非營利組織的志工動機對情感承諾關係之研究:以組織公正為調節變項

全文

(1)Motivations and Affective Commitment of Volunteers in a Non-Profit Organization – the Moderating Effect of Perceived Organizational Justice. by Ling-Li Chin. A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION Major: International Human Resource Development. Advisor: C. Rosa Yeh, Ph.D.. National Taiwan Normal University Taipei, Taiwan June, 2015.

(2) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Chu-Chen Rosa Yeh for her support, patience, immense knowledge, and excellent guidance of my thesis. I am deeply grateful to her for the long meetings that helped me sort out the details of my work, for carefully reading and commenting on countless revisions of this manuscript, and most importantly, for holding me to a high research standard and enforcing strict validations for each research result. I could not imagine having a better an advisor and mentor for my thesis study.. My sincere thanks also go to my committee members, Dr. Yi-Chun Jane Lin and Dr. Angela Shin-Yih Chen. I am truly grateful for their patience in reading my endless pages of thesis. Thank you for their insightful comments, guidance, and valuable discussions that helped me understands my research area better.. I am also grateful to Dr. Larry Miller and Dr. Wei-Wen Chang for their practical advice in research methods. Their profound knowledge of research methods was the key in guiding me how to do a good research.. Special thanks to Maggie Huang and Nicole Lin for their mental support, and John Sun for his technical support and creativity in designing the questionnaire. Maggie and Nicole are my extended family who has aided in encouraging me through this endeavor. I was grateful to have them accompany me throughout my stressful moments.. To my IHRD friends, Jerry, Judy, Rosy, Fran, Kai, Janell, Warisa, Lahela, Sofana, Irina, Awa, Helene, Carlos, Carol, Fryda, Jeanine, Julie, Maggie, and Will for making graduate life a wonderful experience. We were meant to be brought together from different parts of world, and supported each other through difficult times. Thank you Jessica, Kate, and Tracy for providing all the administrative support!. Lastly, I would like to express my deepest and wholehearted thanks to my parents for giving me strength, unconditional love, and freedom in achieving my goals..

(3) ABSTRACT Prior studies of organizational justice focused on employees in the for-profit sector, while little work has contributed to volunteers in the non-profit organizations. This study examined how motivations and justice perceptions affect volunteer’s psychological attachment to their voluntary organization. Samples were drawn from volunteers serving in an international humanitarian and non-governmental organization. A survey questionnaire was developed to collect data on the demographics and the study variables of organizational justices, volunteer motivations and affective commitment. A total of 432 valid questionnaires were received and analyzed. Hierarchical regression was adopted to test hypotheses, which found support for the relationship between intrinsic motivation and affective commitment, and partial support for the relationship between certain types of extrinsic motivations (self-esteem and understanding) and affective commitment. In addition, some forms of perceived organizational justices (distributive, procedural, and interactional justice) have a significant but partial moderating effect on the relationship between types of motivation (intrinsic, self-esteem, and understanding) and affective commitment. Implications for the relationship between perceived organizational justices, types of motivation, and affective commitment were discussed. Keywords: Volunteer, Affective Commitment, Motivations, Perceived Organizational Justice. I.

(4) TABLE OF CONTENTS. ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................... I TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................... II LIST OF TABLES ..............................................................................................IV LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................VI CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 1 Background of the Study .................................................................................................... 1 Problem Statement ............................................................................................................. 3 Rationale of the Study ........................................................................................................ 4 Significance of the Study ................................................................................................... 7 Purpose of the Study .......................................................................................................... 7 Scope of the Study.............................................................................................................. 8 Research Questions ............................................................................................................ 8 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................ 9. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................... 10 Volunteer .......................................................................................................................... 10 Organizational Commitment ............................................................................................ 16 Volunteer Motivations...................................................................................................... 23 Perceived Organizational Justice ..................................................................................... 32. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 40 Research Framework ........................................................................................................ 40 Research Hypothesis ........................................................................................................ 41 Research Procedure .......................................................................................................... 42 Research Design ............................................................................................................... 43 Sample .............................................................................................................................. 44 II.

(5) Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 45 Questionnaire Design ....................................................................................................... 46 Measurements................................................................................................................... 46 Validity and Reliability .................................................................................................... 59 Data Analysis ................................................................................................................... 70. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS .................................... 72 Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................................ 72 Pearson Correlation Analysis ........................................................................................... 77 Hierarchical Regression Analysis .................................................................................... 82 Hypotheses Testing .......................................................................................................... 92. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS ................................ 93 Conclusion........................................................................................................................ 93 Research Implications ...................................................................................................... 95 Practical Implications ....................................................................................................... 96 Research Limitations ........................................................................................................ 97 Future Research Suggestions ........................................................................................... 97. REFERENCES.................................................................................................... 98 APPENDIX: MEASUREMENTS AND QUESTIONNAIRE ......................... 113. III.

(6) LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1. Pure and Broad Definitions of the Term Volunteer…………………………….…12 Table 2.2. Definitions and Operationalization of Organizational Commitment……………..17 Table 2.3. Functions Served by Volunteering and Their Assessment on the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI)………………………………………...…………….…………...28 Table 2.4. The Volunteer Motivation Inventory (VMI).….…………………………………..30 Table 3.1. Scale of Intrinsic Motivation...…………………….……………….……………..49 Table 3.2. Scale of Extrinsic Motivation..…………………………….…….………………..51 Table 3.3. Scale of Affective Commitment………...……………………………....…….…..55 Table 3.4. Scale of Distributive Justice………………………………………..………….….57 Table 3.5. Scale of Procedural Justice………………………………….…………………….57 Table 3.6 Scale of Interactional Justice.……………………………………………………...58 Table 3.7 Summary of Good-Fit Criteria…………………………………………….………60 Table 3.8 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Measurement Model of Intrinsic Motivation Scale.…………….…………………………………………………………………...………62 Table 3.9 Summary Model of the Cross-Validation for the Intrinsic Motivation Scale……………………………………………………………………………………….…62 Table 3.10 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Measurement Model of Extrinsic Motivation Scale………………………………………………………………...………………………..64 Table 3.11 Summary Model of the Cross-Validation for Extrinsic Motivation Scale……………………………………………………….…………………………………64 Table 3.12 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Measurement Model of Affective Commitment Scale……………………………………..………………………..………………………….66 Table 3.13 Summary Model of the Cross-Validation for the Affective Commitment Scale………………………………………………………………………...………………..66 IV.

