Organizational fairness and task performance: a study between different activities and positions in the justice sector

Justiça organizacional e desempenho de tarefas: um estudo entre diferentes atividades e cargos no setor de justiça

ABSTRACT

Purpose:

This study analyzes the effects of organizational justice on the performance of tasks in the justice sector, divided by activity and position.

Design/methodology/approach:

We applied structural equations to a sample of 474 employees of the Public Prosecutor.

Findings:

A direct and positive effect of distributive justice and interactional justice on task performance was discovered. However, aspects of procedural justice do not have a significant relationship with task performance. The performance of non-core activities is positively influenced by interactional justice and the final activity by distributive justice. As for the positions, the interactional dimension has a significant magnitude in the position of analyst, while the distributive and procedural justice affect the performance of the technician's positions.

Practical implications:

These findings provide an understanding of how organizations can build their organizational structure between middle and end activities, to increase the perception of justice of their servers, and consequently improving the performance of activities.

Originality:

The article explores in an unprecedented way the perception of organizational justice in different work functions - the core activity and the non-core activity.

Keywords:
Server public performance; Public sector; Non-core activities and core activities; Public prosecutor’s office; Justice

RESUMO

Objetivo:

Este estudo analisa os efeitos da justiça organizacional no desempenho das tarefas do setor de justiça, segmentados pelo tipo de atividade e cargo.

Desenho/metodologia/abordagem:

Aplicou-se a análise por equações estruturais a uma amostra de 474 funcionários do Ministério Público.

Resultados:

Foi descoberto um efeito direto e positivo da justiça distributiva e da justiça interacional no desempenho da tarefa. No entanto, os aspectos da justiça processual não têm uma relação significativa com o desempenho da tarefa. O desempenho das atividades meio ou administrativas é influenciado positivamente pela justiça interacional enquanto o servidor em atividade finalística pela justiça distributiva. Quanto aos cargos, a dimensão interacional tem uma magnitude significativa no cargo de analista, enquanto a justiça distributiva e processual afetam o desempenho dos cargos de técnico.

Implicações práticas:

Esses achados proporcionam uma compreensão de como as organizações podem construir sua estrutura organizacional entre atividades intermediárias e finais, com vistas a aumentar a percepção de justiça de seus servidores e, consequentemente, melhorar o desempenho das atividades.

Originalidade:

O artigo explora de forma inédita a percepção de justiça organizacional em distintas funções laborais - a atividade fim e a atividade meio.

Palavras-chave:
Desempenho do servidor público; Setor público; Atividades meio e atividades finalísticas; Ministério público; Justiça

1 INTRODUCTION

Organizational fairness represents the perception of fairness in work relationships, that is, what is fair or unfair. For Cohen (1986), it is achieved when the employee compares the organization’s social behaviors and practices to a moral standard. In this sense, high levels of organizational fairness lead to positive attitudes and behaviors in the workplace, which impact, for example, the effectiveness, performance, and profits of organizations (Rego, 2000).

Organizations are made up of different groups of people, generally segmented by the type of position held and/or the activity performed, which results in different experiences and, possibly, different perceptions about organizational fairness. The careers that make up the bodies of the federal justice system in Brazil (Judiciary Sections, Courts, and Public Prosecution Service) are predominantly composed of judges, ministers, prosecutors and attorneys, technical and analyst’s servants, who are the majority of the staff functional.

One way to delineate the activity performed by staff is the segmentation between core activity and non-core activity. The first refers to acting in tasks related to the organization’s objective, the typical activities of the body - jurisdictional, while the non-core activities are administrative and institutional support. For example, one of the consequences is that servants who exercise jurisdictional activities have less intention of rotation in the Public Ministry (Sallaberry et al., 2021).

The discussion between core and non-core activity has gained social relevance in the last decade due to the possibilities of outsourcing. Initially, outsourcing of administrative activities was allowed, and then there was an expansion to the core activity, in the private sector. Outsourcing implies less social protection for employees (Silva, 2020). In the public sector, only the non-core activity is outsourced, that is, the core activity remains stable.

Another possibility of segmentation is by the type of position. Technicians and analysts are part of the same career as public servants, distinctly from prosecutors and judges, considered “members” of the institutional body. The clearest distinction between the careers is the requirement of a bachelor's degree in the selection of analysts and a technical or high school level requirement for a technician’s position. However, the body staff is predominantly composed of servants with higher degree of education.

The activities of the technician and analyst can be of an administrative or legal nature. In the legal area, analysts carry out planning and coordination activities, with analysis in the procedural stages, and preparation of reports and opinions. The role of the legal technician can be described as performing technical and administrative support tasks, preparing orders, carrying out the opening and closing of procedures, and performing other judicial tasks determined by the members. Therefore, both positions are part of the core activity of the Federal Public Ministry, which is to promote justice through judicial procedures.

