Editorial Board

A Refereed Monthly International Journal of Management

“EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT”

Author

EFFECT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE AND ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Abstract

The study was an attempt to explore the relationship between Psychological climate, Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement. The climate of an organization determines the extent to which an individual would like to engage in the job. However, it does include the role of Fairness perception too. The finding of this research recommended that there was a positive association of Psychological climate, Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement (Saks, 2006). This implies that if we improve the climate of the organization and fairness perception among employees, we can get engaged workforce.

Keywords: Psychological Climate, Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement

Introduction

The psychological climate is a measurement of work answers to the "why”, “what” and “how” in organization. It is applied to measure tool, consistent for the scientific community a confirmatory cross-validation procedure with work on psychological climate (James’s, 1979). The psychological climate is basically effect on organizational results and behaviors’ of individuals and it’s a scientific measurement of work climate (Parker, 2003).

Organization Justice is one of the important aspects of an organization as it is related with daily working of employees. Organization justice includes the dimensions such as Distributive Justice and Procedural Justice. The means of distributive justices is the outcomes of distribution stand for the equality, the fairness of organization and the means of procedural justice is employee fairness regarding sharing of resources and measuring the amount.

Employee engagement is the main focus on growing interest in organizational phenomena. Employee engagement is now many of the organization is higher of priority in both the private and public sectors. The term of engagement is applied to business leaders and human resource Employee perceptions of benefits to their work environment. They also proposed two definitions of engagement define to engaged employee 1) knows what to do at work and 2) wants to do the work (Ellis and Sorenson, 2007).

Literature Review

Psychological climate and employee engagement both are very important part of organization psychological climate promotes awareness of employee safety and availability of work environment for individual (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn 1992; Wagner & Harter, 2006 & Kahn, 1990). Employee engagement affects an employee's work of experience, job challenge, clarity of the role, and the main part of the supportive supervisor (Buckingham & Coffman, 1999; Czarnowsky, 2008; Fleming & Asplund, 2007; Harter et al., 2002; Harter et al., 2003; Towers Perrin, 2003, 2007; Wagner & Harter, 2006).

Rejoice Thomas (2012) stated that engaged people express their role of performances physically, cognitively and emotionally. Employee engagement is the level of the involvement an employee has towards its values and its organization. Employee engagement is to improve performance with work, colleagues within the benefit of the job in the organization. Engagement requires the relationship between employer and employee that is a two-way relationship. Mostly researchers found that engagement plays an important role in determining job satisfaction (Mathur & Jain, 2015; Saks, 2006), Organizational commitment (Saks, 2006), Turnover intentions (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004) and many more.

The firstly stated by Greenberg (1987) ‘organizational justice’, it is Greenberg conception and the fairness or response in an organization. Tabibnia Satpute et al. (2008) also stated that fairness or organization justice both are equally same as both concepts are related to the terms explained as ethic, religion, law, and fair-play.

Model

The independent variables selected for this research was Psychological climate and the dependent variable analyzed in this research was employee engagement.

Objective of the Study

1. To standardized the measures to evaluate psychological climate, Organizational Justice, and employee engagement.
2. To identify factors underlying psychological climate, Organizational Justice, and employee engagement.
3. To measure the impact of psychological climate, Organizational Justice and employee engagement.

Hypothesis

Ho1: There is no effect of Psychological Climate and Organizational Justice on Employee Engagement.

Ho 2: There is no impact of psychological Climate on Employee Engagement.

Ho3: There is no impact of Organizational Justice on Employee Engagement.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Sample

The study was conducted in different organizations located in Gwalior. The study is experiential analysis aimed at finding out the significant relationship between three variables. For this purpose 300 employees of middle and the top level were contacted personally and requested to fill up the questionnaire.

The Measure

Likert-type 5 point scales were used to measure all the variables, 1 stands for "Minimum Agreement" and 5 stands for “Maximum Agreement”.

