The Effect of Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, on Innovative

Work Behavior

Gustiarti Leila, Hamidah and Dede Rahmat Hidayat

Management Science, Universitas Negeri Jakarta, Indonesia

Keywords: Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, Innovative Work Behavior.

Abstract: Government regulation forces companies to focus on innovation as one of the methods to increase work

performance so that they can compete with other companies. At the same time, with the still distant social

hierarchy between the organization and the employees motivates the writers to examine whether procedural

justice affects the innovative work behavior of the employees through the research on the relationship between

procedural justice, work engagement, and innovative work behavior. Research was done on 173 supervisor-

level employees of a nation-owned plantation company located in North Sumatera, Indonesia. Sample was

chosen through simple random sampling method. Structural equation modeling was used to test the

hypothesis. Results showed that procedural justice has a significant positive effect on innovative work

behavior (β=0.242; p=0.000). Procedural justice also indirectly affects innovative work behavior through

work engagement (β = 0.173; p=0.000). Thus, it can be concluded that procedural justice can increase

innovative work behavior both directly and indirectly through the mediation of work engagement. This study

also found that the contribution of procedural justice and work engagement to innovative work behavior is R

2 adjust = 0.28, while the contribution of procedural justice on work engagement is R 2 adjust = 0.20.

Suggestions for further research include strengthening other variables that can also cause increase in

innovative work behavior in this particular company.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to Kanter (1988) and Scott & Bruce

(1994), innovative work behavior can be understood

as a multi-dimensional concept. Employees produce

innovative ideas, look for supports to these ideas from

their colleagues and supervisors, and apply these

ideas in their workplace (De Spiegelaere, Van Gyes

& Van Hootegem, 2014). West & Farr (1990) defined

innovative work behavior as “Every employee’s

behavior that is aimed to the creation, promotion and

application of an idea (in their role, group, or

organization). Based on the works of Kleysen &

Street (2001) and Yuan & Woodman (2010), IWB is

every individual action that is aimed the generation,

processing, and application/implementation of new

ideas regarding methods that include ideas for

products, technology, procedures, or work process

with the aim to increase the effectivity and success of

an organization.

According to De Jong & Den Hartog (2010),

innovative behavior relates to the production of new

ideas and innovative results. Furthermore, innovative

work behavior also refers to the ability to think

differently, reorganize information and knowledge

with other methods, both in order to develop new

products and processes and to realize and spread

them. This concept differs from creativity in that to

show the novelty and radicality of an idea, innovative

behavior encompasses the socio-psychological

process between individuals that concerns more on

the implementation and realization of an idea.

There are many variables that can affect

innovative work behavior of employees. Procedural

justice is one of those variables. Procedural justice

refers to the perception of employees on how open

their organization (leaders) to hear the opinions of its

members on the decision-making process (Zeb,

Abdullah, Othayman & Ali, 2019). Other than that,

procedural justice shows the official standard and

quality of exchanges in the decision-making process.

Decision making process shows the interaction

between decision makers and receivers (Yu, Lee, Han

& Kim, 2019). When an employee feels that they are

involved in a decision-making process, then

according to the social exchange theory, employees

126

Leila, G., Hamidah, . and Rahmat Hidayat, D.

The Effect of Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, on Innovative Work Behavior.

DOI: 10.5220/0011247600003376

In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Innovations (ICRI 2021), pages 126-131

ISBN: 978-989-758-602-6

will reciprocate with positive behavior in the form of

innovative work behavior.

2 LITERATURE REVIEW AND

HYPOTHESES

2.1 Procedural Justice and Innovative

Work Behavior

Organizational justice, especially procedural justice,

has become an important situational variable in an

organization and employee. Procedural justice

focuses on the decision-making process by giving

employees an opportunity to voice their opinions

(Blader & Tyler, 2003). Procedural justice is a

measure of the extent of uniformity exists in the

decision-making process of an organization and the

opinions of the organization members are mirrored in

the decision-making process. Zeb et al. (2019)

defined procedural justice as the openness of a

method or procedure in the making of a decision or

goals. Tyler (1988) defined that procedural justice

refers to the justice that is felt from the procedure that

is used to make a decision.