(7) Table 3.14 Summary of Goodness-of-fit for Measurement Model of Organizational Justice Scale………………………………………………………..……………………...…………67 Table 3.15 Summary Model of the Cross-Validation for the Organizational Justice Scale……………………………………………………………………………………….....67 Table 3.16 Cronbach’s Alpha of Measurements (n=432).…………………...…………….…69 Table 4.1 Descriptive Statistics on Sample Characteristics……………..…………………...75 Table 4.2 Mean, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and Reliability………..……………….81 Table 4.3 Result of Hierarchical Regression Analysis on the Moderating Effects (n=432)……………………………..………………………………………………………...83 Table 4.4 Hypotheses Testing Results Summary…………………….………………………92. V.

(8) LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. A three-component model of organizational commitment……………..…..……19 Figure 2.2. A taxonomy of human motivation………………………...…….………...……..25 Figure 3.1. Research framework………………………...…………………….……….…….41 Figure 3.2. Research procedure………………………………………………………………43 Figure 3.3. Measurement model of intrinsic motivation……………………………..………63 Figure 3.4. Measurement model of extrinsic motivation………………….…………………65 Figure 3.5. Measurement model of affective commitment…………..………………………66 Figure 3.6. Measurement model of organizational justice...…………………………………68 Figure 4.1. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived distributive justice on intrinsic motivation and affective commitment…………………………….………………...87 Figure 4.2. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived distributive justice on understanding and affective commitment………………………….………………………...88 Figure 4.3. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived procedural justice on self-esteem and affective commitment……………………...………………………………..89 Figure 4.4. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived interactional justice on self-esteem and affective commitment…………………………………...…………………..90 Figure 4.5. Interaction plot for the moderating effect of perceived interactional justice on understanding and affective commitment……………………………………………....……91. VI.

(9) CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION. This chapter provides an overview of the study and addresses the background of the study, problem statement, rationale of the study, significance of the study, purpose of the study, scope of the study, research questions, and definitions of terms.. Background of the Study Volunteers are significant contributors to the community who serve in the non-profit organizations (NPOs) to administer a wide array of social and psychological welfares for the community. As the world undergoes a series of unexpected natural disasters, financial and political crisis and deals with the problem of aging population and poverty, there is an increase reliance on volunteers over the past two decades (Brudney, 1992; Cnaan & Cascio, 1998). Non-profit organizations exhibit the core characteristics of being organized, private, non-profit-distributing, self-governing and voluntary (Salamon & Anheier, 1997). In most countries, NPOs serve significant roles in social welfare legislation, demographic and cultural shifts, increased prosperity and a changing role of the state (Ben-Ner & Gui, 1993). The key success to enhance the development of non-profit organizations depends on managing and retaining non-profit workers. The presence of numerous non-profit organizations around the world has challenged non-profit workers to develop strategies in sustaining financial and human capital. Volunteers are one of the most important human capitals of non-profit organizations. In the era of globalization, a number of voluntary organizations have. 1.

(10) expanded overseas to promote social welfares at the international market. This further diversified the pool of volunteers. Volunteers cannot be considered as one large homogenous group, but are individuals of all ages with diverse backgrounds and a variety of experiences and skills (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). Non-profit organizations not only need to understand what motivates volunteers to join but also what keeps them stay in the organization (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). In contrast to the paid workers in the private sector, the volunteers in the non-profit sector are not motivated through monetary or instrumental rewards (Pearce, 1993). Instead, volunteers find the activity itself to be intrinsically rewarding. The main concern of managing volunteers is that the voluntary organizations cannot force volunteers to work on a fixed schedule like a paid employee; volunteers decide themselves whether or not to devote to an activity. Consensus are even harder to reach when individuals have different opinions on what is considered adequate management styles in planning, organizing and leading voluntary activities. One aspect of voluntary personnel is that volunteers desire to make personal contribution and do not wish to be managed or supervised (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998). Every individual have their own way of doing things. Managing a diverse group of volunteers may become difficult as individuals come from different backgrounds and have diverged perceptions toward voluntary activities. Volunteers often have flexible working schedules and do not always feel bound by the norms and values of an organization. They may pay less attention to the requirement to report or to follow administrative instructions (Cooley, Singer, & Irvin, 1989; Milligan, Maryland, Ziegler, & Ward,. 2.

(11) 1987). In addition, volunteers often recruited themselves into the voluntary organization and may choose to leave whenever they want. Non-profit agencies may be reluctant to evaluate the work of volunteers because devoting to community service is considered to be priceless, while evaluating volunteers may question their efforts (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998).. Problem Statement Voluntary associations or organizations are described as “groups of people who offer the chance to come together with others to create or participate for collective benefit” (Bishop & Hoggett, 1986, p.198). When volunteers involve themselves in a non-profit organization, they are concerned with their participation, shared objectives and resources, mutuality, and fairness (Lohmann, 1992). Pondy (1967) has identified four aspects of conflict: (1) antecedent conditions (e.g. scarce resources), (2) affective states (e.g. tension or anxiety), (3) cognitive states (e.g. cognitive conflict of perception of conflict), and (4) conflictual behavior (overt disagreement or resistance). Schwenk (1990) proposed that volunteers do face conflicts when it comes to the competition of scarce resources, diverged perceptions, and disagreements of a matter. Conflicts get tense when emotions are involved among the group. How organizations deal with conflicts will form a perception of justice, or the lack of it, among members. Therefore, it is interesting to study how organizational justice perceptions may affect volunteer’s psychological attachment to the organization.. 3.

(12) Rationale of the Study Since volunteers are described as labor in an organizational context, unpaid and without any obligations, for the benefit of others and/or society (Meijs, 1997), to better assess the retention of volunteers in non-profit organizations, affective commitment was found to be relevant in volunteer organizations (Dawley, Stephens, & Stephens, 2005; Preston & Brown, 2004; Stephens, Dawley, & Stephens, 2004). Meyer and Allen (1991) described that affective commitment has a negative direct impact on turnovers. In addition, affective commitment was found to be the strongest form of commitment to attendance and performance of the job (Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topolnytsky, 2002). Thus, affective commitment is chosen as the outcome variable of this study. Gardner and Lambert (1972) identified motivations in two basic orientations (not types) – instrumental and integrative orientations. In the instrumental side of dichotomy (or extrinsic motivation), a volunteer who choose to participate in voluntary work has the intention of attaining instrumental goals such as networking, and career development. The integrative side (or intrinsic motivation) describes more of those who wish to integrate themselves into the values of the organization and do volunteering for self-interest, enjoyment, and inherent satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Clary and Snyder (1999) have discussed that different people engage in the same volunteer activity do possess different motivations to commit in volunteerism, ranging from the need of achievement, power, affiliation (McClelland, Atkinson, & Lowell, 1953), for the altruistic and egoistic motives (Horton-Smith, 1981), and to the. 4.

