Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis
Laily Rahmah
Doctoral Program In Psychology Universitas Gadjah Mada & Faculty of Psychology Unissula Indonesia
Keywords: Organizational Justice, Procedural Justice, Distributive Justice, Interactional Justice, Job Satisfaction, Meta-
Analysis.
Abstract: Previous studies have shown that organizational justice can affect job satisfaction. Nevertheless, the
correlation between organizational justice and job satisfaction showed varying results. The meta-analysis
approach that used in current study aims to see consistency of the correlation between procedural justice,
distributive justice and interactional justice and job satisfaction. Journals used in this meta-analysis were 17
journals that includes 20 studies with 4606 subjects. The results of meta-analysis showed that procedural
justice, distributive justice and interactional justice positively correlated with job satisfaction. Procedural
justice, distributive justice and interactional justice had positive correlations were moderate {r1= 0,449; r2=
0,406 ;r3= 0,388) refers to a 95 % confidence interval, limits of acceptance are between 0,010<r1<0,888;
0,016<r2<0,829 ; -0,079<r3<0,856. So that the correlation coefficient of 0,449; 0,406 and 0,388 are within
in the limits of acceptance. That is a significant positive correlation between each of organizational justice
aspects (procedural justice, distributive justice, interactional justice) and job satisfaction are acceptable.
Finally, all of organizational justice aspects can act as predictor of job satisfaction. a limited number of
studies is the weaknesses of the study because of the precision of a meta-analysis depends on the total
sample used.
1 INTRODUCTION
Organizational justice is considered one of the core
values of the organization. For decades, researchers
have emphasized that the organizational justice is a
subjective matter which is the result of the
employee’s assessment of what is considered fair or
unfair in the organizational lives. Employees have
high expectations of justice given by the
organization both in terms of allocation and process
of interactional decision and management of
decision makers in allocating resources. Even,
employees will be willing to make adjustments to
the various obstacles and hindrances that occur in
the organization if the organization is able to show
trust, honesty, sympathy and uphold the dignity of
the employees (Yadav and Yadav, 2016).
Greenberg defines organizational justice as a
general term used by organizational psychologists to
refer to how organizations treat individuals
(employees) fairly (Greenber, 1990). Whereas Byrne
and Cropanzano (2001 in Yadav and Yadav, 2016)
define organizational justice as a psychology of
justice that is applied in the organizational context.
Furthermore, Fortin (2008 in Yadav and Yadav,
2016) explains that organizational justice can help
understand how employees associate themselves
with organizational complexity. Besides, it can also
be used to understand the diversity of employee
relations.
Homans was regarded as the person who first
proposed the concept of organizational justice in
1961. Nonetheless, some parties believed that the
first person to introduce the term organizational
justice was Greenberg in 1970 (Karimi, Alipour,
Pour, Azizi, 2013). In the end, justice has become a
theme of interest in organizational behavior studies
after Blau (1964 in Yadav and Yadav, 2016) and
Adams (1965 in Yadav and Yadav, 2016) conducted
quite influential studies on organizational justice.
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Some theories have contributed to the formation of
the concept of organizational justice. The theory of
justice from Adam (1965 in Yadav and Yadav,
2016) developed from social exchange theory
254
Rahmah, L.
Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis.
DOI: 10.5220/0009447402540261
In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Psychology (ICPsy 2019), pages 254-261
ISBN: 978-989-758-448-0
Copyright
c
 2020 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reserved

explains that individuals will compare input and
output which ultimately form perceptions of justice
from the outputs received. The theory of cognition
from Folger (1986 in Yadav and Yadav, 2016)
emphasizes the occurrence of feelings of
disappointment when individuals do not get a
guarantee that the expected outputs cannot be
achieved/accepted.
