American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)

[Link]
Impact Factor 2.30

Studying the Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ) on Employee Engagement

(EE): An Empirical Study on the Mediating Role of Organizational Trust (OT)
Author Details: Dalia Eissa – ESLSCA University, Egypt
Abstract
the purpose of this study is to examine the extent to which Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ) comprising
of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, affects Employee Engagement (EE) in Egypt’s
manufacturing sector, and to investigate the mediating role of Organizational Trust (OT) in this relationship.
The study seeks to address the existing gap in literature concerning the influence of fairness perceptions on
engagement within the Egyptian manufacturing sector context, where socio-economic and cultural factors
distinctly shape workplace dynamics. The study adopts a quantitative research methodology, employing
structured survey instruments to collect primary data from employees in Egypt’s manufacturing industry.
Measurement tools include Colquitt’s Organizational Justice Scale (2001) for POJ, Gallup’s Q12 Engagement
Scale (2023) for EE, and Mayer and Davis’s Organizational Trust Scale (1999) for OT. The collected data are
analyzed using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and Regression Analysis to test hypothesized relationships
and the mediating effect of trust. The findings reveal that all three dimensions of perceived organizational
justice, distributive, procedural, and interactional, significantly and positively influence both organizational
trust and employee engagement. Moreover, organizational trust is found to play a partial mediating role in the
relationship between justice and engagement. The contribution of this study lies in its theoretical and
contextual originality. It offers a culturally grounded examination of fairness perceptions in Egypt’s
manufacturing sector, providing a framework for managers and policymakers to foster justice-driven
engagement strategies.
Keywords:Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ), Perceived Distributive Organizational Justice (PDOJ,
Perceived Procedural Organizational Justice (PPOJ), Perceived Interactional Organizational Justice (PIOJ),
Employee Engagement (EE), Organizational Trust (OT), Counterproductive Work Behavior (CWB), Social
Exchange Theory (SET), Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

Introduction
Employee engagement is a central driver of organizational and societal outcomes. Highly engaged employees
are more productive, innovative, and committed, which translates into stronger business performance and
broader contributions to community well-being and corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities (Aguinis &
Glavas, 2012; Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002). Engagement is strongly shaped by employees’ perceptions of
fairness in the workplace captured by the construct of perceived organizational justice (POJ).
Perceived organizational justice refers to employees’ subjective perceptions of fairness in outcomes, procedures,
and interpersonal treatment (Greenberg, 1990). Literature typically distinguishes three dimensions: distributive
justice (fairness of outcomes such as pay and promotions), procedural justice (fairness of decision-making
procedures), and interactional justice (fairness, respect, and adequacy of interpersonal treatment and
explanations; Colquitt et al., 2001; Bies & Moag, 1986). When employees perceive high levels of justice, they

[Link] Page 27
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
report higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and engagement, and are more likely to display
organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) and innovative work behaviors (Cropanzano, Bowen, & Gilliland,
2007; Nazir et al., 2019). Conversely, injustice is associated with turnover intentions, deviance, and
counterproductive work behavior (CWB; Greenberg, 1990).
Recent work shows that perceived organizational justice enhances innovative work behavior indirectly through
work engagement, highlighting engagement as a key psychological mechanism linking fairness to positive
outcomes (Lin, Beh, & Kamil, 2024). In parallel, research on social exchange suggests that when employees
perceive a fair exchange between their contributions and rewards, they reciprocate through higher engagement
and extra-role behavior (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Perceptions of justice therefore function as important
antecedents of engagement rather than merely outcomes of other processes (Saks, 2006).
Organizational trust is another critical construct in this nexus. Trust in the organization, a willingness to be
vulnerable based on expectations of integrity, benevolence, and competence (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman,
1995). This is consistently linked to job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Justice perceptions are among the primary drivers of trust: fair procedures, respectful treatment, and transparent
communication foster employees’ confidence that the organization will act in their best interest (Colquitt, Scott,
& LePine, 2007).
This study focuses on the interplay between perceived organizational justice (POJ), organizational trust (OT),
and employee engagement (EE) in the manufacturing industry in Egypt. The central premise is that POJ
enhances EE both directly and indirectly through OT. Organizations that cultivate fairness and trust not only
improve performance and retention but also contribute to broader societal goals such as economic stability,
ethical business conduct, and social inclusion (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012). In Egypt’s manufacturing sector—an
important engine of GDP, employment, and industrial modernization—these dynamics are especially salient.
Research Problem and Gap
Prior studies have established significant relationships between POJ and EE, as well as between justice
and outcomes such as performance, OCB, and turnover intentions (Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013; Saks, 2006).
More recently, work has underscored the link between justice and engagement and recommended further
exploration across industries and cultures (Ghosh, Rai, & Sinha, 2014; Macey & Schneider, 2008).
However, several gaps remain understudied; Dimensional interaction is one of them, Research has not
sufficiently clarified how the three dimensions of justice jointly shape engagement. Evidence suggests
distributive and interactional justice may have stronger direct effects on engagement than procedural justice, but
mechanisms remain underexplored (Ghosh et al., 2014; Mubashar et al., 2022). Contextual gap is another
one, Egyptian manufacturing, Most justice–engagement work has been conducted in Western or service
settings. There is limited empirical research on how POJ influences EE in the manufacturing sector in Egypt,
despite this sector’s central role in employment and GDP (Abdel-Maksoud, 2013; Elamin & Tlaiss, 2015).
Role of organizational trust as mediator is also underexplored, although trust is often mentioned as a
mechanism through which justice affects attitudes and behaviors, comparatively fewer studies have modeled
OT explicitly as a mediator between POJ and EE, especially in Middle Eastern manufacturing settings (Aryee,
Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
These gaps are significant because Egypt’s manufacturing sector is experiencing rapid change and
contributes substantially to economic growth and employment. Ensuring that growth is accompanied by fair
labor practices and high engagement is critical for sustainable and inclusive development.
Problem Statement
To what extent does Perceived Organizational Justice (POJ) affect Employee Engagement (EE)?
Does Organizational Trust (OT) mediate the relationship between POJ and EE?