The existence of procedural justice increases a

form of cooperative behavior, which is very

important for every technical, economical, and social

progress, including the ability for innovative

behavior. The concept of procedural justice

(Masterson, Lewis, Goldman & Taylor, 2000) relates

to the social exchange pathway. This concept affects

the perception of employees on a strong connection

between them and their work environment.

Procedural justice also refers to the exchange between

an organization and its employees. Prior researches

show that formal procedure is usually applied by top

management and written on behalf of an organization

that acts as a legal entity (Cropanzano, Prehar &

Chen, 2002). When employees think that the applied

procedure is just, they will reciprocate by forming a

more positive attitude to the organization

(Cropanzano et al., 1997; Masterson et al., 2000).

From empirical studies that were conducted by

Akram (2016) and Kim & Park (2017), procedural

justice shows a significant positive influence both

directly and indirectly on the innovative work

behavior of the employees. When an individual

believes that their organization cares and treat them

justly, their motivation to perform their best on their

work increases, which in turn causes them to be

involved in the creation, development, and

application of ideas related to work.

H1: Procedural justice has a significant positive

influence on the innovative work behavior of the

employees

2.2 Procedural Justice and Innovative

Work Behavior That Is Mediated

by Work Engagement

Many existing literatures emphasize the mediation

role of work engagement in the relation between the

antecedent and consequence in an organization (Kim

et al., 2012). The mediation effects from work

engagement on the relation between procedural

justice and innovative work behavior were examined

by A. Agarwal (2014). The study showed that if an

organization seriously cares about the justice in the

decision-making process, their effort will facilitate

and support the work involvement of employees.

Procedural justice has a definition as the openness of

a method or procedure in the making of a decision or

desirable outcomes (Cropanzano & Ambrose, 2001).

One of the important variables in the procedural

justice theory is process control or voice effect, that

is the act of giving subordinates a chance to express

their wishes, opinions, views, and preferences before

a decision is made. Psychologically speaking, voice

effect gives subordinates the feeling that they are

involved in the making of a decision (Folger, 1987).

The mediation effect of work engagement on the

relation between procedural justice and innovative

work behavior shows that if an organization cares and

is open to their employees’ input, this will make

employees feel involved in the decision-making

process, which ultimately will increase the work

engagement of their employees (A. Agarwal, 2014).

The strengthening of employees’ work engagement,

in turn will increase their willingness to come up with

new ideas for their organization and apply those ideas

to their workplace with the support of their colleagues

or the management. Theoretical framework that refers

to the social exchange theory also supports this

proposition. In the view of the social exchange theory

on meta-analysis (Colquitt et al., 2013), the reciprocal

relationship and the exchange relationship between

employees and their organization (Agarwal, Datta,

Blake-Beard & Bhagarva, 2012) positively influence

employees’ work engagement and in the end increase

the positive behavior of employees (innovative work

behavior).

H2: There exists a significant and positive

influence of procedural justice on innovative attitude

through work engagement.

The Effect of Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, on Innovative Work Behavior

127

Figure 1: Hypothesis model that will be empirically tested

in this study.

3 METHODS

3.1 Research Design and Respondent

This study tests the theoretical model using an

individual data source that is obtained from

supervisor level employees of a nation-owned

plantation company. This study is conducted using

quantitative approach and survey method with

questionnaire that is designed with rating scale. On

the scale of innovative work behavior, all positive

items scores range from 1 (never) to 5 (very often).

On the scale of procedural justice and work

engagement variables, positive items are given scores

ranging from 1 (disagree very strongly) to 5 (agree

very strongly), while negative items are given score 1

(agree very strongly) to 5 (disagree very strongly).

