Waskito et

Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business

Vol. 25, No. 1 (January-April 2023): 72-92

The Impact of Organizational Justice on the Organiza-

tional Citizenship Behavior of Contract Workers in In-
donesia: The Role of Exchange Quality and Multifocal
Trust

Jati Waskitoa, Kussudyarsanaa, Imronudina, Winda Linansyaa

a
Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta, Indonesia

Abstract: This study aims to examine the role of the double mediation of cognition-
based trust and affect-based trust, along with the quality of the exchanges (perceived
organi- zational support/POS and leader-member exchange/LMX), on the influence of
organi- zational justice on organizational citizenship behavior (OCB). The survey
involved 182 contract lecturers from the five top Muhammadiyah universities in
Indonesia. Using structural equation models, this study has succeeded in demonstrating
that the quality of the individual exchanges between supervisors and subordinates (LMX
and affective-based trust) successfully mediate the sources of justice from the
supervisors (interactional and informational justice). The quality of the individual
exchanges with organizations (cogni- tive-based trust and POS) successfully mediate
the sources of the organization (procedur- al justice). Implications for the theory and
practice are discussed.

Keywords: POS, LMX, trust, organizational justice, OCB

JEL Classification: L2

72 *Corresponding author’s e-mail: jw271@[Link]

ISSN: PRINT 1411-1128 | ONLINE 2338-7238
[Link]
 Waskito et

Introduction
Organizational justice (OJ) has become one of the greatest concerns of scientists
in the field of industrial-organizational psychology (e.g. Holtz & Hu, 2017; Yuen Onn
et al., 2018; Rana & Singh, 2021), human resource management (e.g. Warokka et al., 2012;
Wong & Wong, 2017; Baloch et al., 2021), and organizational behavior (e.g. Kwantes &
Bond, 2019; Shimamura et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021). The attractiveness of the topic is
reflected in the fact that OJ has consistently been discussed in most popular papers, and
has been the theme of seminars and scientific journals on management. It can be as
tangible as or- ganization-related policies, such as an incentive payment system, the
application of rules, equality of treatment, and access to information (Yean & Yusof,
2016).
Both employees and leaders of many organizations perceive justice as a very im-
portant factor in their efforts to improve organizational performance. Many variables of
the outcome, such as organizational commitment ( Rupp et al., 2014), organizational
sat- isfaction (Potipiroon & Rubin, 2016; Hurst et al., 2016; Lambert et al., 2019),
improved performance (Colquitt et al., 2012; Rana & Singh, 2021) and organizational
citizenship behavior (OCB) (Rupp et al., 2014; Chan & Lai, 2017; Daouk et al., 2021),
are determined based on the level of organizational justice, as assessed by employees.
Scholars have raised OJ as a research topic, particularly as a predictor of OCB.
The quality of the exchanges has been most often explored as a mediating variable in
the relationship between OJ and OCB. Wee, Ahmad, and Fen (2014) find that fair
treatment could improve the support to organizations (perceived organizational
support/POS) and improve the quality of subordinates’ relationships with their
supervisors (leader-member exchange/LMX), which ultimately strengthen the OCB.
Likewise, Zeb et al. (2019) find that distributive and procedural justice are associated
with altruism, courtesy, and civic morality, while interactive justice is associated only
with courtesy. In addition, the LMX is an important factor in facilitating the relationship
between OJ and OCB.
In addition to the quality of the exchanges, the factor of interpersonal justice is a
pervasive phenomenon in organizational life. Trust allows people to take risks
(McAllis- ter, 1995). It is based on the expectation that someone will find what is
expected instead of what is feared. Thus, competence and responsibility are vital to
understanding trust (Shapiro, 2011). An individual’s trust in others is focused on how
they make decisions that affect him/her instead of just on how they behave.
Trust has cognitive and affective dimensions. Cognition-based trust is embodied
in the “with respect, we choose whom we will trust and under what circumstances”
(Lewis & Weigert, 1985: p.970). Empirical evidence from the social psychological
literature on trust, in the context of close relationships, supports the differences between
the two forms of trust. Trust is measured based on two dimensions called “reliableness”
and “emotional trust.” Similarly, Rempel et al. (1985) distinguished between
“dependability” and “faith” (emotional security) as unique forms of trust.

7
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1, 2023
The process of improving the quality of exchanges in the workplace will be
com- plicated in the absence of trust. The perception of the trust subordinates feel
toward their

7
 Waskito et
supervisor can help explain the development of the LMX quality. Furthermore, the per-
ception of trust can be integrated with the leader’s emotional intelligence to enhance the
quality of the LMX, and eventually, the work performance (Kandade et al., 2019).
The employees’ trust in their supervisors could mediate the relationship between
procedural justice, in the decision-making of supervisors, and OCB (Konovsky et al.,
2013). Furthermore, Naotunna & Arachchige (2016) also prove that in organizations,
the trust could mediate either partial or full relations between OJ and OCB. Thomsen et
al. (2015) in a meta-analysis study did find that OJ significantly influences trust in
leaders and also in organizations. Meanwhile, Ng et al. (2016) find that distributional
justice (DJ) and procedural justice (PJ) directly influence the trust in leaders and
organizations, as well as mediate the relationship between OJ and OCB.
The models in which two bases of trust mediate the effects of supervisory proce-
dural justice have been tested by Yang et al. (2009). Two conceptually different mechanisms
have been proposed to explain how the effects of different procedural justice are
material- ized. Cognitive trust mediates the supervisory procedural justice with work
performance and satisfaction, while affective trust mediates the relationship between the
supervisory procedural justice and helping behavior in the workplace. Meanwhile, the
affective and cognitive aspects of trust play a variety of roles in this arbitration process.
This affective trust in leaders is a stronger predictor of performance and OCB (Legood
et al., 2020).
Rupp et al. (2014) use the variables of POS, LMX, commitment, and trust as the
mediator between the OJ and OCB and the source and result of justice. Their study finds
that in an organization, trust mediates most of the relationships between the DJ and PJ
and job satisfaction, turnover intention, and organizational commitment, as well as fully
mediating the relationship between the interactional justice (IJ) and work behavior.
More- over, trust in supervisors fully mediates the relationship between IJ and OCB.
Overall, the review of previous studies indicates the lack of studies that relate to
the mediating effects of the exchange quality and multifocal trust. Hence, the present re-
search is very important as it emphasizes the role of two different concepts of trust,
based on different results. The interpersonal interactions between supervisors and
subordinates (LMX) are possible, based on a feeling of trust in each other (affective-
based trust). Mean- while, the perceived organizational support (POS) will be
influenced by the trust in organ- izations based on profit and loss (cognition-based
trust). This research aims to develop a model that will enhance the role of integrating
POS and LMX with confident multidimen- sional variables (cognitive trust in
management and affective trust in supervisors) as the mediators of OJ, to influence the
OCB.
Furthermore, the present study will provide a unique contribution to the organ-
izational behavior studies since it involves non-regular workers of higher education in-
stitutions as the research subject. The subject was chosen because the issues of justice,
social exchange, and individual performance are highly sensitive and have received
little attention in earlier research. An interesting aspect of the subject of this research is

