臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能關係之研究
摘  要

國內汽車成長快速增加，車輛繁多，交通事件頻傳，汽車駕駛訓練班的地位越來越重要。在汽車駕駛訓練班的員工行為好壞，可謂牽一髮而動全身，如何讓員工在汽車駕駛訓練班中能感覺受到公平的待遇，將影響其個人的工作行為與態度，進而牽連到整個汽車駕駛訓練班的組織效能。本研究旨在探討汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能關係之研究。研究目的為：
一、瞭解汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能的情況。
二、分析在汽車駕駛訓練班的受試者不同背景之組織公平與組織效能的情況。
三、釐清汽車駕駛訓練班的組織公平與組織效能之關係。
四、探討汽車駕駛訓練班之受試者的背景變項與組織公平對組織效能的預測力。
五、根據研究成果，提供給汽車駕駛訓練與相關單位參考並提出具體建議。
本研究首先經由文獻的探討瞭解討汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能的內涵與相關研究，進而提出討汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能關係之研究架構，進行問卷的編制、修正、預測、項目分析及信、效度考驗後，作為正式研究的調查工具，最後以高高屏汽車駕駛訓練班為抽樣對象，依據教練、講師、一般行政人員進行分層抽樣，有效樣本共349位，以t考驗、變異數分析、積差相關、迴歸分析等統計方法，對於資料加以分析與處理，之後再呈現研究結果，本章茲將研究主要發現先予以簡短羅列，再整理綜合歸納成結論，提出具體建議及進一步研究參考意見。
本研究結論為：
一、汽車駕駛訓練班最認同「互動公平」；在組織效能上「學習成長」表現最佳，其次是「顧客認同」
二、汽車駕駛訓練班員工的背景變項在「組織公平」上沒有顯著差異
三、汽車駕駛訓練班年長、教育程度越高的員工在「學習成長」的組織效能較佳
四、汽車駕駛訓練班的組織公平與組織效能具有正向相關的關係
五、汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平中，分配公平、互動公平分別與整體組織公平具有高度正向相關，關係最密切
六、汽車駕駛訓練班組織效能中，以顧客認同與整體組織效能具有高度正向相關，關係最密切
七、汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平對於組織效能具有顯著預測力，其中以互動公平最有預測力
最後則針對汽車駕駛訓練班依照結論提出具體的建議，協助汽車駕駛訓練班能在組織公平上有具體作為，進而提升組織效能，並提出進一步研究建議，作為研究參考。

The Study of the Relationship Between Organizational Equity and Effectiveness of Automobile Driving Schools

Abstract

The growth of domestic automobiles increases rapidly and numerously. Automobile accidents keep pouring in. The status of automobile driving schools is becoming more and more important. In automobile driving schools, the good and bad behaviors of employees affect the entire industry. How to let employees feel the fair treatment will affect each individual’s working behavior and attitude and will involve the entire organizational effectiveness in automobile driving schools. This study examines the relationship between organizational equity and effectiveness of automobile driving schools.

The purposes of the study are:
1. To understand the situation between organizational equity and effectiveness in automobile driving schools.
2. To analyze the respondents from automobile driving schools who have different backgrounds of organizational equity and effectiveness.
3. To clarify the relationship between organizational equity and effectiveness in automobile driving schools.
4. To confer the background variate and organizational equity of the respondents to the predicting of organizational effectiveness.
5. To provide reference to related units of automobile driving schools and to address concrete suggestions.
This research was first based on the literature review to understand the relationship between organizational equity and effectiveness in automobile driving schools. Based on the review, research questions and the questionnaire have developed to evaluate this relationship. Questionnaires were revised and valid using statistical analysis. By using stratified random sampling of three groups: driving coaches, lecturers and administrative personnel, 349 valid samples were collected from automobile driving schools in Kaohsiung and Ping-Tung. T-tests, analysis of variance, and regression analysis were used to analyze the data, and the results of major findings were presented in a brief format. Conclusions were based on the overall organized findings which lead to concrete recommendations and in developing further researches.