Early studies of organizational justice refer to
two aspects, namely: 1. Employees’ perceptions of
what is received as (output), and 2. Employees’
perceptions of the process that produces outputs
(procedures). The first aspect is known as
distributive justice, i.e. the perception of justice
related to the allocation of resources based on the
considerations between input and output. This aspect
is based on the results of Adams' study. The second
aspect is known as procedural justice, i.e. a
procedure adopted by an organization in allocating
resources that produce output. The expectation is
that each output must be fair, and employees must
have a voice and control over the process.
Studies of organizational justice from the 1960s
to the late 1980s still use two aspects of justice,
procedural and distributive (Cropanzano and
Greenberg, 1997). Before 1975, the study of
organizational justice merely focused on the object
of study on the construct of distributive justice based
on Adams’ theory of justice, i.e. a development of
social exchange theory. The construct of procedural
justice began to be the focus of attention of
researchers since Thibaut and Walker introduced
this construct in 1975 (Colquitt et al., 2001).
However, by the end of 1990s, Bidarian et al. (1990
in Karimi, Alipour, Pour, Azizi, 2013) suggest that a
new stage was begun, i.e. the aspect of
organizational justice which became the object of
study of organizational behavior studies had no
longer used two aspects, but three aspects. Social
highlights were added as a new aspect of
organizational justice known as interactional justice.
Interactional justice constructs were initiated by Bies
and Moag in 1986 (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Furthermore, the aspect of interactional justice was
still divided into two sub-aspects, namely: 1.
interpersonal justice, i.e. justice felt by individuals
from relationships that generate sympathy and
uphold dignity, and 2. Informational justice, i.e.
justice felt by individuals related to transparent and
open services from the organization (Greenberg,
1993). There are still many studies on organizational
justice that use these three aspects of organizational
justice, some are even more complex by adding two
sub-aspects of interactional justice. However, some
studies only use one of the three aspects of
organizational justice.
Perception of organizational justice in the
process of its formation is influenced by 1) Output
received from the organization (determination is
whether individuals perceive positively or negatively
the outcomes received by the organization); 2)
Organizational practice (procedure and quality of
interaction) which is determined by the extent to
which the organization is able to carry out fair
procedures in decision making, and 3)
Characteristics of individuals who perceive (can be
determined by demographic characteristics, such as
age, gender, race and years of work and personality
traits (Charash and Spector, 2001). Gay (2007 in
(Demir, 2016) states that there is no guarantee that
each individual has the same perception about his
assessment of investment, costs, rewards for himself
and others in the process of exchanges carried out
(between what is given to the organization and
output received from the organization) This has the
potential to produce different outcomes.
For more than 40 years, organizational justice
has been studied intensively and produced empirical
evidence related to causes (antecedent) {such as
expectations of outcomes, organizational practices
or characteristics of individuals who perceive} and
their impact on outcomes (such as work
performance, organizational citizenship behavior,
intention to get out of the organization,
organizational commitment and job satisfaction}.
This finding is not limited to the context of business
organizations but also to educational institutions in
both the secondary and tertiary education levels
(Malik and Naeem, 2011). One of studies that
investigates the impact of organizational justice on
outcomes is conducted by Charash & Spector
(2001). The study proves that 1) procedural justice is
the best predictor of work performance and counter-
productive work behavior; 2) the three aspects of
organizational justice are predictors of job
satisfaction and affective work commitment; and 3)
perceptions of organizational injustice are predictors
of emotional reactions such as moods and anger.
One of the most researched variables as an
impact of organizational justice is job satisfaction.
Many studies prove that organizational justice is a
predictor of job satisfaction, such as Charash and
Spector (2001), Whisenant and Smucker (2009)
Zainalpur (2010), Dundar and Tabancali (2012),
Imani Nojani et al. (2012), Taheri and Soltani
(2013), and Divkan, et al. (2013).