7
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
that the performance of lecturers is based on academic achievement determined by the
authorized

7
 Waskito et
agency. In other industries, performance is measured in terms of market, financial, and
organizational performance. This circumstance will have a substantial impact on non-
reg- ular employees’ attitudes, conduct, policies, and treatment.

Literature Review
Previous research found significant evidence of the impact of organizational jus-
tice on OCB (e.g. Chen & Jin, 2014; Cropanzano and Rupp, 2016; Al-Quraan and Kha-
sawneh, 2017; Daouk et al., 2021). According to these studies, perceptions of fairness
mo- tivate people to engage in pro-social activities, which often lead to improved
performance and productivity. Employees participate in OCB when they believe they
are being treated fairly.
Organizational justice refers to one’s perceptions of the fairness of the outcome
distribution, procedures, and interpersonal treatment, which includes the provision of
accurate information during the procedure’s execution (Khaola & Rambe, 2021). The
construct validity of OJ, in the context of Chinese society, proves that the four-dimen-
sional OJ which includes distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice,
and leadership justice is the best model (Chen & Jin, 2014). Also, an OCB regression
analysis of OJ was carried out which found that DJ and IJ both had a positive effect on
OCB. In line with Chen & Jin (2014), in the context of Pakistan, Asim et al. (2021)
investigate the relationship between organizational justice and OCB in public and
private organizations, and discovers a positive and significant relationship, they
recommend that the availability of fair organizational justice practices improve
employees’ citizenship behavior in all the aspects of their organizational lives.
Cropanzano et al. (2016) provide a detailed examination of the relationship be-
tween the perceptions of employee justice and OCB. Starting with the earliest research
on OCB, the study articulates how the two topics in organizational science have
developed together. In accord with the result, Al-Quraan & Khasawneh (2017) and
Daouk et al. (2021) find that OJ significantly impacts OCB in terms of altruism,
courtesy, sportsman- ship, virtue, and public awareness. Based on the review of
previous studies, the first hy- potheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 1a: The increasing perception of interpersonal justice will increase
OCB.
Hypothesis 1b: The increasing perception of informational justice will increase
OCB.
Hypothesis 2a: The increasing perception of procedural justice will increase OCB.
Hypothesis 2b: The increasing perception of distributive justice will increase OCB.

Trust is defined as an individual’s (trustor’s) willingness to be vulnerable to the

ac- tions of another party (trustee), even if the other party cannot be monitored or
controlled (Mayer et al., 1995). According to them, if trust is lacking in the working
relationship between a subordinate and an authority figure, the subordinate will be
preoccupied with

7
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
protecting himself or herself at the expense of value-creating activities. An employee
who can trust his or her supervisor, on the other hand, can focus on value-creating tasks
and activities, potentially leading to improved work outcomes. Frazier et al. (2010)
propose that procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice have
different ef- fects on three components of trust in leaders: ability, virtue, and integrity.
Meanwhile, Konovsky et al. (2013) involve 475 hospital employees and their
supervisors as research subjects and find that DJs and PJs directly influence trust in
leaders.
A meta-analysis study has found that OJ has a significant impact on trust in
leaders (Cropanzano et al., 2016). This finding has been confirmed by Ng (2016), who
conducted a survey of 176 workers and finds that PJ has a direct impact on leaders and
organiza- tions. He suggests that future research should use alternative data sources to
minimize the potential for the same source of errors. Multifocal justice perceptions are
more powerful at predicting outcomes that are more suitable than type-based justice
perceptions (Cro- panzano et al., 2016), multifocal justice perspectives strongly predict
similar targets than different outcomes, and relationships between multifocal justice
perceptions and similar outcome targets are mediated by social exchanges from certain
sources. Employees who have been treated properly by their supervisors engage in more
citizenship activities that benefit the supervisors. Therefore, the reasons for citizenship
behavior may be identified by the citizenship behavior’s objective. In summary, justice
may foster connections with supervisors, as well as with other sources, such as the
organization as a whole.
The fair treatment of employees by an organization may initiate a social
exchange in an employment relationship (Aryee et al., 2002). This favor or spontaneous
act of good- will on the part of the organization (or its agents) creates an obligation on
the part of the employees to reciprocate the organization’s good deeds. As a result,
much research has been conducted to investigate the relationship between an
organization’s fair treatment of its employees, also known as organizational justice, and
work attitudes and behavior. Furthermore, Aryee et al. (2002) find that DJ, PJ, and IJ
affect trust in management/or- ganizations, but only IJ is related to trust in a supervisor
(Aryee et al., 2002). The study reveals that trust in the organization partially mediates
the relationship between DJ and PJ and the work attitudes of job satisfaction, turnover
intentions, and organizational com- mitment but fully mediates the relationship
between IJ and work attitudes. Yuen Onn et al. (2018) confirm that organizational
justice is significantly influenced by trust, as a mediator of the relationship. Interactive
justice is the most important type of justice that contributes to OCB and is mediated by
trust.
Yang et al. (2009) test models in which two dimensions of trust (cognition and
affection) mediate the effects of supervisory procedural justice. Two conceptually different
mechanisms have been proposed to explain how the effects of different procedural
justice materialize. The structural equation modeling results use 203 individuals with
suitable supervisory ratings from various organizations located in Taiwan to support

7
 Waskito et
their models. Cognitive trust mediates the relationship of procedural justice supervision
with perfor- mance and job satisfaction, while affective trust mediates the relationship
between super-