Thus, the different perceptions of justice may result from both technicians and analysts being involved in the procedural flow, respectively, in the support or advisory role, but with different remuneration and task complexities, a fact that contributes to the feeling of equity or not. This same analogy of remuneration and complexity can be carried out at the non-core activity, with the exception that the perception of these servers can be aggravated by the fact that the development of their activities is not a direct indicator of the core activity, procedures concluded, and may cause or not the feeling of belonging and distributive, procedural and interactional isonomy.

The analysis of the activity and position cuts allows for assessing more precisely the characteristics that influence the perception of justice. The understanding of organizational justice organizational fairness synthesizes the general perception of fairness (Mohammad et al., 2016) and is associated with several positive behaviors in the workplace (Assmar et al., 2005). Therefore, it is expected that bodies that promote justice to society, have their internal management perceived as fair and equal in relations with their employees, to obtain superior performance in the activities developed. Based on the above, this research aims to analyze the effects of organizational fairness on the performance of tasks of servers of justice, cut by activity and position.

In the organizational literature, studies are focusing on organizational fairness and its effects on individual performance (Jawahar, 2007). However, the emphasis of these researches is on the private context, in which there is less immobilization in the system of promotion and career advancement, being necessary, therefore, to also explore such relationships in the public sector of justice, in which stable employees and careers with benefits limited to those foreseen prevail in law (Andrade, 2016; Sievert et al., 2022).

Still, this study is relevant, as public services increasingly need to maintain the current level of activities with decreasing resources and the payroll is the most significant expense of the justice bodies (Venturini et al., 2020), clearly being the servers of your life force. Thus, the search for better performance by employees is a way to achieve organizational efficiency and effectiveness, combined with the feeling of fair and equitable treatment, both in terms of financial rewards and interpersonal treatment, performance evaluation, and distribution of activities.

Thus, the study advances in discussions that integrate theory and practice, analyzing the influence of the perception of organizational fairness on performance, and considering the positions and activities of public servants. In the theoretical context, it is demonstrated that individual and professional elements affect the motivation or performance of professionals in the field of justice (Sallaberry et al., 2021). From a practical view, it is understood how public organizations can build their organizational structure to increase the perception of justice of their servers, and consequently improve their performance (Andrade, 2016).

2 THEORETICAL REFERENCE

2.1 Labor Activity and Functional Position

The labor aspects can be addressed by segmenting between the core and non-core activity of an organization (Sallaberry et al., 2021). The non-core activity, or administrative activity, is that of operational management to support core activities (Vieira & Vieira, 2003). Santos (2016) highlights that the core activity can be a more bureaucratic or secondary position, as well as the non-core activity, and the top of the administration. The non-core activities are those linked to the administration, in the strict sense, of organizations, while the core activities are the technical activities of organizations (Santos, 2016). Although related to some social functions of public organizations, the secondary and main activities can play different roles, depending on the context. For example, doctors and teachers who carry out the core activity of hospitals and schools, respectively, can act in the non-core activity of a police organization, supporting the health and training of their troops.

The non-core activity is understood as a set of processes and routines for the organization’s maintenance and supply, ensuring the necessary means so that the core activity can be fully carried out (Sallaberry et al., 2021). These activities can be indicated as people management activities, protocols, maintenance of facilities, contracting, and contract management, among others (Balbino & Barbosa, 2018). The positions of servants in the core activity of justice had higher turnover rates than in administrative activities (Sallaberry et al., 2021; Santos, 2016).

In the context of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the core activity is related to the advisory activity, analyzing evidence, researching legislation and jurisprudence, and writing statements, complaints, accusations, and petitions for different purposes in the course of the judicial or extrajudicial process, within the scope of functional exercise (Balbino & Barbosa, 2018; Sallaberry et al., 2021). It is important to highlight that it is not related to a training course or the position held, but to the allocation and performance of specific assignments. Such legal activities described here were qualified for the organization to which the function of defending the legal order, the democratic regime, social and individual interests unavailable in the Brazilian jurisdictional system is constitutionally attributed.

Organizational knowledge is focused on the core activity, overriding managerial knowledge (Fernandes et al., 2007). Vieira and Vieira (2003) highlight the growth of support activities due to structural complexity, undermining the budget of the core activity, denoting bureaucratic inclination due to formal rationality, based on institutionalized rules. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has technicians and analysts, with salary differences, in addition to freely appointed positions - on a commission - who exercises supervision and management with different remuneration - the greater this difference, the closer it is to the organization of the bureaucratic model (Fernandes et al., 2007).

In the justice organizations, there is a difference between the tenure position for stable servers, whose remuneration corresponds to the position disputed in the competition, with their training and attributions, while the supervisory and management positions are distributed at the manager’s discretion, among stable or commissioned servants (of free appointment and dismissal). However, the discussion of the typology of positions should not be restricted to the remuneration structure, being criticized for unfairly leveling differences in quality and performance (Vieira & Vieira, 2003).

