Do procedures really matter when rewards are more important? A Pakistani perspective on the effects of distributive and procedural justice on employee behaviors

Abstract

IntroductionResearchers agree that procedural justice and distributive justice interact so that high procedural fairness reduces the negative consequences of distributive unfairness. ObjectivesOur objective was to test the hypothesis that employees in Pakistan (i.e., an underdeveloped economy) would be more focused on rewards than procedures. Therefore, procedural and distributive justice will not interact in predicting employee behaviors. MethodsUsing independent measures for organizational justice and job outcomes, we conducted two field surveys (n=372 and n=550 paired responses) in Pakistan to examine the direct and combined effects of procedural and distributive justice on job performance, citizenship behaviors, and creativity. ResultsIn both studies, the results suggest that distributive justice is a more consistent and relatively stronger predictor of job outcomes as compared to procedural justice. The results also showed that procedural justice did not moderate the relationship between distributive justice and employee behaviors. ConclusionThe findings suggest that workers in an underdeveloped economy like Pakistan may be more concerned with fairness in the distribution of rewards than procedural fairness. Therefore, in such context, procedures may be less likely to reduce negative consequences of unfair reward distribution.