7
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
visory procedural justice and OCB.
The discovery that trust is a two-dimension structure is also pointed out in a
liter- ature review by George et al. (2016). They divulge that both researchers and
practitioners have continued to realize the importance of trust as a factor to determine
organizational success and employee welfare. However, trust is a complex
multidimensional construction that has produced intense debate about how mutual trust
relationships can be created. Their findings indicate that POS, PJ, and transformational
leadership are significant pre- dictors of trust in supervisors and that turnover intention
and commitment are significant outcome variables.
The present study will use interpersonal justice and informational justice in pre-
dicting the affect-based trust in supervisors. It is expected that justice derived from
inter- personal interaction between leaders and subordinates will raise the affect-based
trust of subordinates in their supervisors. Meanwhile, what comes from the
management/organ- ization, namely distributional justice and procedural justice, is
expected to increase the cognition-based trust of employees in the management. Thus,
the following hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 3a: The increasing perception of interpersonal justice will further en-
hance affect-based trust in supervisors.
Hypothesis 3b: The increasing perception of informational justice will further en-
hance affect-based trust in supervisors
Hypothesis 4a: The increasing perception of procedural justice will further en-
hance cognition-based trust in management.
Hypothesis 4b: The increasing perception of distributive justice will further en-
hance cognition-based trust in management.

A review of the research into LMX and POS shows that these two variables are
re- lated as variables resulting from the perceptions of justice. However, the widespread
use of the concept of social exchange as an explanatory mechanism for the effects of
justice (e.g., mediation relations) has been measured and tested. Rupp et al. (2014)
suggest that LMX mediates the effects of interpersonal justice on OCB, job satisfaction,
and to a lesser ex- tent, organizational commitment. Moreover, Ismail (2015) finds that
POS fully mediates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB for three of the
four dimensions of OCB. Overall, these findings indicate that the perception of justice is
an important input for the appraisal of the quality of the exchange relationship between
top management and the organization. Furthermore, it also implies that perceptions of
justice seem to influence work-related attitudes and behavior in the quality of the social
exchange relationships of employees.
Interpersonal and procedural justice have a distinctive influence on employee re-
actions, Karriker & Williams (2009) propose several points, namely: (1) The
relationship between employees’ perceptions of interpersonal and informational justice
and their su- pervisors’ attitudes and behavior are mediated by their perceptions of the
quality of their

8
 Waskito et
relationship with their supervisors (LMX). (2) The relationship between employees’
per- ceptions of procedural and distributive justice and relationships with attitudes and
organi- zational behavior are mediated by their perceptions of relationship quality
premises in the organization (POS). The point is that the employees feel there is a
contribution to acts of justice that continually improve the quality and desires of their
relationships. This contri- bution further requires employees to reciprocate in ways that
preserve the relationship of the social exchange, through voluntary behavior or attitudes
that benefit those who treat them fairly.
Employee relations are an interesting topic in LMX research, although previous
studies have rated trust as one-dimensional. The LMX studies did not investigate the
multidimensional nature of trust and the various dimensional possibilities that affect the
quality of LMX (Scandura & Pellegrini, 2014). Interestingly, the quality of LMX has
been positively associated with identification-based trust as well as calculus-based trust,
which involves the cognition-based exchange. The results find support for nonlinear
relation- ships between cognition-based trust and LMX. So, contrary to expectations,
trust seems to be vulnerable even in high-quality LMX relationships. Conversely, trust
in supervisors fully mediates the relationship between interpersonal justice and work
behavior, in terms of performance and OCB dimensions. Furthermore, procedural
justice has a stronger re- lationship with all the dimensions of OCB, compared to
distributive justice. Both LMX and trust in supervisors are found to be significantly
associated with OJ and OCB (Wee et al., 2014).
The dimensions of leadership based on the LMX theory are highly correlated
with the dimensions of mutual trust and organizational commitment (Rodic et al., 2017).
Ac- cording to the findings of trust and leadership entity studies, knowing the other
(par- ticularly their benevolence, integrity, and abilities) fosters trust among parties, and
trust strengthens through cumulative interaction and the gradual expansion of
exchanges. In- teractions over time provide information for learning about others’
intentions, motiva- tions, and dispositions, allowing for inferences about trustworthiness
and future behavior expectations (Ospina & Salgado, 2020).
Moreover, the perception of fairness in organizations leads to more citizenship
be- havior by employees, such as acts of coordination, participation in decision making,
and team efforts. Several studies have been carried out, with the results confirming that
there are two aspects to trust, including those conducted by DeConinck (2010), which
found that POS partially mediates the influence of procedural justice on trust in
organizations and it also mediates the impact of interpersonal justice on trust in
supervisors. These findings suggest that the relationship between employees and their
supervisors is different from the relationship between employees and their organizations.
Rajabi et al. (2017) have investigated the perceptions of organizational justice and
organizational trust and their relationship to nurses in public and private hospitals in
northern Iran while comparing these two groups of nurses. That study concludes that to
increase organizational trust, hospital managers should develop organizational justice.
In this way, positive individual

8
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
and organizational results can significantly influence the nurses’ service quality and pa-
tient satisfaction.
The role of trust as a mediator in social exchanges between teachers and their
schools has been explored, especially between perceived procedural justice and POS, on
the one hand, and teachers’ organizational commitment and OCB, on the other hand
(Chhetri, 2014 & Thomsen et al., 2015). A model has been developed that distinguishes
trust among three agents: team members, supervisors, and higher management. The re-
sults show that trust in team members is related to affective organizational commitment
and OCB. Trust in the supervisors and trust in higher management are neither related
to organizational commitment nor OCB. POS is related to teachers’ trust in all the target
trusts. It also has a direct effect on organizational commitment. Procedural justice
affects trust in supervisors and trust in higher management.
Paillé et al. (2010) highlight the importance of considering trust above the or-
ganizational efforts directed at supporting employees, by showing appreciation for their
contribution and concern for their well-being. Thus, Wong & Wong (2017) examine the
relationship between organizational justice, POS, trust in organizations, and OCB by
pro- posing and testing three competing models. The basic model connects POS with
distrib- utive justice as its antecedent, and trust in organizations with procedural justice
as its antecedent, while OCB is considered as a result of POS and trust in the
organization. The results of this study indicate that distributive justice affects POS,
while procedural justice affects trust in the organization. POS has a significant positive
effect on trust in organiza- tions and OCB.
The present study will test the quality of the double mediation exchanges (POS
and LMX) and the cognition and affect-based trust in OJ and OCB. The quality of
leader- ship-subordinate relationships, which is accompanied by a sense of affect-based
trust, is expected to mediate the influence of interpersonal and informational justice on
OCB. The strong perception of organizational support and trust in cognition-based
management is also expected to strengthen the influence of distributive and procedural
justice on OCB. The next hypotheses are formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 5a: LMX and affect-based trust in supervisors mediate the relation-
ship between interpersonal justice with OCB.
Hypothesis 5b: LMX and affect-based trust in supervisors mediate the relation-
ship between informational justice with OCB.
Hypothesis 6a: POS and trust in management mediate the relationship between
distributive justice with OCB.
Hypothesis 6b: POS and trust in management mediate the relationship between
procedural justice with OCB.

