Blind allegiance and personal self-interests
should may not narrowed the purpose and concepts of the justice.

Shortly 42- (Dirks
and Ferrin, 2002) says that Justice in the processes though rewards allocation
decisions for everyone called procedural justice. Procedural justice perception
mays go wrong by any violation and mistake in decision making, 41- (Leventhal
et al., 1980), 43- (Kickul et al., 2005).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Third type of
organizational justice is interactional justice which deals with the ways
through which parties approaches each other and put its most interest on the
interpersonal treatment from managers to their subordinates. Procedural justice
always focus on the ways and processes through which outcomes and rewards are
allocated, while interactional justice put its interests on the individual’s
perceptions on the interactional treatment between each other, 44- (Elicker et
al., 2006). It shows the social view of the procedural justice. It focuses on
the interpersonal treatment between individuals while procedures are validated
and applied, it is promoted when managers treat individual with respect and
responsiveness and it explains the logic between all decisions thoroughly, 45-
(Bies & Moag, 1986). This formulate has further searched and divided in two
sub- dimensions. First is Interpersonal justice which deals with the scale of gentility,
respect and dignity reveals by authorities in maintaining the outcomes. And the
second is informational Justice, it should focus on every type of explanation
given to people that provide information about means and procedures used in a
specific way or why rewards and outcomes for achievements were divided in a specific
way called informational justice 36- (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson and Porter,

46- (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) conducted a research and
make tests on the interaction pattern by referent cognition theory, states as,
every employee evaluate his experience at work which reflect on “what should
have been” under different conditions, 47- (Folger, 1986). It is also stay
consistent with previous studies, 48- (Samad, 2006a), 49- (Samad, 2006b), 08-
(Folger & Kanovosky, 1989). Both procedural and distributive justice are
the notable anticipator of every outcome variable including organizational
commitment, job satisfaction and employee’ intention to leave 38- (Biby,
2008). Every researcher inspects that there is strength of every predictive
ability 08- ((Folger and Konovsky, 1989), 50- (Harvey & Haines, 2005),
46- (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). McFarlin and Sweeney proposed that most dominant
anticipator of organizational outcomes is procedural justice while stronger
anticipator of individual outcomes is distributive justice. They judge that satisfaction
and turnover are the individual outcome rather than organizational outcome 51-
(Harris et al., 2007).

The Literature shows
that organizational justice is in concern of many work outcomes including but
not limited to organization commitment, job satisfaction and employee intention
to leave 07- (Colquit, 2001). There are three dimensions of organizational
justice to be related to albeit differentially and to work related behaviors
and attitudes of employees by the consistent findings of researchers 07- (Colquitt
et al., 2001), 32- (Aryee et al., 2002). By 52- (Welbourne et al.,1995) Organizational
justice has number of anticipators of outcomes including employee, leader
satisfaction performance appraisals reactions 53- (Greenberg, 1986), 54- (Kidwell
and Bennett, 1994), 55- (Thomas and Bretz, 1994), and the likelihood of
employees and managers to use new systems 56- (Blancero and Dyer, 1996). There
are situations also happens in organizations where with lack of justice negative
consequences happens 57- (Chen, 2000). Such as low performance, decreased
organizational commitment, higher turnover intentions, decreased citizenship behavior
and theft 35- (Cropanzona & Greenberg, 1997), 58- (Folger &
Cropanzona, 1998), 59- (Greenberg 1990c, 2002), job performance decreased,
60- (Pfeffer & Langton, 1993), quality of work decreased 61- (Cowherd
& Levine, 1992), moral outrage, self-image fade and frustration 62-
1990b). Moreover, injustices perceived has connection other HR programs such as
decision regarding pay-raise and drug-testing programs 08- (Folger &
Konovsky, 1989), 30- (Haar & Spell, 2009). By studying previous research
two main hypothesis have been developed.