Concerning activities, specifically within the scope of the Public Ministry, they can be categorized into purposes of the jurisdictional body (core activity); administrative or non-core activity; and specialized resulting from professional training (Sallaberry et al., 2021). These activities are configured from the performance of different tasks and that can allow the server different perceptions of organizational fairness present in the environment.

2.2 Organizational Fairness and Task Performance

The performance of an individual within the scope of their work is related to the achievement of previously planned goals and depends on some factors, such as: (i) individual (motivation towards the objective); (ii) task (knowing how to do it and having the knowledge to do so, that is, a cognitive condition); (iii) context (support of the environment to perform the task) (Coelho Jr. & Borges-Andrade, 2011; Souza, 2016). Furthermore, performance is related to the quality and quantity of work, the resources spent to carry it out (Souza, 2016), and how the organizational environment in which it is provided is perceived. One of the aspects that affect this perception is organizational justice.

Organizational fairness is a representation of the professional environment and has received attention in the field of organizational behavior, with its importance validated in the literature (Abbas & Wu, 2021). It contemplates a set of perceptions about justice in the individual’s relationships with the organization and its members, that is, it contemplates individuals’ perception of the degree of justice with which they are treated by organizational authorities (Akram et al., 2020). It is usually approached in three dimensions: i) distributive; ii) procedural; and iii) interactional (Karkoulian et al., 2016).

Distributive justice is that related to results or purposes (such as wages, rewards, promotions, profits distributed to workers, and classification obtained in the performance evaluation, among other aspects) (Klein & Colauto, 2020). This approach claims that individuals tend to assess the proportionality between results and the effort required to achieve them, comparing their results with those of others. If the assessment is that there is an equal proportion, there will be feelings of satisfaction and fairness, which will increase satisfaction with the organization and with the work, as well as their intention to remain in the organization. Otherwise, if inequality is perceived, it will lead to negative feelings such as guilt or anger, dissatisfaction with remuneration and promotion, and consequently lower performance (Colquitt et al., 2001; Langevin & Mendoza, 2013).

Procedural justice analyzes the equity between the procedures used in the processes of personnel selection, performance evaluation, decision on employee requests, including regarding remuneration and promotion (Klein & Colauto, 2020). In short, it is related to decision-making processes, that is, to the organizational instruments by which objectives are achieved. In this understanding, Assmar et al. (2005) emphasize the importance of this dimension by pointing out that a situation can be fair if decision procedures are fair, regardless of the results. This procedural fairness in the decision-making process represents how subordinates perceive their superiors when evaluating them (McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992). Procedural justice has a positive relationship with the perception of belonging and participation, although with possible indirect effects on the individual’s performance (Lau & Tan, 2006; Mazzioni et al., 2015; Rengel et al., 2020).

Interactional justice is based on the quality of interpersonal treatment in the organization, or on how management behaves towards the beneficiary of justice (Assmar et al., 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001). It can be observed from two perspectives: (i) interpersonal treatment or the level of equity perceived in the way individuals are treated in the organization; and (ii) focuses on the degree to which the superior provides information and explains/justifies decisions that affect people (Rego, 2002). In synthesis, interactional justice focuses on the interpersonal aspect of organizational practices, such as interpersonal treatment and communication between bosses and subordinates (Klein & Colauto, 2020), and the more positively perceived, the greater tends to be the server’s performance.

In short, distributive justice is associated with individuals’ perception of the results they receive, whereas interactional justice focuses on individuals’ perception about to the communication and interpersonal treatment they obtain from the organization (Akram et al., 2020), and procedural justice is the employees’ reaction to procedural justice. Thus, the directional hypothesis is formulated relating distributive, procedural, and interactional justice to the server’s performance:

Hypothesis 1: Perceptions of (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and (c) interactional justice are positively related to server performance.

Based on the characteristics of each dimension of justice, it is believed that certain aspects can more impactfully affect individual-level variables such as performance. This conjecture is in line with what was suggested by Masterson et al. (2000) that each dimension of justice affects specific organizational outcomes. In this understanding, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2: Distributive justice is more strongly related to server performance than the other dimensions of organizational fairness and organizational fairness.

The promotion of organizational fairness can have a direct and positive effect on the performance and sustainability of an organization (Karkoulian et al., 2016). In this way, the perceptions of collaborators about organizational fairness can promote desired results, such as increased confidence, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, and higher performance (Colquitt et al., 2001). Therefore, it is about not only demanding organizational fairness from officials but also sustaining it throughout the organization (Karkoulian et al., 2016).

The fair treatment of employees/servants is important for organizations as it encourages them to innovate in products, services, and procedures, and is more likely to have positive attitudes and better performance (Matteson et al., 2021). This fair treatment must be equal to everyone, regardless of the type of activity performed (core or non-core) or position held (technician or analyst) (Jang et al., 2021). However, it is believed that the performance of different activities or positions in the same institution results in different perceptions of organizational fairness. In this direction, the third and fourth research hypotheses are presented:

Hypothesis 3: The dimensions of justice (a) distributive, (b) procedural and (c) interactional have different effects on server performance for different types of activity.

