The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7720.htm

IJM
31,6 The impact of organizational
justice on work performance
Mediating effects of organizational
660 commitment and leader-member exchange
Xinyan Wang
School of Business Administration,
Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China
Jianqiao Liao
School of Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China
Degen Xia
School of Tourism Management, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics,
Nanchang, China, and
Tao Chang
School of Economics and Business Administration,
Shanxi University, Taiyuan, China

International Journal of Manpower
Vol. 31 No. 6, 2010
pp. 660-677
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-7720
DOI 10.1108/01437721011073364
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop and test a model that identifies the impact of
organizational justice on work performance. The model examined the mediating role played by
organizational commitment and leader-member exchange (LMX) in linking organizational justice and
work performance.
Design/methodology/approach The data were collected from 793 completed questionnaires
sampling employees from industries across the Peoples Republic of China. The questionnaire included
scales to measure organizational justice, organizational commitment, LMX, and work performance. The
measurement of constructs and the hypothesized relationships among variables were assessed by the use
of structural equation modeling. The Baron and Kenny approach was used to test the mediating effects.
Findings First, the relationship of organizational justice to work performance was mostly indirect,
mediated by organizational commitment and LMX. Second, among the three kinds of organizational
justice, interactional justice was the best predictor of performance. Lastly, organizational commitment
accounted for more of the variance than LMX did in the mediating mechanism.
Research limitations/implications The model developed in this article provides important
insights in the study of the relationship between organizational justice and work performance. Future
research needs to examine the model using a cross-national sample.
Originality/value The link between organizational justice and work performance was mostly
mediated by organizational commitment and LMX.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Leaders, Employees, Performance levels
Paper type Research paper
The authors would like to thank the National Natural Science Foundation of China for funding
this study through Grants 70572036 and 70772054 given to Jianqiao Liao. They greatly
appreciate the helpful comments of the two anonymous reviewers.
Introduction Organization
Research findings in the organizational justice literature show that organizational commitment
justice is a significant predictor of work attitudes and behaviors (Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). As to the relationship between organizational justice and LMX
and work performance, researchers have been striving to find the answer, but with
unsatisfactory results. Some existing studies do show that organizational justice
can predict work performance. Uncertainty still exists around the influence of the 661
different dimensions of organizational justice on work performance. Moreover, how
organizational justice influences work performance is still largely unknown. Some
justice researchers have advanced leader-member exchange (LMX) as the mediator
between interactional justice and work performance based on the social exchange
theory (Cropanzano et al. 2002; Masterson et al., 2000). The functional relationship
between interactional justice, LMX, and performance demands further attention
(Cropanzano et al. 2002). Other researchers have suggested LMX and perceived
accountability to be the key mechanisms of the relationship between organizational
justice and work performance (Erdogan, 2002), but these have not been tested
empirically. It is unfortunate that the existing studies have concentrated mostly on task
performance, without paying attention to contextual performance, which is significant
when discussing voluntary behavior.
In this study, the literature on the relationship between organizational justice and
work performance is reviewed. Based on this, an integrative model of organizational
justices influence on work performance is proposed by examining the impact of the
three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, and
interactional justice) on task performance and contextual performance. This includes
both the direct impact and the mediating effect of LMX and organizational commitment.
Following this, structural equation modeling (SEM) has been used to test and modify the
model. The Baron and Kenny approach has been used to test the mediating effects, in
anticipation of obtaining a more appropriate final model to elucidate the influencing
mechanism of organizational justice on work performance.