[Link] Page 28
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Research Questions
1. To what extent do the three dimensions of perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural,
interactional) influence employee engagement?
2. How do these three dimensions affect employees’ trust in the organization?
3. To what extent does organizational trust enhance employee engagement?
4. Does organizational trust mediate the relationship between perceived distributive organizational justice
and employee engagement?
5. Does organizational trust mediate the relationship between perceived procedural organizational justice
and employee engagement?
6. Does organizational trust mediate the relationship between perceived interactional organizational justice
and employee engagement?
Hypotheses
The study proposes six hypotheses:
H1: There is a significant positive relationship between the three dimensions of perceived organizational
justice (POJ) and employee engagement (EE).
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between the three dimensions of POJ and organizational
trust (OT).
H3: There is a significant positive relationship between OT and EE.
H4: Perceived distributive organizational justice (PDOJ) has a significant relationship with OT, which
mediates the relationship between PDOJ and EE.
H5: Perceived procedural organizational justice (PPOJ) has a significant relationship with OT, which
mediates the relationship between PPOJ and EE.
H6: Perceived interactional organizational justice (PIOJ) has a significant relationship with OT, which
mediates the relationship between PIOJ and EE.
Study Significance
Academic Significance
The study advances several streams of literature; Justice as antecedent, not outcome; by positioning POJ as
an independent variable and EE as the dependent variable, the research clarifies the causal chain from justice to
engagement and further to counterproductive work behavior (CWB). While many studies correlate justice with
CWB, fewer examine how justice shapes engagement, which in turn inhibits deviance (Tahir et al., 2022;
Mubashar et al., 2022).
Integration of positive and negative behavior literatures; Modeling justice, engagement, and CWB bridges
traditionally separate domains: positive behaviors (engagement, OCB) and negative behaviors (deviance,
withdrawal). This allows more comprehensive explanations of how fair treatment both energizes employees and
reduces harmful conduct.
Contextual contribution: by focusing on Egypt’s manufacturing sector, the study provides context-specific
evidence from a non-Western, emerging-economy setting where rapid industrial expansion coexists with
concerns about equity, working conditions, and institutional reforms.

[Link] Page 29
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Theoretical refinement: The study applies and integrates Social Exchange Theory, the Job Demands–
Resources (JD-R) model, and fairness heuristic perspectives to explain how justice perceptions translate into
trust and engagement (Adams, 1965; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Lind, 2001).
Practical Significance
Reducing CWB through fairness and engagement; Perceived injustice often triggers negative emotions
(anger, resentment) and can lead to CWB such as sabotage, theft, or withdrawal. Fairness in outcomes,
procedures, and interaction reduces these risks by elevating engagement and trust. High-leverage managerial
levers; Interventions that improve justice perceptions, such as transparent decision processes, consistent
application of rules, respectful communication, and meaningful voice, are relatively actionable and can
simultaneously enhance engagement and reduce deviance.
Strategic alignment with industrial policy; In Egypt, manufacturing accounts for a sizable share of GDP
and employment. Justice in wages, promotion, safety, and gender equality strengthens human capital, attracts
investment, and supports inclusive growth agendas such as Egypt’s Vision 2030.
Employer branding and retention; In a tight labor market, organizations that are perceived as fair and
trustworthy are better able to attract and retain talent, lowering recruitment costs and stabilizing skill pipelines.
Literature Review
This chapter synthesizes theoretical and empirical work on employee engagement, perceived
organizational justice, and organizational trust. It develops an integrated model in which the three dimensions of
justice influence engagement directly and indirectly via trust, with a focus on manufacturing settings and the
Egyptian context.
Employee Engagement
Employee engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind characterized by
vigor, dedication, and absorption (Schaufeli, Salanova, González-Romá, & Bakker, 2002). Vigor reflects high
energy and mental resilience; dedication reflects a sense of significance, enthusiasm, and challenge; and
absorption denotes being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in one’s work (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008).
Antecedents of engagement; the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model posits that job resources (e.g.,
autonomy, social support, feedback) and personal resources (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism) are key predictors of
engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Xanthopoulou et al., 2007). Social Exchange Theory adds that
employees engage more deeply when they perceive a fair exchange between their efforts and the rewards they
receive (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Justice perceptions thus function as critical job resources.
Outcomes of engagement; high engagement is consistently linked to higher performance, creativity,
OCB, and customer satisfaction, as well as lower absenteeism, turnover intentions, and burnout (Harter et al.,
2002; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Saks, 2006). A large-scale meta-analysis at the business-unit level showed that
employee satisfaction/engagement is positively related to productivity, profit, customer satisfaction, and safety,
and negatively related to turnover and accidents (Harter et al., 2002).
Despite its popularity, engagement remains conceptually debated. Some scholars question whether it is
distinct from job involvement, job satisfaction, or organizational commitment (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
There are also measurement issues (e.g., different scales and factor structures). Nonetheless, there is broad
consensus that engagement captures a more energetic, investment-oriented state than traditional attitudes and is
a crucial predictor of individual and organizational success. Given its importance, understanding how
organizational factors, particularly fairness and trust, shape engagement is a central concern of this study.
Perceived Organizational Justice