Job satisfaction is a psychological construct
expressed as an outcome of organizational justice
Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis
255

(Lee, 2007 in Demir (2016)). Job satisfaction is
understood as the attitudes and feelings of
individuals related to their work (Karimi, Alipour,
Pour, Azizi, 2013). Good and positive attitudes on
the job indicates job satisfaction. On the contrary,
bad and negative attitudes toward work indicate job
dissatisfaction (Armstrong, 2006 in Karimi, Alipour,
Pour, Azizi (2013)). Weiss, et al. (1967) in Akbolat,
Isik, Yilmaz , & Akca, (2015) divide job satisfaction
into two types, namely external satisfaction, i.e.
satisfaction related to external resources such as:
wages, promotion, administration, etc. and internal
satisfaction, i.e. satisfaction related to internal
resources such as individual work skills, decision
making, etc. The level of job satisfaction can range
from maximum satisfaction to maximum
dissatisfaction and can target various aspects of
work such as: types of tasks, colleagues, supervisors
and supervisees, payment systems, promotions, etc.
(George, et al., 2008 in Karimi, Alipour, Pour, Azizi
(2013)).
Job satisfaction can be conceptualized as a result
of a combination of work characteristics, work
environment, and attitudes and personality traits of
individuals. There are two main theoretical models
that explain how organizational justice can affect job
satisfaction, namely: 1) the personal outcomes
model, and 2) the group-value-model. The personal
outcomes model considers the aspect of distributive
justice is a predictor of job satisfaction in which its
effect is stronger than the other two aspects of
justice. Meanwhile, the group-value-model sees that
procedural justice is considered a stronger predictor
(MeCnabb, 2009; Demir, 2016).
Exposure from the theory that explains the
difference in strength of influence from aspects of
organizational justice to job satisfaction as described
above can at least explain the inconsistency of
findings of studies that try to investigate the
relationship between organizational justice and job
satisfaction, from those who find evidence of
influence/relationship to those who don’t. In
addition, the influence strength of each aspect of
organizational justice on job satisfaction is also
inconsistent in each study. Some studies prove that
procedural justice has a stronger effect on job
satisfaction (Fatt, 2010; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010;
Yaghoubi, et al., 2012; Demir, 2016; Kashif,
Mahmood and Aijaz, 2016). However, other studies
have found that distributive justice has stronger
effects (Hedidari and Saeedi, 2012; Karimi, Alipour,
Pour and Azizi, 2013; Abasi, Mohammadipour and
Aidi, 2014; Shafiee and Gitifar, 2015). In addition,
interactional Justice has also been proven as the
strongest aspect of organizational justice (Fatimah,
Amiraa and Halim, 2011; Iqbal, 2013). Tziner, et al.
(2011) find that all three aspects of organizational
justice have the same strong effect on job
satisfaction. In fact, there are also study findings that
cannot prove the relationship between one aspect of
organizational justice, i.e. procedural justice and job
satisfaction (Fatimah, Amiraa and Halim, 2011).
Some publications on the relationship of
organizational justice with job satisfaction show
different correlation results and strengths of
correlation. Therefore, it is necessary to synthesize
various studies on organizational justice, both from
aspects of procedural, distributive and interactional
justice with job satisfaction. It needs to be conducted
to obtain a general pattern of relations between the
two variables. Rubin in Hunter & Schmi (2004)
suggests that the purpose of the meta-analysis is to
estimate the level of relationships of the previously
completed studies. In addition, the meta-analysis can
also convince researchers of more accurate and
credible conclusions so that they can be used as a
reference for other primary studies (Roshental &
DiMatteo, 2001).
Referring to the aforementioned description, the
researcher aims to see the consistency of the
correlation between the three aspects of
organizational justice, namely procedural justice,
distributive justice and interactional justice with job
satisfaction. The hypothesis proposed by researcher
is the three aspects of organizational justice, namely:
procedural justice, distributive justice and
interactional justice are positively correlated with
job satisfaction.
3 RESEARCH METHOD
The procedures of this study are described as
follows:
3.1 Formulation of The Problems
The problems arisen in this meta-analysis study are
inconsistencies in the results of primary studies
regarding the correlation between the three aspects
of organizational justice, namely procedural justice,
attributable justice and interactional justice with job
satisfaction. Therefore, meta-analysis study is
conducted to see the relationship between two
variables (organizational justice along with three
aspects with job satisfaction) through the meta-
analysis method.
ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology
256

3.2 Data Collection from Primary
Studies
Data for this study is collected by tracing journal
manuscripts in several journal providers such as
SAGE Publication, Science Direct, Emerald Insight,
Researchgate, and Google Scholar. The keywords
used are organizational justice, organizational
injustice, organizational justice perception, fairness
perception, job satisfaction, and career satisfaction.
Based on the search results using those keywords, 54
journal manuscripts were collected from the
published scientific journals. The next stage is
filtering journal manuscripts published between
2009 and 2016, having information on the number of
subjects (N) and the correlation value (r) of
procedural justice, attributable justice, interactional
justice with job satisfaction. Based on the fulfillment
of the above criteria, 17 journal texts were used for
this meta-analysis study. Among them, there are 20
worthy studies to be used as data sources for
conducting meta-analysis.
3.3 Data Analysis and Interpretation
The analysis uses a computer program, i.e.
Microsoft Excel 2016. The meta-analysis of this
study goes from primary studies in the form of
correlation studies and are descriptions of the
correlation between the independent variables
namely procedural justice, distributive justice and
interactional justice with dependent variables
namely job satisfaction. Hunter-Schmidt (2004)
states there are eleven artifacts that can be tested in
meta-analysis; however, only two artifacts will be
corrected in this meta-analysis, namely: sampling
error correction and measurement error correction.
3.4 Meta Analysis Procedure
In this meta-analysis only two artefacts will be
corrected.
1. Sampling error correction
The meta-analysis technique uses the
procedure of Hunter & Schmidt (2004) with
the following steps:
 Transforming the F value; change the
algebraic value from the value of F to the
values t, d, and r. In this case, because
from the results of the research, r-value
could be directly obtained so that the
transformation of the F-value and t-value
into r-value was not conducted.
 A meta-analysis of bones for correction of
sampling error is done by: a) calculating the
mean population correlation; b) calculate
the variance of rxy; c) calculate the
variance of sampling error; d). calculate the
impact of sampling error
2. Measurement error correction
Correction of measurement error is done with
the following steps; 1)calculate the combines
average; 2)calculate the correction error of
measurement on a dan b at step A.2, that is the
actual correction of the population; 3) add up
the the coefficient squares of variation;4)
Variance that refers to the variations in
artefacts; 5) Actual correlation variance; 6)
Confidence Interval; 7)Impact of reliability
variations.
4 RESULT
4.1 Characteristics of Research Sample
The research samples of this meta-analysis study
were 4606, taken from 20 studies conducted around
2009-2016 in 8 countries namely: Malaysia, South
Korea, Jordan, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Spain and
Texas. Job characteristics of the research sample are
quite diverse, ranging from teaching staff and
administration from secondary and higher education
institutions, government and private company
employees, to hotel employees and banks.
4.2 Data Analysis.
4.2.1 Sampling Error Correction (Bare
Bone Meta-Analysis
Hunter and Schmidt (2004) state that if population
correlation is assumed to be constant among several
studies, the best estimate of correlation will be not a
simple average of correlations of several studies but
rather a weighted average for each correlation,
divided by the number of samples in the study. A
summary of the bare bone meta-analysis results for
the three aspects of organizational justice can be
seen in Table 1.
Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis
257

Table 1: Summary of Bare Bone Meta-Analysis Result.