Conclusions
1. The most significant finding was the fairness interaction in automobile driving schools. Growth in learning performed the best in organizational effectiveness and then followed by customer identity.
2. There was no significant finding of the background variate in organizational equity of automobile driving schools.
3. Employees who are older and have received higher education have better learning growth in organizational effectiveness.
4. The organizational equity and effectiveness of automobile driving schools were positively correlated.
5. Distribution fairness and interaction fairness were positively correlated with organizational equity of automobile driving schools.
6. Customer satisfaction was positively correlated with organizational efficiency.
7. Organizational equity was highly predictable, especially interaction fairness to organizational effectiveness.
The conclusions of the study aimed to address concrete recommendations, to assist automobile driving schools to accomplish organizational equity, to up-grade organizational effectiveness, and to suggest further research studies as research references.

第一章　緒論…………………………………………………………1
第一節 研究背景與重要性 ……………………………………………1
第二節 研究動機與目的 ………………………………………………3
第三節 研究問題與方法 ………………………………………………4
第四節 名詞釋義……………………………………………………… 5
第五節 研究範圍與限制……………………………………………… 7

第二章　文獻探討 ………………………………………… 9
第一節 組織公平理論與相關研究……………………………………9
第二節 組織效能涵義與相關衡量指標………………………………22
第三節 組織公平與組織效能關係之研究……………………………35

第三章　研究設計與實施 …………………………………38
第一節 研究架構 …………………………………………………… 38
第二節 研究假設 …………………………………………………… 39
第三節 研究對象 …………………………………………………… 40
第四節 研究工具 …………………………………………………… 43
第五節 實施程序 …………………………………………………… 50
第六節 資料處理 …………………………………………………… 51

第四章　研究結論與討論 …………………………………52
第一節 受試者知覺在汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能之整體分析………………………………………………………………52
第二節 受試者之背景變項在汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能差異之分析 ……………………………………………………55
第三節 汽車駕駛訓練班組織公平與組織效能相關之分析…………62
第四節 汽車駕駛訓練班受試者之背景變項、組織公平對組織效能的預測力分析……………………………………………………68

第五章　結論與建議 ……………………………………… 73
第一節 主要研究發現…………………………………………………73
第二節 結論……………………………………………………………77
第三節 建議……………………………………………………………80

參考文獻 …………………………………………………… 84
壹、中文部分………………………………………………………… 84
貳、英文部分………………………………………………………… 86
附錄
一、車駕駛訓練班組織行為量表專家效度評定表………………… 90
二、汽車駕駛訓練班組織行為預試問卷…………………………… 96
二、汽車駕駛訓練班組織行為問卷……………………………………99