[Link] Page 30
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Perceived organizational justice captures employees’ judgments about fairness in their organization’s
outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal treatment (Greenberg, 1990). The dominant framework distinguishes
three dimensions (Colquitt et al., 2001):
Distributive justice, perceived fairness of outcome distributions (e.g., pay, promotions, workload).
Drawing on equity theory, employees compare their input–outcome ratios to those of others; perceived
inequity leads to distress and attempts to restore balance (Adams, 1965).
Procedural justice, perceived fairness of the processes used to arrive at decisions. Fair procedures are
consistent across people and time, unbiased, accurate, correctable, representative (provide voice), and
ethical (Leventhal, 1980).
Interactional justice, perceived fairness in interpersonal treatment and explanations during the
implementation of procedures. Bies and Moag (1986) emphasized respect, dignity, politeness, and
adequate, truthful information as key criteria.
These dimensions are conceptually distinct but strongly correlated, and together they shape global fairness
judgments (Colquitt et al., 2001).
Theoretical lenses. Several theories explain why justice matters.
Equity theory, unfair outcomes create psychological tension, leading employees to adjust their input
(e.g., effort) or seek alternative employment (Adams, 1965).
Social Exchange Theory, fair treatment signals organizational support, prompting employees to
reciprocate with positive attitudes and behaviors (Blau, 1964; Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).
Fairness heuristic theory, in uncertain environments, employees use justice cues (distributive,
procedural, interactional) to form a fairness ―heuristic‖ that guides trust and cooperation (Lind, 2001;
Colquitt, 2012).
Empirical findings
Meta-analytic evidence shows that all three justice dimensions are positively related to job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, task performance, OCB, and negatively related to turnover intentions and CWB
(Colquitt et al., 2001, 2013; Rosiński, 2015). Procedural and interactional justice often emerge as especially
strong predictors of trust and commitment because they convey information about the organization’s values and
respect for employees (Colquitt et al., 2001; Bies, 2005). Justice climates, shared perceptions of fairness at the
team or organizational level, also predict collective outcomes such as team performance and innovation.
In addition to attitudinal and behavioral outcomes, chronic perceived injustice is associated with
negative health outcomes, including stress, depression, and cardiovascular risk (Elovainio et al., 2006),
underscoring the human cost of unfair work environments.
Organizational Trust
Organizational trust refers to employees’ willingness to be vulnerable to the organization (and its
leaders) based on positive expectations of its intentions and behavior (Mayer et al., 1995). Trust involves
cognitive judgments about competence and reliability, as well as affective components such as emotional
security and identification (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Leadership behavior, transparency, consistency, and ethical leadership behaviors build trust (Burke et
al., 2007). Justice perceptions, fair procedures, equitable outcomes, and respectful treatment signal integrity
and benevolence, thereby enhancing trust (Colquitt et al., 2007). In addition, Interpersonal relations,

[Link] Page 31
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
cooperative, supportive relationships and open communication among colleagues foster a trusting climate
(McAllister, 1995).
Consequently, trust in the organization is linked to higher job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
OCB, and performance, and to lower turnover intentions (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Laschinger, Finegan, & Wilk,
2009). A meta-analysis on trust in leadership found robust positive associations with work attitudes, intentions,
and performance (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002).
Critically for this study, OT is a strong predictor of engagement: when employees trust their organization
and leaders, they feel safe investing their physical, cognitive, and emotional energies into their work (Kahn,
1990; Macey & Schneider, 2008). This positions OT as a plausible mediator between POJ and EE.
Distributive Justice, Trust, and Engagement
Distributive justice involves employees’ perceptions of how fairly rewards and resources are allocated.
Fair distributions signal that the organization values employees’ contributions, which fosters feelings of respect
and recognition and strengthens trust (Colquitt et al., 2001; Mayer et al., 1995).
Empirical research shows that distributive justice predicts job satisfaction, commitment, and
engagement, and is negatively related to turnover intentions (Mustofa, 2022; Ghosh et al., 2014). When
employees believe that pay, promotions, and recognition are fairly aligned with effort and performance, they are
more likely to feel psychologically invested and willing to exert discretionary effort (Cropanzano & Rupp,
2003).
Organizational trust mediates this relationship: perceptions of fair distribution build trust in the
organization’s integrity, which, in turn, fuels engagement. Studies have found that trust can fully or partially
mediate the effects of distributive justice on engagement and related outcomes such as commitment (Alvi &
Abbasi, 2012; Agarwal, 2014). This logic underpins H4, which posits a mediated relationship between
perceived distributive organizational justice, OT, and EE.
Procedural Justice, Trust, and Engagement
Procedural justice pertains to the fairness of decision-making processes (Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler,
1988). Employees value voice, consistency, bias-free procedures, accurate information, and mechanisms for
appeal. Fair procedures convey that the organization respects employees and is committed to equitable
treatment over time, even when particular outcomes are unfavorable.
Procedural justice is often a stronger predictor of trust and commitment than distributive justice, because
it speaks to the stability and moral character of the organization (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). When
employees perceive that processes are fair, they are more likely to accept negative outcomes, maintain loyalty,
and continue investing effort.
Studies indicate that procedural justice has both direct and indirect effects on engagement. Saks (2006)
showed that justice perceptions (especially procedural) significantly predict engagement, and that trust mediates
part of this effect. Aryee et al. (2002) found that trust fully mediated the link between procedural justice and
outcomes such as satisfaction and commitment.
Thus, procedural justice shapes engagement by building a sense of psychological safety, legitimacy, and
shared purpose—mechanisms that are captured through OT. This reasoning supports H5, which posits that OT
mediates the relationship between perceived procedural organizational justice and EE.
Interactional Justice, Trust, and Engagement

[Link] Page 32
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Interactional justice refers to the quality of interpersonal treatment and adequacy of explanations
employees receive from authorities (Bies & Moag, 1986). Being treated with dignity, respect, and honesty
strongly influences how employees interpret both procedures and outcomes.
Because day-to-day interactions are highly salient, interactional justice can have powerful effects on
attitudes and behavior. Disrespectful or humiliating treatment can undermine even objectively fair procedures,
whereas respectful treatment can buffer the negative impact of unfavorable outcomes (Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Bies, 2005).
Interactional justice is closely tied to trust: respectful and transparent communication signals
benevolence and integrity, which are core components of trust (Mayer et al., 1995). Empirical work shows that
fair interpersonal treatment enhances OT, which in turn promotes engagement, commitment, and OCB and
reduces CWB (Brashear et al., 2003; Cho & Park, 2011; Mubashar et al., 2022).
Accordingly, H6 proposes that OT mediates the relationship between perceived interactional
organizational justice and EE.
Justice, Engagement, and Counterproductive Work Behavior
Beyond positive outcomes, justice and engagement also relate to the reduction of negative behaviors.
Perceived injustice, whether in outcomes, procedures, or interactional treatment, can trigger emotional reactions
such as anger and resentment, often interpreted as violations of the psychological contract (Cochran, 2014;
Barsky et al., 2011). These reactions may lead to CWB, including sabotage, theft, withdrawal, and interpersonal
deviance.
Research has documented negative associations between justice dimensions and CWB, and emerging
evidence suggests engagement can mediate part of this effect: fair treatment enhances engagement, and engaged
employees are less likely to retaliate or withdraw (Tahir et al., 2022; Adugna et al., 2022; Saks, 2006). This
study’s conceptualization of POJ as an antecedent of EE implicitly adopts this broader chain: justice, trust,
engagement, and reduced CWB.
Justice and Inclusive Industrial Development in Egypt
Finally, the justice–engagement nexus must be understood within Egypt’s manufacturing context.
Manufacturing represents a major contributor to GDP and employment and has shown strong recent growth in
non-petroleum sectors such as garments, automotive, and electronics. At the same time, the sector faces
challenges related to working conditions, wage fairness, and regional and gender disparities.
In this environment, organizational justice is not solely an internal HR concern; it is a strategic enabler
of inclusive growth. Fair labor practices, transparent governance, and ethical resource allocation support social
stability, reduce unrest, and encourage local and foreign investment. Justice at the organizational level thus
supports national objectives related to Egypt’s Vision 2030 by aligning economic performance with social
cohesion and equity.
Conceptual Framework
Perceived organizational justice (distributive, procedural, interactional) is a multidimensional antecedent
that shapes employees’ global fairness judgments. These fairness perceptions foster organizational trust, a key
psychological state characterized by willingness to be vulnerable based on beliefs in organizational integrity,
benevolence, and competence. Trust, in turn, energizes employee engagement, vigor, dedication, and
absorption, which drives performance, innovation, and retention and reduces deviance. The relationships may
vary by justice dimension, with distributive justice particularly salient for reward fairness, procedural justice for
legitimacy and commitment, and interactional justice for daily experiences of respect.