Hypothesis 4: The dimensions of justice (a) distributive, (b) procedural and (c) interactional have different effects on the performance of the civil servant for different types of positions.

Based on the literature described in this reference chapter and on the proposed hypotheses, Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of this research.

Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Research

Following the theoretical model and the proposed hypotheses, it is conjectured that the dimensions of organizational fairness positively influence the servant’s performance concerning their tasks. It is proposed that the effects of these relationships are different according to the activities performed and the position held by the server.

3 METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

3.1 Sample Selection

The sample consists of 474 public servants of the Federal Public Ministry, from a group of 4,000 employees selected at random. To validate the sample size, the total effect of the three predictor variables (distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice) on the dependent variable (performance) was considered, with the sufficient sample size being previously calculated, using the G*Power software, with a median effect of 0.15 (F2) and a test power of 95 percent, corresponding to a significance level of 5 percent (F test, LMR, SD 0, a priori), which required a minimum sample of more than 119 valid responses (Cohen, 1988; Faul et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2016).

3.2 Collection Instrument

The collection instrument (Table 1) was made available on a virtual platform, with a link sent by email and answered between February 8 and April 15, 2021. The performance and justice variables come from items validated in the international literature, being the object of back-translation procedures to the local language (Brislin, 1970) and pre-test for external validation. The statements were arranged on a five-point Likert scale (with 1 to ‘Totally Disagree’ until 5 to ‘Totally Agree’). The instrument also supported control variables, such as gender, position, age, and time in the organization.

Table 1
Research Instrument

Variables - Items	ID
Task Performance ( Mahama & Cheng, 2013 ; Souza, 2016 )
Increased accuracy of the work performed.	PER1
Increase in the amount of work performed.	PER1
Increase in operational efficiency.	PER1
Increased satisfaction of my users/bosses.	PER1
Increased punctuality in meeting delivery deadlines.	PER1
Distributive Justice ( Klein & Colauto, 2020 ; Rego, 2002 )
The rewards I get are fair considering my professional experience.	DJ1
The rewards I receive are fair considering my responsibilities at the company.	DJ1
The rewards I receive are fair considering the stress and pressures of my professional activities.	DJ1
The rewards I get are fair, considering how seriously I take my job.	DJ1
The rewards I receive are fair, considering my effort in perfoming the activities assigned to me.	DJ1
Procedural Justice ( Klein & Colauto, 2020 ; Rego, 2002 )
I believe that the criteria used in promotions in my company are fair.	PJ1
I believe that the procedures (administrative, performance evaluation, operational, presentation of goals) of my institution ensure that decisions are made without personal favors.	PJ1
I believe that in my company, decisions are made consistently for all managers.	PJ1
I believe that my organization’s superiors gather accurate information before making professional decisions that affect me.	PJ1
The organization has mechanisms that allow employees to appeal decisions they deem unfair.	PJ1
Interactional Justice ( Klein & Colauto, 2020 ; Rego, 2002 )
My superiors show genuine interest in my professional activities.	IJ1
My superiors treat me honestly and ethically.	IJ1
My superiors are frank and sincere with me.	IJ1
My superiors listen to my views before deciding on matters that concern me.	IJ1

To minimize the bias of the common method (CMB), ethical principles of validity were adopted, such as guaranteeing anonymity, a clear and detailed layout of the constructs and their items, and different weightings of scales to the control variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

4 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

4.1 Respondents Profile

From the sample of 474 servers, 131 are analysts and 303 technicians, in different activities, with 228 identifying themselves in the exercise of the core activity and 205 in the non-core activity. In each model, 40 server’s commissioners without a stable contract and 41 servers specialized in other thematic activities, self-assessed as “neither core, nor non-core”, were disregarded, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Respondent Data

Gender	N	%	Education	N	%
Woman	244	51.5	High school or Technical	18	3.8
Man	228	48.1	University graduate	149	31.4
Rather not answer	2	0.4	Specialization	277	58.4
Activity	N	(%)	Master	28	5.9
Finalistic or Core-activity	228	48.1	Doctorate	2	0.4
Administrative or non-core	205	43.3	Career	N	(%)
Did not indicate	41	8.7	Technician	303	63.9
Time / Years	Med	DP	Analyst	131	27.6
Age	43.1	9.7	Temporary or Requisite	40	8.4
In the organization	12.6	8.1

Among the respondents, 51.48 percent are female, and the majority (58.44%) have a postgraduate degree. On average, the experience of respondents in the organization is 12 years and their average age is 43 years. This time working in the Public Ministry is sufficient to ensure that civil servants understand the organizational fairness structure, supporting minimal biases in their responses to the questionnaire.