The data gathering technique used is simple

random sampling that is gathered from a population

of 900 supervisor level employees using

questionnaires that are distributed through Google

Form. The results of sample size calculation with the

Slovin formula gives a minimum sample size of 276

respondents. However, the employees that filled the

questionnaires amount to 264 individuals. After

conducting a selection of gathered data, the amount

of data that can be processed statistically is 173,

which consist of 91% males and 9% females, with

work experience ranging from 1 year to more than 30

years.

3.2 Measures

The measure of innovative work behavior is an

adaptation from the scale of innovative work behavior

that is developed by Janssen (2000), which measures

indicators of 1) idea generation, 2) idea promotion,

and 3) idea realization. The number of items before

and after the test are 9 items with Cronbach’s alpha

0.918. The measure of procedural justice that is used

is an adaptation of the scale of procedural justice that

is developed by Reizig, Bratton & Gertz (2007) which

measures indicators of 1) superiors’ respectful

attitude, 2) superiors’ openness, 3) objectivity in

decision making, and 4) fact-based decision making.

The mount of items before testing are 17 and 16 after

testing with Cronbach’s alpha 0.841. The measure of

work engagement that is used is an adaptation of the

work engagement scale that is developed by Shuck et

al. (2016) which measures indicators of: 1) cognitive

engagement, 2) emotional engagement, and 3)

behavioral engagement. The number of items before

testing are 20 and 15 after testing with Cronbach’s

alpha 0.786. The instruments used measure latent

construct with 5 Likert scale answer choices. For

procedural justice and work engagement beginning

from 1 = disagree very strongly to 5 = agree very

strongly. While for innovative work behavior

beginning from 1 = never to 5 = very often.

3.3 Hypothesis Statistic

1. The influence of procedural justice on the

innovative work behavior. Ho : βx1y ≤ 0 H1 :

βx1y > 0

2. The influence of procedural justice on the

innovative work behavior through work

engagement. Ho : βx1zy ≤ 0 H1 : βx1zy > 0

4 RESULT

Table 1 is the sample descriptive statistic from the

variables used in this study with 173 respondents. The

table shows the mean value, standard deviation, and

variance of the variables Procedural Justice (PJ),

Work Engagement (ENG), and Innovative Work

Behavior (IWB).

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics of Sample.

N Range Mean

Std.

Dev.

Variance

IWB1 (Y.1) 173 3.00 3.8092 0.68338 0.467

IWB2 (Y.2) 173 3.00 3.7624 0.62248 0.387

IWB3 (Y.3) 173 3.30 3.6081 0.66046 0.436

PJ1 (X

.1) 173 1.70 3.9723 0.44018 0.194

PJ2 (X

.2) 173 2.20 3.8913 0.49484 0.245

PJ3 (X

.3) 173 2.40 3.7855 0.50964 0.260

PJ4 (X

.4) 173 2.00 3.8422 0.46781 0.219

ENG1 (Z

.1) 173 2.00 4.3434 0.44477 0.198

ENG2 (Z

.2) 173 1.70 4.3699 0.46471 0.216

ENG3 (Z

.3) 173 2.00 4.2439 0.43178 0.186

Valid N

(listwise)

173

N Range Mean

Std.

Dev.

Variance

ICRI 2021 - International Conference on Recent Innovations

128

Table 2: Construct Reliability and Validity.

Cronbach's

Alpha

rho_A

Composite

Reliability

Average

Variance

Extracted

(AVE)

PJ (X1) 0.841 0.857 0.893 0.677

ENG (Z) 0.786 0.788 0.575 0.700

IWB (Y) 0.859 0.861 0.914 0.779

Table 2 shows that all variables have the

Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability values

above 0.7. This shows that the instrument used can be

deemed reliable. The average variance extracted

values of each variable are above 0,5 showing that

those indicators represent their latent variables. Thus,

the instrument can be deemed valid.

Table 3: Significant value of direct and indirect influence.

Variable Path

coefficient

P Values Conclusion

PJ->IWB 0.242 0.008 H1: Ho rejected

PJ->ENG -> Y 0.041 0.089 H2: Ho rejected

Table 4: Determinant coefficient values.