Psychological Climate: The variable measured using 21-item scale proposed by Serge Gagnon, Maxime Paquet, François Courcy, and Christopher P. Parker (2009). Three items measuring Good Emphasis, Work Facilitation, three items measuring Autonomy, Challenge, two items measuring innovation and 2 items measured job, workload and two items measured role, workload.

Organization Justices: The variable measure included 12-items extracted from the scale developed by Abbas Ali Rastgar, Nina Pourebrahimi (2013). This was measured with a six -item-scale Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice, three-item scales measured Distributive Justice.

Employee Engagement: The variable was measured by using 16-items. The questionnaire was the short version of (Aligned 2008). This was measured with a four -item scale of Employee Attraction, three–item scale measured performances or profitability, and three–item scale measured Profitability.

Reliability of the measures

Reliability of all he measures of the research paper was calculated using PASW 18 the results are as follows:

Statistical Analysis of Data

Factor Analysis

Exploratory factor analysis is used on a set of data to determine the underlying factor structure. Many methods were used to analyze the data to covert to useful information, such as internal consistency was established through the Cronbach’s alpha. To ensure construct validity, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were employed. Single and Multiple Regression tests were applied in the research to measure the impact of antecedents on Employee Engagement.

Table showing Factor Analysis

CFA TOTAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL CLIMATE, ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT

Model Fit Summary

CMIN

Chi Square was found to be 45.513 with a p-value of 0.00 indicating that the Chi-square value was significant indicating overall good fit of the model to data. The finding is also supported by a smaller than 5 value of CMIN/DF (2.677).

RMR, GFI

The other goodness of fit statistics also supports the overall goodness of fit. As can be seen from the table above the value of GFI is .964 and AGFI are 0.924 for a good fit. Similarly, the value of RMR, which needs to be lowest for the best model, is .356, and was lowest for all the variant of the model.

Baseline Comparisons

The next set of goodness of fit statistics relate to improvement and as can be seen from the table above all the five statistics NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI and CFI are above 0.9 it is indicating good fit of the model.

RMSEA

The badness of fit index RMSEA needs to be smaller than 0.08 for the model that fits the data adequately. As can be seen from the table above the value of RMSEA is 0.075 indicating a good fit of the model to the data.

HOELTER

Hoelter test indicates the maximum sample size for the model for which the model would remain a good fit. As it can be seen at 5% level of significance the sample size limit it182 and at 1% level of significance it is 220. The sample size for the current study is 300.

Psychological Climate: Five factors were identifying through EFA and all factors are including CFA.

Organization Justices: Three factors were identified through EFA and on the third factor only one item was loaded so it was dropped in CFA.

Employee Engagement: Three factors were identifying through EFA and all 3 factors are including CFA.

Result of Hypothesis Testing

Regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses. To test the direct effect hypotheses, the dependent variable (Employee Engagement) was regressed to independent variable (Psychological Climate and Organizational Justice. The model used for regression has very good fit as indicated by F- value 37.147 which is significant at 0% level of the model. The regression model presents (R² =0.717, β= .511, p=0.000). The result supports the hypothesis and indicates the statically significant relationship between both the variables.

Multiple regression was then applied to test second hypothesis which states that both the Psychological Climate and organizational justice are positively related to Employee Engagement. The data reported that both personal characteristics (Standardized β= .445, p=0.000) has significant positive relationship with employee engagement where adjusted R² showed 71.7 percent variance in the dependent variable is explained by independent variables.

SEM Results

Table 10: SEM Results

The results revealed that value of chi square (22.703, DF. = 11) with p- value .019 indicated that model was absolute fit to the data. Other fit indices, viz. GFI, NFI, CFI, AGFI, TLI and badness of fit indices such as RMSEA, it can be seen from the table above that the values of various fit indices and RMSEA are as per the specified criteria these parameters clearly indicate that this model fits to this data and there is no further requirement to refine the model.

