468 478

ijcrb.webs.com
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS
COPY RIGHT © 2012 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research
468
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Studying Relationship between Perceived Organizational Justice and
Organizational Salience (Case Study: Khorshid Hospital’s Personals)
Parnian Dabbagh12
MA student, Management Department, Najafabad branch, Islamic Azad University,
Isfahan, Iran
Ali Nasr Esfahani
Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Administrative sciences and Economic
Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Arash Shahin
Assistant Professor, Department of Management, Administrative sciences and Economic
Faculty, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract
This article was aimed to studying relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational
salience in Khorshid hospital. Research methodology is descriptive and correlation. Statistical population
of this study is Khorshid hospital’s 715 personals at city of Isfahan and based on limited population
sampling formula, 236 of them has been selected by random method as sample members. In order to
collecting data, questionnaire including 35 items has been used. In order to analyzing data and consulting
results, Pearson correlation, regression analysis, and Freedman test has been used. Pearson correlation
results indicate that there is positive relationship between organizational non-salience and each of perceived
organizational justice and correlation them is 77%. Also results about relationship between organizational
salience and demographic variables indicate that there is meaningful negative relationship between
organizational non- salience and educational level, but meaningful positive correlation between
organizational non- salience with age, and job antecedent. Also there is meaningful negative relationship
between organizational justice and its dimensions with educational level. Though there is no relationship
between organizational justice and distributive and procedural dimensions with age and job antecedent but
there is meaningful negative relationship between intercourse justice with age and job antecedent.
Key words: Organizational salience, organizational justice, distributive justice, procedural justice,
intercourse justice, and Khorshid hospital
12
Corresponding Author, MA student, Najafabad branch, Azad Islamic University,
Isfahan, Iran

ijcrb.webs.com
469
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Introduction
During past two decades, organizational justice draws many attentions as one of the important issues and
has been characterized as one of the considerable research background in organizational- industrial
psychology field. Organizational justice is very important because it has relationship with important
organizational variables such as organizational commitment, citizenship rights, job satisfaction, and job
performance. Also some of recent studies indicate that there is meaningful relationship between leadership
styles and decision making with organizational justice (Mokhtarpour, 2009). Manager’s justice behavior
with personals leads to their higher commitment to organization and offering better organizational
citizenship behavior through it. Again personals who receive injustice behavior and attention from
organization, they more probably leave the organization or show lower commitment to their organization
and may offer rough behavior such as vendetta against organization. Studies about justice indicate that
justice processes have very important roles in organization and they may affect personals beliefs,
behaviors, attitudes, and emotions (Boss, 2001). Other researches indicate that if personals receive justice
behavior from their managers and organization, will have more stimulation to social interaction that is
beyond their role’s expectations and then offer higher commitment to their organizations. As Knight et al.
suggest personal’s perceptions of procedural and distributive justice affect organizational commitment.
Again peoples who receive injustice behavior from their organizations think that they aren’t important for
their organizations and prefer not to rely on their organizations and when problems appear prefer to be
silent.
Personals salience has many important role in organizations successful and failure and could lead to
eliminates recovery of affairs opportunity. Salience could provide unfavorable climate to representing new
ideas, competencies, and distribution of knowledge that is serious danger to organizational learning. So
personals decisions that to salience or non-salience against opportunities that could create innovation are
very important. Learning is one of the primary requirements in organizational performance, because it leads
personals to adapt them with environmental changes and through the best answer that they attain by
learning. Organizational learning is collective affair that needs to organizational climate which emphasize
on personals ideas and through this introduce new and modern plans and services. Based on this, personal’s
salience has been characterized as one of the important issues for research and studying (Morrison &
Milliken, 2000). Organizational managers should be aware that if salience dominate on their organization,
personal’s minds will fossilized and in this such situation organizations and their managers not only
confront with personal’s lower motivation, performance, efficiency, job satisfaction, and commitment in
human capital, but also may confront with stress- related, sabotage- related, and deviance- related
problems. So in such situation organizations and managers couldn’t use their personals competency and
ability in global competition area.
Expansion of equity theory at 1970’s leads to some researches such as organizational justice.
Organizational justice refers to personals perceptions of justice behaviors at workplaces (Rezaeian, 2006).