Endo

en variable R

adjusted

Work Engagement (Z) 0,20

Innovative Work

Behavior

(

)

0,28

4.1 Hypothesis Testing

The results of hypothesis testing with PLS-SEM

shows that H0 is rejected on the direct influence of

procedural justice on innovative work behavior

(β=0.242, p = 0.008). This means that there exists a

significant positive influence of procedural justice on

innovative work behavior. This agrees with the

proposed research hypothesis. Results also shows that

H0 is rejected on the indirect influence of procedural

justice on innovative work behavior through work

engagement (β=0.173, p= 0,000). This means that

there is a significant influence of procedural justice

on innovative work behavior which is mediated

through work engagement. This also agrees with the

proposed hypothesis.

The determinant coefficient values on work

engagement variable R 2 adjusted = 0.20 which

means that the procedural justice variable contributes

20% to the engagement variable. While the

determinant coefficient on the innovative work

behavior variable R 2 adjusted = 0.28 which means

that the contribution of procedural justice and work

engagement variable on the innovative work behavior

is 28%.

5 DISCUSSION

The results of statistic testing on the direct influence

of procedural justice on the innovative work behavior

gives the path coefficient value β = 0.242 (p=0.008),

which indicates a significant result. This indicates

that the procedural justice which is precepted by

employees of the company affects innovative work

behavior.

Procedural justice is the openness in decision

making of the company management to its members.

To be more exact, procedural justice is employees’

perception on how open an organization is and to

what extent it applies reasonable procedures and

shows willingness in listening to the opinions of its

members in the decision-making process.

Prior studies have found that there is a significant

and insignificant influence between procedural

justice with innovative work behavior. Research

(Akram, Taher & Feng, 2016) shows that a form of

organizational justice has a strong positive influence

on the innovative work behavior of employees in

China, especially procedural justice on innovative

work behavior has a correlation of (r= 0.627, n= 235,

p< 0.00), which indicates that procedural justice has

a significant correlation to the innovative work

behavior. In line with this, Kim & Park (2017)

discovers that procedural justice directly influences

engagement positively. The same result is also shown

by studies done by Nazir et al. (2019) that shows that

procedural justice especially can motivate the

innovative behavior of employees. Study by Ismail

(2020) also indicates that there is a significant

relationship between procedural justice on innovative

work behavior. Research on the effect of

organizational justice on engagement (Ohiorenoya &

Eguavoen, 2019) shows that three dimensions of

distributive, interactional, and procedural have

influences on employees’ engagement.

Statistic testing results of indirect influence of

procedural justice on innovative work behavior

through engagement gives path coefficient value β =

0.173 (p=0.000). This shows a significant result,

which means there is an influence between procedural

justice on innovative work behavior through work

engagement.

The Effect of Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, on Innovative Work Behavior

129

The goal of this study is to show the mediation

ability of engagement in the relationship between

procedural justice with innovative work behavior.

Previous studies have examined the direct effect of

procedural justice on engagement (Akram, Taher &

Geng, 2016; S. Nazir, Shafi, Atif, Qun & Abdullah,

2019; A. Agarwal, 2014; Streicher et al., 2012;

Ismail, 2020) which show that procedural justice

positively influences innovative work behavior. The

results of the indirect effect of procedural justice on

innovative work behavior by W. Kim & Park (2017)

show that there exists a significant relationship

between procedural justice and innovative work

behavior that is mediated by engagement.

The determinant coefficient values of procedural

justice to innovative work behavior and the

relationship between procedural justice and work

engagement to innovative work behavior are 20% and

28% respectively. These values are relatively weak.

This indicates that there needs to be strengthening of

other variables in addition to the aforementioned

variables in order to increase work engagement and

innovative behavior in this company.

6 IMPLICATION

The determinant coefficient values of procedural

justice to innovative work behavior and the

relationship between procedural justice and work

engagement to innovative work behavior are 20% and

28% respectively. These values are relatively weak.