Procedural
Distributive
Interactive
Average
of
population
correlatio
n
0.449
0,406
0,388
Variance
of
population
correlatio
n
0,053
0,049
0,060
Variance
of
sampling
errors
0,003
0,003
0,003
Variance
of actual
population
correlatio
n
0,050
0,046
0,057
Standard
deviation
of
population
correlatio
n
0,224
0,215
0,238
Confidenc
e interval
0,010 < r <
0,888
-0,016 < r <
0,829
-0,079
<r<0,856
Impacts of
sampling
errors
5,257%
6,152%
5,240 %
4.2.2 Measurement Error Correction
In addition to sampling error correction, artifact
correction also includes measurement error
correction. Measurement errors on all three aspects
of organizational justice with job satisfaction were
carried out in this study. The summary of the
calculation of measurement errors for the three
aspects of organizational justice, namely: procedural
justice, distributive justice and interactional justice
can be seen in Table 2.
Table 2: Summary of Measurement Error Results.
Procedural
Distributive
Interactive
Mixed
average
0,853097
0,848952
0,863631
Populatio
n
correlatio
n
0,526027
0,478813
0,449587
Convenie
nt number
of quadrat
variance
0,002040
0,003830
0,001924
Variance
of
measurem
ent error
0, 000411
0,000633
0,000290
Variance
of actual
correlatio
n
0,068315
0,063449
0,007587
5
Confidenc
e interval
0,013739
<ρ<1,0383
15
- 0,014893
<ρ<0,9725
20
- 0,09030
<ρ<0,98
9477
Impacts of
measurem
ent error
0,776 %
1,281 %
0,483%
5 DISCUSSION
In this meta-analysis study, corrections were made
to two artifacts, namely sampling and measurement
errors. For sampling error artifacts, findings from the
study results with this meta-analysis approach
indicate that the correlation of the three aspects of
organizational justice, namely procedural justice,
distributive justice and interactional justice with
moderate effect size based on the criteria of Davis
(in Cortices et al., 2011). Correlation between the
three aspects of organizational justice (procedural,
distributive and interactional) with job satisfaction
are: 0.449, 0.406 and 0.388, respectively. These
scores are in the reception area 95% interval {0,010
<r1 <0,888; -0,016 <r2 <0,829 and -0,079 <r
<0,856}. It means that there is a positive relationship
with the moderate level between procedural justice,
distributive justice and interactional justice with job
satisfaction. Procedural justice can explain job
satisfaction approximately 20% of the total variance.
Whereas distributive justice and interactional justice
are around 16% and 11% of the total variance,
respectively.
The use of variances in the aspects of
organizational justice in various studies from the
ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology
258

beginning has become a debatable matter.
Researchers have proposed two aspects namely
distributive and procedural justices (Greenberg,
1990; Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993). In their study,
Sweeney and McFarlin found evidence that
distributive justice is more correlated with person-
level outcomes, such as satisfaction with salary
systems; while procedural justice is more correlated
with organization-level outcomes, such as
organizational commitment. Researchers who
propose two aspects of organizational justice assume
that interactional justice is included in the aspects of
procedural justice. Meanwhile, other researchers
propose four aspects of organizational justice,
namely distributive justice, procedural justice,
interpersonal justice and informational justice
(Colquitt, 2001). However, the majority of
organizational justice researchers put forward three
aspects namely distributive justice, procedural
justice and interactional justice (DeConinck, 2010;
Liljegren & Ekberg, 2009). There are also
researchers who are proud that organizational justice
is a multi-aspect, so it is not just two, three or four
aspects (Byrne and Cropanzano, 2000). In this meta-
analysis study, three aspects of organizational justice
were used. It is based on the consideration that the
majority of studies on organizational justice use the
three aspects of organizational justice.