Method
Respondents. A survey method was used that involved visiting the respondents
and conducting in-depth interviews with a questionnaire as the instrument. This study

8
 Waskito et
focuses on contract lecturers from the top five universities in Muhammadiyah. Muham-
madiyah is Indonesia’s largest Islamic organization engaged in religion, education,
society, and culture. In the field of education, Muhammadiyah has 173 universities
consisting of 74 universities, 27 institutes, 59 high schools, 3 polytechnics, 1 academy,
and 9 `Aisyiyah universities.
Based on data from the human resource management bureaus at the five
universi- ties, there are 380 contract lecturers. The purposive sampling method was used
to obtain samples. The participants were selected taking into account the balance of age,
gender, and most importantly their status as non-permanent lecturers. The survey
results have obtained 182 contract lecturers who are willing to be respondents. They
consist of 52% male lecturers and 48% female lecturers. Furthermore, 53.4% of
respondents were aged 25 to 35 years; 84.6% have master`s degrees, and 71.7% of them
have worked less than three years.
Variables. The participants had to respond to all the survey items with a 7-point
Likert scale, starting from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Organizational
jus- tice used the measurement with the principal component analysis method of
variable ex- traction that manifested into nine factors based on the premium value.
There were four dimensions of organizational justice (Díaz-Gracia et al., 2014), an
example item is, “I get a compensation that matches the work I’ve done well.” POS was
measured using eight items (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), an example item is, “The
college is willing to supply more support to assist me to do my work to the best of my
capabilities.” LMX was meas- ured using seven items (Scandura et al., 1986), an
example item is, “My relationship with the head of the study program is running
viably.” OCB was measured using seven items (Williams & Anderson, 1991), including
items such as, “Helps others who have heavy workloads.” Meanwhile, trust in
supervisors and trust in an organization was measured using three items from Podsakoff
et al. (1997), the example items include, “ My conclusion is that most of my colleagues
feel that the college administration can be trusted” and “It is beyond any doubt that the
head of my study program/faculty truly pays consideration to the wishes of the
instructing staff.”

Results
The factor analysis cumulative percentage level of the contribution of all the re-
search’s variable factors was 85.759%. Before testing the model, the psychometric proper-
ties of the scale were tested. Descriptive statistics, alpha coefficients, and the inter-
correla- tion of exogenous and endogenous variables are listed in Table I. It indicates
that all of the questionnaires were reliable (alphas ranged from 0.887 to 0.978); also all
of the predictor variables had a significant correlation with OCB (ranging from r =
0.444; p < 0.01 to r = 0.712; p < 0.01). The highest correlation was found between LMX
and affective-based trust in the supervisor (r = 0.824; p < 0.01), whereas the lowest
correlation was found between POS and affective-based trust in the supervisor (r = 401;
p < 0.01).

8
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
Based on the variables of organizational justice, the contract lecturers assessed

8
 Waskito et
interactional justice as the highest value (5.96). The contract employees perceived they
gained appropriate treatment and respect from their supervisors—who appreciated them
and never expressed offensive words to or about them. Meanwhile, regarding the equi-
table distribution of their contributions (distributive justice), the contract lecturers also
demanded less due to the conditions of their employment status (5.01).

Table 1. Description of the Variable and Cronbach’s Alpha

Value
Factors M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. LMX 5.93 0.902 0.972
2. POS 5.51 0.849 0.649 ** 0.910
3. Procedural Justice 5.48 0.964 0.619 ** 0.609 ** 0.931
4. Distributive 5.01 1.29 0.403 ** 0.499 ** 0.458 ** 0.978
Justice
5. Interactional 5.96 0.890 0.638 ** 0.506 ** 0.493 ** 0.612 ** 0.957
Justice
6. Informational 5.76 0.861 0.620 ** 0.564 ** 0.435 ** 0.690 ** 0.612 ** 0.887
Justice
7. Affective Based 5.95 0.955 0.824 ** 0.401 ** 0.491 ** 0.660 ** 0.690 ** 0.625 ** 0.926
Trust in
Supervisor
8. Cognitive Based 5.82 1.08 0.596 ** 0.518 ** 0.458 ** 0.612 ** 0.712 ** 0.626 ** 0.700 ** 0.949
Trust in Manage-
ment
9. OCB 5.95 0.820 0.534 ** 0.670 ** 0.444 ** 0.712 ** 0.660 ** 0.589 ** 0.552 ** 0.574 ** 0.941
Notes: n = 182;* p <0.05;** p <0.01; diagonal numbers in bold show the alpha coefficients.

Furthermore, the contract workers also expected the results from maintaining the
quality of their relations with their supervisors, rather than expecting support from the
or- ganization. This situation was also reinforced by a strong affect-based trust in their
super- visors (5.95) rather than cognition-based trust in the organizations (5.82). They
perceived that if they were loyal to their supervisors, they may gain a better position and
employ- ment status. This condition was understandable because they expected their
supervisors to provide recommendations to change their status to become permanent
lecturers.