[Link] Page 33
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Grounded in Social Exchange Theory, JD-R, equity theory, and fairness heuristic perspectives, the proposed
model treats POJ as the primary independent construct, OT as the mediator, and EE as the focal outcome, tested
in the under-researched context of Egypt’s manufacturing industry.
Conceptual Framework:

H2 H3

(IV)

PDOJ H3H4

(MV) (DV)

PPOJ
OT EE

PIOJ

H1

Figure (3.1) Conceptual Framework

Theoretical Framework
Employee engagement has long been recognized as a central driver of organizational success, and several
foundational theories help explain how engagement emerges and is sustained in the workplace. Social Exchange
Theory (SET) provides an essential lens for understanding these dynamics. According to SET, employee
engagement is shaped by reciprocal exchanges between the employee and the organization, such that when
employees perceive support, fairness, and recognition, they respond with commitment, engagement, and
positive discretionary effort (Blau, 1964).
This reciprocal pattern underscores an important psychological mechanism: employees who believe they are
treated fairly and respectfully are more likely to reciprocate through enhanced performance and dedication. SET
therefore strengthens the conceptual foundation for examining how justice perceptions influence engagement.
The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model offers a complementary explanation by conceptualizing
engagement as the product of available job resources that offset job demands (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). Job
resources such as autonomy, supervisory support, feedback, and growth opportunities stimulate engagement,
particularly when employees face demanding work conditions. Personal resources, including optimism and
resilience, further amplify engagement by helping employees cope with workplace pressures. In this model,
when organizations provide adequate resources and eliminate excessive demands, employee engagement
increases, translating into improved performance, reduced burnout, and stronger organizational commitment.
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) introduces an additional perspective by emphasizing intrinsic motivation
and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs. According to SDT, employees become engaged when their
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy supports
[Link] Page 34
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
employees’ sense of control, competence promotes feelings of mastery, and relatedness strengthens
interpersonal connections at work. SDT therefore explains why work environments characterized by trust,
fairness, and support naturally foster higher levels of employee engagement.
The Fairness Heuristic Theory further contributes insights into how employees form fairness judgments
under conditions of uncertainty. According to this framework, individuals use procedural, distributive, and
interpersonal cues to make holistic fairness assessments (Lind & Van den Bos, 2001). Early in organizational
interactions, procedural and interactional justice cues dramatically shape fairness judgments because outcomes
may not yet be observable (Colquitt, 2012). Thus, employees rely heavily on signals of respect, transparency,
and unbiased procedures to determine whether authorities are trustworthy.
Collectively, these theories present a comprehensive foundation for understanding the mechanisms through
which organizations cultivate engagement. SET highlights the role of perceived reciprocity, JD-R emphasizes
the significance of workplace resources, SDT focuses on intrinsic motivation, and Fairness Heuristic Theory
underscores the importance of early justice cues. Together, these frameworks suggest that organizations must
foster fairness across processes, interactions, and outcomes to build trust and sustain long-term engagement.
Because engagement directly influences performance, innovation, and customer satisfaction (Bakker &
Demerouti, 2007), studying these mechanisms is vital for organizational success.
Perceived Organizational Justice and Employee Engagement
Recent research has expanded the understanding of perceived organizational justice by identifying the
multifaceted ways employees evaluate fairness within their organizations. Contemporary justice research
synthesizes perspectives from procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice to explain why
employees respond positively, or negatively, to workplace environments (Benabdelhadi, 2023). Perceived
injustice has been shown to trigger counterproductive outcomes, including absenteeism, reduced performance,
stress, and turnover (Dosanjh & Rao, 2020), reinforcing the need for fair practices.
SET remains a core theoretical foundation linking justice perceptions to engagement. When employees
perceive that supervisors and the organization treat them fairly, they reciprocate with stronger engagement and
organizational citizenship behaviors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). The JD-R model similarly aligns with
justice research because perceived fairness functions as a crucial job resource. Fair treatment satisfies
employees’ need for respect, voice, and inclusion, thereby motivating engagement and mitigating burnout in
demanding conditions (Demerouti et al., 2001). Fair procedures and interactions thus operate as resources that
promote positive workplace functioning.
Integrating SET and JD-R reveals how justice perceptions influence engagement both directly and
indirectly. Fair treatment not only fulfills psychological needs but also strengthens trust, which fosters a positive
exchange relationship between the employee and the organization (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Saks, 2006).
This integration provides the conceptual foundation for examining how perceived organizational justice
enhances engagement through organizational trust.
Conceptual Framework Overview
The conceptual model developed for this study incorporates perceived organizational justice (POJ) as the
independent variable, employee engagement (EE) as the dependent variable, and organizational trust (OT) as
the mediating variable. The three dimensions of POJ—distributive, procedural, and interactional justice—are
theorized to influence EE both directly and indirectly through OT. This framework operationalizes SET’s
principles of reciprocity, JD-R’s focus on resources such as fairness and support, and SDT’s emphasis on
interpersonal respect and autonomy. It also models the fairness heuristic process, wherein fairness cues inform
trust assessments that subsequently shape engagement.
Hypotheses Development