The correlation value of each aspect of
organizational justice on job satisfaction varies but
the difference is not significant because the effect of
the three strengths in predicting job satisfaction is
still in the same category, i.e. moderate. This finding
is an evidence of the strength of predicting the same
of the three predictors of job satisfaction that are the
objects of this meta-analysis study. It also indicates
that finally individuals consider that distributive,
procedural and interactional aspects organizational
justice with the organization (in this case the
management) are important in generating
satisfaction felt in the workplace organization. It
supports the findings of one of the previous studies,
namely Tziner, Oren, Bar, and Kadosh (2011) which
proves that there is a relatively similar influence
power between the three aspects of organizational
justice on job satisfaction. However, it is different
from most of findings from previous studies
showing a greater influence on one aspect of
organizational justice, especially aspects of
procedural justice and distributive justice aspects
which alternately became the most influential
predictors (Fatt, 2010; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010;
Yaghoubi et al. 2012; Demir, 2016; Kashif,
Mahmood and Aijaz, 2016; Hedidari and Saeedi,
2012; Karimi, Alipour, Pour and Azizi, 2013; Abasi,
Mohammadipour and Aidi, 2014; Shafiee and
Gitifar, 2015).
Job satisfaction is a feeling of pleasure or an
individual’s positive feeling as a result of an
evaluation of his/her works. This feeling will emerge
when the value to be obtained from the organization
(outcome) is proportional to the value needed by
individuals (Basaran, 1992 in Akbolat, Isik, Yilmaz
& Akca, 2015). Organizations really want to have a
positive work attitude that is expressed as job
satisfaction for their employees. This is because
individuals are important assets of an organization
that can help provide a competitive advantage so
that the organization can remain long-lived.
Individual who is satisfied with its work is believed
to tend to bring about optimal work performance.
For this reason, organizations need to seek
distributive, procedural, and interactional
organizational justice in work practices so that
employees can be positively perceived.
Organizational practices that are considered fair by
employees will trigger job satisfaction. This is
consistent with the opinion of Yildrim (2007) in
Akbolat, Isik, Yilmaz & Akca (2015) which
confirms that organizational justice functions as a
significant predictor of job satisfaction.
The impact of sampling errors on all three
correlations was 5.26%; 6.15% and 5. 24%,
respectively. It is obviously seen that those scores
are not significantly different or relatively small.
This shows that the error bias caused by sampling
errors in this study is small. One possibility is
because of the heterogeneity of the samples used by
the study. As can be seen in the table of sample
characteristics, this study involves various
characteristics of research subjects ranging from
company employees (in the public and private
sectors; industrial and service sectors) to teaching
staff in educational institutions ranging from high
school to college.
The coefficient of population correlation after
good measurement error correction found in
independent and dependent variables of the three
relationships between the three aspects of
organizational justice and job satisfaction are
0.526027; 0.478813 and 0.449587, respectively. The
actual population correlation (ρ) is estimated at
0.068315; 0.063449; and 0.0075875, respectively.
Meanwhile, the standard deviation shows 0.261371;
0.251891 and 0.275454, respectively. By using a
95% confidence interval, the correlation is 0.526027,
0.478813 and 0.449587 in which they are still within
the accepted limits. From this calculation, it can be
Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis
259

concluded that there is a positive relationship
between the three aspects of organizational justice
and job satisfaction, with the impact of variances in
reliability of 0.776%; 1.281% and 0.483%,
respectively. This variance shows a different
correlation between the mean of population and
study due to a measurement error of 0.776% for
procedural justice with job satisfaction; 1.281% for
distributive justice with job satisfaction and 0.483%
for interactional justice with job satisfaction.
This small measurement error deviation is
because from the beginning researchers
accommodate organizational justice and job
satisfaction in a specific spectrum, namely choosing
studies that use measuring instruments that measure
almost the same construct. Especially for measuring
instruments that reveal the three aspects of
organizational justice. Previous studies used as data
in this meta-analysis study mostly used instruments
from Niehoff and Moorman (1993) to reveal
organizational justice. This specific construct caused
variability because measurement errors became
smaller. Therefore, the future studies related to this
topic are expected to be able to make more specific
constructs in order to further minimize measurement
errors.
6 CONCLUSION
The results of this meta-analysis study provide
support to the majority of previous studies, i.e. there
is a significant positive correlation between the
three aspects of organizational justice, namely:
distributive justice, procedural justice and
interactional justice with job satisfaction. The three
aspects of organizational justice have a moderate
influence, It means that all three aspects have a
positive linear correlation with job satisfaction. Thus
it can be concluded that each aspect of
organizational justice can reasonably predict the
occurrence of job satisfaction.