Literature review and the hypothesized model

Organizational justice and performance research
Organizational justice concerns employees perception of fair treatment by an
organization and its agents (Shalhoop, 2003). It is popularly accepted that organizational
justice consists of three constructs: distributive justice, procedural justice, and
interactional justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001;
Masterson et al., 2000). Distributive justice focuses on the fairness of organizational
outcomes such as payment and promotion, while procedural justice stresses the
fairness of the process by which the outcomes are achieved, that is, the fairness of means
and procedures by which the decisions are made. The third construct, interactional
justice, concerns the interpersonal treatment individuals are given during the
implementation of procedures. Since the 1970s, scholars have studied the correlation
between organizational justice and employees sentiments, and attitudes such as job
satisfaction (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Masterson et al.,
2000), and organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Colquitt et al., 2001;
Masterson et al., 2000). The association with the employees behavior, for example work
IJM performance (Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991), was also examined; in this study,
31,6 it was shown that these factors are significantly correlated to organizational justice.
Campbell (1990) proposed that work performance comprises not only tasks but also
contextual elements (such as interpersonal and motivational components) that
contribute to a two-dimensional performance construct. Task performance refers to
job-specific behaviors including core job responsibilities that are directly related to the
662 organizations purpose. Contextual performance, describes a set of interpersonal and
volitional behaviors that support the social and motivational context in which
organizational work is accomplished (Aryee et al., 2004). Contextual performance has
been further suggested to have two facets: interpersonal facilitation and job dedication.
Interpersonal facilitation describes interpersonally oriented behaviors that contribute
to the accomplishment of the organizational purpose. These include encouraging
cooperation, consideration of others, and building and mending relationships. Job
dedication, on the other hand, describes self-disciplined motivated acts such as working
hard, taking initiative, and following rules to support organizational objectives (van
Scotter and Motowidlo, 1996). Contextual performance also captures many of the
helping and cooperating elements of organizational citizenship behavior (Organ, 1988).
Organizational justices contribution to the employees work performance has
become a focus of justice researchers. Adams equity theory indicates that an individual
can alter his quality and quantity of work to restore justice when he perceives the
outcome/input ratio to be unjust (Adams, 1965). Interestingly, some empirical studies
have found that individuals decrease their performance to reduce input when they are
underpaid, and increase their performance to produce more input when they are
overpaid (Adams and Freedman, 1976; Greenberg, 1982). The equity theory has
provided a theoretical explanation to the distributive justices effect on performance.
The relation between procedural justice and performance has been tested by some
studies (Early and Lind, 1987; Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Lind et al., 1990;
Masterson et al., 2000), with research findings revealing procedural justice and
performance are correlated. In one study, Aryee et al. (2004) examined the impact of
organizational justice on performance from the perspective of organizational politics and
procedural justice; they found that a fair environment affects both task and contextual
performances. Their testing results of SEM further support that procedural justice is
significantly related to task and contextual performances, including both interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication. Some researchers have based the relationship between
interactional justice and performance on the social exchange theory, which regards a
workplace as a social marketplace where employees seek to obtain a favorable return on
their investment (Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson et al., 2000). Interactional justice
comes from an employees supervisor or other organizational agents, which renders it as
interpersonal justice; the employee may regard it as an outcome he receives, thus possibly
influencing his outcome/input ratio. Therefore, if managers treat employees fairly, these
employees will reciprocate through better performance.
An investigation by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) pertaining to the studies on
the relationship between organizational justice and performance by meta-analysis
revealed that work performance is mainly related to procedural justice (weighted mean
r 0.45, 0.11, in field and laboratory studies, respectively), and, to a weaker extent,
is related to distributive and interactional justice (weighted mean r 0.13, 0.16,
respectively, in field studies and 0.05 between distributive justice and work
performance in laboratory studies). Cohen-Charash and Spector further explained that Organization
when employees experience distributive injustice, they would examine the procedures commitment
used to attain the outcome. Only when they perceive the procedures to be unjust will
they alter their performance to restore fairness. The meta-analysis also found and LMX
procedural justice to be the best predictor among the three types of organizational
justice.
The review of the literature on the relationship between organizational justice and 663
performance provides evidence that although organizational justice may significantly
affect work performance, there is uncertainty around the degree influence of the
different dimensions of organizational justice on work performance, and the research on
the mechanism of the influence of organizational justice on work performance is far
from satisfactory. On the basis of the review and integration of the literature, the
present study analyzed the direct effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice, as well as their indirect effect on performance simultaneously. The study
subsequently proposed the mechanism model of the impact of the three types of justice
on employee work performance.