[Link] Page 35
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Drawing on SET, JD-R, SDT, and the justice literature, six hypotheses were formulated. The first predicts a
significant positive relationship between the three dimensions of perceived organizational justice and employee
engagement. The second proposes a positive relationship between the same justice dimensions and
organizational trust. The third hypothesizes that organizational trust positively influences engagement. The final
three hypotheses examine whether organizational trust mediates the relationships between distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice and employee engagement. These hypotheses collectively test the structural
relationships embedded within the conceptual framework.
The Manufacturing Sector in Egypt: An Overview
The manufacturing sector in Egypt plays a central role in national economic development, contributing
significantly to GDP, exports, and employment (Mahmoud, 2012). Historically, Egypt’s industrial development
began in the nineteenth century under Muhammad Ali Pasha and expanded substantially during the mid-
twentieth century through state-led initiatives under President Gamal Abdel Nasser (El-Mahdi, 2002). Today,
the sector spans traditional industries such as textiles and food processing as well as advanced sectors including
chemicals, electronics, pharmaceuticals, and automotive manufacturing (Abdel-Maksoud, 2013).
Textiles and apparel remain among Egypt’s most important industrial pillars due to the country’s high-
quality cotton and strong export capacity (World Bank, 2020). The food and beverage industry has also
expanded, driven by rising domestic demand and technological upgrades (CAPMAS, 2023). Meanwhile, the
automotive sector has benefited from favorable government policies and increased foreign investment (Oxford
Business Group, 2021), and chemical and pharmaceutical industries continue to maintain significant economic
influence (ICIS, 2022). Electronics manufacturing is also emerging rapidly, supported by both domestic and
international investment (African Development Bank, 2021).
Despite its strengths, the sector faces notable challenges, including regulatory inefficiencies, infrastructure
gaps, bureaucratic hurdles, and misalignment between educational outputs and industry needs (IMF, 2022;
OECD, 2019). High energy costs and inconsistent enforcement of industrial policies impede stable growth,
while macroeconomic instability, inflation, and fluctuating exchange rates create uncertainty for both firms and
employees (EIU, 2023).
Labor dynamics further complicate the sector. Many manufacturers report difficulties accessing credit,
securing land, and navigating regulatory systems. Performance pressures from global buyers, especially in
labor-intensive industries like apparel, contribute to unfair labor conditions and informal practices. Programs
such as Better Work Egypt highlight ongoing concerns related to labor rights and workplace standards (Better
Work Egypt, 2022).
Because manufacturing work relies heavily on coordination, discipline, and quality control, perceived
fairness is especially crucial. Employees who feel fairly treated exhibit higher morale, trust, and cooperation,
which enhances production outcomes (Saks, 2006). Conversely, perceived injustice leads to absenteeism, low
quality output, safety risks, and resistance to change. Cultural factors in Egypt, characterized by collectivism
and high power distance, amplify the importance of interactional justice, as respectful treatment from
supervisors often has a disproportionate influence on fairness judgments (Local Understandings of Decent
Work, 2024). These contextual considerations justify the examination of justice, trust, and engagement within
Egypt’s manufacturing sector.
Measurement Tools
Colquitt’s Organizational Justice Scale
This study measures perceived organizational justice using Colquitt’s (2001) 20-item scale, which evaluates
distributive, procedural, interpersonal, and informational justice. It is one of the most validated and widely
applied justice measures in organizational research. Each item employs a Likert-type response format, enabling