Table 2. Data Analysis Results

Relationship Estimate SE CR p
Cog. Based Trust in Mgt ← Distributive Justice 0.750 0.390 1.954 0.051
Cog. Based Trust in Mgt ← Procedural Justice 0.580 0.650 8.888 ***
Aff. Based Trust in Sp. ← Interactional Justice 0.425 0.077 5.541 ***
Aff. Based Trust in Sp. ← Informational Justice 0.686 0.101 6.806 ***
POS ← Cog. Based Trust in Mgt 0.664 0.910 7.335 ***
LMX ← Aff. Based Trust in Sp. 0.735 0.084 8.737 ***
OCB ← POS 0.179 0.790 2.265 0.240
OCB ← LMX 0.502 0.680 7.353 ***
OCB ← Distributive Justice -0.015 0.300 -0.490 0.624

8
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
OCB ← Procedure Justice 0.122 0.680 1.798 0.072

8
 Waskito et

OCB ← Interactional Justice 0.135 0.500 2.703 0.007

OCB ← Informational Justice -0.049 0.082 -0.592 0.554

Table 2 shows that distributive justice could not be counted on to improve cog-
nition-based trust in management (p = 0.051), and OCB (p = 0.624). Procedural justice
could significantly improve cognition-based trust in management (p = 0.000), but could
not improve the extra behavior (OCB) (p = 0.072) of the contract workers. This was dif-
ferent from interpersonal justice (p = 0.000) and informational justice (p = 0.000), both
of which could significantly predict affection-based trust in supervisors. Interpersonal
justice had a significant positive effect on OCB (p = 0.07), but informational justice
could not increase the extra role of the contract employees (p = 0 .554).

Figure 1. Hypothesis Model

The present research has proven that cognition-based trust in management could
improve the perception of organizational support to employees (POS) (p = 0.000). Simi-
larly, employees who have affect-based trust in their supervisors could improve the
quality of the relationship between themselves and their supervisors (p = 0.000).
Cognition-based trust in management and POS have been proven to fully mediate the
effect of distributive justice on OCB (p = 0.000). However, affect-based trust in
supervisors and LMX proved to fully mediate the effect of procedural justice on OCB (p
= 0.000). The results of the analysis are shown in Figure 1.
Another finding showed that affect-based trust in supervisors and LMX had
been proven to fully mediate the influence of interpersonal justice on OCB, but only
partially mediate the influence of informational justice on OCB. Table 3 shows that the
model fit criterion met the criteria for fit, even though the NFI value was marginal
(0.845).

8
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
Table 3. Fit Criteria
Fit Size Fit Criteria Score Reception
NFI > 0.9 0.845 marginal
IFI > 0.9 0.915 be accepted
TLI > 0.9 0.906 be accepted
CFI > 0.9 0.914 be accepted
RMSEA < 0.08 0.07600 be accepted

Discussion
Hypothesis 1a: “The increasing perception of interpersonal justice will increase
OCB,” was supported by the data. It implies that the contract lecturers perceive that the
leaders of the study program and faculty treat them appropriately and with respect. The
good relationship that exists between the leaders and subordinates makes the teaching
staff willing to voluntarily assist with the study program, and offer solutions to solve
prob- lems and for the improvement of the study program. Furthermore, they also have
a will- ingness to help their colleagues, give instructions to complete work, and care for
other staff members. These results support Chen & Jin (2014), Cropanzano and Rupp
(2016), Nisar et al. (2014), Al-Quraan & Khasawneh (2017), and Salam (2020).
According to the findings of this study, interpersonal fairness is the most impor-
tant factor in increasing the OCB of contract workers. Therefore, the emotional distance
between superiors and subordinates should be shortened by building a dialogue system
(Chen & Jin, 2014). Because no matter how perfect the organization and how rigorous
the process, there will always be people who feel that the results delivered are unfair.
How a manager communicates, supervises, and treats these employees will have a huge
impact on their sense of fairness. In the education sector, the non-instrumental aspects
of the sense of justice need to be given more attention, and harmonious relationships
among individuals must be created, satisfy emotional needs such as love and emotions,
along with personal self-esteem, social recognition, a sense of belonging, etc.
Hypothesis 1b: “Increasing perceptions of informational justice will increase
OCB,” was not supported. Informational justice is concerned with explaining to indi-
viduals why certain decisions have to be made. In other words, informational justice is
concerned with the quality of the communications about decisions that directly affect an
individual, whereas interpersonal justice is concerned with the tone and attitude of those
same communications (Frazier et al., 2010). Both interpersonal and informational
justice refers to fairness in an organization’s day-to-day interactions and transactions.
These jus- tice dimensions capture how members of an organization are treated by
authority figures within that organization
This study has found that various detailed explanations from the leadership re-
garding the procedures in the faculty/study program have not been able to increase the
willingness of the contract lecturers to voluntarily do extra tasks. This finding is
different

8
 Waskito et
from those of Colquitt et al. (2013) and Cropanzano & Rupp (2016), despite them using
the same study subjects (education staff), they found that the four dimensions of organ-
izational justice have a significant positive relationship with OCB. The present study re-
veals that contract employees have not obtained sufficient experience in the faculties
and were considered very formal, hence they lacked the willingness to provide extra
support to the institutions. For contract lectures, a close relationship with the leadership,
which is reflected in good interactions (interactional justice), is more important than
information- al justice. After all, they are their supervisors who give them a
performance rating, and the results are very important for their nominations for future
work at their college.
Hypotheses 2a: “Increasing perceptions of procedural justice will increase
OCB,” and 2b: “Increasing perceptions of distributive justice will increase OCB” were
not sup- ported by the data. These findings oppose Colquitt et al. (2013), and
Cropanzano and Rupp (2016), in which the better the quality of the procedural justice is
in an institution, the better the performance of the contract employees will be. However,
this study is con- sistent with Shimamura et al. (2021), in that interactive justice, rather
than procedural and distributive justice, correlates with OCB among employees in
different industries. Furthermore, they will appreciate the prevailing rules more when
they become perma- nent employees. In terms of distributive justice, most contract
workers perceive that they should not compare their income with that received by
regular employees, particularly due to their employment status.
Hypotheses 3a: “The increasing perception of interpersonal justice will further
en- hance affect-based trust in supervisors.” 3b: The increasing perception of
informational justice will further enhance affect-based trust in supervisors,” were
supported. Fair treat- ment and appreciation from the leaders increase the employees’
trust in their leaders. They will perceive that their leaders recognize and appreciate their
aspirations. Furthermore, they also perceive that all the decisions that are made by the
leaders are for the benefit of their future and welfare. This also occurs in informational
justice. The access to communi- cations between employees and supervisors and the
detailed explanation of the prevailing rules also increase the employees’ trust in their
supervisors.
According to Mayer et al. (1995) interpersonal skills and competence drive the
perceptions of the ability facet of trustworthiness. Thus, daily interpersonal communi-
cations between a supervisor and a subordinate in an exchange relationship marked by
dignity and respect can influence the subordinate’s assessment of the supervisor’s
ability. In terms of benevolence, if a trustee treats a trustor with dignity and respect, the
trustor may conclude that the trustee wishes to do right by him/her.
Hypotheses 4a: “Increasing distributive justice will further enhance the cog-
nition-based trust in management” and 4b: “Increasing procedural justice will further
enhance the cognition-based trust in management,” were supported by the data. These
results are also strengthened by Aryee et al. (2002) and Rupp et. (2014) who find both
procedural justice and distribution justice directly influence employees’ trust in both

