Perception of organizational justice and home office work performance: influence of affective commitment

Abstract

Purpose

This article examines the effect of perceived organizational justice on home office work performance, mediated by affective commitment.

Theoretical framework

The theoretical lens used to support this research is organizational justice, in its distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions.

Design/methodology/approach

A single entity survey was carried out in a credit union, and structural equation modeling was used to analyze the 112 valid responses.

Findings

The results reveal that the perception of distributive justice has a significant effect on home office work performance, in contrast to perceptions of procedural and interactional justice. Perceptions of distributive and procedural justice had a significant effect on affective commitment, but interactional justice did not. Nevertheless, affective commitment does not seem to influence home office work performance, and no mediating effect of affective commitment was confirmed. Thus, the findings suggest that home office work increased the perception of distributive justice and decreased affective commitment to the credit union studied, given that it did not have a significant effect on job performance.

Practical & social implications of research

The study confirms the effect of distributive and procedural justice, but not of interactional justice, on affective commitment, and does not confirm the influence of commitment.

Originality/value

Based on the literature, the relationship between the dimensions of organizational justice and home office work performance was examined. The findings encourage actions to promote perceptions of justice and increase the level of affective commitment in the credit union studied.

Keywords:
Organizational justice; affective commitment; job performance; working from home

1 Introduction

The perception of organizational justice has received increasing attention in academic research and management practice over the years (Beuren et al., 2017; Ha & Ha, 2015; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). In general, the perception of organizational justice refers to the justice perceived in the exchanges that occur within organizations (Santos et al., 2021). These exchanges can be economic or social and involve the individual's relationships with different hierarchical levels (Assmar et al., 2005).

The literature has shown that higher levels of perceived justice are associated with more positive workplace behaviors (Fiaz et al., 2021; Rahim et al., 2000). These findings have increased companies' concern about the way their employees experience organizational justice, which goes beyond monetary rewards and permeates workplace coexistence (Wolor et al., 2019).

Employees' perception of organizational justice is an important ally of the organization (Wolor et al., 2019), since it is considered a relevant motivational factor that is reflected in productivity (Fiaz et al., 2021). Diehl et al. (2018) highlight that employees' positive perception of organizational justice improves their performance. Job performance should be assessed not only quantitatively, but also in terms of timeliness and quality of delivery (Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021).

Affective commitment is another element that has been emphasized in the literature as contributing to job performance. Meyer and Allen (1991) consider it as the individual's engagement and identification with the organization. In this regard, employees with high affective commitment tend to strive more to act congruently with organizational strategies and values (Rhoades et al., 2001). In addition, studies suggest that employees who perform better are more committed to the organization (Van Scotter, 2000).

Working from home is associated with perceptions of organizational justice, affective commitment, and job performance. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a significant increase in the number of people working from home (Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021). This change presents challenges that impact the performance of home office workers (Hartmann & Lussier, 2020).

The Covid-19 pandemic has created a situation of uncertainty experienced by all (Frare & Beuren, 2020). However, research on this topic presents preliminary discussions and results. Albro and McElfresh (2021) investigated work engagement and the employee-organization relationship among librarians during the period of working from home in the Covid-19 pandemic. Prodanova and Kocarev (2021) examined the individual's relationship with technology and its impact on home office work performance.

Although the literature indicates the importance of perceived organizational justice and affective commitment in job performance, this relationship in the home office context presents gaps that have motivated new research. In this perspective, we highlight the research by Wang et al. (2010) with employees of Chinese manufacturing companies about the effect of organizational justice on job performance, mediated by affective commitment and leader-member exchange. Therefore, this research is in contrast as it focuses on employees who work from home.

Wang et al. (2010) found in their research that organizational justice has an indirect relationship with job performance, with a mediating effect of affective commitment. However, it is still unclear how these elements behave in the context of working from home. In this context, we ask: What is the effect of perceived organizational justice on home office work performance? And how does affective commitment affect this relationship? Thus, the aim of this research is to examine the effect of perceived organizational justice on home office work performance, mediated by affective commitment.

Thus, this research makes three main contributions. First, it fills the gap regarding the relationship between perceived organizational justice and home office work performance, with affective commitment as a mediating variable. Second, it promotes the improvement of people management practices by clarifying the relationships investigated, particularly in the post-pandemic scenario in which policies aimed at a hybrid work system (in-office and home office) are being discussed. Third, it provides insights into the importance of variables for the development of productive work when working from home and, consequently, for the improvement of organizational performance.

2 Theoretical framework and hypotheses

2.1 Organizational justice and home office work performance

The organizational environment and the decision-making process of managers affect employees' perceptions of justice (Silva et al., 2022). Studies indicate that people react to (un)just treatment in the workplace and that these perceptions have behavioral consequences (Santos et al., 2021). The discussion on perceptions of organizational justice began in the 1960s, mainly from Adams' (1965) study on equity theory, which deals with the psychology of justice in the organizational environment, focusing on perceptions of justice in relationships between employees and organizations (Assmar et al., 2005).