[Link] Page 36
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
quantitative analysis of employee fairness perceptions. The scale’s strong reliability (Cronbach’s alpha > .80
across dimensions) and cross-cultural validation (Colquitt et al., 2001) make it appropriate for capturing justice
perceptions across diverse industrial settings. In this study, the scale serves as the primary measure for the
independent variable.
Gallup Q12 Employee Engagement Scale
Employee engagement is measured using the Gallup Q12, a standard instrument assessing core dimensions
of workplace engagement, including expectations, resources, recognition, development, mission clarity, and
relationships (Gallup, 2023). The Q12 is widely used in organizational diagnostics due to its strong predictive
validity for business outcomes such as profitability, productivity, and turnover (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes,
2002). Its conceptual alignment with SDT and SET further supports its use in this study, as the items reflect
psychological needs and reciprocal relational dynamics (Saks, 2006).
Measuring Organizational Trust: Mayer and Davis Scale
Organizational trust is measured using the 21-item scale developed by Mayer and Davis (1999), assessing
competence, benevolence, integrity, predictability, and intention to act. The scale employs Likert-type items and
has been validated across numerous organizational studies (Colquitt, Scott, & LePine, 2007). Trust is
conceptualized as a multidimensional construct, and strong trust in management is linked to higher engagement,
job satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002). Its inclusion as a mediating variable
aligns with theoretical expectations regarding fairness mechanisms.
Reliability and Validity Overview
Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated high reliability across all scales, with values
ranging from 0.89 to 0.94, exceeding the accepted threshold of 0.7 for internal consistency (Hinton et al., 2004;
Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). Internal consistency validity was confirmed through significant item-total
correlations across all dimensions, indicating that items consistently measured their intended constructs. Face
validity was established through expert review by faculty members at the Faculty of Business, ESLSCA
University, ensuring clarity and relevance of questionnaire items.
Applications in Organizational Research
The measurement tools adopted in this study have been widely applied in organizational research examining
fairness, trust, and engagement. Studies frequently demonstrate that high levels of perceived justice and trust
predict stronger organizational commitment, higher performance, improved job satisfaction, and greater
collaboration (Dirks & Ferrin, 2002; Colquitt et al., 2007). These validated tools therefore strengthen the
methodological rigor of the present research and support generalizable conclusions about justice and
engagement dynamics.
Research Design: Population, Sampling, & Unit of Analysis
A probability random sampling technique was employed, with the population defined as employees in
Egypt’s manufacturing sector. The population is considered unknown and unlimited, and data were collected
using online surveys. The convenience sampling component ensured broad access to participants across diverse
manufacturing settings.
The individual employee serves as the unit of analysis. This level of analysis enables examination of how
personal perceptions of justice relate to individual engagement levels. Because fairness perceptions often vary
based on job roles, supervisory experiences, and workplace interactions, the individual level is most appropriate
for capturing these nuanced differences (Klein & Kozlowski, 2000).
Manufacturing employees represent a critical segment of Egypt’s workforce and often operate within
structured, hierarchical environments where justice perceptions are salient (Central Bank of Egypt, 2022). The
[Link] Page 37
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
sector’s size and diversity provide a relevant context for examining justice dimensions. The online survey
method facilitated efficient data collection across a large and geographically dispersed workforce (Dillman et
al., 2014).
Data Collection Overview
Structured surveys were distributed electronically to gather quantitative data on justice perceptions,
engagement, and organizational trust. Reliability testing using Cronbach’s alpha ensured internal consistency
across all scales. Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and variances, were calculated to
examine data distribution patterns. These analyses provided the foundation for subsequent inferential statistical
testing.
Research Approach
The research adopts a positivist paradigm, emphasizing objective measurement, empirical testing, and
generalizable findings (Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2019). Positivism supports hypothesis development
grounded in established theory and validation through statistical analysis (Bryman, 2016).
Positivism assumes an objective reality that can be measured and analyzed through scientific methods. This
philosophical stance aligns with the study’s goal of identifying quantifiable relationships among justice, trust,
and engagement. The survey method was selected for its ability to collect large quantities of quantifiable data
from diverse respondents, supporting statistical testing and generalization (Fowler, 2014).
A cross-sectional design was selected to capture a snapshot of employee perceptions at a specific point in
time. This design is efficient and appropriate for examining current relationships among variables (Easterby-
Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2015).
Data collection relied on structured questionnaires, consistent with positivist principles and allowing
consistent comparison across respondents. This method contributes to reliability and supports objective analysis
through statistical tools such as SPSS and AMOS (Collis & Hussey, 2013).
Data Collection and Analysis
This chapter presents the results of the statistical analyses conducted to examine the impact of perceived
organizational justice (POJ) on employee engagement (EE), with organizational trust (OT) serving as a
mediating variable. Data were prepared in MS Excel and analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. The analyses
include validity and reliability assessments, descriptive statistics, normality testing, regression analysis, and
mediation analysis.
Validity and Reliability Analysis
Face validity was established through expert review to ensure item clarity and relevance. Internal
consistency validity was assessed using Pearson correlations, demonstrating strong item-total correlations
across all constructs. Reliability analysis using Cronbach’s alpha indicated high reliability, with values above
0.89 for all scales, confirming statistical adequacy for further analysis.
Descriptive Data Analysis
Demographic Characteristics
The sample consisted of 384 participants, with a near-balanced gender distribution: 198 males (51.6%) and
186 females (48.4%). Age distribution was concentrated in the groups aged 36–45 years (35.4%) and 46–55
years (40.6%), reflecting the predominance of mid-career and late-career employees. Most participants (87%)
worked at the operational level, with 13% holding managerial roles.
Descriptive Statistics of Justice Dimensions
[Link] Page 38
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Procedural justice showed moderate to high agreement, with mean scores ranging from 3.49 to 4.07.
Distributive justice displayed similar trends, with means between 3.89 and 3.98. Interactional justice exhibited
the strongest positive perceptions, with means between 4.00 and 4.36. These results indicate that employees
perceive interpersonal treatment as the most favorable justice dimension, followed by distributive and
procedural justice.
Inferential Data Analysis
Normality Testing
Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk tests indicated that all variables were normally distributed (p >
0.05), supporting the use of parametric statistical tests.
Regression Analysis: Testing Hypotheses
Regression analysis confirmed that perceived organizational justice significantly predicted employee
engagement (R² = 0.52). Procedural justice had the strongest effect (β = 0.531), followed by interactional justice
(β = 0.190) and distributive justice (β = 0.124).
Similarly, perceived organizational justice significantly predicted organizational trust (R² = 0.46), with
interactional justice (β = 0.337) and procedural justice (β = 0.326) showing the strongest effects.
Organizational trust significantly predicted employee engagement (β = 0.74), accounting for 51% of the
variance in engagement.
Mediation Analysis
Mediation analyses using Baron and Kenny’s approach and bootstrapping confirmed partial mediation of
OT in all three justice dimensions:
Distributive justice → EE: 29.5% mediation
Procedural justice → EE: 41.1% mediation
Interactional justice → EE: 43.1% mediation
These results demonstrate that organizational trust strengthens the association between perceived fairness
and engagement.
Conclusion, Recommendations, and Implications
The findings reveal a strong relationship between perceived organizational justice and employee
engagement, with organizational trust serving as a critical mediating mechanism. Distributive, procedural, and
interactional justice all significantly influence engagement, and these effects are enhanced through trust.
Organizations seeking to improve engagement must prioritize fairness and trust-building initiatives.
Research Findings
Statistical analyses provide strong empirical support for the conceptual framework and hypotheses.
Procedural justice exerted the strongest impact on engagement, highlighting the importance of transparent and
unbiased processes. Interactional justice also played a major role, underscoring the value employees place on
respectful treatment. Distributive justice demonstrated a meaningful, though comparatively smaller, effect.
The mediating role of organizational trust aligns with SET and JD-R by demonstrating that fairness
perceptions strengthen trust, which in turn increases engagement. These results extend justice and engagement
theories to a non-Western industrial context and highlight fairness as a strategic resource in manufacturing
environments.
Recommendations for Organizational Practice
[Link] Page 39
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Organizations should enhance procedural fairness by standardizing decision-making processes,
communicating criteria transparently, and providing appeals mechanisms. Distributive fairness should be
strengthened through equitable reward and recognition systems aligned with performance. Interactional fairness
must be prioritized by training supervisors in communication, emotional intelligence, and conflict management.
Building trust requires leaders to demonstrate integrity, competence, consistency, and benevolence. Continuous
monitoring of fairness and engagement perceptions is essential for timely interventions.
Policy-Making Implications
Human resource policies should institutionalize fairness principles across evaluation, promotion, and
grievance systems. Leadership development programs must emphasize trust-building competencies. National
policies could promote justice training across industries, and labor regulations could integrate organizational
justice criteria to improve workplace standards. Cultural shifts toward transparency and participation would
further enhance engagement outcomes.
Practical Implications
The study provides a roadmap for improving engagement through structured interventions in procedural,
distributive, and interactional justice, supported by trust-building practices. Managers and policymakers can use
these insights to cultivate organizational cultures that enhance motivation, productivity, and retention.
Research Limitations
Limitations include the cross-sectional design, which restricts causal inference; the focus on the
manufacturing sector, which limits generalizability; the absence of cultural variables; and the need to explore
additional mediators and moderators. These limitations highlight opportunities for expanding the study in future
research.
Future Research Suggestions
Future studies should adopt longitudinal designs, conduct cross-cultural comparisons, examine alternative
sectors, incorporate additional psychosocial variables, explore justice dynamics during organizational change,
and analyze the role of remote work in shaping justice and trust perceptions.
Conclusion
This study confirms that perceived organizational justice significantly influences employee engagement in
Egypt’s manufacturing sector and that organizational trust serves as a critical mediating factor. Procedural
justice exerted the strongest influence, followed by interactional and distributive justice. Fair processes,
equitable outcomes, and respectful treatment contribute to stronger trust and higher engagement, validating SET
and JD-R assumptions. The findings have substantial implications for leadership practice, HR policy, and
organizational development, especially in hierarchical and labor-intensive contexts. By fostering fairness and
trust, organizations can cultivate engaged, committed, and high-performing employees, contributing to
sustainable success and national economic development.
References