壹、中文部分

王家通、曾燦燈(1986)。教育行政學-理論、研究與實際。高雄：復文圖書出版社。
王逸夫（2001）。企業導入ERP對組織經營績效之影響-以組織學習與知識創造為觀點之實證研究。國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
牟鍾福（民91）。國中體育教師組織正義與組織信任對組織承諾影響之研究。國立台灣師範大學體育研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
朱文洋（2001）。中小型醫院策略與營運績效之探討-以平衡計分卡觀點分析。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
朱道凱（譯）（2003）。平衡計分卡-資訊時代的策略管理工具（Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P.:The Balanced Scorecard Translating Strategy into Action）。台北市：臉譜出版
江正信（2000）。高階經營團隊與企業策略決策模式、組織學習傾向、創新能力及經營績效之關係研究。國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
交通部（2005）。交通統計。http://www.motc.gov.tw/hypage.cgi?HYPAGE=stat.asp
邱皓政（2002）。量化研究與統計分析。台北：五南書局。
吳明隆（2000）。SPSS統計應用實務。台北市：松崗電腦圖書。
吳萬益（1994）。中、美、日在台公司企業文化與管理風格之關係研究，成功大學學報，人文社會篇，293-90。
吳璧如(1981)。國民小學組織文化與組織效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
宋孟霖（1997）。本國積體電路製造業關鍵成功因素與績效評估制度之研究：實地研究。國立台灣大學會計管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
卓正欽（民90）。組織中分配正義與程序正義對員工組織承諾、工作滿意及離職傾向之影響－以會計事務所為探討對象。國立台灣大學商學研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
林文華（2003）。資訊科技投入程度、組織管理相關變數與組織績效之關聯性研究。國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
徐漢祥（民87）。分公平性、程序公平性對工作滿意度與組織承諾之影響。國立中山大學企管理學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
馬樹榮（民90）。組織公平與組織承諾關係之研究－檢驗薪資制度知覺的調節效果。國立中山大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。
袁國森（民85）。績效評估中之程序公平及分配公平認知對員工對績效評估態度之影響－以中華電信某分公司為例。國立中央大學人力資源管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，桃園縣。
陳明璋（2000）。平衡計分卡在中小企業的應用。國立台北大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
陳秀津（2001）。台灣地區連鎖業追求卓越與其績效關聯性之研究。國立彰化師範大學商業教育研究所碩士論文，未出版，彰化市。
陳美玲（2002）。環境、競爭策略、平衡計分卡與經營績效關聯性之研究-以我國資訊科技業為例。私立淡江大學會計管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北縣。
陳佩妮（1996）。醫療品質與經營績效關係之研究。國立台灣大學公衛所醫管組碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張世佳（1995）。製造策略與事業策略之配適分析-高科技廠商之實證。國立台灣大學商學研究所博士論文，未出版，台北市。
張美月（1995）。全方位績效評估制度的設計暨薪酬分配分析與改進建議：國內金融公司之個案研究。國立台灣大學會計研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
張啟煌（2003）。組織學習文化、組織界線、組織能力與員工滿意度、組織績效關連性之研究。國立成功大學企業管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台南市。
董欣寧（民90）。個人屬性、組織公平與組織承諾關聯性之研究－以中華電信國際電信分公司為例。國立交通大學經營管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，新竹市。
黎士群（民87）。組織公平、信任與知識分享行為之關係性研究－以Unix系統管理人員為例。銘傳大學管理科學研究所碩士論文，未出版，台北市。
鄭又腆（2002）。知識經濟時代企業、資訊科技應用、知識管理、組織學習傾向與組織績效之研究。國立雲林科技大學資訊管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，雲林縣。
鄭彩鳳（1996）。競值途徑應用在高中職校長領導角色、學校組織文化與組織效能關係之研究。國立高雄師範大學教育研究所博士論文，未出版，高雄市。
蔡正宏（1997）。ISO9000品保制度認知之研究-以服務業為例。國立中興大學會計管理研究所碩士論文，未出版，台中市。
賴士葆（1990）。發展研究、行銷、製造三部門互動與新產品發展績效相關之研究。台北：華泰書局。
蕭美惠（民89）。多國籍企業母子公司之間程序公正性與子公司績效關係之研究－以在台子公司為例。國立中山大學企業管理學系研究所碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。