The studies analyzed in this meta-analysis use
three aspects of organizational justice altogether. It
is better for future research to do a special meta-
analysis using one aspect of organizational justice to
be able to see the impact more specifically on both
aspects of job satisfaction, i.e. internal and external
satisfactions. It is to test the research findings which
confirm that each aspect of organizational justice has
different effects on organizational outcomes
including the variables of job satisfaction (Colquitt
et al., 2001).
The few numbers of studies used in this meta-
analysis is one of the limitations. It is possible if
more samples can maximize sampling error
correction from related studies. For this reason, it is
better for future research to add the number of
studies because the accuracy of the meta-analysis
approach is strongly influenced by the number of
samples, especially for sampling error correction.
REFERENCES
Aslam, R. et al., Organizational Justiceas a Predictor of
Job Satisfaction among Teachers:A Case Study on
University of The Punjab.Proceedings of 2nd
International Conference Business Management.
Akbolat, M., Isik,O.,Yilmaz,A.,& Akca,N (2015). The
Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job
satisfaction of Health Employees. International
Journal of Recent Advances Organizational Behavior
adn Decision Sciences. Vol.1(2).
Abasi, E.,Mohammadipour,R. & Aidi,M.(2014). An
Investigation of Impact of Organizational Justice
Dimensions on Job satisfaction ( Case Study : An
Iranian Bank). Universal Journal of Management . Vol
2 (3), 132-137.
Baldwin, S. (2006). Institut For Employment Studies.
Diambil kembali dari http://www.employment-
studies.co.uk
Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). To which source
do I attribute this fairness? Differential effects of
multi-foci justice on organizational work behaviors.
Presented at the annual conference of the Society of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology in New
Orleans, LA
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of
organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400
DeConick, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational
justice, perceived organizational support, and
perceived supervisor support on marketing employees'
level of trust. (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2000)Journal of
Business Research, 63, 1349-1355.
Demir, K. (2016). Relation Between teachers'
organizational Justice perceptions and organizational
commitment and job satisfaction in the school : A
meta-anlysis. International Kournal of Human
Sciences, 1400-1416.
DiMatteo, R. R. (2001). Meta - Analysis: Recent
Developmental in Qualitative Methods For Literature
Reviews. . Annual Reviews Psychology. 52, 59-82.
Fatimah, O.,Amiraa,A.M.&Halim,F.W. (2011). The
Relationship Between Organizational Justice ,
Organizational Citizenship Behavior and job
ICPsy 2019 - International Conference on Psychology
260

satisfaction. Pertanika Journal Social Science &
Humanicab. Vol 19 (s), 115-121.
Fatt, C.K.,Khin,E.W.S. & Heng,T.N. (2010). The Impact
Of Organizational Justice on Employee's Job
Satisfaction: The Malaysian Companies Perspective.
American Journal Of Economic and Business
Administration. Vol 2 (1), 56-62.
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice:
Yesterday,Today, Tomorrow. Journal of Management.
Vol.16 , 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993). The Social Side of Fairness:
Interpersonal and Informasional Classes of
Organizational Justice. In R Cropanzano 9Ed), Justice
In Workplace: Approachng fairness in human
resources management. Hilssdale: N.J: Erlbaum.
Greenberg, R. C. (1997). Progress In Organizational
Justice: Tunneling through the maze . In,C. Cooper &
I. Robertson(eds). Internatipnal Review of Industrial
and Organizational Psychology , 317-372.
Hedari, S.A A.,& Saeedi,N.(2012). Studying the Role of
Organizational Justice on Job Satisfaction (Case Study
: An Iranian Company). Journal Of Basic and Applied
Scientific Research, 6459-6465Schmidt, J. E. (2004).
Methods of Meta - Analysis: Correting Error and Bias
In Research Findings. Newbury Park: Sage
Publications.
