The Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job Satisfaction of Health Employees

Transcription

1 The Effect of Organizational Justice Perception on Job Satisfaction of Health Employees Mahmud AKBOLAT, Faculty of Business, Sakarya University, Sakarya, Turkey. Oguz ISIK, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Hacettepe University, Ankara-Turkey. Ali YILMAZ, Faculty of Health Science, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey. Nesrin AKCA, Faculty of Health Science, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey. Abstract The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction of health employee and to reveal whether or not differences according to sociodemographic characteristics of employees. Organizational justice scale that was developed by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and Minnesota Job Satisfaction Scale that was developed Weis and colleagues (1967) were used as data collection tool in the study. The survey was administrated in a public hospital in Sakarya between May 30 and 30 June The validity and reliability of data obtained from the survey was measured using analysis confirmatory factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Path analysis, descriptive statistical methods, one-way variance analysis and independent samples t test were used for analyzing of the data. Results were evaluated in 95% confidence interval, p <0.05 significance level. According to findings from the Path analysis, there were high level of covariance relationships between procedural justice and interactional justice (ρ = 0.933), between distributive justice and procedural justice (ρ =.841) and between distributive justice and interactional justice (ρ = 0.763). Interactional justice and distributive justice have positive effect on both internal job satisfaction and external job satisfaction (p <0.05). However, procedural justice has negative impact on internal job satisfaction (p<0.05) and it hasn't a statistically significant impact on external job satisfaction (p> 0.05). Keywords: Organizational justice, job satisfaction, health employees. 360

2 1. Introduction Organizational justice is based on Equality Theory of Adams (Luthans 1981). In accordance with this theory, individuals compare gaining obtained at the end of tasks executed with the gaining of other individuals and when they perceive injustice as a result of such comparison, they improve certain attitudes towards their managers and works (Greenberg 1990). Organizational justice includes sovereignty and promotion of fair and ethical implementations and proceedings within the organization (Iscan and Naktiyok 2004). Moorman (199) defines organizational justice as a term being directly related with working areas and defining the justice. Workers within the organization expect equal application of rules to all employees, payment of equal amount to equal work and equal benefiting from fees and social possibilities. However, not only outcomes and comparison of such outcomes are placed on the focus of justice perceptions, but also rules within the organization, application type of these rules and interaction between the individuals are also included by the scope (Barling and Phillips 1993). In that case, studies on organizational justice analyze perception formation, the cognitive and emotional processing of events, attitudinal and behavioral reactions to perceived mistreatment, and the formation of justice climates within workgroups and organizations (Rupp, 2011). Organizational justice is analyzed in three categories named as distributive, procedural and interactional. Distributive justice shortly defines honestly share of outputs within the organization (Lambert et al., 2007). Distributive justice is related with honesty and fidelity shown during distribution of organizational resources. Distribution justice focus on wage increases, performance evaluations, promotions and punishments (Tutar 2007). Distributive justice compares gaining presented by the organization to the employees with their responsibilities within the organization, their level of expertise, effort and other contributions related with the work (Moorman, 1991). Individuals may perceive outputs as fair or unfair (income, bonus, promotion, social rights, etc.). They make comparisons between what they and others obtained. As a result, they may think that injustice is done towards them. This point of view may affect their attitudes and behaviors of these individuals may change with respect to their attitudes (Ozdevecioglu, 2003; Barsky and Kaplan, 2007). In other words, what is important in terms of distributive justice is the belief of employees with regard to the fairness of their share among the resources distributed. Procedural justice is based on views of individuals in terms of accuracy of proceedings or methods used during decision-making process of the management for the individual or other employees. Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the methods, procedures and 361