Organizational justice is generally addressed in the literature under three dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional. Their distinctive characteristics indicate that they merit separate approaches (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). Distributive justice refers to the fair distribution of resources, such as services, promotions, salaries, sanctions, among others (Assmar et al., 2005), and how equitably these resources are distributed among the employees of an organization (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). Procedural justice refers to individuals' judgments of the fairness of the procedures used to make decisions in the organization (Tyler & Lind, 1992). Interactional justice refers to the degree of sensitivity of the manager towards the people affected by a decision, as well as the fair provision of information and explanation of the decisions made (Assmar et al., 2005; He et al., 2017).

When perceived positively, organizational justice can motivate and stimulate job performance (Pakpahan et al., 2020; Wolor et al., 2019). Previous research has investigated the effect of perceived organizational justice on job performance, such as the study by Swalhi et al. (2017), who examined French small and medium-sized enterprises in an in-office work context. The study found that perceived justice has a positive and significant effect on job performance. When the dimensions of justice were separated, both procedural justice and interactional justice showed a positive and significant effect. However, the effect of organizational justice on job performance does not have convergent results in the literature (Diposentono et al., 2023).

In a literature review, Diposentono et al. (2023) analyzed 25 empirical studies that investigated the relationship between organizational justice, work discipline, and employee performance. The results revealed that 66.67% of the studies indicated that organizational justice has a positive and significant effect on employee performance. However, 33.33% of the studies indicated that organizational justice has a non-significant effect on employee performance. According to the authors, this suggests that there is still a need to investigate the relationship between organizational justice and job performance, especially by individualizing the analyses for each organizational justice dimension.

The literature provides evidence of the positive influence of perceived organizational justice on job performance. The meta-analysis conducted by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) already showed that perceived justice influences job performance. However, the study shows that it is possible to assess job performance in a variety of ways, for example, by comparing: the work performed by employees with what is predetermined (Pakpahan et al., 2020), the effort and quality of work (Mylona & Mihail, 2019), the quality of output and delivery (Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021).

Diehl et al. (2018) argue that in socioeconomic contexts characterized by a lack of social security and deprivation, justice is emphasized as it reduces the uncertainty surrounding individuals' daily lives. This context is similar to the downturn that hit the global economy as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic (McKibbin & Fernando, 2021). In addition, the social isolation needed to contain the spread of the virus forced people to work from home (Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021).

This change in the work environment has brought some challenges, such as the absence of face-to-face supervision, difficulties in accessing information, social isolation, and distractions at home (Hartmann & Lussier, 2020), as well as increased anxiety among employees and customers (Frare & Beuren, 2020). The literature indicates that organizational justice supports the management of job performance in the context of uncertainty (Diehl et al., 2018).

Assuming that the dimensions of justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) are separately associated with home office work performance, we propose that:

H1a: Perceived distributive justice positively influences home office work performance.

H1b: Perceived procedural justice positively influences home office work performance.

H1c: Perceived interactional justice positively influences home office work performance.

2.2 Organizational justice and affective commitment

The literature review conducted by Ha and Ha (2015) indicated that if employees perceive that they are being treated fairly, they tend to be more affectively committed to the organization. Previous studies, such as those that considered three dimensions of organizational justice (Ha & Ha, 2015; Swalhi et al., 2017) or only one dimension (Dinç, 2015; Lemons & Jones, 2001; Malla & Malla, 2023), found a positive relationship between organizational justice and affective commitment.

Ha and Ha (2015) conducted a study on perceptions of justice, organizational commitment and group cohesion among college soccer players, assuming that sports teams have similar characteristics to the organizational environment. They concluded that the three dimensions of justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) are positively and significantly related to affective commitment. This result suggests that employees (players) are more likely to strive harder to bond with the organization (team) when they are treated and rewarded fairly.

Swalhi et al. (2017) conducted a study in small and medium-sized French companies to verify the isolated and joint influence of the dimensions of organizational justice on job performance, mediated by affective commitment. They found that the three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) significantly impact employees' affective commitment.

Dinç (2015) investigated junior and middle managers of industrial companies regarding their perception of distributive justice and its relationship with affective commitment and intention to leave the organization (turnover). The results showed that these managers' perception of distributive justice was positively related to affective commitment, and negatively related to the intention to leave the organization.

Lemons and Jones (2001) investigated students working full-time to understand the perception of procedural justice in promotion decisions in companies and how much this affects organizational commitment. The results indicated a significant relationship between procedural justice and organizational commitment. They concluded that if employees do not feel that the criteria used to decide on promotions are fair, these employees will be less committed to the organization.

Malla and Malla (2023) conducted a survey among employees of companies in India to identify the antecedents of affective commitment and the mediating effect of organizational trust on the relationship between organizational justice dimensions and affective commitment. The results indicated that the distributive and informational dimensions significantly impact employees' affective commitment.

These studies considered the in-office work environment, while this research investigates the relationship between organizational justice and affective commitment in a home office work context. We assume possible contextual interferences and, as an analogy to these findings, we conjecture that in the home office work context, organizational justice influences affective commitment. Thus, we propose that:

H2a: Perceived distributive justice positively influences affective commitment.

H2b: Perceived procedural justice positively influences affective commitment.