Abdel-Maksoud, A. (2013). The impact of perceived organizational justice on employee engagement: A study
in the Egyptian manufacturing sector. Journal of Business Studies Quarterly, 5(1), 89-105.

Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267–299). Academic Press.

[Link] Page 40
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Adugna, K., Birhanu, B., Kebede, A., Abraham, G., Asefa, Y., Gezahign, M., Gunja, G., & Gelana, B. (2022).
The relation between organizational justice and counter-productive work behavior among health care
professionals in Jimma Zone public health institutions. Journal of Healthcare Leadership, 14, 119–130.
[Link]

African Development Bank. (2021). Egypt Economic Outlook. Retrieved from African Development Bank
Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel
Review, 43(1), 41-73.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What we know and don’t know about corporate social responsibility: A
review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932-968.
Albrecht, S. L., & Travaglione, A. (2003). Trust in public-sector senior management. International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 14(1), 76-92. [Link]

Albrecht, S. L., & Travaglione, T. (2003). Trust in Australian work teams: Integrating the trust literature.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 24(1/2), 53–63.

Ali, A. J., & Al-Aali, A. (2012). Perceptions of organizational justice and commitment of employees to work: A
case of the electric manufacturing industry in Egypt. Journal of Business Ethics, 108(4), 499-510.
[Link]
Alvi, A. K., & Abbasi, A. S. (2012). Impact of organizational justice on employee engagement in banking sector
of Pakistan. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 12(5), 643-654.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands-Resources model: State of the art. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309-328.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development
International, 13(3), 209-223.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

Benabdelhadi, C. (2023). Building equity: An aggregated theoretical framework for understanding antecedents
of perceived organizational justice. International Journal of Management and Economics Fundamental, 3(12),
01-06. [Link]

Better Work Egypt. (2022). Better Work Egypt first annual report: Challenges and highlights.

Bies, R. J. (2001). Interactional (in)justice: The sacred and the profane. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 89–118). Stanford University Press.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B.
H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on Negotiations in Organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). JAI
Press.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In B. H. Sheppard
(Ed.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43-55). JAI Press.

[Link] Page 41
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B.
H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York, NY: Wiley.

Bryman, A. (2016). Social Research Methods (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Burke, C. S., Sims, D. E., Lazzara, E. H., & Salas, E. (2007). Trust in leadership: A multi-level review and
integration. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(6), 606-632.

Business Today Egypt. (2025, February 19). Egypt’s non-petroleum manufacturing sector grows by 5.9 %.
[Link]

CAPMAS. (2023). Annual Industrial Production Survey. Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics.
Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2013). Exploring the impact of trust on research scientists' work engagement:
Evidence from Irish science research centres. Personnel Review, 42(4), 396-421. [Link]
2011-0097

Cochran, M. (2014). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational
justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions (Unpublished dissertation). University
of Central Florida. STARS

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278-321.
Collis, J., & Hussey, R. (2013). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate
Students (4th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. [Link]

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),
425-445.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity: A meta-analytic
test of their unique relationships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4),
909-927.
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. E. (2003). An overview of organizational justice: Implications for work
motivation. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.), Motivation and work behavior (pp. 82-95). McGraw-
Hill/Irwin.

Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Mohler, C. J., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. In J.
Ferris (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 20, pp. 1-113). Emerald Group
Publishing Limited.

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands resources model of
burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.

[Link] Page 42
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
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(3), 137–149.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The
tailored design method (4th ed.). Wiley.

Dirks, K. T., & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research
and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 611-628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

Dosanjh, P., & Rao, S. S. (2020). A theoretical framework on organizational justice and workplace deviance.
Psychosocial, 24(6), 17805-17819. [Link]

Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2015). Management and Business Research (5th ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Egyptian Electricity Authority. (n.d.). Historical overview. Retrieved from [Link]
EIU. (2023). Egypt Country Report. Economist Intelligence Unit.
El Sewedy Electric. (n.d.). Retrieved from [Link]

Elamin, A. (2012). Human resource management and employee engagement in the Egyptian manufacturing
industry. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 2(1), 1–13.

Elamin, A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational justice and its impact on employee engagement: Evidence from
the Saudi banking sector. International Journal of Business and Management, 7(24), 135-145.

Elamin, A. M., & Tlaiss, H. A. (2015). Exploring the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior
and organizational justice in the Islamic Saudi Arabian context. Employee Relations, 37(1), 2-29.
Elbanna, S., Eid, R., & Kamel, H. (2015). Measuring hotel performance using the balanced scorecard: A
theoretical construct development and its empirical validation. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 51, 105-114.
El-Kot, G., & Leat, M. (2008). Employees' perceptions of organizational justice and its impact on organizational
commitment: Evidence from the Egyptian manufacturing sector. International

Field, A. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise
decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 32(1), 115-130.
Fowler, F. J. (2014). Survey Research Methods (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Gallup. (2023). Gallup Q12 Employee Engagement Survey. Retrieved from
Gallup, Inc. (2023, September 20). Annual employee engagement in the U.S., world and best-practice
organizations [Graph]. Wikimedia Commons. [Link]
[Link]

Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement: Exploring the linkage
in public sector banks in India. Personnel Review, 43(4), 628-652.