3 policies used in identification and measurement of items such as wage, promotion, material possibilities, working conditions and performance evaluation (Jahangir et al. 2006; Dogan 2002). One of the significant issues of the procedural justice is the behavior of the decisionmaking managers towards the individuals affected due to the decision. Honest and kind attitudes of managers towards the persons affected due to the decision, timely feedback in terms of the decision taken, respecting the rules are counted among the basic indicators of procedural justice related evaluation (Greenberg, 1990). Adequate explanations made by the decision-maker regarding the reasons on which the decision is based and sincere communications established with the employees affect procedural justice related perceptions positively. This form of organizational justice scrutinizes whether or not people feel that they are treated fairly, when decisions are being implemented. Fair interpersonal treatment necessitates that managers communicate truthfully and treat people with courtesy and respect (Colquitt et al., 2001). Interactional justice is viewed as expanded version of procedural justice and is related with human factor of organizational implementations. Accordingly, interactional justice highlights the justice perception related with the communication established between the employees and the managers distributing the resources. In accordance with this dimension of organizational justice, performance of the communication process between the source of justice and the receiver on the basis of kindness, respect and honesty is important (Cohen- Charash and Spector 2001). The important issue in terms of interactional justice is the perceptions related with the quality of inter-personal behaviors encountered during application of processes. Surveys performed about organizational justice show that justice related concerns of the employees may affect their attitudes and behaviors. Researchers of the justice mainly focus on distributive justice interpreting justice perceptions about outcomes of decisions taken and procedural justice defining justice perception during decision-making process. As for surveys conducted in recent years, interpersonal justice (sincere and respect) and informative justice named also as interactional justice (adequate, honest explanations) are considered (Judge and Colquitt 2004). In conclusion, perceptions related with distributive justice is based on fair utilization of resources being available within the organization; whereas, justice perception regarding processes considered within distribution decisions are considered in the scope of procedural justice (Scandura, 1999). Communicative justice represents the justice perceived during execution of processes by means of mutual communication. Job satisfaction reflects respond of the employees against the job or part of job (Varoglu, 1993). Job satisfaction is defined as pleasing or positive emotions arisen due to evaluation of the job or experience by the employee (Locke, 1976); perception of the employees regarding 362

4 the job and tangible, intangible possibilities provided by the job (Luthans, 1994) or emotional respond improved by the employee as a result of evaluation of the job and job environment. Job satisfaction may result with determination of the job or price for the job experience of the individual, in which case the individual may be pleased or feel positive senses (Locke, 1976) and it realizes when characteristics of the job overlaps with the requests of the employee (Okray and Cakici, 2008). An interesting job, any job providing learning opportunities, bringing responsibilities are all reasons for satisfaction (Sevimli and İscan, 2005). Job satisfaction or dissatisfaction defines intrinsic evaluations as a product of ideas and behaviors of the employees towards their jobs, job environments or co-workers; their general attitudes towards their jobs (Solmus, 2004). At it may be understood from above definitions, different definitions are presented about job satisfaction; however, it is generally accepted that this concept represent positive state of mind of the employee towards his/her job or job experience, pleasure felt against the changing job with respect to the values owned, harmony between job related expectations and promotions provided by the job, attitudes towards the job (Kilic et al., 2008). Accordingly, job satisfaction is the pleasure or positive feelings sensed as a result of evaluation of the job or life. This sense can be felt by the employees when the values to be obtained from the organization are equal to the values needed (Basaran, 1992). Job satisfaction is an important factor encouraging the people to work, success hopes to be senses as a result of their efforts. Satisfaction is possible when these hopes are realized (Eren, 1990). Job satisfaction is a positive factor enabling orientation towards the job. Behavioral differences are identified between those having high and low job satisfaction. Job motivation and quality of service increase, as job satisfaction increases. When health employees are pleased of their working environment, they concentrate their energies towards increase of patient care quality (Kilic et al., 2008). When the expectation and longing levels of the employees are higher than what they obtain actually, job dissatisfaction arises. Most of the studies related with job satisfaction aim to make job dissatisfaction clear and to take certain measures (Kazanc, 1998), as job dissatisfaction may cause decrease in productivity and performance of the employee as a result of which the employee may sabotage the job and quit the job (Dole and Schroeder, 2001; Vecchio, 1995). Therefore, it should be considered that issues such as lower performance, discontinuity and increase in workforce turnover shall be encountered, in case of job dissatisfaction (Noe et al., 1997). While satisfaction of the employees due to the external resources (wage, promotion, admiration, master, etc.) is called as external job satisfaction; satisfaction experienced due to the internal resources (respect, skill, decision-making, conscience, occupancy, etc.) is called as internal satisfaction (Weiss et al., 1967). Therefore, internal job satisfaction is related with 363