The mediators between organizational justice and employee work performance

(a) Leader-member exchange. Social exchange relationship theory has been applied by a
growing number of researchers to explain the relationship between organizational
justice and employee work performance (Cropanzano and Prehar, 1999; Masterson et al.,
2000). The social exchange theory states that, aside from the economic exchange
relationships that employees form at work, which are short term and which focus on the
exchange of concrete and oftentimes material resources, employees also form social
exchange relationships with the organization. These tend to be long term and involve
less tangible and more socio-emotional resources (Rupp and Cropanzano, 2002). The
social exchange theory also suggests that employees invest in such things as talent and
effort in the organization, and seek favorable return such as pay and self-esteem, among
others. If the resources of the organization are perceived as fairly allocated, employees
will be more convinced about their favorable return in the long term. Thus,
organizational justice may contribute to the improvement of social exchange
relationships, while the higher quality of social exchange relationships may contribute
to the employees better performance.
LMX is one of the commonly researched social exchange constructs between
organizational justice and employee work performance. It concerns the quality of
exchange between an employee and a manager. It includes such factors as contribution,
affect, loyalty, and respect (Liden and Maslyn, 1998). In line with this, Masterson et al.
(2000) suggested that organizational justice may be regarded as the organizations
input in exchange relationships, which may come from both the organization and the
direct supervisors. With respect to the employee-manager relationship, however,
performance may be related to interactional justice. Masterson et al. (2000) proposed
that interactional justice influences the employees performance through the mediation
of LMX. However, empirical research failed to support the proposed mediation of the
relationship between interactional justice and performance by LMX. On the contrary,
Cropanzano et al. (2002) have found support for the association between interactional
justice and performance by way of the LMX, but pointed out that the relationships
demand further attention. Meanwhile, Erdogan (2002) studied the antecedents
IJM and consequences of justice perceptions in performance appraisals, and proposed that
31,6 organizational justice indirectly affects performance through the mediation of LMX and
accountability. This is in accordance with the findings of Masterson et al. (2000) that
employees perceive higher interactional justice to the contributions that enhance the
quality of LMX, and the contributions in turn obligate the employees to reciprocate
through voluntary behaviors that benefit the parties who treated them fairly. Hence, the
664 relationship between interactional justice and contextual performance is also suggested
to be mediated by the LMX. It is proposed that the relationships between interactional
justice and task performance and contextual performance should be mediated by LMX.
(b) Organizational commitment. In this research, organizational commitment is
proposed as an exploratory mediator between organizational justice and performance.
Organizational commitment concerns the degree of an employees identification with, and
involvement in, the organization. Meyer and Allen (1991) proposed a three-dimension
organizational commitment that consists of affective, normative, and continuance
commitment. Affective commitment refers to an employees emotional attachment to,
identification with, and involvement in, the organization. Normative commitment refers to
a feeling of obligation to continue employment, while continuance commitment reflects an
awareness of the costs of leaving the organization. Therefore, employees with a strong
affective commitment continue employment with the organization because they want to
do so, while those with a strong normative commitment feel that they ought to remain
with the organization, and those with a high continuance commitment feel they need to
stay in the organization.
Research findings show that organizational commitment is saliently related to
distributive and procedural justice. In a review of organizational commitment, Allen and
Meyer (1996) assessed the relation between organizational commitment and
organizational justice and found strong relationships among the three dimensions of
organizational justice and affective commitment. Meanwhile, in a later meta-analytic
study by Colquitt et al. (2001), there is a correlation of 0.57 between organizational
commitment and procedural justice. Shalhoop (2003) further pointed out that
distributive and procedural justice affect organizational commitment via the
mediation of organizational support perception. Masterson et al. (2000), however,
argue that procedural justice is a stronger predictor of organizational commitment than
interactional justice. Thus, the three dimensions of organizational justice are supposed
to be related to organizational commitment.
The relationship between organizational commitment and work performance has
been widely researched recently. It is accepted that affective commitment is positively
related to work performance, while the relationship between work performance,
normative commitment, and continuance commitment is very weak (van Scotter, 2000).
Chen and Francesco (2003) studied the relation between organizational commitment
and work performance in China. They found that affective commitment was positively
correlated with in-role performance and organizational citizenship behaviors.
Continuance commitment was not related to in-role performance but was negatively
related to organizational citizenship behaviors. Normative commitment had a buffering
effect on the relationship between affective commitment and in-role performance and
organizational citizenship behaviors.
Organizational commitment is a counterpart of organizational support; the former
concerns an employees identification with, and involvement in, the organization,
while the latter reflects the degree of the organizations support to an employee. Organization
If an employee has the cognition and feeling that he is an indispensable part of commitment
the organization, he will be devoted to the organization just like a person is devoted to
his family, thereby greatly decreasing the function of exchange relationships and LMX
between the employee and the organization. Consequently, the mediating effect of
organizational commitment should be much greater than that of organizational
support based on social exchange relationship proposed by Masterson et al. (2000). In 665
addition, Erdogan (2002) proposed that perceived accountability might be a mediator
between distributive justice and performance; that is, when an individual perceives
high distributive justice, he has higher accountability, and accordingly produces better
performance. Among the three components of organizational commitment, normative
commitment relates to the employees sense of responsibility and loyalty to the
organization. Therefore, the current research proposed that distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice might affect work performance via the mediating effect of
affective commitment and normative commitment.
The previous literature mainly examined task performance when studying the
relationship between organizational justice and performance; it rarely took contextual
performance into account. Because contextual performance describes the interpersonal
and volitional behaviors, it might correlate to procedural and, more especially, to
interactional justice. Moreover, distributive justice may predict contextual
performance, as it is much safer to alter contextual rather than task performance
when employees decide to adjust their performance to restore the outcome/input ratio
justice. According to the different correlations in previous research and the different
connotations of the organizational justice and the performance dimensions, it is predicted
that there are differential relationships between these dimensions. In order to test the
proposed relationships, we developed hypotheses corresponding to Baron and Kennys
(1986) three tests for mediation (the hypothesized mechanism model is shown in Figure 1).
The direct hypotheses. The first condition for mediation is that the independent
variable(s) must relate to the dependent variable(s) in the absence of the mediator(s).
Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:

Affective
commitment

Distributive Task
justice performance
Normative
commitment

Procedural Interpersonal
justice facilitation
Figure 1.
Hypothesized model of the
Job
Interactional influencing mechanism of
dedication
justice organizational justice on
LMX work performance
IJM H1. Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice will be positively related
31,6 to task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication.
Relationships between organizational justice dimensions and LMX, affective and
normative commitment. The second condition for mediation is that the independent
variable(s) must be significantly related to the mediator(s). Thus, the following
hypotheses are proposed:
666
H2. Distributive, procedural and interactional justice will be positively related to
affective and normative commitment.
H3. Interactional justice will be positively related to LMX.
The mediation hypotheses. The final condition for mediation is that, when both the
independent variable(s) and mediator(s) are included, the direct relationship(s) should
become significantly smaller, indicating partial mediation, or non-significant,
indicating full mediation. According to the above analysis, we propose the following
hypotheses:
H4. The relationships between distributive, procedural, and interactional justice
and task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication will be
mediated by affective and normative commitment.
H5. The relationships between interactional justice and task performance,
interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication will be mediated by LMX.

Method
Participants and procedure
Questionnaires were sent to the employees either through regular mail or e-mail. Some
were distributed to MBA students in person or through others agents. To make the
research results more representative, we obtained samples from as many regions,
industries, and worker types as possible, spanning all of the Peoples Republic of China. A
total of 864 completed questionnaires were returned, among which 71 were incomplete.
Thus, the data from the remaining 793 questionnaires were analyzed for this study. About
56 percent of the respondents were men. In terms of the age composition of the sample, 30.6
percent represented those below 30 years, 59.6 percent were in the 31-45 age bracket, and
9.7 percent were above the 46 years age bracket. The educational breakdown of the sample
is as follows: 25.7 percent with high school education or below, 27.4 percent with junior
college, 31.8 percent with bachelors degree, and 15.1 percent with postgraduate education
or beyond. As to the organizational type, 9.6 percent of the sample were from the
governmental departments, 37.5 percent were from non-profit organizations, 29.5 percent
were from the state-owned enterprises, and 23.0 percent were from private enterprises; 0.3
percent were not marked for any organizational type. With regard to the size of the
respondents organizations, 32.4 percent belonged to organizations with 100 staff or below,
28.2 percent were in the 101-500 organizational size bracket, 14.5 percent were in the
501-2,000 size bracket, and 24.8 percent were in the over 2,001 size bracket.