4.2 Measurement Model

Data analysis was performed using the technique of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of Partial Least Squares (PLS). For this, the measurement of the model was evaluated, estimating the convergent validity, the Variance Extracted (AVE), the Composite Reliability, and Cronbach’s Alpha, which presented adequate coefficients (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The discriminant validity showed satisfactory indicators in the Fornell-Larcker matrix, as Table 3, with the highest load directed to the corresponding variables, however, the evaluation of cross loads revealed high contributing indicator for more than one variable and others with insufficient loads. Thus, of the 21 indicators of the research instrument (Table 1), only one indicator of the procedural justice variable (PJ5) is excluded.

Table 3
Model Validities

Constructs	Cronbach’s Alpha	Composite Reliability	AVE	R2	Fornell-Larcker
					JD	JI	JP	PER
JD - Distributive Justice	0.972	0.978	0.899	-	0.948
JI - Interactional Justice	0.949	0.959	0.798	-	0.423	0.893
JP - Procedural Justice	0.882	0.920	0.742	-	0.6	0.629	0.861
PER - Performance	0.876	0.910	0.671	0.282	0.251	0.223	0.237	0.819

The AVE loads were statistically significant, that is, with values equal or greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The Composite Reliability indicator met the borderline values considered adequate, as well as Cronbach’s Alpha. These coefficients signal that the sample is theoretically free of bias and that the data collection instrument used is reliable (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). Furthermore, R2 demonstrates that the model explains 28 percent of the individual’s performance in the tasks performed.

4.3 Structural Model

The analysis of the structural model makes it possible to statistically validate the relationships between the constructs and the connections built according to the structure of a path diagram (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). In this evaluation, the criteria of (i) the size and significance of the path coefficients are analyzed; (ii) Pearson’s coefficients of determination (R²) using the Bootstrapping technique; (iii) the Predictive Relevance (Q²) on the blindfolding platform; and the (iv) effect sizes (F²) (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). The VIF ranged from 1.57 to 2.13, lower than the limit of 5 (Hair Jr. et al., 2016), indicating that there is no problem of multicollinearity.

In bootstrapping, subsamples are created with observations taken randomly from the original dataset (with substitution) and then used to estimate the PLS path model. In this case, 5,000 different subsamples were generated, as recommended by Hair Jr et al. (2016), whose results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Results of the Relationships Between the Variables

Sample Relations		General			Activity					Office
		All Sample			Non-core		Core			Analyst		Technical
		β	p-value		β	p-value	β	p-value		β	p-value	β	p-value
JD->PER	H1a	0.162	0.001***	H3a	0.049	0.278 ns	0.245	0.001***	H4a	0.079	0.235 ns	0.104	0.072*
JI->PER	H1b	0.11	0.044**	H3c	0.225	0.004***	0.123	0.101 ns	H4c	0.348	0.001***	0.088	0.138 ns
JP->PER	H1c	0.071	0.144	H3b	0.07	0.217 ns	0.042	0.339 ns	H4b	0.004	0.489 ns	0.14	0.042**

• Note: p-value *** <0.01; ** <0.05; * <0.10

The F² indicator assesses whether there is a substantial impact on the dependent construct when an independent construct is omitted, and considering the F² values suggested by Hair Jr. et al. (2016), there is a small effect of the model. The Q² criterion shows how close the empirical model is to its expected prediction, when greater than zero, while a perfect model would be an indicator equal to 1. The Stone-Geisser Q² (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) is obtained through the procedure blindfolding, which is a sample reuse technique, excluding data points and providing prediction of the original values (Ringle et al., 2015), which was validated in the research for being greater than zero.

Table 4 also reveals the path coefficients, with the research hypotheses tested using t Student test. It is observed that the values of the path coefficients (p-value) are significant at the 1 percent level.

The analysis process required the identification of multigroup relationships (MGA), in which there is an a priori variable to define the comparable groups (Bido & Silva, 2019), whose results are shown in Table 4. This evaluation seeks to: (i) show that the measurement model is invariant (or equivalent) between groups, in the sense that the same construct is measured equally in different groups (Millsap, 2011); (ii) assess whether the relationships between the constructs vary depending on the group (Hair Jr. et al, 2016).

4.4 Discussion of Results

The results obtained partially corroborate the hypotheses proposed in the direction of the research. From the set of organizational fairness dimensions, only distributive justice and interactional justice were significant concerning task performance, that is, for a better performance of the individual, he internalizes the perception of the distribution of benefits and the esteem of interactions in organizations.

In the development of the first hypothesis, the indication that distributive justice influences task performance was statistically corroborated (H1a: β=0.162; p.<0.001). These findings reveal a positive relationship, similar to Klein and Colauto (2020), that is, better rewards (remuneration, benefits, and aids) reflect higher performance. This denotes a sense of equality, satisfaction, and justice, which in the opposite direction is also valid, with a lower sense of justice, there is less satisfaction and belonging and, therefore, lower performance (Colquitt et al., 2001; Langevin & Mendoza, 2013).