5 success, recognition, appreciation, intrinsic features of the job such as the job, job responsibility, promotion and feelings of the employees about the job. However, external job satisfaction orients towards business policy, audit type, relations with the managers and subordinates, working conditions of the company, environment of the business, such as wage and feelings of the employees about the business. Although justice concept is perceived as important in terms of all individuals, organizational justice concept increases its significance within the business life changing rapidly every day (Elovainio 2002); because, organizational justice is a fundamental requirement in order for provision of personal satisfactions of organizations and the persons working within the organizations (Lambert 2003). In particular, in case of discriminatory behaviors of the managers, employees shall perceive this condition as an organizational injustice in which case the employees shall not obtain job satisfaction in such an environment. Possible output of a working environment being lack of job dissatisfaction shall be unproductivity of the employees and even, higher desire to quit the job. In this study, relations between the organizational justice and job satisfaction is analyzed in health institutions representing labor intensive sector and accordingly, impacts of organizational justice on job satisfaction are searched. An environment that is perceived as fair by employees of the organization effects a positive on job satisfaction (Kaneshiro, 2008). Therefore, some answers are tried find the following questions in the study: Is there a relationship between job satisfaction and organizational justice? Does organizational justice effect on job satisfaction? 2. Methodology This study is performed to identify impact of organizational justice perceived by health employees on job satisfaction and whether socio-demographical characteristics of the employees cause differences on organizational justice and job satisfaction. Universe of the survey is the health employees, except for doctors working at a public hospital in Sakarya. Any sample is not selected in the scope of the survey and it is aimed to access all employees. There were 680 staff and 400 questionnaires were distributed, but 279 of them were received back. Return rate of the questionnaire is 72.25%. In the scope of the study, organizational justice scale improved by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) and Minnesota Job Satisfaction scale improved by Weiss and Cropanzano (1996) are used as data collection means. The organizational justice scale has 20 items, including three dimensions, namely, distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. The Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire (short form) is a 20-item self-report measure of job satisfaction, including two dimensions, namely, internal and external satisfaction. 364

6 The participants are asked to choose the most appropriate answer among 1= absolutely do not agree - 5= absolutely agree in terms of those creating organizational loyalty scale and 1=Dissatisfied 5=Very satisfied for the job satisfaction scale. The questionnaire is performed between May 30 and June 30, Data was analyzed using structural equality model, descriptive statistical methods, independent samples t test and one-way ANOVA. Results are evaluated within 95% confidence level, p<0.05 level of significance. Validity and reliability analysis of scales used in the study: The validity analysis of the scales used in this study has been done before in different studies. Therefore, Cronbach Alpha coefficient and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) are used to test validity and reliability of data obtained by means of above scales. Mean standard deviation and Cronbach alpha values that were obtained from data are observed in Table 1.Cronbach Alpha value is for organizational justice scale and for job satisfaction scale. Table 1: The reliability of data collection instrument Dimensions Item Cronbach Arithmetical Standard Quantity Alpha Average deviation Organizational justice Distributive justice Procedural justice Interactional justice Job satisfaction Internal job satisfaction External job satisfaction CFA analysis was performed separately for each scales used in the study. At the end of CFA analysis, it is identified that compliance measures of organizational justice scale consisting of 3 factors and 20 questions and job satisfaction measure consisting of two factors and 20 questions are included within acceptable limits. As it is presented details in figure 1, goodness of fit values (GFI) of organizational justice and job satisfaction scales are and respectively, which represent acceptable values. Root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) value is 0,061 for both models. This value is acceptance when it is between 0.05 and 0.08 (Kline, 2011:206; Browne and Cudeck, 1993). In addition, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) is acceptable between and and Normed fit index (NFI) is acceptable as it is between and