Measures
The questionnaire used in the survey to quantify the variables in the hypothesized
model consisted of 20 items to measure organizational justice, 12 items to measure
affective and normative commitment, six items to measure LMX, and 14 items to Organization
measure work performance. The response choices of these items were on a five-point commitment
Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Organizational justice was evaluated using the scale developed by Niehoff and and LMX
Moorman (1993), which was slightly modified to make it clear to Chinese people. The
scale intended to determine distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Distributive justice was measured using five items assessing the fairness of different 667
work outcomes including work schedule, pay level, workload, rewards, and job
responsibilities. Procedural justice was measured using six items assessing the degree
to which job decisions included mechanisms that insured the gathering of unbiased,
accurate, and complete employee voice, as well as an appeals process. The nine items
used to measure interactional justice include the degree to which the employees felt they
were considered and respected by the managers, and adequate and clear explanations
concerning job decisions.
Meyer and Allen (1997) developed the organizational commitment scale. We adopted
the items to assess affective and normative commitment. Because continuance
commitment has not been included in the hypothesized model, it was not measured in
the study. Affective commitment was measured using six items assessing employees
influence and willingness to devote themselves to the organization. The normative
commitment scale consisted of six items evaluating the degree of employees
accountability and loyalty to the organization.
The items measuring LMX were adapted from those appearing in Graen and
Scandura (1987). Six items were used to assess such working relationship as trust,
respect, and mutual obligation. Of note, the LMX construct has multiple dimensions,
but the dimensions are highly correlated (Graen and Uhl-Bien, 1995). Accordingly, the
LMX was treated as one factor in this research.
The work performance scale developed by van Scotter and Motowidlo (1996) was
slightly modified and used to assess task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job
dedication. The five items used to assess task performance included the degree to which
the employee accomplishes his or her in-role job as required. Five items used to assess
interpersonal facilitation included the degree to which the employee is involved in
activities such as encouraging cooperation, consideration of others, and building
relationships. Job dedication was measured by four items assessing employees working
hard, taking initiative, following rules to support organizational objectives, etc.
The questionnaires from the 793 samples were split into two parts, with data from
the half part containing odd numbers used for exploratory factor analyses to the scale
of organizational justice, organizational commitment, LMX, and work performance.
Principal components analyses using varimax rotation revealed the factors and items
loadings. The items with corrected-item total correction of , 0.5 were deleted, and the
factors with eigenvalues above 1 were extracted. Seventeen items remained in the
organizational justice scale, and automatically loaded on three factors, namely,
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. The three factors explained for an
accumulative total of 63.06 percent of variance. The remaining eight items of affective
and normative commitment loaded on two factors and explained for 66.03 percent
of the variance. All six items of the LMX scale were retained and loaded on one factor,
accounting for a total of 64.04 percent variance. Factor analysis on work performance
left 13 items and revealed three factors, namely, task performance, interpersonal
IJM facilitation, and job dedication, accounting for a total of 69.80 percent variance.
31,6 The following research was done based on the adjusted scale.

Results
Measurement model
To assess the direct and indirect relationships among the variables, we followed a
668 two-step approach using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and SEM (Anderson and
Gerbing, 1988) based on AMOS 6.0. CFA was likewise conducted using data from the
second-half of the 793 questionnaires with even numbers to estimate the adequacy of
the modified measurement model for each scale. Parameter estimates were then made
utilizing the maximum likelihood method. The global fit index of the measurement
model (x 2 1893.73, df 686, Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.89, Normed Fit Index
(NFI) 0.91, Incremental Fit Index (IFI) 0.92, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.92,
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) 0.07) suggested that the
measurement model fitted well with the sample data. Also, all the factor loadings were
significant ( p , 0.001), confirming the factor structure.
Meanwhile, the reliability analysis of each factor of the modified scale showed the
internal consistencies of the coefficient a ranging from 0.74 to 0.90, and that all measures
were well within the acceptable range of 0.70 and above as suggested by Nunnally and
Bernstein (1994). The loadings of the items on their factors were between 0.59 and 0.84,
mostly around 0.70, without any cross-loadings. Discriminant validity was likewise
assessed with confidence interval test to determine whether the confidence interval (^two
standard errors) around the correlation estimate between the two factors includes
1.0 (Anderson and Gerbing, 1988). The test showed that the confidence intervals of the
correlation estimates between distributive and procedural justice, between distributive
and interactive justice, and between procedural and interactional justice at 0.53(^0.12),
0.48(^0.13), and 0.62(^0.12), respectively. The confidence intervals of the correlation
estimates between affective and normative commitment, between affective and
continuance commitment, and between normative and continuance commitment were
0.53(^0.11), 0.29(^0.13), and 0.05 (non-significant), respectively. The confidence intervals
of the correlation estimates between task performance and interpersonal facilitation,
between task performance and job dedication, and between interpersonal facilitation and
job dedication were 0.69(^0.09), 0.58(^0.10), and 0.55(^0.10), respectively. It is apparent
from these results that the constructs had good discriminant validity.