The hypothesis that interactional justice influences task performance was statistically supported (H1b: β=0.11; p.=0.044). Thus, in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, there is an association between the perception of interpersonal treatment among the members or received from the superiors with the tasks as suggested by the theory (Assmar et al., 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001; Rego, 2002). This positive relationship denotes that the better and more positive the treatment relationship between its members, the greater and better the performance of their tasks will be (Klein & Colauto, 2020).

The relationship between procedural fairness and task performance was shown to have no statistical significance (H1c: β=0.071; p.<0.144). Therefore, the perception of equity in the procedures used in the selection, evaluation, and decision processes (focus on the process) (Klein & Colauto, 2020), showed no association with the performance of servers. This dispersion in relationships may be related to the fact that some civil servants work closer to decision-making levels, while others work in distant structures in the administrative chain, denoting the possibility that they are dependent on intermediate, moderating, and mediating conditions, following the indication of Lau and Tan (2006).

The second hypothesis was confirmed, revealing that distributive justice is more strongly related to the performance of the server’s task than the other perceptions of organizational fairness (H2: β=0.162; p.<0.001). In addition to supporting findings from previous studies (Masterson et al., 2000), it highlights the utilitarian aspect, as the distribution of benefits is the main element of organizational fairness to motivate the individual.

Sectioning the activity performed, the third hypothesis finds that the proposition of the relationship between distributive justice and performance is valid only in the exercise of the core activity (H3a: non-core β=0.049; p.<0.278 | core β=0.245; p.<0.001). These relationships indicate greater sensitivity of the servants in the jurisdictional area to the allocation of remuneration benefits, and this appetite for positions with a greater number of benefits makes the group with the highest rate of turnover (Sallaberry et al., 2021).

In contrast, the association of interactional justice with task performance was significant only in the non-core activity (H3b: non-core β=0.225; p.<0.001 | core β=0.123; p.<0.101). This evidence denotes appreciation, mainly, of the relationships between individuals, their colleagues, and bosses, for a more community and efficient environment, which escapes the bureaucratic stereotype traditionally attributed to this group (Vieira & Vieira, 2003).

The stratification of the analysis between procedural fairness and task performance, as in H1c, did not reveal a statistically significant association (H3c: non-core β=0.07; p.<0.217 | core β=0.042; p.<0.339). This reinforces a relative perception of procedural equality about the decision-making process, even though other sample cuts or mediating and moderating factors can affect different perceptions of procedural justice in the organization.

Professionals in support or non-core activities perceive the quality of interpersonal treatment and this contributes to the performance of their tasks, while servants in the judicial area conceive the justice of the results achieved, affecting their performance. This may be due to the idiosyncrasies of the core activity, which instructs processes for judgment, that is, the performance of servers is even more essential for the organization to achieve its purposes.

The separation between groups guided the fourth hypothesis, through the job typology variable (analysts and technicians). The distributive justice and performance showed a relationship only between technicians (H4a: analyst β=0.079; p.<0.235 | technician β=0.104; p.<0.072). This can be explained by the remuneration distinctions between the positions, for example, both in the legal area and in the administrative area, the technician is located at the base of the remuneration structure of the organization, and seems to be more sensitive to the perception of distributive justice than the analysts’ servers.

Between interactional fairness and inverted task performance in position typologies, significantly only for analysts (H4b: analyst β= 0.348; p.<0.001 | β=0.088; p.<0.138). These findings reflect the internal management connections of the organization (Fernandes et al., 2007), reinforcing the evidence of the importance of the non-core activity (H3b), even though management posts are allocated (distributively) to members of any type of position, in principle, based on efficiency and meritocracy.

The distinction of job typology proves to be relevant to explain the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and task performance, rejected to hypothesis from the general group (H1c) and for the different activity groups (H3c). The influence of procedural justice denotes consistency to elucidate the performance of the task in the group of servants who occupy technical positions (H4c: analyst β=0.004; p.<0.489 | technician β=0.14; p.<0.042), characterizing the importance attributed to the evaluation and decision processes (Klein & Colauto, 2020). The different perceptions of civil servants contribute to the bodies being able to motivate their employees through the promotion of organizational fairness in a broad way and with reinforcement for the different segments. Therefore, fair treatment elevates perceptions of fairness, acceptance of decisions and elicits positive reactions from employees.

5 CONCLUSIONS

The study aimed to analyze the effects of organizational fairness on the performance of tasks of public prosecutors, divided by activity and position, applicable to other careers in the structures of the federal justice system. Among the results, the direct and positive effect of distributive justice and interactional justice on the performance of servers was evidenced, differently from what was evidenced for procedural justice.