This indicates that there needs to be strengthening of

other variables in addition to the aforementioned

variables in order to increase work engagement and

innovative behavior in this company.

7 CONCLUSION

This study applies social exchange theory that states

that when employees feel that they are treated well by

the management through effort such as involving

them in decision making process, then they will

reciprocate by showing innovative work behavior.

Thus, companies are expected to maintain positive

attitude (such as procedural justice) so that innovative

work behavior can be maintained. Determination

testing results show that the contribution of

procedural justice to engagement is 20%, while the

contribution of procedural justice and work

engagement to the innovative work behavior is 28%.

These are relatively weak and show that there needs

to be additional measures taken by strengthening

other variables that can increase innovative work

behavior in this company.

REFERENCES

A. Agarwal, U. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative

work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel

Review, 43(1), 41–73. https://doi.org/10.1108/pr-02-

2012-0019

Agarwal, U. A., Datta, S., Blake-Beard, S., & Bhargava, S.

(2012). Linking LMX, innovative work behaviour and

turnover intentions: The mediating role of work

engagement. Career Development International, 17(3),

208–230. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620431211241063

Akram, T., Taher, M. J., & Feng, Y. X. (2016). The Effects

of Organizational Justice on the Innovative Work

Behavior of Employees : An Empirical Study from

China. Journal of Creativity and Business Innovation, 2.

Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). What constitutes

fairness in work settings ? A four-component model of

procedural justice. Human Resources Management

Review, 13, 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-

4822(02)00101-8

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M.,

William, C., Zapata, C. P., & Wesson, M. J. (2013).

Justice at the Millennium, a Decade Later : A Meta-

Analytic Test of Social Exchange and Affect-Based

Perspectives. 98(2), 199–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/

a0031757

Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using

Social Exchange Theory to Distinguish Procedural

From Interactional Justice. Group and Organization

Management, 27(3), 324–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/

1059601102027003002

Folger, R. (1987). Distributive and Procedural Justice in the

Workplace. Social Justice Research, 1(2).

Ismail, U. (2020). Moderating / Mediating Effects Of Hrm

Practices In Organizational Justice On Innovative Work

Behaviour Among Hotel Industry Of Pakistan : Case

Study Of Karachi. (February).

Janssen, O. (2000). Job demands, perceptions of effort-

reward fairness nd innovative work behavior. Journal of

Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 287–

302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2010.01.018

Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M.

S. (2000). Integrating Justice And Social Exchange :

The Differing Effects Of Fair Procedures And

Treatment On Work Relationships. Academy of

Management Journal, 43(4), 738–749.

Nazir, S., Shafi, A., Atif, M. M., Qun, W., & Abdullah,

S. M. (2019). How organization justice and

perceived organizational support facilitate employees ’

innovative behavior at work. Employee Relations:

The International Journal, 41(6), 1288–1311.

https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-01-2017-0007

Ohiorenoya, J. O., & Eguavoen, E. O. (2019). Influence

of Organizational Justice on Employee Engagement

ICRI 2021 - International Conference on Recent Innovations

130

in Tertiary Institutions in Edo State, Nigeria.

European Scientific Journal ESJ, 15(28), 56–75.

https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2019.v15n28p56

Tyler, T. R. (1988). What is Procedural Justice?: Criteria

Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal

Procedures. Law & Society Review, 22(1).

Yu, J., Lee, A., Han, H., & Kim, H. R. (2019).

Organizational Justice and Performance of Hotel

enterprises: Impact of Job Embeddedness. Journal of

Quality Assurance in Hospitality and Tourism, 00(00),

1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2019.1663571

Zeb, A., Abdullah, N. H., Othayman, M. Bin, & Ali, M.

(2019). The Role of LMX in Explaining Relationships

between Organizational Justice and Job Performance.

Journal of Competitiveness, 11(2), 144–160.

https://doi.org/10.7441/joc.2019.02.10

The Effect of Procedural Justice, Work Engagement, on Innovative Work Behavior

131