Structural model
The data from all the 793 questionnaires were used to test the hypotheses. Table I
reports the correlation coefficients between the variables used in this study. All the
variables were significantly related to each other ( p , 0.01). The correlation
coefficients within the dimensions of organizational justice, organizational
commitment, and work performance were all consistent with those in the previous
research as well. As a result, the correlations are generally supportive of our theory,
that is, the correlations and internal consistency reliabilities show that the data the
research depends on are sound and reliable.
The studys hypotheses were tested using SEM. The structural model specifies
relationships among the latent variables. First, we tested the direct model M1 to model
the proposed direct relationships between distributive, procedural and interactional
 Organization
DJ PJ IJ AC NC LMX TP IF JD
commitment
Distributive justice (0.82) and LMX
Procedural justice 0.52 * (0.84)
Interactional justice 0.51 * 0.64 * (0.81)
Affective commitment 0.46 * 0.47 * 0.49 * (0.84)
Normative commitment 0.21 * 0.27 * 0.35 * 0.56 * (0.79) 669
LMX 0.50 * 0.60 * 0.68 * 0.59 * 0.36 * (0.85)
Task performance 0.15 * 0.14 * 0.24 * 0.29 * 0.45 * 0.24 * (0.79)
Interpersonal facilitation 0.10 * 0.12 * 0.19 * 0.27 * 0.34 * 0.22 * 0.69 * (.91) Table I.
Job dedication 0.16 * 0.17 * 0.31 * 0.38 * 0.44 * 0.36 * 0.58 * 0.50 * (0.80) Coefficient a s and
intercorrelations among
Notes: *p , 0.01; n 793; values in parentheses are a reliabilities the variables

justice and task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication. The
relationships between the organizational justice constructs and task performance have
been supported by some previous research, but we continued to evaluate them in
the Chinese setting, as well as tested the relationship between justice constructs and
interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. From the results presented in Table II,
interactional justice was strongly related to all performance constructs, while
distributive justice was only weakly related to task performance and job dedication, and
procedural justice was only weakly related to job dedication. Therefore, H1 proposing
that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice will be positively related to task
performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication was partly supported. The
final direct model was shown in Figure 2. The global fit indexes (x 2 2,857.09,
df 863, GFI 0.77, NFI 0.77, IFI 0.83, CFI 0.73, RMSEA 0.09) revealed
that, overall, our data are not quite consistent with the direct model.
Next, we tested the relationships among the independent variables and mediators
(M2). The results presented in Table II supported most of the H2 and H3 in that
the organizational constructs were significantly related to affective commitment,
normative commitment, and LMX, except that the relationship between procedural
justice and normative commitment was not significant. Interactional justice was again
supported to be most strongly related to the three mediators.
Finally, we evaluated the hypothesized model (M3) in which affective commitment
and normative commitment were introduced to mediate the relationships between the

Distributive justice Procedural justice Interactional justice

M1
Task performance 0.13 * 2 0.03 (NS) 0.26 *
Interpersonal facilitation 0.00 (NS) 0.00 (NS) 0.19 *
Job dedication 0.10 * * 0.10 * * 0.38 *
M2
Affective commitment 0.25 * 0.18 * 0.30 *
Normative commitment 0.14 * 2 0.08 (NS) 0.38 *
LMX 0.14 * 0.20 * 0.44 * Table II.
Path coefficients
Notes: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.1; NS, non-significant; n 793 of M1 and M2
IJM 0.37* DJ1 TP1 0.54*
0.60*
31,6 0.21* DJ2 0.67*
0.79*
0.81* TP2 0.44*
0.13*
0.26* DJ3 0.66* Distributive Task 0.82*
TP3 0.54*
0.71* justice performance 0.68*

0.32* DJ4 TP4 0.38*

0.70*
670 0.35* DJ5
0.69*
0.10**
TP5 0.40*
00.26*
0.29* PJ1 0.74*
IF1 0.45*
0.59* 0.72*
0.46* PJ2
0.62*
Procedural 0.81* IF2 0.46*
0.35* PJ3 justice
Interpersonal 0.74*
IF3 0.41*
0.47* PJ4 0.65* facilitation 0.62*

0.10** IF4 0.32*

0.60*

0.44* IJ1 0.73* IF5 0.44*

00.64*
0.54* IJ2 0.67*

0.53* IJ3 0.60*

0.19*
0.77* 0.75 JD1 0.28*
0.50* IJ4
Interactional Job 0.67
0.79* JD2 0.31*
0.60* IJ5 justice 0.38* dedication
0.62* 0.78
JD3 0.36*
0.33* IJ6
Figure 2. 0.66*
Final structural model of 0.39* IJ7 0.82*
the direct effect of
organizational justice on 0.41* IJ8
work performance
Notes: *p < 0.05 and **p < 0.1; n = 793

three organizational justice constructs and the three performance constructs, and LMX
was introduced to mediate the relationships between interactional justice and the three
performance constructs. The global fit indexes presented in Table III indicated that the
hypothesized model does not fit the data well. In addition, a review of the path
coefficients and the modification indices revealed some evidence of misfit in the model.
The results suggested that the path from distributive justice to normative commitment,
and from affective commitment to task performance, were not proper. Studies do
confirm that nominative commitment is more reflective of a personal disposition,
and it can develop from cultural as well as familial sources (Cheng and Stockdale, 2003).
Consequently, the path from distributive justice to normative commitment was deleted.
It is also noteworthy that task performance signifies job-specified behaviors and is