7 Figure 1: DFA results of scales used in the system Organizational Justice Scale Job satisfaction Scale CMIN= ; DF=140; CMIN/DF=2.062; p=.000; CMIN= ; DF=154; MIN/DF=2.081; p=.000; GFI=.911; AGFI=.867; NFI=.909; IFI=.951; TLI=.940; GFI=.902; AGFI=.867; NFI=.912; IFI=.952; TLI=.940; CFI=.950; RMSEA=.061 CFI=.952; RMSEA=.061 Gender Age Education status 3. Findings 51.60% of the health employees participating to the study is females and the resting 48.40% is males. 59.9% of the participants are married and majority of the participants (56.80%) is aged 30 and more % of the participants of the survey has worked for 5 years and less and most of them (40.50%) received high school and associate degree (34.90%) level education % of the participants is nurse and 27.70% of them is medical secretary (Table 2). Table 2: Socio-demographical characteristics of health employees (n=289) Quantity Rate Quantity Rate Female Married Marital Male Single status Total Total Under years and less Working 6-10 years Above period 10 years and more Total Total Primary school Nurse High school Task Technician Associate degree Administrative

8 personnel Undergraduate Medical secretary Master Auxiliary staff Total Total A model is developed to identify impact of organizational justice perception of health employees on internal and external job satisfaction. Before evaluation of structural model, it is ensured that designation of all clusters of causal relationship is sufficient and structural model is acceptable by analyzing compliance statistics of the models. As it is obvious in Figure 2, models are acceptable with respect to the GFI, RMSEA, TLI and NFI values indicating basic compliance statistics of the models. Figure 2: Model indicating impact of organizational justice perception on job satisfaction CMIN= ; DF=651; P=.000; CMIN/DF=1.942; GFI=.828; AGFI=.783; NFI=.841; IFI=.916; TLI=.898; CFI=.915; RMSEA=.057 Figure 2 shows findings of organizational justice on job satisfaction and goodness indices of scales. In the scope of the model, distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice constituting organizational justice factors are called as independent variables (exogenous); internal job satisfaction and external job satisfaction constituting job satisfaction factors are called as dependent variables (endogenous). As it indicated in Table 3, high level of covariance is available between procedural justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.933), distributive justice and procedural justice (ρ=0.841) and distributive justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.763) included in organizational justice job satisfaction model (p<0.001). In accordance with these findings, meaningful and significant level of relation exists between organizational justice factors. 367

9 Table 3: Covariance relation between organizational justice dimensions Relations between organizational justice factors ρ S.H. t p Procedural justice Interactional justice *** Distributive justice Procedural justice *** Distributive justice Interactional justice *** ***p<0.001 As it is presented in Table 4, distributive justice and interactional justice has meaningful impact on both internal and external job satisfaction in statistical sense (p<0.05). Although procedural justice has statistically adverse impact on internal job satisfaction (p<0.05); it has not statistically meaningful impact on external job satisfaction (p>0.05). The results have shown that there are some perception problems of employees about the methods that using by managers in the decision making. Table 4: Impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction Impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction ρ S.H. t p Internal job satisfaction Distributive justice Internal job satisfaction Interactional justice Internal job satisfaction Procedural justice External job satisfaction Distributive justice External job satisfaction Interactional justice External job satisfaction Procedural justice In accordance with the results of analysis performed on the basis of socio-demographical characteristics, any statistically meaningful difference is not identified in terms of both organization justice and job satisfaction and in accordance with gender, educational status and working periods of health employees (p>0.05). As it is indicated in Table 5 in details, statistically meaningful difference is determined at interactional justice dimension with respect to the marital status based analysis and at distributive justice dimension in accordance with task title based analysis. Interactional justice perception of married health employees is higher than that of singles. Difference in distributive justice perceptions of health employees arises due to nurses, health technicians and administrative personnel. Besides, distributive justice perception of employees covered by the nurse staff is lower than that of other employees. Table 5: Difference in organizational justice perceptions of health employees on the basis of their socio-demographical characteristics n Ave. S.S. t p Post Hoc Marital status/ Single interactional Married justice Nurse Technician Administrative 1-2 p= personnel p=0.035 Medical secretary Auxiliary personnel Table 6 includes job satisfaction related dimensions having statistically meaningful Task title/ distributive justice difference with respect to the socio-demographical characteristics of health employees. Both 368