Regarding the segmentation by activities, the performance of the support (non-core) activities is positively influenced by interactional justice and the core activity by distributive justice. In this way, it is demonstrated that the perception of interactional and distributive justice can strengthen the performance of servants. Regarding the positions, of analysts and technicians, there are also different perceptions of organizational fairness in the same body. The relationships are positive, but only the interactional dimension is significant to the position of analyst, while distributive and procedural justice affect the performance of the technician’s activities.

5.1 Theoretical and Practical Implications

The results allow us to understand that, in the employees’ perception, the fair distribution of financial rewards and other work-related rewards, as well as the equity in the communication of decisions in the organization, contribute to the good development of their activities. On the other hand, the fairness of the procedures used in organizational decision-making is not very relevant as organizational support for the performance of duties, except for technicians.

Therefore, it would be necessary to develop strategies that raise the perception of justice regarding the procedures adopted for the distribution of tasks and decisions. One possibility is to explain more frequently to servants the criteria used in appointments and mechanisms they can use when they judge unfair decisions, including performance and operational evaluations and goal setting.

Other management strategies can be adopted to improve perceptions of justice, given that remuneration is derived from legislation that governs the structure of positions and remuneration in the organization, as well as the existence of segregation of administrative activities, and the complexities of the functions of analysts and technicians. These actions may involve compensatory compensation through gratified functions for its members, training for knowledge development, and management of the quality of interpersonal relationships, among others, seeking to encourage the use of prior communications by superiors concerning rewards, decision-making, and providing feedback.

The effort to develop such procedures will make employees feel confident and valued at work. This will promote the employees’ self-esteem in the workplace and a sense of belonging to the organization which will provide an increase in the performance of their activities. This better performance of the server reflects the improvement of the organization’s performance and, consequently, of the provision of jurisdictional public service to society, which is why it should not be treated as a problem of the server’s quality of life, but as a strategic instrument of public policy.

About the theoretical implications, it contributes to the literature by emphasizing the relations of organizational fairness and task performance with public servants in the judicial field and allowing the discussion in new contexts. In addition, it generates reflections about the perceptions of the servers on the theoretical variables. While the confirmed hypotheses follow the theoretical proposition of seminal and empirical studies, the rejection of the proposed relationships denotes contexts and potential variables that sterilize such relationships, that is, situations that invalidate the traditional theoretical proposition and can give rise to new variables for the literature, as is the case of the typologies of activities (core and non-core) and positions (analyst and technician), in addition to revealing specificities of the field of administration of justice.

5.2 Limitations and Future Research

In the development of this research, some limitations were identified. One of them concerns the focus given to public servants in a single organization, which in a way makes it impossible to generalize the results to other contexts, thus requiring parsimony in inferences. Another limitation concerns the fact that the data were collected through a closed questionnaire and treated quantitatively, requiring potential qualitative triangulations, such as interviews, for greater depth in the interpretations.

Based on the proposed model, the results obtained and the limitations evidenced, some possibilities for future studies are observed. First, it is recommended to address other factors of justice, such as social justice. A second possibility is to consider the potential relationships between organizational fairness and other variables related to the server’s work, such as effectiveness and/or tasks, satisfaction, commitment, organizational identification, and engagement. In this direction, it is suggested to carry out studies with servants of other public organizations and State structures. Another factor is that although demographic factors were collected, not all had their effects tested. A mixed method approach, analyzing quantitative and qualitative data would also provide a greater depth of understanding of the research field.