8
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
lead- ers and organizations. Distributive and procedural justice can have a positive
effect on

9
 Waskito et
cognitive trust, thereby interactive justice can have a positive effect on affective trust,
and cognitive trust can have a positive effect on emotional trust. Lucid rules and the
recog- nition of workers’ performance, which is accompanied by providing rewards
based on their contributions, will increase the trust in the management of the institution
(Liu et al., 2021). Essentially, employees perceive that the universities’ commitments to
pay attention to their teaching staff are sincere.
Hypothesis 5a: “LMX and affect-based trust in supervisors mediate the relation-
ship between interpersonal justice and OCB,” is fully supported. Meanwhile,
Hypothesis 5b: “LMX and affect-based trust in supervisors mediate the relationship
between informa- tional justice and OCB,” was partially supported. LMX has been
classified as either low or high quality. Low quality is the transactional exchange between
a leader and a subordinate that is strictly based on formally determined goals and
expected performance; thus, it is limited to a basic economic exchange with no
expectation or effort to go beyond the members of the dyad’s defined roles. High-
quality LMX, on the other hand, is attributed to mutual trust, obligation, liking, respect,
and the contribution between the leader and member (Gupta et al., 2020).
Establishing common values, attitudes, and interests among employees are
bound to result in high-quality exchanges within a dyad. The level of the quality of the
relations between leaders and subordinates is accompanied by the level of trust, which
proves the ability to mediate the influence of interpersonal and informational justice on
OCB. These two types of social exchanges must be considered in the attempt to foster
healthy rela- tionships between leaders and subordinates to increase the extra role of
contract workers. These findings reinforce Yang et al. (2009), in which cognitive trust
mediates the relation- ship of procedural justice with work performance and satisfaction,
while affective trust mediates the relationship between procedural justice and OCB.
The nature of trust and its relationships with various factors in work
organizations have mostly been investigated using frameworks based on the LMX
theory or the social exchange theory (Hirvi et al., 2019). Trust is thought to be fragile
because it is influenced by numerous factors, but studies based on the LMX theory do
not emphasize the vul- nerability of trust and implicitly treat it as a feature of
relationships that does not recede. Trust has been identified as an emotionally
experienced phenomenon that is also strongly related to social relationships and group
behavior.
The meta-analysis results reveal that affective and cognitive trust have significantly
different relationship strengths in four of the five organizational outcomes investigated
by Fischer et al. ( 2020). According to the findings, OCB has a stronger positive
relationship with affective trust than with cognitive trust. This suggests that when
employees have stronger emotional, relational-based trust in their leaders, they are more
likely to go above and beyond the call of duty than if their leaders only display trust-
worthy behavior.
Hypotheses 6a: “POS and trust based on management cognition mediate the re-
lationship between distributive justice with OCB” and 6b: POS and trust based on man-

9
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
agement cognition mediate the relationship between procedural justice with OCB,”
were

9
 Waskito et
supported by the data. It means that contract workers need the support of institutions
and cognition-based trust in management to enhance the role of distributive justice and
procedural justice on their willingness to do the extra roles. The applied procedure and
the earnings received by contract workers are factors that will increase their extra-roles
if they trust the management, as well as perceive and gain support from their
institutions.
The results of the present study are also supported by Chhetri (2014) and Thom-
sen et al. (2015) in which trust among team members is related to affective
organization- al commitment and OCB. Trust in supervisors and trust in higher
management are not related to organizational commitment or OCB. Meanwhile, POS is
related to the trust of non-regular employees in all the targets of trust. It also has a direct
effect on organization- al commitment. Procedural justice affects the trust in supervisors
and the trust in higher management (Dirks & Skarlicki, 2004). Similarly, Paillé, et al.
(2010) argue strong support for different hypotheses of relationships in the research
model, except for POS and the turnover intention.
The study highlights the importance of considering trust above the efforts of or-
ganizations directed at supporting employees by showing appreciation for their contri-
butions and concern for their welfare. Wong, et al. (2012) also reinforce that distributive
justice affects POS, whereas procedural justice affects trust in an organization.
Moreover, POS has a significant positive effect on trust in organizations and OCB. This
study suc- ceeds in following up research from Aryee et al. ( 2002) who state that future
research should look into a broader social exchange model that includes not only
organizational justice and trust foci, but also the social exchange mechanisms of
perceived organizational support and leader-member exchanges.

Conclusions
Organizational justice is a sensitive issue, particularly for non-regular
employees. The quality of their exchanges with their leaders (LMX) and organizations
(POS), ac- companied by a high sense of trust will be an effective mediating factor to
increase the effect of organizational justice on extra behavior (OCB), even though they
are non-reg- ular employees. This study has succeeded in demonstrating that the quality
of individual exchanges between supervisors and subordinates (LMX and affective-
based trust) suc- cessfully mediate sources of justice from the supervisors (interactional
and informational justice). The quality of the individual exchanges with organizations
(cognitive-based trust and POS) successfully mediate sources of the organizations
(procedural justice).

Limitation
The scope of this research is limited to the education business. The respondents
who participated in this study are contract lecturers at various Muhammadiyah universi-
ties who hope to become permanent lecturers after their trial periods end. Future studies
should increase the number of respondents and select organizations in other industries to

9
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
reach a good generalization. Furthermore, it will be necessary to include permanent lec-

9
 Waskito et
turers, as a comparison group, to ensure that contract lecturers receive the same
treatment and policies as permanent lecturers. By involving these parties, the quality of
the relation- ships between employees and supervisors in an organization, and more
importantly those related to trust, may have different results from the findings of the
present study.
This study also uses a cross-section design that describes a momentary event,
while the review of the quality of relationships, trust, justice, and OCB will be more
com- prehensive by using a series-continuous approach. Thus, data retrieval can be done
twice or three times in a certain period.