H2c: Perceived interactional justice positively influences affective commitment.

2.3 Affective commitment and home office work performance

Organizations cannot neglect the affective commitment that employees have to their organizations (Rhoades et al., 2001). It is a psychological state of the employees that characterizes their affective relationship with the organization, the identification of the individuals with the values and objectives of the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991), which is fundamental to their dedication and loyalty (Casimir et al., 2014). It is one of the three forms of organizational commitment, which are: affective - feelings of belonging and connection with the organization; continuance - costs associated with leaving the job; and normative - obligation to remain in the organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991).

Previous studies have shown a relationship between organizational commitment and variables such as absenteeism, performance, and turnover (Rhoades et al., 2001). Van Scotter (2000) examined the relationship between job performance, job satisfaction, and affective commitment among air force mechanics. The results showed a relationship between the variables and: (i) employees with higher performance reported greater satisfaction and commitment to the organization; (ii) affective commitment was positively related to job performance; and (iii) the relationship between job performance, normative commitment, and continuance commitment was weak.

Casimir et al. (2014) investigated leader-follower exchanges, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and task performance in technology, manufacturing, service, and educational firms. The results showed that the first three variables have a positive and significant relationship with task performance. The research by Swalhi et al. (2017), conducted in small and medium-sized French companies, also showed a positive and significant effect of affective commitment on job performance.

In home office work, affective commitment to the organization seems to be important since work control is mainly carried out by delivering results to the organization rather than meeting with superiors and following schedules. In Hill et al.'s (2003) study of IBM employees, they found that, unlike several studies that observed better performance among those working from home, there were no significant differences between the performance of those working in-office and those working from home. Despite the ambiguity regarding the impact of working from home, we conjecture that:

H3: Affective commitment positively influences home office work performance.

2.4 Mediating effect of affective commitment

Tetteh et al. (2019) point out that affective commitment has proven to be a mediating variable in several workplace relationships. Wang et al. (2010) observed that the mediation of affective commitment is positive in the relationship between organizational justice and task performance. Swalhi et al. (2017) found mediation by employees' affective commitment to the company in the relationship between organizational justice and job performance. Thus, we assume that affective commitment mediates the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and home office work performance as follows:

H4: Affective commitment has a mediating effect on the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and home office work performance.

Figure 1 presents the research model and highlights the hypotheses formulated.

Figure 1
Research model

The theoretical model proposes a direct effect of perceived organizational justice on home office work performance (H1a, H1b, and H1c) and affective commitment (H2a, H2b, and H2c); a direct effect of affective commitment on home office work performance (H3); and an indirect effect of affective commitment on the relationship between perceived organizational justice and home office work performance (H4).

3 Methodological procedures

3.1 Survey and respondents

We conducted a single entity survey with employees of a credit union. We selected the banking sector because studies indicate that work overload, daily pressure to meet targets and sell services, and increased qualification requirements are part of the working life of bank employees (Bezerra et al., 2013), which can influence affective commitment, perceptions of organizational justice, and job performance.

The organization was selected for its relevance as the largest credit union in Brazil, for having adopted working from home for some positions, and for its accessibility to carry out the research. With the agreement of the credit union's communication and people management sectors, the survey instrument was sent to professionals who work and/or have worked from home during the Covid-19 pandemic and who were willing to take part in the survey.

The credit union investigated has about 2,100 employees; however, the questionnaire was sent only to employees in positions that allow them to work from home. The survey was sent via business email to approximately 500 employees of the institution, requesting that only those who worked from home during the pandemic respond to the survey. The choice of this methodology is appropriate due to the complexity of the setting and because it allows us to delve into a single organizational context. Other management control studies have used this methodology, such as those of Frare and Beuren (2020) and Pakpahan et al. (2020).

The data collection took place in February and March 2022. During this period, we obtained a total of 112 valid responses. The sample for the analysis of the proposed theoretical model was determined by the G*Power software, which indicated a minimum of 77 respondents, considering the number of predictor variables (3), the f2 effect size (0.15), the significance level (α=0.05) and the statistical power of the sample (0.8) (Faul et al., 2009). Therefore, the sample of 112 responses is sufficient according to the established criteria (Supplementary Data 2 - database).

3.2 Survey instrument

The survey instrument (^{Appendix A}. Survey instrument) consists of three blocks, which we measured using a seven-point Likert scale indicating the level of agreement for each statement (1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree).

The first construct, measured with statements from Niehoff and Moorman (1993), addresses the perception of organizational justice, separated into distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. The second construct, measured with statements from Tsui et al. (1997), considers employees' affective commitment to the organization in which they work. The third construct, measured with four statements from Prodanova and Kocarev (2021), originally on a five-point Likert scale, and two statements adapted from Narayanamurthy and Tortorella (2021), originally on a six-point scale, address the performance of employees working from home. Thus, according to the constructs, the description of the variables was organized into codes (Supplementary Data 1 - description of variables and codes).

Four control variables were also included in the model: gender, age, time in position, and time working from home. For the variable gender, the value “0” was assigned to the male gender and “1” to the female gender. The age of the respondent was considered as a continuous variable. The variable TimePosition indicates the time the respondents have been in their position/function and was measured as a continuous variable in years. The variable TimeWFH represents the time in months that the respondent worked from home.