(13) functional motives of values, understanding, career, social, esteem and protective (Clary, Snyder, & Ridge, 1992) with the additional functional dimensions of reciprocity, recognition, reactivity and social interaction (Esmond & Dunlop, 2004). Pinder (1998) described that motivation is “a set of energizing forces” (p.11), which will enhance individuals’ course of action or behavior (Meyer & Herscovitc, 2001, p.301). Thus, the two aspects of volunteer motivations: intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are proposed to have a positive and significant impact on affective commitment. Organizational justice was defined as three major aspects: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Folger & Konovsky, 1989). Prior research has linked justice perceptions to organizational outcomes including outcomes of job satisfaction (Martin & Bennett, 1996; Mossholder, Bennett, & Martin, 1998), organizational commitment (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992), trust in management (Brockner, Siegel, Daly, Martin, & Tyler, 1997; Bruning, Keup, & Cooper 1996), and turnover intentions (Daly & Geyer, 1994). However, limited researches were done to examine perceived justice specifically on affective commitment. Greenberg (1990a) refers to organizational justice as people's perceptions of the fairness of treatment received from organizations, and is an important rubric used to explain effective functioning of organizations. Researchers have found that individuals who perceive fairness and procedural justice can serve to maintain intra-group harmony (Schroeder, Steel, Woodell, & Bem-benk, 2003) and allow people to be more cooperative (DeCremer & Tyler, 2004).. 5.

(14) Adams (1965), Thibaut and Walker (1975), Bies and Moag (1986) Greenberg (1987a), and Rawls (1999) have distinguished two major forms of organizational justice as distributive and procedural justice. Distributive justice deals with the “ends” achieved (what the decisions are) or the content of fairness, whereas procedural justice is related to the “means” used to achieve those ends (how decisions are made) or the process of fairness (Greenberg, 1990a). Although Colquitt (2001) have advanced the discussion of organizational justice to include also interpersonal and informational justice, organizational justice is most commonly referred to as distributive and procedural justices (Barling & Phillips, 1993). Bies and Moag (1986) proposed interactional justice to be the third type of justice (Aquino, 1995; Barling & Phillips, 1993; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Tata & Bowes-Sperry, 1996). In addition, Moorman (1991) had found that interactional justice appeared to be a stronger predictor in determining employees’ behavior in organizations than formal procedural justice. On the other hand, many studies argued that the procedural justice has a stronger relationship with organizational commitment than distributive justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Martin & Bennett, 1996). Lowe and Vodanovich (1995) argued that there is a stronger relationship between distributive justice and organizational commitment than for procedural justice. Nevertheless, these studies were conducted only through employees in private organizations. Therefore, this study seeks to include distributive, procedural and interactional justice as predictors of affective commitment among non-profit workers.. 6.

(15) Significance of the Study Even though volunteers are not paid, they still desire to feel wanted, appreciated and invested. The key to manage volunteers effectively is to add more knowledge about how to improve commitment among volunteers through their perceptions in the organization and their motivational patterns when engaging in a volunteer activity. To improve human resource management among the non-profit organizations, more attention is needed on what stimulates volunteers’ pro-social behavior that strengthens their long-standing engagements in voluntary organizations. Little researches have been conducted to explore the issues of what factors contribute to better commitment among volunteers (Cnaan & Casio, 1998). Allen and Meyer (1990) described affective commitment as the sense of emotional attachment to the organization. An individual may feel an emotional bond with an organization, for example, one feels that he or she is ‘part of the family’ for the organization and feels as if the organization’s problems are one’s own. Affective commitment has been extensively used to examine employees in the for-profit organizations (Meyer et al., 2002). The contribution of the study is to apply affective commitment on volunteers in the non-profit organization setting to examine how volunteers’ perception on fairness in the non-profit organizational systems relates to their attitudes and behaviors of commitment.. Purpose of the Study The purpose of the study is to empirically test the relationship of motivation on affective commitment in the non-profit organization and non-paid workers context,. 7.

(16) also to provide additional insights of volunteers’ perceived organizational justice on affective commitment. Specifically, this study explores how different types of volunteer motivation may impact their attachment to the organization. The perceived organizational justices are examined in three dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. These perceived justices are included in this study as moderators to examine whether they impact the relationship between volunteers’ motivation and affective commitment. The result of the study will hopefully help add knowledge to the relationships among the studied variables.. Scope of the Study The scope of the study is limited within the accessible population collected for this study. All data collected were collected from a non-profit, voluntary organization in Taiwan. The researcher decided to study volunteers in one specific non-profit organization so that organizational level variances can be controlled, and that study results can be better interpreted with insights from the organization. The analysis of this study is at the individual level focusing on volunteers’ perceptions and attitudes toward the organization.. Research Questions The following questions were developed for the study to answer: 1.. What is the relationship between types of motivation and affective commitment among volunteers?. 8.

(17) 2.. Will perceived organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice) have a moderating effect on the relationship between types of motivation and affective commitment?. Definition of Terms Volunteer Volunteers are “a person who, out of free will and without wages, works for a not-profit organization which is formally organized and has as its purpose service to someone or something other than its membership” (Jenner, 1982, p.30).. Affective Commitment The affective attachment is “the attachment of an individual’s fund of affectivity and emotion to the group” (Kanter, 1968, p.507), or also described as “the relative strength of an individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p.27).. Volunteer Motivations Volunteer motivations are individual’s engagement in volunteer work to achieve important psychological and social goals and those different individuals will seek to satisfy different beliefs and behaviors through volunteer activity (Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Katz, 1960; Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996).. Perceived Organizational Justice Perceived Organizational Justice is defined as “employees overall perception of their organizations of what is fair in the workplace” (Moorman, 1991, p.845).. 9.

(18) CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW. This chapter reviews literatures of the selected variables that form the framework of the study. The definitions and characteristics of Volunteers are introduced. The literatures of perceived justice, volunteer motivations and commitment are discussed. The hypotheses are derived from the review of literatures.. Volunteer The behavior of volunteer was originated from the military in the early 1750s, which the term was used to describe civilians who were willing to serve the military in times of emergency (Christiansen-Ruffman, 1990; Karl, 1984). The term volunteer is to describe individuals who provide unpaid service for religiously based charity organizations, e.g. Volunteers of America. On the other hand, the term volunteer is derived from a word in the Hebrew bible as a meaning to freewill offering or offered willingly (Cnaan, Handy, & Wadsworth, 1996). An individual who is described to offer willingly can be interpreted in many kinds of devotions such as offering knowledge, expertise, support, love, and money to others. The term volunteer has been broadly defined as voluntarily giving time and talents to deliver services or perform tasks with no direct financial compensation (President’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives, 1982) to a more narrow definition of volunteer “who choose to volunteer to act in recognition of a need, with an attitude of social responsibility and going beyond one’s basic obligation” (Ellis & Noyes, 1990, p. 4). In the financial report of volunteer in 1988, the American Red Cross (1988) defined the act of volunteering as “individuals who reach out beyond the. 10.

(19) confines of paid employment and normal responsibilities to contribute time and service to a non-profit cause in belief that their activity is beneficial to others as well as satisfying for themselves” (p. III-11). In a content analysis, Cnaan, Handy, and Wadsworth (1996) have proposed four characteristics to describe volunteer. The first characteristic is the nature of act. Volunteers act upon free will; individual is willingly to contribute or devote without pay and that he or she is relatively uncoerced. The second characteristic is the nature of the reward or remuneration. Volunteers do not expect any returns or rewards of the volunteering activity; volunteers pay for their own expenses when contributing to the social welfares. The third characteristic is the structure; volunteers may be managed under formal or informal organizational structures. In a formal structure, volunteers have policies and regulations to follow when implementing voluntary services. The fourth characteristic is the intended beneficiaries, who can be strangers of a different nation, culture, religion, or ethnical background, or just friends and neighbors. Under the analysis of the four key characteristics of volunteer, Cnaan et al. (1996) found that each characteristic to contain key categories of defining someone as a volunteer. Table 2.1 indicates the four dimensions and their relevant categories as follows:. 11.

(20) Table 2.1. Pure and Broad Definitions of the Term Volunteer Dimension. Categories. Free Choice. 1. Free will (the ability to voluntarily choose) 2. Relatively uncoerced 3. Obligation to volunteer. Remuneration. 1. None at all 2. None expected 3. Expenses reimbursed 4. Stipend/low pay. Structure. 1. Formal 2. Informal. Intended Beneficiaries. 1. Benefit/help others/strangers 2. Benefit/help friends or relatives 3. Benefit oneself (as well). Note. Adapted from “Defining Who is a Volunteer: Conceptual and Empirical Considerations,” by R. A. Cnaan, F. Handy, & M. Wadsworth. 1996, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(3), p. 364-383. Copyright 1996 by the Sage Publications.. For example in the first dimension, the free will dimension contains key categories that describe the pure and broad definitions of the volunteer behavior that range from (1) free will (the ability to voluntarily choose), (2) relatively uncoerced, and (3) obligation to volunteer. Thus, a student who helps the street dog as part of the school mandated social service is a volunteer obligation. In contrast to the purist form of volunteer, the student helps the street dog with his or her free will is the act without coercion or obligation. Based on Cnaan’s et al. (1996) conceptual and empirical study, they suggested. 12.

(21) that the public perception of the term volunteer is closely associated with the net cost of the giver, not the recipients. The net cost is defined as total cost minus total benefits of the volunteer. The costs of the volunteer (giver) include components like time and effort spent in volunteering, in contrast to benefits that include tangible (monetary) rewards as well as enhanced social status and possible future opportunities in business contacts, work experience, promotion and skill acquisition. They concluded that “the greater the net costs to the volunteer, the purer the volunteering activity and hence the more the person is a real volunteer” (Cnaan et al., 1996, p.375).. Characteristics of Volunteer To further assess the definition of volunteer, Cnaan and Cascio (1998) compared ten significant differences between volunteers and paid employees to prevent the findings about paid employees to be generalized on volunteers. The differences are indicated as follows: 1. Volunteers are not motivated monetarily (Pearce, 1993, p. 10), while paid employees are instrumentally rewarded. 2. Volunteers have only a moral and emotional commitment to their organizations, whereas paid employees also have an instrumental commitment. 3. Most volunteers work only a few hours a week, while most employees work full-time. 4. Many volunteers are affiliated with more than one organization, while employees are affiliated with only one.. 13.

(22) 5. Volunteers are less dependent on their workplace than the employees. Volunteers can leave anytime without worrying about the next paychecks, pension rights, health care benefits, or where they will work next. 6. Volunteers are often recruited directly (informally) and tend to “try-out” a position, whereas employees usually go through a formal hiring process and generally accept a position only after careful deliberation. 7. Volunteers make no legal allegation regarding inadequate compensation or discrimination in the workplace (Perrow, 1970). 8. Volunteers do not always feel bound by norms and values of an organization. For example, they may pay less attention to the requirement to report and follow bureaucratic instructions (Cooley, Singer, & Irvin, 1989). Volunteers may feel more independent in applying their own values and norms because they are not being paid to do the job (Fagan, 1986). 9. Volunteers who cause damage may not be liable, but the organization will surely be. 10. Agencies may be reluctant to evaluate the work of volunteers because such evaluations may seem to question volunteers’ effort.. Nevertheless, a few characteristics of the volunteers described above may not apply across all volunteers who serve in different voluntary organizations. For instance, although volunteers are generally perceived as self-starters and self-select themselves into the organization; however, they may volunteer for other reasons than. 14.

(23) just purely altruistic motives (Bussel & Forbes, 2002). In other words, volunteers may not get instrumental rewards directly from the organization, but seek indirect benefits such as gaining social networks, as a way to know potential business contacts or seek a better job. Nowadays, as the baby-boomer generation enters the age of retirement, many volunteers came from the workforce who retired from the private sector and are working full-time in non-profit organizations, especially those in the religious charity organization, and are also affiliated to only one organization rather than many organizations. According to the reviewed definitions of volunteer listed above, this study intend to focus on volunteer as “a person who, out of free will and without wages, works for a non-profit organization which is formally organized and has as its purpose service to someone or something other than its membership” (Jenner, 1982, p.30). The researcher hopes to investigate volunteers who devotes in a formal, structured voluntary organization that accompanied policies and regulations in managing volunteers. Moreover, it is interesting to study how volunteers’ perception on organizational justice may impact their commitment in the organization. Since Cnaan and Cascio (1998) also pointed out that the most important differences between paid and volunteer employee is that of motivation, the researcher would like to understand how different types of motivations would impact volunteers’ level of commitment.. 15.

(24) Organizational Commitment In the past decades, a vast majority of studies conducted on organizational commitment were to examine the attitudes and behaviors of the employees in the for-profit sector workplaces (Goulet & Frank, 2002). Researches of organizational commitment have been made to find ways in improving how workers feel about their jobs so that they would become more committed to their organizations. Organizational commitment can be interpreted as a pattern of behaviors, a set of behavioral intentions, a motivating force, or an attitude (Dunham, Grube, & Casteneda, 1994; Liou & Nyhan, 1994). Organizational commitment has been researched in two approaches: behavioral and attitudinal approach. The attitudinal approach is the most widely studied that views commitment as a “the identity of the person is linked to the organization” (Sheldon, 1971, p.143) or when “the goals of the organization and those of the individual become increasingly integrated or congruent” (Hall, Schneider, & Nygren, 1970, p.176-177).. Definition of Organizational Commitment The term commitment derived from various psychological researches that explore the linkage of the employee and the organization. Through extensive reviews of theories and empirical findings on employee-organization linkages, Mowday, Porter, and Steers (1982) conceptualized the term organizational commitment. Reichers (1985) summarizes the early work of researchers who have different definitions and operationalization of organizational commitment in Table 2.2.. 16.

(25) Table 2.2. Definitions and Operationalization of Organizational Commitment 1. Side-Bets. — Commitment is a function of rewards and costs. associated. with. organizational. membership; these typically increase as tenure in the organization increases (Alutto, Hrebiniak, & Alonso, 1973; Farrell & Rusbult, 1981). 2. Attributions. — Commitment is a binding of the individual to behavioral acts that results when individuals attribute. an. attitude. of. commitment. to. themselves after engaging in behaviors that are volitional, explicit, and irrevocable (Becker, 1960; Kiesler & Sakumura, 1966; Salancik, 1977; O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1980). 3. Individual/Organizational. — Commitment occurs when individuals. goal congruence. identify with and extend effort towards organizational. goals. and. Organizational. Commitment. values.. The. Questionnaire. (OCQ), developed by Porter and his colleagues, is the primary operationalization of this definition (Porter, Steers, Mowday, & Boulian, 1974; Morris & Sherman, 1981; Angle & Perry, 1981; Stumpf & Hartman, 1984). Note. Adapted from “A Review and Reconceptualization of Organizational Commitment,” by A. E. Reichers. 1985, The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), p. 465-476. Copyright 1985 by the Academy of Management.. The first definition of organizational commitment derived from the side-bet theory, which was referred as investments or the gains or losses that may occur if the individual choose to stay or leave the organization. An individual may commit to the. 17.

(26) organization because of high economic costs (e.g. pension accruals) or social costs (e.g. friendship ties with co-workers). The second definition of commitment is related to the behavioral approach that defined commitment through the attribution theory, which explains how individuals attempt to determine the cause of their behavior in commitment (e.g. why people do what they do). For example, the individual decided to commit to an organization because the boss paid him well. The attribution theory is closely related to the concept of motivation. The third definition of organizational commitment is associated with the affective approach of commitment, which involves matching the individuals’ values with the organization’s goals. Mowday, Steers, & Porter (1979) defined organizational commitment as “the relative strength of an individuals’ identification with and involvement in a particular organization” (p.27). Specifically, the organizational commitment involves (a) a belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values, (b) the willingness to exert effort towards organizational goal accomplishment, and (c) a strong desire to maintain organizational membership. They further developed the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ), as the principal measurement to assess individual’s identification and involvement in a particular organization.. Model of Organizational Commitment To further assess Mowday, Porter, and Steers’ (1982) and Reichers’ (1985) review on organizational commitment, Allen and Meyer (1990) advanced the attitudinal concept of organizational commitment into a three-component model of. 18.

(27) organizational commitment (shown in figure 2.1) that revolves around three general themes: affective attachment, perceived costs, and obligation. In the three general theme of commitment, Allen and Meyer (1990) proposed the dimensions of organizational commitment into the affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment. They suggested that individuals with strong affective commitment remain because they want to, and those with strong continuance commitment feels they need to remain, while those with strong normative commitment believes they ought to remain.. Figure 2.1. A three-component model of organizational commitment. Adapted from “A Three-Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment,” by J. P. Meyer and N. J. Allen. 1991, Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), p. 68. Copyright 1991 by the JAI Press Inc.. 19.

(28) Affective Commitment. The affective commitment is “the attachment of an individual’s fund of affectivity and emotion to the group” (Kanter, 1968, p.507), while also described as the followers’ affective attachment to the goals and values toward the organization without any instrumental concerns (Buchanan, 1974). Mowday et al., (1979) defined commitment as “the relative strength of individuals’ identification with and involvement in an organization” (p.27). In fact, individuals with strong affective commitment will remain in the organization because they want to (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Continuance Commitment. In the perceived cost concept of commitment, it is viewed as individuals’ tendency to “engage in consistent lines of activity based on the recognition of costs or (lost side-bets) that leads the individual to discontinue the activity” (Becker, 1960, p.33). The perceived cost reflects cost-based commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1984). Individuals view increases in pay and promotional opportunities as the costs and are associated with their intentions of leaving the organization. Normative Commitment. The obligation concept of commitment describes that individuals’ view commitment as a belief about one’s responsibility to the organization (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Wiener (1982) defined the reason that individuals show behavior of commitment is solely because “they believe it is the right and moral thing to do” (p.421). In addition, the obligation-based commitment requires individuals to show loyalty, make sacrifices and cannot criticize the activity. 20.

(29) or organization (Wiener & Vardi, 1980).. Volunteers and Affective Commitment Gamm and Kassab (1983) noted that volunteers are critically important human resources for determining organizational and societal productivity. These authors believe that if volunteer programs are well managed then volunteers are likely to continue their contributions and influence others to become volunteers. Since volunteers are non-paid individuals and they choose to do the job from their own “freewill” without any force or obligation, volunteers’ emotional attachment to the organization takes place in evaluating their loyalty to the organization. Moreover, Dailey (1986) stated that volunteers’ decision to join the voluntary organization is largely determined by the degree of fit between personal needs and goals of the organization. Kanter (1968) has described affective commitment as “the attachment of an individual’s fund of affectivity and emotion to the group” (p.507). Moreover, affective orientation of commitment was also claimed as “the relative strength of individual’s identification with and involvement in a particular organization (Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982, p.27). Allen and Meyer (1990) described affective commitment as the sense of emotional attachment to the organization. An individual may feel an emotional bond with an organization, for example, one feels that he or she is part of the family for the organization and feels as if the organization’s problems are one’s own. Even though volunteers are not paid, they still desire to feel wanted, appreciated and invested. Thus, affective commitment applies to on volunteers because it serves to. 21.

(30) describe the psychological attachment or tie between volunteers’ internal self and the organization. Affective commitment is also an approach to explain their retention behaviors for the voluntary organization. Therefore, the affective commitment is considered as the most appropriate type of commitment for understanding volunteers’ intentions to remain in the organization. Some demographical factors such as country of residence, work status, certification, and supervisory roles are linked to affective commitment. In multi-national companies, support such as organizational socialization, training, social and logistic support are provided to improve expatriate’s well-being, which in turn, fosters the affective commitment (Aycan, 1997; Homans, 1958). Similarity, in a multi-national voluntary organization, volunteers serving in a foreign country (i.e. United States, Thailand, and Australia), need to learn to overcome language barriers, comply with the country’s laws, and adapt to cultural differences when interacting with local residence, authorities, and community. Thus, they are more likely to experience frustrations in delivering the voluntary organization’s values to the local community. Thus, country of residence is a control factor because it may affect volunteers’ level of commitment in the organization. Independent Sector (2002) claimed that volunteering is strongly associated with the income. Salaried or working individuals have more tangible assets and resource to contribute and support relief programs, thus, work status is controlled. Time spent in the organization may affect individual’s affective commitment (Tornikoski, 2012); therefore, tenure or years of volunteering service is also controlled. Certification was. 22.

(31) also controlled because those who are delegated with more responsibilities in the voluntary organization are expected to retain and bring in more members for the organization. Moreover, supervisory role is another control factor in this study. Those who carry supervisory roles in the organization need to lead and manage members in achieving the organization’s goals and mission (Allen & Meyer, 1990).. Volunteer Motivations Types of Motivations Early theories of motivation were formulated in the 1950s. The best-known theory of motivation is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Maslow (1954) proposed that every human being exists in a hierarchy of five needs –physiological, safety, social, esteem, and self-actualization. “To be motivated means to be moved to do something” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.54). McGregor (1960) presented two distinct views of human beings, which are the Theory X and Theory Y. Theory X suggests that managers believe employees do not like their work and need to be directed and forced to perform the job, while Theory Y assumes managers do not need to supervise employees because they like their career naturally and will take full responsibility in their jobs. On the other hand, Hertzberg’s (1964) two-factor theory explained that to determine whether an individual will have a successful or failed outcome will depend on two attitudinal factors – motivational and hygiene factors. Hygiene factors (i.e. company policy, supervision, work conditions, salary, and relationship with peers or supervisor) will lead to individuals’ dissatisfaction toward job. Motivational factors are factors such as achievement, recognition, advancement, and growth that will. 23.

(32) motivate an individual to feel satisfied about their job. These are the factors that people find to be intrinsically rewarding. Furthermore, McClelland (1961) developed the theory of needs, which posits that people seek for three needs –need for achievement (desire to excel), need for power (desire to control) and need for affiliation (desire for close interpersonal relationships). Contemporary studies have advanced the discussion of motivation into intrinsic and extrinsic types. The self-determination theory (SDT) distinguishes different types of motivation based on different reasons or goals that give rise to an action (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation is mainly differentiated into intrinsic motivation – doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable and extrinsic motivation – doing something because it leads to a separable outcome. In addition to intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, amotivation is also presented to describe a state, which an individual may lack an intention to act (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Ryan and Deci (2000) defined intrinsic motivation as “the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfaction rather than for some separable consequence” (p.55). The intrinsic motivation was first acknowledged through an experimental research in animal behavior that found many organisms displayed exploratory, playful, and curiosity-driven behaviors without reinforcement or reward (White, 1959). Extrinsic motivation refers to “the construct that pertains whenever an activity is done in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p.60). Extrinsic motivated individuals usually do an activity for instrumental purposes. Ryan and Deci (2000) applied SDT to propose and explain that extrinsic motivations are presented with. 24.

(33) various forms – external regulation, introjection, identification and integration. The taxonomy of human motivations is presented in figure 2.2 to show the variability of different types of motivation.. Figure 2.2. A taxonomy of human motivation. Adapted from “Intrinsic and Extrinisc Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions,” by R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, 2000, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, p. 61. Copyright 2000 by the Academic Press.. Functional Theory of Volunteer Motivation Ryan and Deci (2000) proposed the definitions of different types of extrinsic motivations. External regulation describes that a behavior is performed to satisfy an external demand or to obtain rewards. Individuals who are externally regulated are controlled and their actions have an external perceived locus of causality. Skinner (1953) describes this type of extrinsic motivation through his early lab studies.. 25.

(34) External regulation is described as a type of external extrinsic motivation. Introjection is quite controlling because people perform such actions with a feeling of pressure in order to avoid guilt or anxiety or even to obtain ego-enhancements or pride and enhance or maintain self-esteems (Nicholls, 1984; Ryan, 1982). Introjection regulated individuals have a quite external perceived locus of causality. Introjection regulation is described as a type of external extrinsic motivation. Identification refers to an individual who has identified with the personal importance of a behavior and has thus accepted its regulation as his or her own. For example, a boy who memorizes a spelling list is because he sees it as relevant to writing, which he values as a life goal and has identified with the value of this learning activity. Individuals with identified regulation have an internally perceived locus of control. Identification regulation is described as a type of internal extrinsic motivation. Integration happens when the individual identified regulations and fully assimilate it to the self. This is the stage when the individual brings new regulations to the self and assimilates his or her values with the others. The more one internalizes the reasons for an action, the more one’s extrinsically motivated actions become self-determined. Individuals with integrated regulation have an internally perceived locus of control. Integration is described as a type of internal extrinsic motivation.. Volunteer Motivations Cnaan and Cascio (1998) reported that to manage volunteers effectively, more. 26.

(35) knowledge and training in areas in recruitment, motivation, retention, rewards, and supervision of volunteers are needed (Brudney, 1992). One important difference between paid and volunteer employees is that of motivation (Cnaan & Casio, 1998). Motivation-to-volunteer studies need to be centered in determining the joining of a volunteer activity (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991). In the early 1990s, the multifactor model was emerged to understand volunteer motivation. The model was developed by Clary, Snyder and their colleagues to find out the reasons of explaining what impel volunteers to volunteer (Clary, Snyder, Copeland, & French, 1994). Motivation was the answer to their questions. One promising explanation to uncover the motivational forces underlying such volunteer activity comes from functional theories of beliefs and behaviors (Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956). The functional theory predicts that the individuals attempts to satisfy their beliefs and behaviors through psychological and social needs and goals, and plan and motives (Katz, 1960; Smith et al., 1956). Similar beliefs and similar behaviors may result from different psychological functions for different individuals. Clary et al. (1996) assumed that in the case of volunteering, people engage in volunteer work to achieve important psychological goals and those different individuals will seek to satisfy different motivations through volunteer activity. In the functional theory, Smith et al. (1956) and Katz (1960) identified three basic psychological functions that they believed are involved in human activity. The object appraisal function describes that some beliefs and behaviors bring an understanding of the world and individuals appreciate the knowledge. The quality of expression function allows the individual to. 27.

(36) express and act on important values. The externalization function protects the ego from a threatening aspect; it is a form of ego defense. Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Miene, and Haugen (1994) applied the functional theory to the motivations underlying involvement in volunteer work. The major themes of the functional approach is that people would engage in volunteer work to satisfy important social and psychological goals; and different individuals may get involved in similar activities but do so to achieve different goals (Clary & Snyder, 1991; Clary et al., 1992; Clary et al., 1994). Through the findings of a U.S. national survey through the Independent sector (1992), the researchers have identified and defined six categories of the motivations of psychological functions on volunteerism (Clary et al., 1992; Clary et al., 1996; Clary et al., 1998) in Table 2.3. The Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) is the operational definition of the volunteer motivation. VFI has gone through extensive empirical test of 1,000 volunteers from a wide range of organizations, and is considered as “one of the few measures that is reliable and valid with its solid conceptual base” (Clary et al., 1992, p.339). Table 2.3. Functions Served by Volunteering and their Assessment on the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI) Function. Conceptual Definition. Values. The individual volunteers in order to express or act on important values like humanitarianism.. Understanding. The volunteer is seeking to learn more about the world or excise skills that are often unused. (continued). 28.

(37) Table 2.3. (continued) Enhancement. One can grow and develop psychologically through volunteer activities.. Career. The volunteer has the goal of gaining career-related experience through volunteering.. Social. Volunteering allows an individual to strengthen his or her social relationships.. Protective. The individual uses volunteering to reduce negative feelings, such as guilt, or to address personal problems.. Note. Adapted from “The Motivations to Volunteer: The Theoretical and Practical Considerations,” by E. G. Clary and M. Snyder. 1999, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(5), 156-159. Copyright 1999 by the American Psychological Society.. Esmond and Dunlop (2004) have further assessed the six categories of VFI from Clary et al. (1992) and extended four more categories of the motivational functions through stages of pilot test with a total of 2,444 volunteers across 15 organizations to develop the Volunteer Motivation Inventory (VMI) with 10 categories of volunteer motivations. The four categories in VMI include the Reciprocity, Recognition, Self-Esteem, and Reactivity function. The Career function in VFI was renamed as Career Development in VMI, and the Enhancement function in VFI was renamed as Social in VMI.. 29.

(38) Table 2.4. The Volunteer Motivation Inventory (VMI) Function. Conceptual Definition. Values. The individual volunteers in order to express or act firmly held beliefs of the importance for one to help others (Clary, Snyder, & Ridge, 1992).. Understanding. The volunteer is seeking to learn more about the world through their volunteering experience or excise skills that are often unused (Clary et al., 1992).. Social. One can grow and develop psychologically through. (Enhancement). volunteer activities (Clary et al., 1992).. Career Development. The volunteer has the goal of gaining career-related experience through volunteering (Clary et al., 1992).. Social Interaction. Volunteering allows an individual to strengthen his or her social relationships (Clary et al., 1992).. Protective. The individual uses volunteering to reduce negative feelings, such as guilt, or to address personal problems (Clary et al., 1992).. Reciprocity. The individual volunteers in belief that “what goes around comes around.” In the process of helping others and “doing good” their volunteering work will also bring about good things for the volunteer themselves.. Recognition. The individual is motivated to volunteer by being recognized for their skills and contribution.. Self-Esteem. The individual volunteer to increase his or her own feelings of self-worth and self-esteem.. Reactivity. The individual volunteers out of a need to “heal” and address his or her own past or current issues.. Note. Adapted from “Developing the Volunteer Motivation Inventory to Assess the Underlying Motivational Drives of Volunteers in Western Australia,” by J. Esmond and P. Dunlop, 2004, Perth: CLAN WA. Copyright 2004 by the CLAN WA Inc.. 30.

(39) The ten categories of volunteer motivations described in Table 2.4 are considered as extrinsic motivations. In contrast to intrinsic motivations that is defined as doing an activity simply for the enjoyment or interest of the activity itself, these ten categories are more likely to be a construct of extrinsic motivations, which the volunteer activity is done based on the people’s attainment of social and psychological goals (Clary & Snyder, 1991; Clary et al., 1992), or to achieve some separable outcome for an instrumental value (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Pinder (1998) described that motivation is “a set of energizing forces” (p.11), which will enhance individuals’ course of action or behavior (Meyer & Herscovitc, 2001, p.301). Meyer, Becker, and Vandenberghe (2004) argued that “motivation can ebb and flow over time as commitment increases and decreases in salience” (p.994). Commitment can be shaped through different sources of motivation (e.g. needs, values, and incentives). Thus, with the positive impact of motivations, the volunteers are more likely to possess higher level of commitment with the organization. Thus, the hypotheses are proposed as followed: Hypothesis 1: Motivations have a significant and positive impact on affective commitment. Hypothesis 1a: The intrinsic motivation has a significant and positive impact on affective commitment. Hypothesis 1b: The extrinsic motivations (career development, social interaction, reactivity, self-esteem, social, values, understanding, and protective) have a significant and positive impact on affective commitment.. 31.

(40) Perceived Organizational Justice Colquitt, Greenberg, and Zapata-Phelan (2005) believe that the concept of justice was founded from philosophers who value the importance of equality and fairness. They took Ross’ (1925) view that Aristotle was the first philosopher to analyze what constitutes fairness in the distribution of resources between individuals. In the seventeenth century, philosophers such as Locke, Hobbes and Mill rejuvenated the concept of justice into the notion of utilitarianism and determined the doctrine of actions are right if they are useful and benefit to the majority. Contemporary social scientists such as Adams (1965), Thibaut and Walker (1975), Bies and Moag (1986) Greenberg (1987a), and Rawls (1999) do not focus on exploring what justice should be, but centered their interest to understand of what people perceive to be fair. Until the second half of the 20th century, social scientists have started to apply the equity theory on organizational behaviors in the workplace. In the contemporary studies of equity and justice, organizational justice has been widely discussed and defined as “employees overall perception of their organizations of what is fair in the workplace” (Moorman, 1991, p.845). Organizational justice is most frequently applied to studies in topics of industrial-organizational psychology, human resource management and organizational behavior over the last decade (Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997). Distributive and procedural justices are the two most commonly referred aspects of organizational justice (Barling & Phillips, 1993).. 32.

(41) Distributive Justice Distributive justice is conceptually defined as “the perceived fairness of amounts of compensation employees received” (Folger & Konovsky, 1989, p.115). Greenberg (1990a) described distributive justice as “fairness of ends achieved” (what decisions are) or the content of fairness. Before 1970, studies on organizational justice are mainly on distributive justice. Adams (1965) was the initial scholar in discussing distributive justice with the equity theory. In the equity theory, Adams (1965) used a social exchange theory framework to analyze fairness. Adams suggested that one way to determine whether the outcome was fair is to calculate the ratio of profit by dividing one’s input or costs (e.g. time, money) to one’s investments (e.g. skill, effort, education, age, sex, and ethnic background), and compare it to another individual. If the ratio is proportionally unequal, the party whose ratio is lower is theorized to be inequitably underpaid and will feel angry, while the party with a high ratio is inequitably overpaid and will feel guilty. For example, if a woman operator is earning less than a man for doing the same job, the woman will be most likely to feel unjustly treated. Thus, distributive justice deals with individuals’ perception on resource allocation in which they are concerned whether the resource is distributed fairly and equally.. Procedural Justice Conceptually, procedural justice is defined as “the perceived fairness of the means used to determine the amounts of compensation employees received (Folger & Konovsky, 1989, p.115). Greenberg (1990a) posited that procedural justice deal with. 33.

(42) the processes through which decisions are made or how decisions are made. In 1975, Thibaut and Walker’s studies on the disputant reactions to legal procedures led them to develop the theory of procedural justice. Leventhal (1980) described two key elements of procedural justice. The process control is the opportunity to voice out opinions about desire outcomes to decision makers, and the explanations are clear justifications provided for the outcome. In addition, Leventhal, Karuza, and, Fry (1980) had further extended the notion of procedural justice into non-legal contexts specifically for organizational settings. Leventhal et al. (1980) proposed six criteria that a procedure should meet in order to be perceived as fair in the following paragraph: Procedures should (a) be applied consistently across people and across time, (b) be free from bias (e.g. ensuring that a third party has no vested interested in a particular settlement), (c) ensure that accurate information is collected and used in making decisions, (d) have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate decisions, (e) conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality, and (f) ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision have been taken into account (p.210).. Interactional Justice Most studies have considered interactional justice as a subset of procedural justice (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff & Moorman, 1993; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Other researchers claimed to combine the measures of procedural and interactional justice due to their findings of high intercorrelations (Mansour-Cole & Scott, 1998; Skarlicki. 34.

(43) & Lathan, 1997). However, interactional justice was found to be the third type of justice in addition to distributive and procedural types (Aquino, 1995; Barling & Phillips, 1993; Bies & Shapiro, 1987; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997; Tata & Bowes-Sperry, 1996). In Bies and Moag’s (1986) organizational justice model, the interactional justice was proposed as the interpersonal treatment people receive as procedures are enacted. The researchers further claimed that interactional justice is fostered when decision makers treat people with respect and sensitivity and explain the rationale for decisions thoroughly. In addition, Greenberg (1993a) had further proposed a new perspective in discussing organizational justice into a four-factor structure –distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. The interpersonal and informational justices are considered as sub-dimensions of interactional justice. The interpersonal justice describes an individuals’ perception of “the degree to which people are treated with dignity, concern, and respect by authorities or third parties involved in executing procedures of determining outcomes” (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997, p.435). The informational justice defines “to what extent people are clear, reasonable, and candid in explain the procedures” (Bies & Moag, 1986, p.44). The distinction reflects important consequences on employees’ behavior in organizations.. Organizational Justice and Affective Commitment Numerous studies have sought to link justice perceptions to a variety of organizational outcomes, including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, withdrawal, and organizational citizenship behavior (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter,. 35.

(44) & Ng, 2001). In the earlier research of organizational justice, most research has focused on legal issues rather than work-related issues (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992). McFarlin and Sweeney (1992) conducted a study to determine whether the results from the laboratory studies can be generalized into organizational settings. They found that distributive justice is a strong predictor of personal outcome (e.g. pay level satisfaction and job satisfaction), while the procedural justice is a stronger predictor of organizational outcome (e.g. subordinate’s evaluation of supervisor and organizational commitment). In a meta-analyses conducted by Colquitt et al. (2001), they reported distributive justice and procedural justice were strongly associated with organizational commitment. Moreover, Cohen-Charash, and Spector’s (2001) meta-analysis also suggested that procedural justice (r = .43) was strongly linked to affective commitment than distributive justice (r = .37) and interactional justice (r = .42). Moorman (1991) had found that interactional justice appeared to be a stronger predictor in determining employees’ behavior in organizations than formal procedural justice. Moreover, in Beugré and Baron (2001) research on systematic justice, procedural and interactional justice was found similar to the fair process effect. Previous studies have found that organizational justices have a positive impact on affective commitment. Lind and Tyler (1988) have claimed that the use of fair procedures and systems may enhance employee commitment because fairness suggests that employees are respected members of the organization. Paré and Tremblay (2007) found that when individuals received fair rewards from the. 36.

(45) organization, fair procedures and system will enhance individuals’ organizational citizenship behavior. Moreover, Cropanzano and Folger (1989) applied the referent cognition theory to predict that positive behavioral outcomes are more likely to occur when decision maker implements fair procedures and equal resource allocation for the organization. Fair procedures enhance the feeling of being treated as a full member of the organization, which in turn reinforces the emotional bond to the group and/or the organization (Lind & Tyler, 1992). Affective commitment can be shaped through different sources of motivation; positive perception of organizational justices will also foster affective commitment. Pinder (1998) described that motivation is “a set of energizing forces” (p.11) that enhance individuals’ course of action or behavior (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001, p.301). Fairness is an important factor contributed to reinforce volunteer’s motivation to volunteer for the organization. The distributive justice is concerned with whether resources are allocated fairly in the organization. The resource-based models of justice explains that “people attempt to maximize personal resource gain by working with others, which individuals try to act fairly and expecting others, in return, to act fairly toward them” (Tyler, 1994, p.851). Tyler (1994) further claimed that this behavior is motivated by the belief that equitable behavior promotes personal gain; the gain in building up connections or networks that is rewarding to their long-term relationships with the organization. When individuals perceive resources to be allocated fairly in the organization, they are aware that it is worth the effort to contribute for justice. Thus, perceived. 37.