10 internal and external job satisfaction of married health employees is higher than single health employees. In terms of age, statistically significant difference is detected between external job satisfaction of health employees aged 39, 29 and External job satisfaction level of health employees aged 39 is higher than others. These results could be affected by the status of senior staff and the resources that they have. Table 6: Difference in job satisfaction of health employees in accordance with sociodemographical characteristics n Ave. S.S. t p Post Hoc Marital status/ Single internal job Married satisfaction Marital status/ Single external job Married satisfaction 29 years Age/ external job p= satisfaction 2-3 p= years years Conclusion and Recommendations This study is performed to determine impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction level of health employees. It is supported that identification of perception of organizational justice and job satisfaction by the health employees and interaction between these two factors shall contribute to more productive and effective functioning of health organizations. Positive perceptions of employees in health sector regarding their organizations having high level of specialization shall affect their job satisfaction and related performance positively or negatively. In accordance with results of the survey, high level of covariance is available between procedural justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.933), distributive justice and procedural justice (ρ=0.841) and distributive justice and interactional justice (ρ=0.763) (p<0.01). In accordance with this result, any positive or negative perception of health employees in terms of any of the organizational justice factors shall affect other dimensions. Yildirim (2007) supports that organizational justice is a significant predictor of job satisfaction. In accordance with a study conducted in banking and insurance sector, it is identified that achievement of job satisfaction is related with justice perception and organizational support within the organization (Cakar and Yildiz, 2009). In accordance with results of this study, distributive justice and interactional justice have statistically meaningful impact on both internal and external job satisfaction (p<0.05). These outcomes show that organizational resources are distributed fairly and positive relations are established with the employees during distribution of resources. However, procedural justice has statistically negative impact on internal job satisfaction (p<0.05). When it is considered that procedural justice is related with fairness of method, procedure and policies used in identification and measurement of issues such as wage, promotion, tangible possibilities, working conditions 369

11 and performance evaluation; negative impact on internal job satisfaction of health employees is meaningful. Because this outcome shows that job satisfaction of health employees is affected adversely as they think that their managers do not behave fairly in terms of above stated issues. In addition, procedural justice has statistically meaningful impact on external job satisfaction (p>0.05). Accordingly, health managers should act more carefully in terms of procedural justice related proceedings and processes. In accordance with the results of analysis performed on the basis of socio-demographical characteristics of health employees, statistically meaningful difference is identified between them in terms of organizational justice and job satisfaction, as well as their gender, educational status and working periods. In addition, interactional justice and job satisfaction perceptions of married health employees are higher than that of single health employees. External job satisfaction levels of employees working for 39 years and more is higher than other employees. Besides, distributive justice perceptions of nurses are lower than other employees. References Barling, J. & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, Formal, and Distributive Justice in the Workplace: An Exploratory Study. The Journal of Psychology, 127(6), Barsky, A. & Kaplan, S.A. (2007). If you feel bad, it s unfair: a quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), Basaran, İ.E. (1992). Yönetimde İnsan İlişkileri. Kadıoğlu Matbası, Ankara. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit, In Kenneth A. Bollen & J. Scott. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equation Models, p , Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA. Cakar D.N. & Yildiz, S. (2009). Örgütsel adaletin iş tatmini üzerindeki etkisi: algılanan örgütsel destek bir ara değişken mi? Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 8(28), Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P.E. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta- Analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86 (2), Colquitt.A.J., Conlon,D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H. Yee Ng,K. (2001). Justice at the Millennium. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), Dogan, H. (2002). İşgörenlerin Adalet Algılamalarında Örgüt İçi İletişim ve Prosedürel Bilgilendirmenin Rolü. Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi, 2(2), Dole, C. & Schroeder, R,G. (2001). The impact of various factors on the personality, job satisfaction and turnover intentions of professional accountants, Managerial Auditing Journal, 16(4), Elovainio, M., Kivimäki, M. & Vahtera, J. (2002). Organizational Justice: Evidence of a New Psychosocial Predictor of Health. American Journal of Public Health, 92(1),