3.3 Data collection and analysis

To test the hypotheses, we used structural equations modeling (SEM) estimated by partial least squares (PLS) using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences 26.0 (IBM SPSS) and SmartPLS 3.3.7 software. PLS-SEM is a causal modeling approach that aims to maximize the explained variance of latent constructs, and its use is recommended for exploratory research (Hair et al., 2017).

4 Description and analysis of results

4.1 Descriptive analysis

Table 1 shows the characteristics of the 112 survey respondents.

Table 1
Profile of the respondents

Gender	%	Age	%	Time in position	%	Time working from home	%
Female	75.0	21 to 30 years old	40.2	Less than 1 year	14.3	6 months or less	49.1
Male	25.0	31 to 40 years old	52.7	1 to 3 years	56.2	6 months to 1 year	22.3
		41 to 50 years old	7.1	4 to 7 years	17.0	1 to 2 years	28.6
				8 years or more	12.5
Total	100		100		100		100

• Source: Survey data.

The profile of the respondents indicates that most are female, with a prevalent age between 21 and 40 years old, and 1 to 3 years of experience in the position. We can see that approximately 50% worked from home for up to 6 months during the pandemic. We also found that 3.6% of the respondents did not have a bachelor's degree, 47.3% had a bachelor's degree, followed by 43.8% with a specialization and 5.4% with a master's degree. This profile suggests that they meet the conditions for answering the survey.

4.2 Measurement model

Initially, we carried out Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk normality tests, which confirmed the non-normality of the variables (p<0.001). In this case, it is recommended to apply nonparametric tests using PLS-SEM (Hair et al., 2017).

In the measurement model, we first tested the reliability of the variables (Hair et al., 2017). To confirm the reliability of the indicators, we analyzed the outer loadings of each item of the latent variables (Supplementary Data 1 - description of variables and codes). Thus, one item each was removed from the procedural justice (PJ6), affective commitment (AC7) and home office work performance (JP6) constructs. After excluding these three items and confirming reliability, the internal consistency and convergent and discriminant validity of the model were assessed, as Table 2 shows.

Table 2
Measurement model

Panel A
Variables	Cronbach's Alpha			rho_A			CR			AVE
1. DJ	0.870			0.884			0.905			0.657
2. PJ	0.930			0.935			0.947			0.781
3. IJ	0.980			0.981			0.982			0.861
4. AC	0.976			0.977			0.980			0.857
5. JP	0.918			0.940			0.939			0.756
Panel B
Variables	1	2	3		4	5		6	7		8	9
1. DJ	0.810
2. PJ	0.741	0.884
3. IJ	0.720	0.854	0.928
4. AC	0.697	0.765	0.760		0.926
5. JP	0.170	0.051	0.008		-0.017	0.870
6. Gender	0.006	-0.073	-0.089		-0.049	-0.025		-
7. Age	0.012	0.064	0.009		0.064	-0.116		0.119	-
8. TimePosition	-0.069	0.035	-0.028		0.056	-0.277		0.021	0.180		-
9. TimeWFH	-0.026	0.022	0.128		0.068	0.132		-0.176	0.130		-0.069	-

• Legend. DJ = Distributive Justice; PJ = Procedural Justice; IJ = Interactional Justice; AC = Affective Commitment; JP = Job Performance. Note 1. The diagonal elements in bold represent the square roots of the average variance extracted (AVE) and the off-diagonal elements are the correlations between the constructs. Note 2. N = 112. R2: AC (0.649), JP (0.172); adjusted R2: AC (0.639), JP (0.108). Q2: AC (0.482), JP (0.094). Highest VIF: 4.682. Source: Survey data.

The analysis of internal consistency was based on the values of Cronbach's alpha, rho_A, and composite reliability (CR), in which all latent variables had values greater than 0.7 (Hair et al., 2017). The convergent validity analysis was based on the average variance extracted (AVE), where all values were greater than 0.5, confirming the convergent validity of the latent variables.

To confirm the discriminant validity of the model, we squared the AVE values of each latent variable, which should be greater than any correlations between the variables (Supplementary Data 2 - database). Therefore, discriminant validity was confirmed.

The presence of multicollinearity in the model was assessed using the variance inflation factor (VIF), with values greater than 5 indicating critical collinearity of the constructs (Hair et al., 2017). The highest VIF value was 4.682, which allows us to conclude that there is no multicollinearity. Confirming the validity of the measurement model allows us to proceed with the evaluation of the structural model.

4.3 Structural model and hypothesis testing

We analyzed the structural model using the coefficients of determination, predictive relevance, and the size and significance of the path coefficients (Hair et al., 2017). For this, we calculated the PLS algorithm with 300 iterations, bootstrapped with 5,000 samples and blindfolded (Hair et al., 2017).

The explained variance of the endogenous variables was assessed using the adjusted coefficient of determination (R2). According to the parameters of Hair et al. (2017), there is a moderate explanatory power (63.9%) for affective commitment and a small one (10.8%) for home office work performance. Q2 values allow us to assess the predictive relevance of endogenous variables (Hair et al., 2017); thus, we observed a moderate predictive relevance for affective commitment (48.2%) and a small one for home office work performance (9.4%), as shown in Supplementary Material.