x2 df GFI NFI IFI CFI RMSEA

Table III. Direct model 2,857.09 863 0.77 0.77 0.83 0.73 0.09
Global fit indexes Hypothesized model 369.53 70 0.80 0.79 0.80 0.76 0.11
of the direct model, Final model 183.62 68 0.95 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.06
the hypothesized model
and the final model Note: n 793
directly related to an employees benefits from the organization. Thus, when an Organization
employee feels unfairly treated, and has low affective commitment, he might prefer to commitment
alter contextual performance rather than task performance to avoid being punished. For
that reason, the path from affective commitment to task performance was also deleted. and LMX
The large modification index also suggested that the causal effect of interactional justice
on task performance was significant. This is attributable to the fact that the Chinese
people emphasize more on morals and emotion, and so are more sensitive to interactional 671
justice, which represents interpersonal relationship, morality and humaneness of
management. The path from interactional justice to task performance was likewise
added. Moreover, a path from interactional justice to procedural justice was added
because it was both statistically and theoretically reasonable.
Table III reports the global fit indexes of the direct model, the hypothesized model
and the final mediation model. The fitting indices were greatly improved following the
modification, and suggested the final structural model as fitting well with the sample
data. The final structural model is shown in Figure 3.
Table IV presents the direct, indirect, and total effects of organizational justice
dimensions on the work performance dimensions of the final model. The direct effects
of M1 presented in Table II and Figure 2 illustrated that interactional justice was
strongly related to all performance constructs, that distributive justice was weakly
related to task performance and job dedication, and that procedural justice was weakly
related to job dedication. However, it can be seen from the research result as tabulated
in Table IV and Figure 3 that when affective commitment, normative commitment, and
LMX were introduced as mediators to the model, distributive and procedural justice did

0.31* 0.45* 0.47* 0.38* 0.45*

0.34* DJ1 AC1 AC2 AC3 AC4 AC5

0.62*
0.83* 84* 0.77*
0.23* DJ2 0.66*
0.76* 0.80*

0.24* DJ3
0.70* Distributive 0.24*
Affective TP1 0.53*
0.68* justice commitment
0.81*

0.31* DJ4 0.21* 0.83* TP2 0.45*

0.71* 0.17* 0.26*
0.31* DJ5 Task 0.78*
TP3 0.58*
0.21* 0.45* 0.39* performance 0.71*
0.41* 0.36*
TP4
0.31* PJ1 0.73* 0.75*
NC1 NC2 NC3 TP5 0.38*
0.46* PJ2
0.61*
Procedural 0.62*
0.65* 0.60*

0.38* PJ3 justice Normative 0.07* 0.70* IF1 0.43*

0.60*
commitment
0.46* PJ4 0.64* 0.78* IF2 0.48*
0.27*
Interpersonal 0.76*
IF3 0.40*
0.46* IJ1 0.64* facilitation 0.65*
0.33*
IF4 0.32*
0.56* IJ2 0.65*
0.71* 0.61*
0.35* 0.09* IF5 0.40*
0.49* IJ3 0.59* 0.08*

0.76* 0.24*
0.54* IJ4 Interactional 0.10*
0.72* JD1 0.22*
0.80* LMX 0.18*
0.57* IJ5 justice 0.48*
Job
0.60*
0.70*
JD2 0.33* Figure 3.
dedication 0.82*
0.29* IJ6 0.78* 0.73* 0.85* 0.74* 0.82*
0.77*
JD3 0.34*
Final structural model of
0.40* IJ7 0.85*
IMX1 IMX2 IMX3 IMX4 IMX5 IMX6 the influencing
0.44* IJ8
0.69* mechanism of
0.25* 31* 0.28* 0.29* 0.46* 0.37*
organizational justice on
work performance
Notes: *p < 0.05; n = 793
IJM not directly affect any kind of work performance significantly, and that only
31,6 interactional justice had some direct effect on task performance (g 0.10).
The results indicated that the effect of organizational justice on employees work
performance was mainly mediated by organizational commitment and LMX. H4 predicted
that the relationships between distributive, procedural and interactional justice and task
performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication will be mediated by affective
672 and normative commitment. This hypothesis was partly supported. Specifically,
procedural justice affected interpersonal facilitation and job dedication through the
mediation of affective commitment (the path coefficient g was 0.21 0.07 0.02, and
0.21 0.09 0.02, respectively); distributive justice likewise affected interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication through the mediation of affective commitment (the path
coefficient g was 0.24 0.07 0.02, and 0.24 0.09 0.02, respectively).
H5 predicting that the relationships between interactional justice and task
performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication will be mediated by LMX
was also partly supported in that interactional justice had significant indirect effect on
interpersonal facilitation and job dedication through the mediation of LMX (the path
coefficient g was 0.48 0.08 0.04 and 0.48 0.18 0.09, respectively), but had no
indirect effect on task performance. Besides, distributive and procedural justice also
indirectly influenced interpersonal facilitation and job dedication through the
mediation of LMX.
From the mediators perspective, affective commitment mediates the effect of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice on interpersonal facilitation and job
dedication; and normative commitment mediates the effect of interactional justice on
task performance, interpersonal facilitation, and job dedication (the path coefficient g
was 0.35 0.44 0.15,0.35 0.27 0.09, and 0.35 0.33 0.12, respectively).
Additionally, LMX mediates the effect of distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice on interpersonal facilitation and job dedication. Therefore, organizational
commitment and LMX were supported as the mediating mechanisms in the
organizational justices effect on work performance. The path coefficients also
indicated that the mediating effect of normative commitment was the strongest. Seen
from the exogenous variables perspective, distributive and procedural justice indirectly
affect interpersonal facilitation and job dedication through the mediating effect of
affective commitment and LMX; interactional justice particularly had an effect on all
three types of work performance through all three mediators, among which the
mediating effect of normative commitment is the most powerful. In terms of the outcome
variables, task performance was mainly predicted by interactional justice, both directly
and indirectly mediated by normative commitment, while interpersonal facilitation
and job dedication were indirectly predicted by all three types of organizational justice.