貳、英文部分
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol.2, pp.267-299). New York: Academic Press.
Alexander, S., & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organizational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198.
Aquino, K. (1995). Relationships among pay inequity, perceptions of procedural justice, and organizational citizenship. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 21-33.
Arthur J. B. (1992). The ink between business strategy and industrial relations systems in American steel minimize. Industrial and Labor Relation Review, 45(4), 488-506.
Arthur J. B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6), 670-687.
Barling, J., & Phillips, M. (1993). Interactional, formal, and distributive justice in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Psychology, 127, 649-656.
Barnard, C. I. (1964). Functions of executive. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria for fairness. In B. Sheppard (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp.289-319). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bies, R. J., & Shapiro, D. L. (1987). Interactional fairness judgments: The influence of causal accounts. Social Justice Research, 1, 199-218.
Cameron, K. S. (1986). A study of organization effectiveness and its predictors. Management Science, 32(1), 87-112.
Cameron, K. S.＆ Quinn, R. E. (1988). Organizational paradox and transformation. In Quinn, R. E. & Cameron, K. S.(Eds.). Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management, 1-18. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Publishing Company.
Chan, M., (2000). Organizational justice theories and landmark cases. The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 8(1), 68-88.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-455.
Cowherd, D. M., & Levine, D. I. (1992). Product quality and pay equity between lower level employees and top management: An investigation of distributive justice theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 302-320.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (1997). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling through the maze. In C.L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12, pp.317-372). New York: Wiley.
Cropanzano, R., & Prehar, C. A. (1999). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
Cropanzano, R., & Randall, M. L. (1993). Injustice and work behavior: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp.3-20). Hillsdle, NJ: Erlbaum.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egoistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85-113.
Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp.51-93). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Delaney, J. T. & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 40(1), 88-171.
Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.
Dyer, L. & Reeves, T. (1995). HR strategies and firm performance: What do we know and where do we need to go? International Journal of Human Resource Management Review, 37(3), 26-32.
Etzioni, A. (1960). The approaches to organizational analysis: A critique and a suggestion. Administrative Science Quarterly, 5, 257-278.
Fields, D., Pang, M., Chiu, C., (2000). Distributive and procedural Justice as predictors of employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 547-562.
Flood, A. B., Shortell, Sm., Scott, W.R. (1994). Organizational performance: Managing for efficiency, Health Care Management: Organization、Design and Behaviour, 316-351. New York: Delmar Publishers.
Folger, R. (1977). Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” and improvement on experienced inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 108-119.
Folger, R. (1984). Perceived injustice, referent cognitions, and concept of comparison level. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 14, 88-108.
Folger, R. (1987). Reformulating the preconditions of resentment: A referent cognitions model. In J. C. Masters & W. P. Smith (Eds.), Social comparison, social justice, and relative deprivation: Theoretical, empirical, and policy perspectives (pp.183-215). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Folger, R. (1993). Reactions to mistreatment at work. In K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp.161-183). Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Erlbaum.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organizational justice and human resource management. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Folger, R., & Konovsky, M.A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 115-130.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691-701.
Grady, W. M. (1991). Performance measurement: Implementing strategy. Management Accounting, 51, 423-96..
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 606-613.
Greenberg, J. (1990a). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 561-568.
Greenberg, J. (1993a). The social side of fairness: In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management (pp.79-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1982). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice(2rd ed.). NY:Random House.
Hui, C. H., & Tan, C. K., (1996). Employee motivation and attitudes in the Chinese workforce. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Handbook of Chinese . Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). Linking the balanced scorecard to strategy. Management Review, 39(1), 53-79.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1996). Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system. Harvard Business Review, 74(1), 75-86.
Kaplan, R. S. & Norton, D. P. (1999). The balanced scorecard: translating strategy into action.. Harvard Business School Press. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Keely, M. (1984). Impartiality and participant interest theories of organizational effectives. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29, 1-25.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (1998). Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 323-338.
Konovsky, M. A., & Organ, D. W. (1996). Dispositional and contextual determinants of organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 253-266.
Kwong, J. Y. Y., & Leung, K. (2002). A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and outcome favorability: Importance of the relationship. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87(2), 278-299.