To test the hypotheses, we determined the beta (β) values, t-test and p-value, which are presented in Table 3.

Table 3
Structural model

	Beta β	t-test	p-value
Panel A - Direct effects
1. DJ$\to$ 4. AC	0.226	1.645	0.100*
1. DJ$\to$ 5. JP	0.365	2.276	0.023**
2. PJ$\to$ 4. AC	0.325	1.762	0.078*
2. PJ$\to$ 5. JP	0.197	0.844	0.399
3. IJJI$\to$ 4. AC	0.320	1.436	0.151
3. IJ$\to$ 5. JP	-0.322	1.317	0.188
4. AC$\to$ 5. JP	-0.170	1.075	0.282
Panel B - Controls
6. Gender$\to$ 5. JP	0.001	0.007	0.994
7. Age$\to$ 5. JP	-0.103	0.927	0.354
8. TimePosition$\to$ 5. JP	-0.227	2.172	0.030**
9. TimeWFH$\to$ 5. JP	0.188	1.858	0.063*
Panel C - Mediation
1. DJ$\to$ 4. AC$\to$ 5. JP	-0.038	0.856	0.392
2. PJ$\to$ 4. AC$\to$ 5. JP	-0.055	0.895	0.371
3. IJ$\to$ 4. AC$\to$ 5. JP	-0.055	0.723	0.469

• Note: n = 112. Significance at the level of *p≤0.10; **p<0.05. Source: Survey data.

The path coefficients (beta β) showed that the distributive justice dimension has a positive and significant effect (36.5%) on home office work performance, which allows us to accept H1a. The other dimensions, procedural and interactional, did not have statistical significance (p>0.1), so hypotheses H1b and H1c were not accepted.

The dimensions of distributive and procedural justice showed positive and significant effects on affective commitment, 22.6% and 32.5%, respectively, in contrast to interactional justice, which did not show statistical significance. Thus, H2 is partially accepted. Affective commitment, on the other hand, did not have a significant effect on home office work performance (p>0.1), which leads us to reject H3.

The analysis of the mediating effect of affective commitment on the relationship between organizational justice and home office work performance, as proposed in H4, did not have significant effects (p>0.1); therefore, it was not accepted.

The control variables time in position (p<0.05) and time working from home (p<0.1) had statistically significant results in home office work performance, with time in current position have a negative effect of 22.7%, and time working from home having a positive effect of 18.8%.

5 Discussion of the results

The discussion of the research results is guided by the hypotheses tested. H1a was accepted, since distributive justice had a positive and statistically significant effect on home office work performance. This result is in line with Pakpahan et al. (2020). However, the dimensions of procedural justice (H1b) and interactional justice (H1c) did not have significant effects, so the hypotheses could not be accepted. In the research of Pakpahan et al. (2020), there was also no positive and significant effect of procedural justice on employee performance. However, they observed a positive and significant effect of interactional justice. He et al. (2017) found an indirect effect between interactional justice and task performance. The inconsistent results may be due to the different ways of measuring performance (Mylona & Mihail, 2019; Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021; Pakpahan et al., 2020).

The differences in the results compared to the research of He et al. (2017) may be due to contextual aspects, as they investigated college soccer players, assuming an analogy with the organizational environment. Another possible explanation is the different parameters for measuring performance and perceptions of justice, despite the fact that Pakpahan et al. (2020) conducted a single entity survey with employees of PT Telekomunikasi Indonesia and this study conducted one with employees of a credit union. This conjecture seems to be supported by the research of Wolor et al. (2019), who found a positive effect of organizational justice on the performance of salespeople, but did not analyze the dimensions of organizational justice in isolation. Finally, the studies may also differ due to the fact that this research considered working from home.

H2, which proposes that the perception of organizational justice positively influences affective commitment, was partially accepted, since distributive justice (H2a) and procedural justice (H2b) had positive and significant effects, but the dimension of interactional justice (H2c) did not. These results are partially congruent with those of Ha and Ha (2015) and Swalhi et al. (2017), who found a positive and significant effect of the three dimensions of organizational justice on affective commitment. The incongruences may be due to contextual differences between the studies and the parameters of analysis of the justice dimensions and affective commitment. However, the results corroborate the findings of Lemons and Jones (2001), who found a positive effect of procedural justice on affective commitment, and those of Dinç (2015) and Malla and Malla (2023), who found a positive relationship between distributive justice and affective commitment. The findings reinforce that the effects of organizational justice dimensions on individual and/or organizational factors are not convergent and even ambiguous in the literature (Diposentono et al., 2023). This suggests the need for further research, especially in view of the evidence that higher levels of perceived justice are associated with more positive workplace behaviors (Fiaz et al., 2021; Rahim et al., 2000).