Direct effect Indirect effect Total effect

DJ PJ IJ DJ PJ IJ DJ PJ IJ
Table IV.
Direct, indirect, and total Task performance 0.10 0.14 0.24
effects of organizational Interpersonal facilitation 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.03 0.03 0.17
justice dimensions on Job dedication 0.05 0.06 0.26 0.05 0.06 0.26
work performance
dimensions (final model) Notes: DJ, distributive justice; PJ, procedural justice; IJ, interactional justice
Discussion Organization
Past research regarding the mechanism of the influence of organizational justice on commitment
work performance led to relationship discord between organizational justice and work
performance. This current research considered the direct and indirect effects of and LMX
organizational justice on work performance by using the structural equation model.
The final model was arrived at by fitting the model to the sample data and after some
modifications. The research results revealed that when affective commitment, 673
normative commitment, and LMX were introduced as mediators to the model, the three
dimensions of organizational justice generally did not have a direct effect on all
the dimensions of work performance, except that interactional justice had a weak
influence on task performance. The direct relationship between organizational justice
and performance established by previous research might be due to the failure in
introducing proper mediators. The results also suggested that it is due to the mediating
effect of organizational commitment and LMX that organizational justice that caused
the change in employees work performance.
Consistent with the investigation result of Masterson et al. (2000) and
Cropanzano et al. (2002), this research also determined the LMX as mediating the
relationship between interactional justice and performance. Furthermore, the research
found the LMX was a mediator between distributive and procedural justice and
performance. However, the LMX merely mediated between justice and interpersonal
facilitation and job dedication; it failed to significantly mediate between justice and
task performance.
The outstanding effect of organizational justice on the LMX may be due to the
special function and special standing of leaders in China. Leaders of the organization
do not simply serve as agents of organizations, but are regarded as the organizations
parents, even going so far as to be the incarnation of the organization. Therefore, not
only the managers interactional justice affects an employees perception of LMX, but
the perception of distributive and procedural justice from the organization also alters
the employees feeling toward the leaders. The improvement or deterioration of the
LMX, in turn, leads to the employees response of altering his performance. In order to
avoid the punishment of decreasing benefit by altering task performance because of
the LMX, the employee then tends to choose to alter the part of volitional and
interpersonal performance, that is, contextual performance.
The results also supported the proposal that affective and normative commitments
mediated the relationship between organizational justice and employee performance.
The mediating effect of normative commitment was significantly stronger than that of
the LMX. Likewise, affective commitment mediated the impact of the three types of
organizational justice on interpersonal facilitation and job dedication, while
normative commitment mediated the impact of interactional justice on all three types
of performance, specifically on task performance. To be precise, either the justice
of the outcome and that of the process through which the outcome is attained, or the
interpersonal treatment in the process, may alter the employees emotional
identification with, and involvement in, the organization; this in turn alters the ex-role
work behaviors. Aside from this, the idea that managers are concerned with and
respectful of the employees welfare may greatly affect the employees perceived
accountability and obligation to the organization, thus resulting in the employees
altered task and contextual performance. The result supported the fact that the Chinese
IJM people give more stress to accountability and obligation, thus their normative
31,6 commitment accounted for more variance in performance.
The results also revealed that, among the three types of organization justice,
interactional justice was the best predictor of employee performance. The effect of
interactional justice on job performance is evidently much stronger than that of
distributive and procedural justice. This conclusion was different from the previous
674 research, such as the meta-analysis done by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), which
found task performance mainly related to procedural justice. One possible
interpretation is that Westerners concentrate more on the rules and procedures of
the organization, and so are more sensitive to procedural justice, which represents the
legality of the managing system. This is in contrast to the Chinese people who give
more emphasis on interpersonal relationships, morality, emotion, and humaneness of
management, and are, therefore, more sensitive to interactional justice. It can also be
noted that in China, the influence of interactional justice from managers on employees is
much stronger than that in the Western countries.
In this paper, the developed model provides important insights to the study of
relationship between organizational justice and work performance. First, our results
indicated that organizational justice has very little direct effect on work performance, but
mostly affects performance indirectly through the mediating effect of organizational
commitment and LMX. Second, among the three kinds of organizational justice,
interactional justice is the best predictor of performance. Finally, although social exchange
variables have popularly been examined as the mediators between organizational justice
and work performance, our findings suggest that organizational commitment accounts
more in the mediating mechanism. This further develops the relationship theory between
organizational justice and work performance by illuminating the mechanisms of the
organizational justices impact on work performance. In particular, although the social
exchange theory accounts a lot for the effect of employees organizational justice
perception on work performance, such organizational commitment elements as
organizational identity, involvement, affect, and accountability account for more.
Consequently, employees who feel they are fairly treated in the organization tend to have
better affect for the organization and regard themselves as indispensable members,
thus devoting themselves more to the organization.
Nonetheless, the findings and their implications were tempered by the limitations of
this study. One limitation concerns the data being based on self-reports, which might
lead to a same source bias. However, the factor analyses and the correlations between
the variables suggested that our findings are reliable and not entirely attributable to
method variance. Another limitation is that the sample used all came from Chinese
organizations. It is generally accepted that cultural difference has an impact on the
employees attitudes and behaviors, that the Chinese people might be more sensitive to
interactional justice, and might concentrate more on responsibility and emotional
identification with the organization. Thus, future research requires examination of the
model using a cross-national sample.