Iqbal, K. (2013). Determinants of Organizational Justice
and Its Impact on Job Satisfaction. A pakistan base
Survey. International Review of Management and
Business Research. Vol 2 (1), 48-56.
Karimi, A.,Alipour, O.,Pour, MA & Azizi, B. (2013).
Relationship Between Organizational Justice adn Job
Satisfaction In Ministry of Sport and Youth In Iran.
Internatinal Journal Of Sport Studies. Vol 3 (11),
1149-1156.
Kashif,M.,Mahmood,B& Aijaz,S.(2016). Organizational
Justice adn Job Satisfaction In Banking Sector of
Pakistan ( A Study of Faisalabad). Global Journal Of
Management and Business Research : An
Administration adn Management, 42-56.
Liljegren, M. & Ekberg, K. (2009). The associations
between perceived distributive, procedural, and
interactional organizational justice, self-rated health
and burnout. Work, 33, 43-51.
Malik, M.E & Naeem,B. (2011). Role of Perceived
Organizational Justice in Job Satisfaction : Evidence
from Higher Education Institutions of Pakistan.
Interdicilinary journal of Contemporary Research In
Business. Vol 3 No.8, 662-672.
Nadiri, H & Tanova,C. (2010). An Investigation of the
Roel of Justice in Turnover intentions, job satisfaction,
and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitaly
industry. International journal of Hospitaly
Management. Volume 29, 33-41.
Oh,J.R. (2013). The Impact of Organizational Justice on
Career Satisfactionof Employees In The Public Sector
of South Korea A. Dissertaton submitted to the
faaculty of The Graduate school of The University of
Minnesota.
Paola Cantarelli1, P. B. (2016). A Meta-Analysis of Job
Satisfaction Correlates in the Public Administration
Literature. Review of Public Personnel Administration
(Vo.36 (2), 115–144.
Salehi, M. et al. (2014). The Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction: A Case
Study in the Organization of Education Sanandaj City.
Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education
Vol. 3(3).
Shafie, A & Gitifar,M. (2015). Realtionship between
Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction of Sport
Teacher of Education Isfahan. Buletin Teknol,
Tanaman, Bil 12, Tambahan 2 , 145-148.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers'
evaluations of the "ends and the "means": An
examination of four models of distributive and
procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
Spector, Y. C.-C. (2001). The Role of Justice in
Organizations:A Meta-Analysis. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 278–321.
Tziner,A.,Bar,Y.,Oren,L.,&Kadosh,G.(2011). Coorporate
Social responsibility: Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction: How do They Interrelate , If at All?
Revista de Psychologia del Trabajo y de las
Organizationes, 67-72.
Whisenant, W & Smucker, M.(2009). Organizational
Justice and Job Satisfaction in Coaching. Public
Organiz Rev (2009) 9:157–167.
Yuan, S.Y. (2015).The Impact of Organizational Justice
Towards Employee Job Satisfaction In Malaysia.
Thesis. A research project submitted in partial
fulfillment of The requirement for the degree of Master
of Business Administration.
Yadav, L.K, & Yadav, N. (2016). Organizational Justice :
An Analysis of Approaches, Dimensions and
Outcomes. Management Review volume XXXI.
Yaghoubi,E., dkk. (2012). An Analysis of Correlation
Between Organizational Justice and job Satisfaction.
African Journal Of Business Management. Vol 6 (3),
995-1001.
Zu’bi, H.A. (2010). A Study of Relationship Between
Organizational Justicee and Job Satisfaction.
International Journal of Business and
Management.Vol5.No.12.
Zainalipour,H.,Fini,A.A.S& Mirkamali,S.M. (2010). A
Study of Relationship between Organizational Justice
and Job Satisfaction among Teachers in Bandar Abbas
Middle School.Procedia Social and Behavioral
Sciences.5.
Organizational Justice and Work Satisfaction: Meta Analysis
261