H3, which predicted a direct relationship between affective commitment and home office work performance, was not confirmed. Casimir et al. (2014) found that affective commitment has a positive and significant relationship with task performance. However, the effect of affective commitment on home office work performance had not yet been investigated. It is possible that the isolation of employees working from home, a measure adopted to cope with the Covid-19 pandemic, may have affected employees' affective commitment to the organization, which, according to Meyer and Allen (1991), is expressed by believing and accepting the organization's values and objectives, as well as the desire to make significant efforts for the organization and to remain a member. We assume that other dimensions of organizational commitment can provide explanations for the non-confirmation of the hypothesis, according to Meyer and Allen (1991): normative commitment, which is established by the sharing of norms and internalized by normative pressures; and instrumental commitment, which determines the employee's permanence in the organization as long as he/she perceives benefits in this decision.

H4, which hypothesized an indirect effect of affective commitment on the relationship between perceived organizational justice and home office work performance, was not statistically significant. This is in contrast to the results of the studies of Wang et al. (2010) and Swalhi et al. (2017), which supported this effect, but these were not conducted during the pandemic period and did not consider the working from home. Thus, the results of this research do not confirm the mediating effect of affective commitment on the relationship between organizational justice and home office work performance. This suggests that other variables may interfere in this relationship, which prompts the inclusion of other variables in the theoretical model of the research. It is also possible that the perception of organizational justice is impacted by antecedent or consequent variables, as in the study by Issifou and Beuren (2021), in which ethnic identification and the reward system contributed to explaining the perception of organizational justice.

6 Conclusion

The results of the single entity survey conducted in a credit union revealed a positive relationship between the dimension of distributive justice and home office work performance; however, the relationship of procedural and interactional justice was not confirmed. The positive effect of perceived distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment was confirmed, in contrast to interactional justice. Finally, affective commitment did not have a mediating effect on the relationship between perceived organizational justice and home office work performance. We conclude that working from home seems to have intensified the perception of distributive justice and dampened affective commitment, since it did not have a significant effect on job performance.

This research contributes to the organizational justice literature by analyzing the relationship between its dimensions and home office work performance, which, until now, had not been explored in this setting. It also contributes by confirming a positive and significant effect of the dimensions of distributive and procedural justice, but not of interactional justice, on affective commitment. This finding provides an important avenue for future research to analyze whether interactional justice was affected by working from home or by the performance targets set at the credit union. Also, the research contributes by demonstrating that the intervention of affective commitment between organizational justice and home office work performance was not confirmed, which instigates further research in environments with employees working from home.

We also highlight the contributions to management practices, especially the positive effect of distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment, which deserves the attention of managers so as to promote actions to foster the perception of justice in order to increase the level of affective commitment to the organization. In addition, the finding of a positive effect of distributive justice on home office work performance provides elements for the managers of the credit union studied to carry out actions that reinforce this perception by employees, especially those who work from home, in order to boost their job performance. Furthermore, the findings may contribute to the establishment of hybrid work policies (in-office and home office) and performance assessment indicators.

The limitations of this study may provide insights for future research. The validity of this study is related to the characteristics of the sample. Thus, it is pertinent to validate the model in other segments and with employees in different contextual situations. In addition, other variables can be included in the theoretical model, such as job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. In addition to affective commitment, other dimensions of organizational commitment can be included in the model, such as normative commitment, which internalizes normative pressures and shared norms, and instrumental commitment, which justifies employees' staying in the organization as long as the return outweighs the investment. Finally, we emphasize that the single entity survey has inherent limitations that can be mitigated in future research by using other methods, such as a case study, in order to delve deeper into aspects related to the hypotheses that were not confirmed in interviews at the credit union.

APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT

1.Organizational justice (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993)

Scale: 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree

Distributive justice

DJ1. My work schedule is fair.

DJ2. I think that my level of pay is fair.

DJ3. I consider my work load to be quite fair.

DJ4. Overall, the rewards I receive here are quite fair.

DJ5. I feel that my job responsibilities are fair.

Procedural Justice

PJ1. Job decisions are made by the leadership in an unbiased manner.

PJ2. My leadership makes sure that all employee concerns are heard before job decisions are made.

PJ3. To make job decisions, my leadership collects accurate and complete information.

PJ4. My leadership team clarifies decisions and provides additional information when requested by employees.

PJ5. All job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees.

PJ6. Employees are allowed to challenge or appeal job decisions made by the leadership.

Interactional Justice

IJ1. When decisions are made about my job, the leadership treats me with kindness and consideration.

IJ2. When decisions are made about my job, the leadership treats me with respect and dignity.

IJ3. When decisions are made about my job, the leadership is sensitive to my personal needs.

IJ4. When decisions are made about my job, the leadership deals with me in a truthful manner.

IJ5. When decisions are made about my job, the leadership shows concern for my rights as an employee.

IJ6. Concerning decisions made about my job, the leadership discusses the implications of the decisions with me.

IJ7. The leadership offers adequate justification for decisions made about my job.

IJ8. When making decisions about my job, the leadership offers explanations that make sense to me.

IJ9. My leadership explains every decision about my job very clearly.

2.Affective commitment (Tsui et al., 1997)

Scale: 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree

AC1. I am willing to go above and beyond the norm for the success of the organization.

AC2. I tell my friends this is a great organization to work for.