REFERENCES

• Abbas, W., & Wu, W. (2021). Organizational Justice, Leader Humility, and Service Employees’ Innovative Behavior in a Collectivistic Culture: The Case of Pakistan. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios, 23, 153-179.
• Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020). The impact of organizational justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117-129.
• Andrade, S. M. (2016). Qualidade de vida no trabalho: proposta de um modelo integrador do BPSO com justiça organizacional para o bem-estar de servidores públicos. Tese (Doutorado em Administração), Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.
• 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.
• Balbino, A., & Barbosa, M. A. C. (2018). O sentido do trabalho para os servidores da justiça federal em Alagoas. Pensamento & Realidade, 33(4), 77-96.
• Bido, D. S., & Silva, D. (2019). SmartPLS 3: especificação, estimação, avaliação e relato. Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa, 20(2), 488-536.
• Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 1(3), 185-216.
• Coelho Junior, F. A., & Borges-Andrade, J. E. (2011). Discussão sobre algumas contribuições da modelagem multinível para a investigação de desempenho. Psico-USF, 16, 135-142.
• Cohen, R. L. (Ed.). (1986). Justice: Views from the social sciences. Springer.
• Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425-445.
• Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149-1160.
• Fernandes, D. C., Neves, J. A., & Helal, D. H. (2007). Autoridade e capital humano em organizações centradas no conhecimento: o caso do setor elétrico em Pernambuco. Organizações & Sociedade, 14(40), 121-136.
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(3), 382-388
• Geisser, S. (1974). A Predictive Approach to the Random Effects Model. Biometrika, 61(1), 101-107.
• Hair, J. F. Jr, Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2016). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications.
• Jang, J., Lee, D. W., & Kwon, G. (2021). An analysis of the Influence of organizational justice on organizational commitment. International Journal of Public Administration, 44(2), 146-154.
• Jawahar, I. M. (2007). The influence of perceptions of fairness on performance appraisal reactions. Journal of Labor Research, 28(4), 735-754.
• Karkoulian, S., Assaker, G., & Hallak, R. (2016). An empirical study of 360-degree feedback, organizational justice, and firm sustainability. Journal of Business Research, 69(5), 1862.
• Klein, L., & Colauto, R. D. (2020). Percepção de justiça organizacional em contratos de incentivos e seu efeito na congruência entre objetivos pessoais e organizacionais. Revista Brasileira de Gestão de Negócios , 22, 582-607.
• Langevin, P., & Mendoza, C. (2013). How can management control system fairness reduce managers’ unethical behaviours? European Management Journal, 31(3), 209-222.
• Lau, C. M., & Tan, S. L. C. (2006). The effects of procedural fairness and interpersonal trust on job tension in budgeting. Management Accounting Research, 17(2), 171-186.
• Mahama, H., & Cheng, M. M. (2013). The effect of managers enabling perceptions on costing system use, psychological empowerment, and task performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 25(1), 89-114.
• Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4), 738-748.
• Matteson, M. L., Ming, Y., & Silva, D. E. (2021). The relationship between work conditions and perceptions of organizational justice among library employees. Library & Information Science Research, 43(2).
• McFarlin, D. B., & Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and Procedural Justice as Predictors of Satisfaction with Personal and Organizational Outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal , 35(3), 626-637.
• Mazzioni, S., Politelo, L., & Lavarda, C. (2015). A Percepção dos Gestores em Relação à Participação Orçamentária, à Justiça Procedimental e ao Desempenho Gerencial. Sociedade, Contabilidade e Gestão, 9(2), 136-151.
• Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
• Mohammad, J., Quoquab, F., Makhbul, Z. M., & Ramayah, T. (2016). Bridging the gap between justice and citizenship behavior in Asian culture. Cross Cultural & Strategic Management, 23(4), 633-656.
• Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology , 88(5), 879-903.
• Rengel, R., Monteiro, J. J., Lunkes, R. J., Lavarda, C. E. F., & Schnorrenberger, D. (2020). Efeito das Características dos Gestores na Participação Orçamentária mediado pela Percepção de Justiça Processual. Journal of Accounting, Management and Governance, 23(2), 256-275.
• Rego, A. (2000). Justiça organizacional: Desenvolvimento e validação de um instrumento de medida. Psicologia, 14(2), 286-307.
• Rego, A. (2002). Comprometimento afectivo dos membros organizacionais: o papel das percepções de justiça. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, 6, 209-241.
• Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. Boenningstedt: SmartPLS GmbH. http://www.smartpls.com
  » http://www.smartpls.com
• Sallaberry, J. D., Santos, E. A., Bortoluzzi, D. A., & Lunkes, R. J. (2021). Características de Perfil dos Servidores do Ministério Público e sua Relação com a Intenção de Turnover. Administração Pública e Gestão Social, 13(3).
• Santos, W. G. dos. (2016). A Elite invisível: explorações sobre a tecnocracia federal brasileira. Revista do Serviço Público, 67(3), 463 - 481.
• Silva, J. O. (2020). A terceirização de atividade-fim e a (des) proteção aos direitos sociais. Revista Trabalhista: Direito e Processo, 18(62), 54-73.
• Sievert, M., Vogel, D., & Feeney, M. K. (2022). Formalization and Administrative Burden as Obstacles to Employee Recruitment: Consequences for the Public Sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 42(1), 3-30.
• Souza, G. E. (2016). Influência do desenho e uso do sistema de mensuração de desempenho na satisfação e desempenho de tarefas por meio da clareza de papéis e empowerment psicológico. Dissertação (Mestrado em Contabilidade) - Universidade Federal do Paraná.
• Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 36(2), 111-147.
• Venturini, L. D. B., Souza, A. R. L., & Bianchi, M. (2020). Eficiência na Alocação dos Recursos Públicos do Poder Judiciário: Um Estudo na 4ª Região Federal. Contabilidade Vista & Revista, 31(3), 26-51.
• Vieira, E. F., & Vieira, M. M. (2003). Estrutura organizacional e gestão do desempenho nas universidades federais brasileiras. Brazilian Journal of Public Administration, 37(4), 899.

• Plagiarism Check

  The ReA/UFSM maintains the practice of submitting all documents approved for publication to the plagiarism check, using specific tools, e.g.: Turnitin.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 May 2023
• Date of issue
  2023

History

• Received
  28 Oct 2022
• Accepted
  15 Jan 2023
• Published
  29 Mar 2023