12 Eren, E. (1990). Yönetim Psikolojisi, İ.Ü. İşletme Fakültesi Yayınları No. 105, İstanbul. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), İscan, Ö.F. & Naktiyok A. (2004). Çalışanların Örgütsel Bağdaşımlarının Belirleyicileri Olarak Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Örgütsel Adalet Algıları. Ankara Üniversitesi S.B.F. Dergisi, 59(1), Jahangir, N., Akbar M. & Begum, N. (2006). The Role of Social Power, Procedural Justice, Organizational Commitment, and Job Satisfaction to Engender Organizational Citizenship Behavior. ABA Journal. 26(3), Judge, T.A. & Colquitt, J.A. (2004). Organizational Justice and Stress: The Mediating Role of Work Family Conflict. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), Kazanc, H. (1998). Kamu Kuruluşlarında İş Tatmini ve Tübitak Örneği, Sakarya Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Sakarya. Kilic, K.C., Efeoglu, İ.E., Mimaroglu, H. & Özgen, H. (2008). Adana İli ndeki Özel Sağlık Merkezlerinde Çalışan Personelin İş-Aile Yaşam Çatışmasının Örgütsel Bağlılık, İş Doyumu ve İş Stresine Etkisi Üzerine Bir Araştırma, Ç.Ü. Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 17(2), Kline, R.B. (2011). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, Third Edt., Guilford Press, New York. Lambert, E. (2003). The Impact of Organizational Justice on Correctional Staff. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(2), Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. & Griffin, M.L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on correctional staff job stres. job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), Locke, E.A. (1976). The Nature and Consequences of Job Satisfaction, In M. D. Dunnette (ed), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Rand McNally Publishing Company, Chicago. Luthans, F. (1981). Organizational Behavior. New York: McGraw Hill Co. Luthans, F. (1994). Organizational behavior, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York. Moorman, R.H. (1991). Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perception Influence Employee Citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(6), Niehoff B.P. & Moorman R.H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. & Wright, P. (1997). Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill, Chicago. 371

13 Okray, K.Z. & Cakici, E. (2008). Sağlık Çalışanlarında Tükenmişlik ve İş Doyumu. Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi, (9), Özdevecioglu, M. (2003). Algılanan Örgütsel Adaletin Bireylerarası Saldırgan Davranışlar Üzerindeki Etkilerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, Rupp, D. E An employee-centered model of organizational justice and social responsibility. Organizational Psychology Review, 1(1): Scandura, T.A. (1999). Rethinking Leader-Member Exchange: An Organizational Justice Perspective. Leadership Qurterly, 10(1), Sevimli, F. & İscan, Ö.F. (2005). Bireysel ve İş Ortamına Ait Etkenler Açısından İş Doyumu. EGE Akademik Bakış, 5(1), Solmus, T. (2004). İş Yaşamında Duygular ve Kişilerarası İlişkiler, Beta Basım, İstanbul.. Tutar, H. (2007). Erzurum da Devlet ve Özel Hastanelerde Çalışan Sağlık Personelinin İşlem Adaleti, İş Tatmini ve Duygusal Bağlılık Durumlarının İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), Vecchıo, R. P. (1995). Organizational Behavior. Third Edition, Fort Worth, The Dryden Press. Weiss, D.J., Dawis, R.V. & England, G.W. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire. Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 12, University of Minnesota Industrial Relation Center, Minneapolis, MN. Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and consequences of affective experiences at work. In B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Eds.). Research in organizational behavior: An annual series of analytical essays and critical reviews, 18, Jai Press Inc., London. Yildirim, F. (2007). İş Doyumu İle Örgütsel Adalet İlişkisi. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi, 62(1),