AC3. I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar.

AC4. I am proud to tell others that I am part of this organization.

AC5. This organization inspires the very best in job performance.

AC6. I am very happy that I chose this organization to work for over others.

AC7. I would accept almost any type of job to keep working for this organization.

AC8. I really care about the fate of this organization.

AC9. For me, this is the best of all possible organizations to work for.

3.Home office performance (Prodanova & Kocarev, 2021; *Narayanamurthy & Tortorella, 2021).

Scale: 1= strongly disagree to 7= strongly agree

JP1. Working from home helps me achieve my work goals more efficiently than working in-office.

JP2. Working from home is useful for improving my performance within the organization.

JP3. Working from home is useful for improving the performance of everyone within the organization.

JP4. Working from home is useful for increasing the organization's profits.

JP5. The quality of my work is significantly better when I work from home.*

JP6. The punctuality of my work is significantly better when I work from home.*

Supplementary Material

Supplementary materials accompany this article.

Supplementary Data 1 - description of variables and codes

Supplementary Data 2 - database

Supplementary Data 3 - bootstrapping CA DH

Supplementary Data 3 - bootstrapping JD DH

Supplementary Data 3 - bootstrapping JI DH

Supplementary Data 3 - bootstrapping JO CA DH

Supplementary Data 3 - bootstrapping JP DH

Supplementary Data 4 - PLS CA DH

Supplementary Data 4 - PLS JD DH

Supplementary Data 4 -PLS JI DH

Supplementary Data 4 -PLS JO CA DH

Supplementary Data 4 -PLS JO CA

Supplementary Data 4 -PLS JP DH

Supplemental data for this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UQWHWQ.

• Evaluation process: Double Blind Review
  This article is open data
• How to cite: Martins, A. D., Euzebio, L. D. C., & Beuren, I. M. (2023). Perception of organizational justice and home office work performance: influence of affective commitment. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 25(3), p.373-386. https://doi.org/10.7819/rbgn.v25i3.4231

• Financial support:

  This work was supported by a grant from the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico - CNPq), under project no. CNPq/SESCOOP Nº 11/2022, Brazil.
• Open Science: Martins, Andreia Dulce; Dalla Corte Euzebio, Larissa; Beuren, Ilse Maria, 2023, "Supplementary data - Perception of Organizational Justice and Home Office Work Performance: Influence of Affective Commitment", https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/UQWHWQ, Harvard Dataverse, V1.
• Copyrights: RBGN owns the copyrights of this published content.
  Plagiarism analysis: RBGN performs plagiarism analysis on all its articles at the time of submission and after approval of the manuscript using the iThenticate tool.