9
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,

References
Al-Quraan, A., & Khasawneh, H. I. (2017). Impact of Organizational Justice on
Organiza- tional Citizenship Behavior : Case Study at Jordan National Electric
Power Com- pany Impact of Organizational Justice on Organizational
Citizenship Behavior : Case Study at Jordan National Electric Power Company.
European Journal of Busi- ness and Management, 9(June), 215–229.
Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S., & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship
between organizational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange
mod- el. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(3), 267–285.
[Link] job.138
Asim, R., Shahzad, N., Mustafa, K., Khan, M. F., & Qurashi, F. (2021). Effects of Organiza-
tional Justice on Organizational Commitment. International Journal of
Economics and Financial Issues, 6(November), 1–9.
Baloch, Z., Iqbal, M. Z., Ikramullah, M., Prooijen, J. Van, & Khan, T. (2021). Getting Rates
to Accept Performance Feedback : In Social Justice Research (Issue 0123456789).
Springer US. [Link]
Chen, H., & Jin, Y.-H. (2014). The Effects of Organizational Justice on Organizational Cit-
izenship Behavior in the Chinese Context. Public Personnel Management,
43(3), 301–313. [Link]
Chhetri, P. (2014). The role of cognitive and affective trust in the relationship between
organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: A conceptual
framework. Verslas: Teorija Ir Praktika, 15(2), 170–178.
[Link] btp.2014.17
Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., Piccolo, R. F., Zapata, C. P., & Rich, B. L. (2012). Explaining
the justice–performance relationship: Trust as exchange deepener or trust as
uncer- tainty reducer? Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 1–15.
[Link] a0025208
Colquitt, J. A., Rodell, J. B., Zapata, C. P., Scott, B. A., William, C., Long, D. M., & Wesson,
M. J. (2013). Justice at the Millennium, a Decade Later : A Meta-Analytic Test
of Social Exchange and Affect-Based Perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology,
98(2), 199–236. [Link]
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D. E., Thornton, M., & Shao, R. (2016). Oxford Handbooks On-
line Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship (Issue June). [Link]
org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.19
Daouk, A., Farmanesh, P., & Zargar, P. (2021). The Relationship Between Transaction-
al Leadership and OCB: A Conditional Analysis of Organizational Justice Per-
ception and Psychological Contract Fulfillment. SAGE Open, 11(4). [Link]
org/10.1177/ 21582440211061563
DeConinck, J. B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice perceived organizational sup-
port, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust.

9
 Waskito et
Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1349–1355. [Link]
res.2010.01.003
Díaz-Gracia, L., Barbaranelli, C., & Moreno-Jiménez, B. (2014). Spanish version of
Colquitt’s Organizational Justice Scale. Psicothema, 26(4), 538–544. [Link]
org/10.7334/ psicothema2014.110
Dirks, K. T., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2004). Trust in leaders: Existing research and emerging
issues. Trust and Distrust in Organizations : Dilemmas and Approaches, 21–40.
[Link] HD58.7 T7437 2004
Fischer, S., Hyder, S., & Walker, A. (2020). The effect of employee affective and cognitive
trust in leadership on organisational citizenship behaviour and organisational
commit- ment: Meta-analytic findings and implications for trust research.
Australian Jour- nal of Management, 45(4), 662–679.
[Link]
George, E., Chattopadhyay, P., & Ng, C. K. (2016). The relationship between
workgroup blending and perceived organizational inducements: The mediating
roles of tasks and relationships. Australian Journal of Management, 41(3), 538–
562. [Link] org /10.1177/0312896215595680
Gupta, M., Bhal, K. T., & Ansari, M. A. (2020). Relational age and leader-member ex-
change : the mediating role of perceived trust exchange. Journal of Indian Business
Research, 1975. [Link]
Hirvi, S. K., Laulainen, S., & Taskinen, H. (2019). Trust as a multidimensional
phenom- enon in LMX relationships. Journal of Health Organization and
Management. [Link]
Holtz, B. C., & Hu, B. (2017). Passive leadership: relationships with trust and justice percep-
tions. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 32(1), 119–130.
[Link] JMP-02-2016-0029
Hurst, C. S., Baranik, L. E., & Clark, S. (2016). Job Content Plateaus: Justice, Job Satisfac-
tion, and Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Career Development, 1–14.
[Link] org/ 10.1177/0894845316652250
Ismail, H. (2015). Organizational Justice and Citizenship Behavior, the Mediating Role
of Trust. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 5(1), 86.
[Link] 10.5296/ ijhrs.v5i1.6757
Kandade, K., Samara, G., José, M., & Dawson, A. (2019). Journal of Family Business Strat-
egy From family successors to successful business leaders : A qualitative study
of how high-quality relationships develop in family businesses. Journal of
Family Business Strategy, xxxx, 100334. [Link]
Karriker, J. H., & Williams, M. L. (2009). Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citi- zenship Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model †. Journal of Management,
35(1), 112–135. [Link]
Khaola, P., & Rambe, P. (2021). The effects of transformational leadership on organisa-
tional citizenship behaviour: the role of organisational justice and affective com-
mitment. Management Research Review, 44(3), 381–398.

9
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
[Link]

