational justice and interpersonal justice with the organizational commitment.
On the basis of this fact, thecurrent study has proposed the following hypotheses.

Target sample size and population
The current study is conducted in the banking sector of Lahore. A total number of branches of the banks were 862. Israel (1992) has proposed that the range of the good sample is varying from 200-500 for multiple and simple regression. Therefore, the sample size for this study consisted of 300 respondents from banking sector of Lahore. Branches of the banks were selected with the help of simple random sampling technique, e.g., through excel random formula. 300 respondents were selected from 38 bank branches. The target population of this research is the employees should be OG-III (or equivalent) and above the rank of the banking sector of Lahore.

Sampling technique
Through simple random sampling, banks are selected for this procedure 34 branches of private, 1 branch of international and 3 branches of the publicwere selected for collection of data for the currentstudy.
Data is collected with the help of structured questionnaire in maximum three attempts (Arasli, 2012). In this current study, total circulation of questionnaires was 300. Moreover, out of total questionnaires 285 questionnaires were returned back and 15 questionnaires were dropped as 52 these were incomplete. 270 questionnaires were completely filled and were used for final examination. Therefore, the response rate was 95%.

Scale and Measurements
Organizational Commitment scale was consisting of 6 statements. These scales were adopted from the researchers (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001). Organizational justice scale was consisting of 13 items. Procedural justice was evaluated with the help of 2 items, distributive justice was measured with the help of 2 items. These statements were adopted from the scale of Cremer (2004). Interpersonal justice was measured with the help of 4 items and informational justice was measured with the help of 5 statements. These statements were adopted from the researcher (Colquitt & Rodell, 2011).

Results and discussion Reliability Analysis
The constancy of a measure is named as reliability. To know what extent the data is reliable it is essential to measure the consistency of each scale (Huck, 2004). In this research Cronbach alpha was used to measure internal reliability for each of the scales. SPSS 17(statistical program for social sciences) software used to perform reliability analysis. (Cronbachs Alpha) is determined that all the scale of a variable which is used in this study is reliable or not. Cronbach's Alpha of this study is 0.700 which shows that data is statistically reliable. In the social sciences, it is proposed in a prior study that Cronbach alpha is greater than the 0.5, which shows that acceptable reliability of the data (Nunally & Bernstein, 1994).

Correlation Analysis
Correlation of the coefficient shows the relationship of variables. Correlation value of r lies between +1 to -1. If the value of r is equal to or near to 0 that shows no or little correlation between them. If the value of r is close to +1 or -1 that shows high or strong correlation.

Table No 2: Correlation Analysis *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed) ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
This table indicates the correlation among variables which are used in this study. Correlation between procedural justice and distributive justice is (0.868 **) which shows the positive robust relations between these variables. Correlation between interactional justice and distributive justice is (0.804 **) that shows positive robust relation between these variables. Correlation between interactional justice and procedural justice is (0.841 **) that shows positive robust relation between these variables. Correlation between informational justice and verbal bullying is (-0.435 ** ) that shows a negative moderate relation. Correlation between informational justice and distributive justice is (0.74 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between informational justice and procedural justice is (0.759 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between informational justice and interactional justice is (0.856 ** ) that shows the positive robust relation. Correlation between organizational commitment and distributive justice is (0.693 ** ) which shows the positive robust relation. Correlation between organizational commitment and procedural justice is (0.699 ** ) which shows the positive robust relation. Correlation between organizational commitment and Interactional justice is (0.790 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between organizational commitment and Informational justice is (0.850 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation.
Correlation between organizational justice and procedural justice is (0.857 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between organizational justice and interactional justice is (0.844 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between organizational justice and Informational justice is (0.797 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation. Correlation between organizational justice and organizational commitment is (0.697 ** ) that shows the positive strong relation.