References
Adams, S.J. (1965), Inequity in social exchange, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 2, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-99.
Adams, S.J. and Freedman, S. (1976), Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated Organization
bibliography, in Berkowitz, L. and Walster, E. (Eds), Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, Vol. 9, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 43-90. commitment
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the and LMX
organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 49,
pp. 252-76.
Anderson, J.C. and Gerbing, D.W. (1988), Structural equation modeling in practice: a review 675
and recommended two-step approach, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103, pp. 411-23.
Aryee, S., Chen, Z.X. and Budhwar, P.S. (2004), Exchange fairness and employee
performance: an examination of the relationship between organizational politics and
procedural justice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 94,
pp. 1-14.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51, pp. 1173-82.
Campbell, J.P. (1990), Modeling the performance prediction problem in industrial and
organizational psychology, in Dunnete, M.D. and Hough, L.M. (Eds), Handbook of
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 687-732.
Chen, Z.X. and Francesco, A.M. (2003), The relationship between the three components of
commitment and employee performance, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62,
pp. 490-510.
Cheng, Y. and Stockdale, M.S. (2003), The validity of the three-component model of
organizational commitment in a Chinese context, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 62,
pp. 465-89.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 425-45.
Cropanzano, R. and Prehar, C.A. (1999), Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural
from interactional justice, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for
industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice, Group & Organization Management, Vol. 27,
pp. 324-51.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D.E., Mohler, C.J. and Schminke, M. (2001), Three roads to
organizational justice, Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management,
Vol. 20, pp. 1-113.
Early, P.C. and Lind, E.A. (1987), Procedural justice and participation in task selection: the role
of control in mediating justice judgments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 52, pp. 1148-60.
Erdogan, B. (2002), Antecedents and consequences of justice perceptions in performance
appraisals, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 555-78.
Graen, G.B. and Scandura, T.A. (1987), Toward a psychology of dyadic organizing, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 9, pp. 175-208.
IJM Graen, G.B. and Uhl-Bien, M. (1995), Relationship-based approach to leadership:
development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years:
31,6 applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 6 No. 2,
pp. 219-47.
Greenberg, J. (1982), Approaching equity and avoiding inequity in groups and organizations,
in Greenberg, J. and Cohen, R.L. (Eds), Equity and Justice in Social Behavior,
Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 389-435.
676
Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 76, pp. 698-707.
Liden, R.C. and Maslyn, J.M. (1998), Multidimentionality of leader-member exchange:
an empirical assessment through scale development, Journal of Management, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, P.C. (1990), Voice, control, and procedural justice:
instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 952-9.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), Integrating justice and social
exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 738-48.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment, Human Resource Management, Vol. 1, pp. 61-89.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relationship between
methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 527-56.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Rupp, D.E. and Cropanzano, R. (2002), The mediating effects of social exchange relationships in
predicting workplace outcomes from multifoci organizational justice, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 89, pp. 925-46.
Shalhoop, J.H. (2003), Social-exchange as a mediator of the relationship between organizational
justice and workplace outcomes, unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of
Akron, Akron, OH.
van Scotter, J.R. (2000), Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with
turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment, Human Resource Management
Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 79-95.
van Scotter, J.R. and Motowidlo, S.J. (1996), Interpersonal facilitation and job dedication as
separate facets of contextual performance, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81, pp. 525-31.

Further reading
Greenberg, J. and Leventhal, G.S. (1976), Equity and the use of overeward to motivate
performance, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 34, pp. 179-90.

About the authors

Xinyan Wang is an Associate Professor at School of Business Administration, Jiangxi University
of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China. She received her PhD degree from the School of
Management, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. Her main research interests are Organization
in human resource management and organizational justice. Xinyan Wang is the corresponding
author and can be contacted at: wxyhiry@smail.hust.edu.cn commitment
Jianqiao Liao is a Professor of Management at School of Management at Huazhong and LMX
University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. He received his PhD from the University of
Toronto in Canada. His main research interests are in human resource management and human
factors, specialized at mental workload measurement, job measurement, and performance
appraisal. He has been granted over 20 different research funds and published over 50 research 677
papers.
Degen Xia is a Professor and Vice Dean at the School of Tourism Management, Jiangxi
University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang, China. He is currently PhD Candidate at
Huazhong University of Science and Technology. His main research interests are in business
administration and intellectual property rights.
Tao Chang is a Lecturer at the School of Economics and Business Administration, Shanxi
University, China. She received her PhD degree from the School of Management, Huazhong
University of Science and Technology. Her main research interests are in human resource
management, knowledge management and team management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints