· Blind allegiance and personal self-interestsshould may not narrowed the purpose and concepts of the justice.
Shortly 42- (Dirksand Ferrin, 2002) says that Justice in the processes though rewards allocationdecisions for everyone called procedural justice. Procedural justice perceptionmays go wrong by any violation and mistake in decision making, 41- (Leventhalet al., 1980), 43- (Kickul et al., 2005).
Third type oforganizational justice is interactional justice which deals with the waysthrough which parties approaches each other and put its most interest on theinterpersonal treatment from managers to their subordinates. Procedural justicealways focus on the ways and processes through which outcomes and rewards areallocated, while interactional justice put its interests on the individual’sperceptions on the interactional treatment between each other, 44- (Elicker etal., 2006). It shows the social view of the procedural justice.
It focuses onthe interpersonal treatment between individuals while procedures are validatedand applied, it is promoted when managers treat individual with respect andresponsiveness and it explains the logic between all decisions thoroughly, 45-(Bies & Moag, 1986). This formulate has further searched and divided in twosub- dimensions. First is Interpersonal justice which deals with the scale of gentility,respect and dignity reveals by authorities in maintaining the outcomes. And thesecond is informational Justice, it should focus on every type of explanationgiven to people that provide information about means and procedures used in aspecific way or why rewards and outcomes for achievements were divided in a specificway called informational justice 36- (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson and Porter,2001).46- (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992) conducted a research andmake tests on the interaction pattern by referent cognition theory, states as,every employee evaluate his experience at work which reflect on “what shouldhave been” under different conditions, 47- (Folger, 1986). It is also stayconsistent with previous studies, 48- (Samad, 2006a), 49- (Samad, 2006b), 08-(Folger & Kanovosky, 1989).
Both procedural and distributive justice arethe notable anticipator of every outcome variable including organizationalcommitment, job satisfaction and employee’ intention to leave 38- (Biby,2008). Every researcher inspects that there is strength of every predictiveability 08- ((Folger and Konovsky, 1989), 50- (Harvey & Haines, 2005),46- (McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992). McFarlin and Sweeney proposed that most dominantanticipator of organizational outcomes is procedural justice while strongeranticipator of individual outcomes is distributive justice. They judge that satisfactionand turnover are the individual outcome rather than organizational outcome 51-(Harris et al.
, 2007).The Literature showsthat organizational justice is in concern of many work outcomes including butnot limited to organization commitment, job satisfaction and employee intentionto leave 07- (Colquit, 2001). There are three dimensions of organizationaljustice to be related to albeit differentially and to work related behaviorsand attitudes of employees by the consistent findings of researchers 07- (Colquittet al., 2001), 32- (Aryee et al., 2002). By 52- (Welbourne et al.
,1995) Organizationaljustice has number of anticipators of outcomes including employee, leadersatisfaction performance appraisals reactions 53- (Greenberg, 1986), 54- (Kidwelland Bennett, 1994), 55- (Thomas and Bretz, 1994), and the likelihood ofemployees and managers to use new systems 56- (Blancero and Dyer, 1996). Thereare situations also happens in organizations where with lack of justice negativeconsequences happens 57- (Chen, 2000). Such as low performance, decreasedorganizational commitment, higher turnover intentions, decreased citizenship behaviorand 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-(Greenberg,1990b). Moreover, injustices perceived has connection other HR programs such asdecision regarding pay-raise and drug-testing programs 08- (Folger &Konovsky, 1989), 30- (Haar & Spell, 2009). By studying previous researchtwo main hypothesis have been developed.