References

• Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowits (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60108-2
• Albro, M., & McElfresh, J. M. (2021). Job engagement and employee-organization relationship among academic librarians in a modified work environment. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 47(5), 102413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102413
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2021.102413
• Assmar, E. M. L., Ferreira, M. C., & Souto, S. D. O. (2005). Justiça organizacional: Uma revisão crítica da literatura. Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica, 18(3), 443-453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722005000300019
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722005000300019
• Beuren, I. M., Santos, V., Marques, L., & Resendes, M. (2017). Relação entre percepção de justiça organizacional e satisfação no trabalho. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 11, 69-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.17524/repec.v11i0.1721
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.17524/repec.v11i0.1721
• Bezerra, A. B., Bizarria, F. P. A., & Tassigny, M. M. (2013). Comprometimento organizacional de funcionários de uma agência bancária. RAUnP, 6(1), 37-50. http://dx.doi.org/10.21714/raunp.v6i1.496
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.21714/raunp.v6i1.496
• Casimir, G., Ng, Y. N. K., Wang, K. Y., & Ooi, G. (2014). The relationships amongst leader-member exchange, perceived organizational support, affective commitment, and in-role performance: A social-exchange perspective. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 35(5), 366-385. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0054
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2012-0054
• 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
• Diehl, M. R., Richter, A., & Sarnecki, A. (2018). Variations in employee performance in response to organizational justice: The sensitizing effect of socioeconomic conditions. Journal of Management, 44(6), 2375-2404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671581
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206316671581
• Dinç, E. (2015). Perceived organizational support as a mediator of the relationship between effort-reward fairness, affective commitment, and intention to leave. International Business Research, 8(4), 259-269. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n4p259
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v8n4p259
• Diposentono, L., Zainal, V. R., & Hakim, A. (2023). Organizational justice, work discipline, and employee performance: A literature review. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary, 1(4), 327-334. http://dx.doi.org/10.38035/ijam.v1i4.145
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.38035/ijam.v1i4.145
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 PMid:19897823.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
• Fiaz, M., Rasool, W., Ikram, A., & Rehman, N. (2021). Organizational justice and employees’ performance: A study of an emerging economy. Human Systems Management, 40(3), 395-406. http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190728
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3233/HSM-190728
• Frare, A. B., & Beuren, I. M. (2020). Effects of information on job insecurity and work engagement in times of pandemic. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 60(6), 400-412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020200604
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s0034-759020200604
• Ha, J. P., & Ha, J. (2015). Organizational justice-affective commitment relationship in a team sport setting: The moderating effect of group cohesion. Journal of Management & Organization, 21(1), 107-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.67
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2014.67
• Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) Sage.
• Hartmann, N. N., & Lussier, B. (2020). Managing the sales force through the unexpected exogenous COVID-19 crisis. Industrial Marketing Management, 88, 101-111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.005
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.05.005
• He, W., Fehr, R., Yam, K. C., Long, L. R., & Hao, P. (2017). Interactional justice, leader-member exchange, and employee performance: Examining the moderating role of justice differentiation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(4), 537-557. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2133
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.2133
• Hill, E. J., Ferris, M., & Märtinson, V. (2003). Does it matter where you work? A comparison of how three work venues (traditional office, virtual office, and home office) influence aspects of work and personal/family life. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63(2), 220-241. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00042-3
• Issifou, M., & Beuren, I. M. (2021). Influência da identidade étnica na percepção de justiça organizacional mediada pelo sistema de recompensas. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental, 14(2), 3-19. http://dx.doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v14i2.2162
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.24857/rgsa.v14i2.2162
• Lemons, M. A., & Jones, C. A. (2001). Procedural justice in promotion decisions: Using perceptions of fairness to build employee commitment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 16(4), 268-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940110391517
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683940110391517
• Malla, S. S., & Malla, S. (2023). Does the perception of organizational justice determine employees’ affective commitment? The mediating role of organizational trust. Benchmarking, 30(2), 603-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2021-0408
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-07-2021-0408
• McKibbin, W., & Fernando, R. (2021). The global macroeconomic impacts of COVID-19: Seven scenarios. Asian Economic Papers, 20(2), 1-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00796
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00796
• Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z
• Mylona, E., & Mihail, D. (2019). Enhancing employees’ work performance through organizational justice in the context of financial crisis. A study of the Greek public sector. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(6), 509-519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1491592
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1491592
• Narayanamurthy, G., & Tortorella, G. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on employee performance-moderating role of industry 4.0 base technologies. International Journal of Production Economics, 234, 108075. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108075 PMid:36569040.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108075
• Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527-556. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256591
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256591
• Pakpahan, M., Eliyana, A., Hamidah, A. D. B., & Bayuwati, T. R. (2020). The role of organizational justice dimensions: Enhancing work engagement and employee performance. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(9), 323-332. http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/SRP.2020.9.49
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.31838/SRP.2020.9.49
• Prodanova, J., & Kocarev, L. (2021). Is job performance conditioned by work-from-home demands and resources? Technology in Society, 66, 101672. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101672 PMid:34840365.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101672
• Rahim, M. A., Magner, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisors?: What justice perceptions, precisely? International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 9-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022833
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/eb022833
• Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization: The contribution of perceived organizational support. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(5), 825-836. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825 PMid:11596800.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.825
• Santos, V., Beuren, I. M., & Marques, L. (2021). Fair design and use of the budgetary process and managerial performance. Revista Contabilidade & Finanças, 32(85), 29-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x202010750
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1808-057x202010750
• Silva, M. S., Mendes, A. C. A., Beuren, I. M., Lunkes, R. J., & Kruger, S. D. (2022). Assessing the moderating and mediating role of affective commitment and procedural fairness in the relationship between rewards and job performance. Revista de Educação e Pesquisa em Contabilidade, 16(2), 103-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.17524/repec.v16i2.3079
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.17524/repec.v16i2.3079
• Swalhi, A., Zgoulli, S., & Hofaidhllaoui, M. (2017). The influence of organizational justice on job performance: The mediating effect of affective commitment. Journal of Management Development, 36(4), 542-559. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2015-0162
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-11-2015-0162
• Tetteh, S. D., Osafo, J., Ansah-Nyarko, M., & Amponsah-Tawiah, K. (2019). Interpersonal fairness, willingness-to-stay and organisation-based self-esteem: The mediating role of affective commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1315. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01315 PMid:31244721.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01315
• Tsui, A. S., Pearce, J. L., Porter, L. W., & Tripoli, A. M. (1997). Alternative approaches to the employee-organization relationship: Does investment in employees pay off? Academy of Management Journal, 40(5), 1089-1121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256928
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256928
• Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 115-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60283-X
• Van Scotter, J. R. (2000). Relationships of task performance and contextual performance with turnover, job satisfaction, and affective commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 10(1), 79-95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00040-6
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(99)00040-6
• Wang, X., Liao, J., Xia, D., & Chang, T. (2010). The impact of organizational justice on work performance: Mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader‐member exchange. International Journal of Manpower, 31(6), 660-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011073364
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437721011073364
• Wolor, C. W., Supriyati, Y., & Purwana, D. (2019). Effect or organizational justice, conflict management compensation, work stress, work motivation on employee performance sales people. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 1277-1284. http://dx.doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.74176
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.18510/hssr.2019.74176

Responsible editor:

Profa. Dra. Gina Santos

Reviewers:

Regina Leite; Maria Marques

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  20 Oct 2023
• Date of issue
  Jul-Sep 2023

History

• Received
  25 Nov 2022
• Accepted
  10 Aug 2023