9
 Waskito et
MRR-07-2019-0323
Konovsky, M. A., Pugh, S. D., & Pugh, S. D. (2013). Citizenship Behavior and Social
Ex- change. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656–669. [Link]
10.2307/ 256704
Kwantes, C. T., & Bond, M. H. (2019). Organizational justice and autonomy as
moderators of the relationship between social and organizational cynicism. Personality
and In- dividual Differences, 151(May), 109391. [Link]
Lambert, E. G., Keena, L. D., Leone, M., May, D., & Haynes, S. H. (2019). The effects
of distributive and procedural justice on job satisfaction and organizational commit-
ment of correctional staff. The Social Science Journal, 1–9. [Link]
/[Link]. 2019.02.002
Lance Frazier, M., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J., & Bradley Snow, D. (2010).
Or- ganizational Justice, Trustworthiness, and Trust: A Multifoci Examination.
In Group & Organization Management (Vol. 35, Issue 1).
[Link] 1059601109354801
Legood, A., Werff, L. Van Der, Lee, A., & Hartog, D. Den. (2020). A meta-analysis of
the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship A meta-analysis of
the role of trust in the leadership- performance relationship. European Journal
of Work and Organizational Psychology, 00(00), 1–22.
[Link] 32X.2020.1819241
Lewis, J. D., & Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces, 63(4), 967–985.
[Link]
Liu, Y., Cheng, P., & Ouyang, Z. (2021). Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services How
trust mediate the effects of perceived justice on loyalty : A study in the context
of automotive recall in China. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,
58(Sep- tember 2020), 102322. [Link]
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of
organization- al trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734.
[Link]
/AMR.1995.9508080335
McAllister, D. J. (1995). Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust As Foundations for
Interper- sonal Cooperation in Organizations. Academy of Management Journal,
38(1), 24– 59. [Link]
Naotunna, S., & Arachchige, B. (2016). Perceived Organizational Support and Non-
man- agerial Employees’ Commitment to Change in Sri Lankan Apparel
Firms. South Asian Journal of Human Resources Management, 3(1), 40–57.
[Link] org/10.1177/ 2322093716637167
Ng, T. W. H., Lam, S. S. K., & Feldman, D. C. (2016). Organizational citizenship behavior
and counterproductive work behavior: Do males and females differ? Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 93, 11–32. [Link]
Nisar, Q. A., Ahmad, S., & Ahmad, U. (2014). Impact of Perceived Organizational Support
on Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Empirical Evidence from Pakistan.

9
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
Inter-

1
 Waskito et
national Journal of Research, 1(5), 231–240.
Ospina, S. M., & Salgado, E. (2020). Advancing constructionist leadership research
through paradigm interplay : An application in the leadership – trust domain.
Leadership, 0(0), 1–29. [Link]
Paillé, P., Bourdeau, L., & Galois, I. (2010). Support, trust, satisfaction, intent to leave
and citizenship at organizational level: A social exchange approach. In-
ternational Journal of Organizational Analysis, 18(1), 41–58. [Link]
org/10.1108/19348831011033203
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. B. (1997). Transformational leader be-
haviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of
Manage- ment, 22(2), 259–298.
Potipiroon, W., & Rubin, E. V. (2016). Who Is Most Influenced by Justice Perceptions?
Assessing the Role of Occupational Status. Review of Public Personnel Administra-
tion. [Link]
Rajabi, M., Abdar, Z. E., & Agoush, L. (2017). Organizational Justice and Trust
Perceptions : A Comparison of Nurses in public and private hospitals. 15(8), 205–
211. [Link] org/10.5742/MEWFM.2017.93078
Rana, S., & Singh, S. (2021). Performance appraisal justice and affective commitment :
examining the moderating role of age and gender. International Journal of
Organi- zational Analysis, April, 1–24. [Link]
2124
Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in Close Relationships. 49(1),
95–112.
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review
of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4), 698–714. [Link]
org/10.1037//0021-9010.87.4.698
Rodic, V., Rodic, V., & Susic, I. (2017). Research on the impact of LMX leadership theory
on mutual trust and organisational commitment of employees in Bosnia and
Herzego- vina Research on the impact of LMX leadership theory on mutual trust
and organi- sational commitment of employees in Bosnia and H.
[Link] 899X/200/1/012004
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifocal approach
to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the
consid- eration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and
social ex- change. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
123(2), 159–185. [Link]
Salam, A. (2020). Organizational Justice as a Predictor of Organizational Citizenship
Be- haviour. International Business Education Journal, 13(October), 29–42.
[Link] org/ 10.37134/[Link].3.2020
Scandura, T. A., Graen, G. B., & Novak, M. A. (1986). When Managers Decide Not to De-
cide Autocratically : An Investigation of Leader-Member Exchange and

1
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
Decision

1
 Waskito et
Influence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 579–584.
Scandura, T. A., & Pellegrini, E. K. (2014). Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies.
June. [Link]
Shapiro, S. P. (2011). The Social Control of Impersonal Trust ’. 93(3), 623–658.
Shimamura, M., Fukutake, M., Namba, M., & Ogino, T. (2021). The relationship among
fac-
tors of organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior job
satisfaction, and ease of work among Japanese nurses. Applied Nursing
Research, 61(March), 151479. [Link]
Thomsen, M., Karsten, S., & Oort, F. J. (2015a). Social exchange in Dutch schools for
vocational education and training: The role of teachers’ trust in colleagues, the
supervisor, and higher management. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 43(5), 755–771. [Link]
Thomsen, M., Karsten, S., & Oort, F. J. (2015b). Social exchange in Dutch schools for
vocational education and training: The role of teachers’ trust in colleagues, the
supervisor, and higher management. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 43(5), 755–771. [Link]
Warokka, A., Gallato, C., & Moorthy, T. (2012). Organizational Justice in Performance
Appraisal System and Work Performance: Evidence from an Emerging Market.
The Journal of Human Resources Management Research, 2012, 1–18.
[Link] org/10.5171/2012.159467
Wee, Y. G., Ahmad, K. Z., & Fen, Y. S. (2014). Organisational justice and its role in
pro- moting citizenship behaviour among hotel employees in Malaysia.
Institutions and Economies, 6(2), 79–104.
[Link]
Wong, Y.-W., & Wong, Y. (2017). The effects of perceived organisational support and
af- fective commitment on turnover intention. Journal of Chinese Human
Resources Management, 8(1), 2–21. [Link]
0001
Yang, J., Mossholder, K. W., & Peng, T. K. (2009). Supervisory procedural justice effects :
The mediating roles of cognitive and affective trust. The Leadership Quarterly,
20(2), 143–154. [Link]
Yean, T. F., & Yusof, A. A. (2016). Organizational Justice: A Conceptual Discussion. Pro-
cedia -Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 798–803. [Link] [Link]-
spro. 2016.05.082
Yuen Onn, C., Nordin bin Yunus, J., Yusof, H. binti, Moorthy, K., & Ai Na, S. (2018).
The mediating effect of trust on the dimensionality of organisational justice and
organisational citizenship behaviour amongst teachers in Malaysia. Educational
Psychology, January, 1–22. [Link]
Zeb, A., Abdullah, N. H., Othayman, M. Bin, & Ali, M. (2019). The Role of LMX in
Ex- plaining Relationships between Organizational Justice and Job Performance.
Jour- nal of Competitiveness, 11(2), 144–160.

1
Gadjah Mada International Journal of Business - January-April, Vol. 25, No. 1,
[Link]