Lam, S. S. K, Schaubroeck, J., & Aryee, S. (2002). Relationship between organizational justice and employee work outcome: A cross-national study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 1-18.
Lerner, M. J., & Whitehead, L. A. (1980). Procedural justice viewed in the context of justice motive theory. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp.219-256). New York: Spring-Verlag.
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp.211-239). Morristown, NJ: General Learining Press.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greehberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp.27-55). New York: Plenum Press.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social ineraction (pp.167-128). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plemum Press.
Mansour-Cole, D. M., & Scott, S. G. (1998). Hearing it through the grapevine: The influence, leader-relations, and legitimacy on survivors’ fairness perceptions. Personnel Psychology, 51, 25-54.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis-Mcclear, K., Goldman, B. M., & Tayler, S. M. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The difference effects of fair procedural and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738-748.
Martin, J. (1981). Relative deprivation: A theory of distributive injustice for an era of shrinking resources. In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3, pp.53-107). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Martin, J. (1993). Inequality, distributive injustice, and organizational illegitimacy. In J. K. Murnighan (Ed.), Social psychology in organizations: Advances in theory and research (pp.296-321). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Miler, S. M. (1990). The strategic management of technological R&D-an ideal process for the 1990’s. International Journal of Technology Management, 5(2), 63-153.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organizational and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied . 76(6), 845-855.
N, B. P., & M, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556.
Nives,P. R.(2002). Balanced Scorecard Step By Step: Maximizing Performance and Maintaining Results. New York: John Wiley & Sons,Inc.
Pearce, J. L., Bigley, G. A., Branyiczki, I., (1998). Procedural justice as modernism: placing industrial/organizational psychology in context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 47, 371-396.
Pfeffer, J., & Langton, N. (1993). The effects of wage dispersion of satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(3), 382-407.
Pillai, R., Scandura, T. A., Williams, E. A., (1999). Leadership and organizational justice: Similarities and differences across cultures. Journal of International Business Studies, 30, 763-799.
Pillai, R., Williams, E. S., & Tan, J., (2001), Are the scales tipped in favor of procedural or distributive justice? An Investigation of the U. S., India, Germany, and Hong Kong (China). The International Journal of Conflict Management, 12(4), 312-332.
Robbins, S. P. (1993；1996). Organizational behaviour. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Runciman, W. G. (1966). Relative deprivation and social justice: A study of attitudes to social inequality in twentieth century England. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Settoon, R. P., Bennett, N., & Liden, R. C. (1996). Social exchange in organizations: Perceived organizational support, leader-member exchange, and employee reciprocity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 462-471.
Skarlicki, D. P. (1995). Increasing citizenship between within a public and a private sector union: A test of organizational justice theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(12), 4855A. (UMI No.02852)
Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied , 82, 434-443.
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1997). Leadership training in organizational justice to increase citizenship behavior within a labor union: A replication. Personnel Psychology, 50, 617-633.
Shapiro, D. L. (1991). The effects of explanations on negative reactions to deceit. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 614-630.
Shapiro, D. L., Buttner, E. H., & Barry, B. (1994). Explanations for rejection decisions: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy and moderate their enhancement of justice perceptions? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 58, 346-368.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends” and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40.
Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organization Behavior, 18, 83-98.
Szilagyi, A. O. (1981). Management and performance. CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Tata, J., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (1996). Emphasis on distributive, procedural, and interactional justice: Differential perceptions of men and women. Psychologyical Reports, 79, 1327-1330.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings (pp.77-98). Hillsdale, NJ; NJ; Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., Boeckmann, R. J., Smith, H. J., & Huo, Y. J. (1997). Social justice in a diverse society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp.115-191). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Venkatraman, N. & Ramanujam, V. (1986). Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. Academy of Management Review, 11(4), 801-814.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S., (2002). Examining the Construct of Organizational Justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 38, 193-203.
Walster, E., Berscheid, E., & Walster, G. W. (1973). New directions in equity research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 151-176.
Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Yochi & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizational a meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 86(2), 278-321.
Yoon JK. (1996). Fairness issues and job satisfaction Korean employees: the significance of status and procedural justice in work orientation. Social Justice Research, 9, 121-143.
Zohar, D. (1995). The justice perspective of job stress. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4), 487-495.