Regression analysis
This regression analysis shows the relationship between Organizational justice and organizational commitment. H1: Organizational justice has positive impact on organizational commitment In the regression analysis the value of R square defines the level of impact between variables. In this table the value of R square is R=0.486) which means organizational justice cause that 48.6 % variation in the organizational commitment. The value of F shows the relationship between the variable greater the value of F greater the relationship between the variable the value of F is 253.712 that shows the highest relationship between organizational justice and the organizational commitment. This above table shows the relationship among the organizational justice (independent variable and the organizational commitment (dependent variable). The value of p is .000 which shows the significant relationship between them the hypothesis is accepted when the value of p < 0.10, 0.05, 0.01. The value of p is <0.01 that is a significant value so accepted the hypothesis. The value of p is < 0.01 that specify the highly significant association between organizational justice and the organizational commitment. The β value shows the impact of the independent variable on the dependent variable. One unit increase in organizational justice that caused 78.1% variations positively in organizational commitment. The value of t shows the effect of an independent variable on the dependent variable the current study shows the value of t is non-zero. Regression analysis for the procedural justice distributive justice, interactional justice, informational justice with organizational commitment H2a: Procedural justice has positive impact on organizational commitment H2b: Distributive justice has positive impact on organizational commitment H2c: Interpersonal justice has positive impact on organizational commitment H2d: Informational justice has positive impact on organizational commitment In the regression analysis the value of R square defines the level of impact between variables. In this table, the value of R square is (0.738) which means all dimensions of justice cause that 73.8% variation in the organizational commitment. The value of F shows the relationship between the variable greater the value of F greater relationship between the variable the value of F is 186.749 that shows the highest relationship between all types of organizational justice and organizational commitment. The above table shows the relationship between the independent variable (procedural justice, distributive justice, interpersonal justice, informational justice and the dependent variable (organizational commitment). When the value of p < 0.10, 0.05, 0.01 then the relationship is significant and the hypothesis is accepted. The first result shows theinsignificant relationship between procedural justice and the organizational commitment. Because the value of p is 0.240 that is p>0.10 so this shows the insignificant positive impact on organizational commitment and hypothesis is rejected. The second value of the organizational commitment. Because the value of p is 0.812 that is p>0.010 so this also shows insignificant impact and hypothesis is rejected. Next value of table shows the significant association between interpersonal justice and the organizational commitment. The p value is 0 .009 that is p<0.10 so this value shows the significant positive impact on organizational commitment and hypothesis is accepted. Last value of table shows a significant relationship between informational justice and the organizational commitment. The value of p is 0.00 that is p<0.01 so this value shows the positive significant influence on the organizational commitment and hypothesis is accepted. The value of β shows the impact of independent variable on dependent variable. The one unit increases in procedural justice that caused 7.3% variations positively in organizational commitment. The one unit increases in distributive justice that caused -1.6% variations negatively in organizational commitment. The one unit increases in interpersonal justice that caused 20 % variations positively in organizational commitment. The one unit increases in informational justice that caused 65.5 % variations positively in organizational commitment. The value of t shows the effect of an independent variable on dependent variable the current study shows the value of t is non-zero. Results show the correlation between workplace bullying and the organizational justice is (-0.382 * ) that shows a negative relationship between them. In regression analysis, the value of p < 0.01 and value of β is -0.369. The value of β is -0.394 and the value of is p<0.01 that specifies the highly significant relationship between workplace bullying and organizational justice. The result also shows that organizational justice is the good predictor of organizational bullying whereas workplace bullying is little bit weak predictor of organizational justice. Because the β value of organizational justice is greater than the β value of workplace bullying. This is the outcome of this research. Research Is also examine the organizational justice and its dimension has a positive impact on organizational commitment. Previous research of Buluc (2019) had proved that there is a significant relationship between organizational justice and organizational commitment. Results (r=640, p<.01) that shows organizational justice is a good predictor of organizational commitment.
Results of this current study also show the strong positive significant relationship between organizational commitment, organizational justice, and its dimensions. Value of correlation organizational justice, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, informational justice, with organizational commitment are 0.697 ** , 0.693 ** , 0.699 ** , 0.790 ** , 0.850 ** respectively. In the regression analysis, the relationship between organizational justice and organizational commitment the value of p is <0.01 that is a significant value so accepted the hypothesis. So, p is<0.01 and value of β are 78.1 % that specify the highly significant relationship between organizational justice and organizational commitment. Moreover, the result of the first 57 dimension of organizational justice shows theinsignificant association between procedural justice and the organizational commitment. Because p value is 0.240 that is p>0.10 and β value is 0.073 this shows the insignificant positive impact on organizational commitment and hypothesis is rejected. The second value of the table shows the insignificant association between distributive justice and the organizational commitment. Because the value of p is 0.812 that is p>0.010 and β value is-0.016 this also shows insignificant impact and hypothesis is rejected. Next value of table shows a significant relationship between interpersonal justice and the organizational commitment. The p value is 0 the .009 that is p<0.10 and value of β are20% so this value shows the positive significant effect on the organizational commitment. And hypothesis is accepted. Last value of table shows significant relationship between informational justice and the organizational commitment. The p value is 0.00 that is p<0.01 and value of β are 65.5% so this value shows the significant positive impact on organizational commitment and hypothesis is accepted. So, we conclude from above result, the current study showed that there was positive strong impact organizational justice on organizational commitment. But the relationship of distributive justice, informational justice, procedural justice and interpersonal justice with organizational commitment gave the dynamic results. Procedural justice and distributive justice has an insignificant effect on organizational commitment, further more, informational a justice and interpersonal justice has positive significant influence on the organizational commitment but informational justice is a good foretell of the organizational commitment as compared to interpersonal justice.

Conclusion
Problems are being faced by most of the organizations regarding organizational commitment. In Pakistani cultural context, the present study is a serious effort to help out the problem of the banking sector. There is a huge workload on people working in thebanking sector of Pakistan. Due to these reasons, employees feel they are treated with injustice and facing the problem of workplace bullying and these results in reducing their organizational commitment. Outcomes indicate that organizational justice has robust positive effect on the organizational commitment. But the relations of, procedural justice, distributive justice interpersonal justice and informational justice with organizational commitment gave dynamic results. Results of current study yield that impacts of procedural justice on organizational commitment is the nature of positive impact which are same like as the nature of the impact of previous research for the e.g.result of Srivastava (2015). Impact of distributive justice on organizational commitment is negative nature of impact is same like as the nature of impact of previous research of Srivastava (2015) further more informational justice has significant positive effect on organizational commitment and nature of impact is also same like as the nature of impact of previous research for e.g. result of Srivastava (2015). Interpersonal justice has significant positive effect on organizational commitment and nature of impact is same like as the nature of