[Link] Page 43
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Giang, N., & Dung, H. (2024). Work engagement and employee satisfaction in the practice of sustainable
human resource management – based on the study of Polish employees. International Entrepreneurship and
Management Journal. Retrieved from

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2),
399-432. doi:10.1177/014920639001600208
Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational
justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management
(pp. 79-103). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Gupta, M. (2015). Justice and employee engagement: Examining the mediating role of trust in the relationship
of justice and employee engagement. Asia Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 7(1), 89–104.
[Link]

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee
satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 268–279.

Hinton, P. R., Brownlow, C., McMurray, I., & Cozens, B. (2004). SPSS explained. Routledge.

ICIS. (2022). Egypt Chemicals Market Report. ICIS.

IMF. (2022). Egypt: Staff Report for the 2022 Article IV Consultation. International Monetary Fund.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of
Management Journal, 33(4), 692-724.

Karam, C. M., & Maalouf, H. (2020). Organizational justice in Middle Eastern workplaces: Insights and
implications. Journal of Management Inquiry, 29(2), 156-167.

Kim, T. Y., & Park, C. (2020). Fairness and performance: A multi-level analysis of manufacturing teams.
Human Relations, 73(6), 743–766. [Link]

Klein, K. J., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2000). From micro to meso: Critical steps in conceptualizing and
conducting multilevel research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(3), 211–236.
[Link]

Laschinger, H. K. S., Finegan, J., & Wilk, P. (2009). Context matters: The impact of unit leadership and
empowerment on nurses' organizational commitment. Journal of Nursing Administration, 39(5), 228-235.
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. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in
theory and research (pp. 27-55). Plenum Press.

Lin, Q., Beh, L.-S., & Kamil, N. L. M. (2024). Perceived organizational justice and support facilitate employee
innovation: A moderated mediation model of work engagement and empowerment. Social Behavior and
Personality: An international journal, 52(3), e12961.

Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum Press.

[Link] Page 44
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, 1(1), 3-30.
Mahmoud, A. B. (2017). Perceived organizational justice and employee engagement: The mediating role of
psychological empowerment. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 7(1), 10-25.
Mansour, A. (2022). Innovation in Egypt’s Manufacturing Sector. Journal of Industrial Development, 37(1), 45-
63.

Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A
field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 123–136.

McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L., & Chervany, N. L. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-
commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359.

Ministry of Electricity and Renewable Energy. (n.d.). Retrieved from [Link]

Ministry of Planning, Economic Development (Egypt). (n.d.). News reports: Non-oil manufacturing growth and
industrial production index. [Link]

Mohamed, S. A. (2014). The relationship between organizational justice and quality performance, particularly
informational justice. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 7, 161–172.
[Link]

Mubashar, T., Musharraf, S., Khan, S., & Butt, T. A. (2022). Impact of organizational justice on employee
engagement: The mediating role of organizational trust. Cogent Psychology, 9(1), 2080325.
[Link]

Nguyen, V. H., & Doan, T. (2021). Procedural justice, government trust, and compliance in emerging
economies. Economic Systems, 45(3), 100883. [Link]

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

OECD. (2019). Skills Mismatch in Egypt. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome. Lexington Books.

Reuters. (2025a, March 26). Egypt’s GDP growth at 4.3 % in second quarter vs 2.3 % a year earlier.
[Link]
26

Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4),
574-599.
Robinson, S. L. (2004). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. In R. M. Kramer & K. S. Cook (Eds.),
Trust and distrust in organizations: Dilemmas and approaches (pp. 119-137). Russell Sage Foundation.
Robson, C. (2002). Real World Research (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.

Rosiński, J. (2015). Organizational justice: A review of the literature. Dergipark.

[Link] Page 45
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Rubaca, U., Munir, M., Munir, B., & Haroon, M. (2025). Mitigating counterproductive work behavior in traffic
police: The role of organizational justice, job crafting, and mindfulness. [Journal].

Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 21(7), 600-619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
Salanova, M., Agut, S., & Peiró, J. M. (2005). Linking organizational resources and work engagement to
employee performance and customer loyalty: The mediation of service climate. Journal of Applied Psychology,
90(6), 1217-1227.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research Methods for Business Students (8th ed.). Pearson
Education Limited.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and
engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 293-315.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement of engagement
and burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71-92.
doi:10.1023/A:1015630930326

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past,
present, and future. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354.

Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (4th ed.). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.

Shuck, B., & Reio, T. G. (2014). Employee engagement and well-being: A moderation model and implications
for practice. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21(1), 43-58.

Silva, M. R., & Caetano, A. (2016). Organizational justice across cultures: A systematic review of four decades
of research and some directions for the future. Social Justice Research, 29(3), 257–284.

Simons, T. (2002). Behavioral integrity: The perceived alignment between managers' words and deeds as a
research focus. Organization Science, 13(1), 18–35.

Simons, T., & Roberson, Q. (2003). Why managers should care about fairness: The effects of aggregate justice
perceptions on organizational outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 432-443.

Tahir, M., Arul, P., Tummala, M., Hassan, F., & Shagoo, M. (2022). The effects of organizational justice on
employee counter work behavior mediated by employee engagement: A case of manufacturing sector
employees. International Journal of Applied Research in Social Sciences, 4(10), 385–398. ResearchGate

Tims, M., Bakker, A. B., & Xanthopoulou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their followers' daily
work engagement? The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 121-131.
UNIDO. (2023). Sustainable Industrial Development in Egypt. United Nations Industrial Development
Organization.

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). (2022). Industrialization, inclusive growth, and
sustainable development: Policy insights for emerging economies. [Link]

[Link] Page 46
 American Based Research Journal Vol-14-Issue-12 Dec-2025 ISSN (2304-7151)
Wiseman, J. (2022). Organizational justice: Typology, antecedents and outcomes. Encyclopedia, 2(3), 1287–
1295. [Link]

World Bank. (2023). Inclusive growth and industrial competitiveness in the Middle East and North Africa.
[Link]

Zaki, S. A., & Hossam, M. (2019). The impact of organizational justice on job satisfaction and performance in
the manufacturing sector in Egypt. International Journal of Business and Management, 14(2), 78-90.
[Link]

Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. (2011). Procedural justice and workplace deviance: The role of national culture.
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22(12), 2565-2582.

[Link] Page 47