The present study sought to examine the role of the concept of psychological climate and Justice Perception in determining engagement among employees. The justice perception helps in lessening negative thoughts such as Cynicism (Mathur et al, 2013) and enhances extra role behaviors (Mathur et al, 2013; Gutheling, 2011). The role of Organizational justice has always been an issue of concern for the managers to ensure energy, enthusiasm, persistent and pervasive employees (Saks, 2006). The main findings of Saks (2006) declared the dominant role of Procedural Justice in determining employee engagement. Similarly, (Maslach et al., 2001) also reported that positive perception of fairness improves engagement. Nevertheless, the role of psychological climate can be demeaned. James (1982) and James et al. (1990) reported that psychological climate perception induces feelings of satisfaction and identification with his job and organization.

CONCLUSION

The main objective of the research was to identify the relationship between independent variables Psychological Climate and Organization Justice with dependent variable Employee Engagement. The results indicated the significant relationship was found between psychological climate and organization justice. That means the public sector employees the employee engagement can be achieve by improving the quality of climate as well as either generating or enhancing the fairness perceptions among them.

References

• Abbas Ali Rastgar, Nina Pourebrahimi (2013). International Journal of Research in Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management, 1(2), 1-10.
• Attridge, M. (2009). Employee Work Engagement: Best Practices for Employers. Research Works: Partnership for Workplace Mental Health, 1, 1-11.
• Brown, S. P., & Leigh, T. W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 359-368.
• Buckingham, M., & Coffman, C. (1999). First, break all the rules; What the world’s greatest managers do differently. New York: Simon and Schuster.
• Byrne, Z. S., & Cropanzano, R. (2001). The history of organizational justice: The founder speak. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (Vol. 2, pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Czarnowsky, M. (2008). Learning’s role in employee engagement: An ASTD research Study. Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.
• Ellis C M and Sorensen A (2007). Assessing Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Productivity Perspectives, 15(1). The Segal Group, Inc.
• Fleming, J. H., & Asplund, J. (2007). Human sigma. New York: Gallup Press.
• Greenberg Jerald.(1987). A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22.
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.
• Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2003). Wellbeing the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: A review of the Gallup studies. In C. L. Keyes & J. Haidt (Eds.), Flourishing: The positive person and the good life (pp. 205- 224). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• James, L.R. (1979). Psychological climate: Dimensions and relationships of individual and aggregated work environment perceptions, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 23, 201–250.
• James, L. R. (1982). Aggregation bias in estimates of perceptual agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 219–229.
• James, L. R., & Brett, J. M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 307–321.
• Kahn, W. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
• Kahn, W. (1992). To be fully there: Psychological presence at work. Human Relations, 45, 321-349.
• Mathur Garima, Navita Nathani & Sweety Dubey (2013). Perceived Organizational Politics, Organizational Justice, Cynicism and OCB: A Demographic Study of Academicians, Review of HRM, Vol. 2, pp. 61-73.
• Jain Monika & Garima Mathur (2015). Effect of Organization Justice and Employee Engagement on Job satisfaction, International Journal of Core Engineering & Management (IJCEM) Volume 2, Issue 3, pp. 194-203.
• Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., Young, S. A., Huff, J. W., Altmann, R. A., Lacost, H. A., et al. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: a meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 389-416.
• Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600-619.
• Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25, pp. 293-315.
• Serge Gagnon, Maxime Paquet, François Courcy, and Christopher P. Parker Healthcare Management FORUM Gestion des soins de santé – Spring/Printemps 2009.
• Maslach, C., Schaufelli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397-422.
• Tabibnia, G., Satpute, A. B., & Lieberman, M. D. (2008). The sunny side of fairness: Preference fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry).Psychological Science, 19, 339-347.
• Towers Perrin (2003). Working today: Understanding what drives employee engagement. Retrieved from http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/getwebcachedoc?webc=hrs/usa/2003/200309/tale nt_2003.pdf
• Towers Perrin. (2007). Closing the engagement gap: A roadmap for driving superior business performance.Retrieved from http://www.biworldwide.com/info/pdf/Towers_Perrin_Global_Workforce_Study. pdf
• Thomas Rejoice.(2012). An Empirical Study On Employee Engagement Of Employees In The Banking Industry, International Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 1, 8-15.
• Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2006). 12: The great elements of managing. Washington, DC: The Gallup Organization.