ijcrb.webs.com
470
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
In other words, organizational justice refers to gum that leads to personals convene and work together
effectively (Cropanzano et al., 2007). There are three types of organizational justice that will be describe at
following section:
• Distributive Justice: refers to equity of job affairs such as income, job plans, and job
responsibilities. This type of justice has relationship with emotional, behavioral, and cognitive
reactions (Hoseynzade et al., 2008).
• Procedural Justice: refers to justice of procedures that used to determining result of decisions. In
other words, this type of organizational justice is in search of reasons of procedures justice or
injustice results (Rezaeian, 2009).
• Interactional Justice: refers to justice behaviors that organizations have with personals at the
areas of their jobs. This type of justice refers to methods of data exchange and justice behaviors
with personals (Aryee, 2006).
Regarding justice at organization leads to organizations survival, organizations stability, and personals
progress. Perception of justice at organization has negative relationship with tendency to absence, job
desertion, resignation, deport, turbulence, and physical and mental illness (Robins, 2006). What will
happen if managers don’t attend to personals emotions and expectations? Greenberg suggests that the
managers who behave injustice lead to their personals offer responses negatively to their managers’
behaviors and then salience dominate on organization. In most cases personals aware of problems but don’t
express it. Again personals may sense injustice and so prefer to remain silent. In most organizations
personals withhold them from expressing ideas and opinions about organizational problems and when this
happened collectively called organizational salience (Morrison & Millken, 2000). Therefore without
offering negative feedbacks, mistakes will increased and become more severe. Based on importance of
organizational justice and organizational salience, this article was aimed to studying relationship between
perceived organizational justice and organizational salience between Khorshid hospital’s personals at the
city of Isfahan.
Based on our primary studying it is resulted that yet relationship between organizational justice and
organizational salience has not been studied. Through studying relationship between these two factors,
organizational managers could resolve their personals job motivation problems. Through this managers will
able to increase efficiency, performance, job satisfaction, and commitment. On the other hand because the
Khorshid hospital is one of the Isfahan’s important hospital, perceived injustice between personals have
unfavorable effects on their performance and organizational salience.

ijcrb.webs.com
471
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Research Methodology
As mentioned at following sections this article was aimed to studying relationship between perceived
organizational justice and organizational salience and based on it, this study is descriptive and correlation.
Statistical population of this study includes all of Khorshid hospital’s 715 personals at the city of Isfahan at
2011. In order to calculating sample size, first a primary study has been done and then its variance has been
calculated and based on this variance final sample size has been calculated that is 236. The formula of
sampling has been offered at following. Sampling method is simple random. Between these 236 personals
questionnaires have been distributed and finally 222 of them answered to it and final analysis has been
done based on these data. In order to collecting data a questionnaire including 17 items to examining
organizational justice (5 items for distributive justice, 6 items for procedural justice, and 6 items for
interactional justice) and 18 items for organizational salience has been used that stability and reliability of
this questions has been calculated in previous studies through Golparvar et al. (2008) and Nasri et al.
(2008) and although we themselves discuss with other professors to insuring reliability of questionnaire and
Cronbache’s Alpha has been calculated to insuring stability of questions that its value is orderly 90%, 91%,
88%, and 84% for organizational salience, procedural justice, interactional justice, and distributive justice.
Then in order to analyzing data and concluding results correlation coefficient, regression analysis, and
Freedman test has been used.
Main hypothesis: there is significant relationship between perceived organizational justice and
organizational salience.
H1: there is significant relationship between perceived organizational distributive justice and
H2: there is significant relationship between perceived organizational procedural justice and organizational
salience.
H3: there is significant relationship between perceived organizational interactional justice and
Discussion
In this section relationship between perceived organizational justice and its three dimensions including
perceived organizational interactional, perceived organizational procedural, and perceived organizational
distributive with organizational salience has been examined. In order to this, first the only main hypothesis
and then three secondary hypotheses have been examined. So the first hypothesis tells us that there is
significant relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational salience. As indicated
at table 1 correlation between these two variable is 74% and sig level is 0.001 and based on this the main
hypothesis accepted and it is resulted that if there is justice at organization, it will be expected that

ijcrb.webs.com
472
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
personals discuss together more comfortable and also they will able to criticize ideas to resolving problems.
Summary of this hypothesis has been indicated at table 1.
Then first secondary hypothesis tell us that there is significant relationship between perceived
organizational distributive justice and organizational salience. As indicated at table 2 correlations between
these two variables is 67% and because sig level is 0.001 and lower than 0.05, so it is concluded that there
is significant relationship between perceived organizational distributive justice and organizational salience
and then first hypothesis has been accepted. Summary of this hypothesis has been indicated at table 2.
Then the second hypothesis of this study tells us that there is significant relationship between perceived
organizational procedural justice and organizational salience. As indicated at table 3 correlation coefficient
is 77% and the sig level is 0.001 and lower than 0.05 so it is concluded that there is significant relationship
between perceived organizational procedural justice and organizational salience and therefore third
hypothesis of this study accepted. Summary of this hypothesis has been indicated at table 3.
Then the third hypothesis of this study tells us that there is significant relationship between perceived
organizational interactional justice and organizational salience. As indicated at table 4 correlation
coefficient is 64% and the sig level is 0.001 that is lower than 0.05 so it is concluded that there is
significant relationship between perceived organizational interactional justice and organizational salience
and the third hypothesis of this study accepted. Summary of this hypothesis has been indicated at table 4.
As results indicate perceived organizational distributed justice, perceived organizational procedural justice,
and perceived organizational interactional justice affect organizational salience. As ccoefficient of
determination suggests, these three dimensions of organizational justice explained 64% of organizational
salience variance. Descriptive results of questionnaires items have been indicated at table 5. And then in
order to ranking averages of studying variables, Freedman statistics has been used that shows significant of
organizational justice that has been indicated at table 6. As this table indicate first is interactional justice,
second is procedural justice, and finally third is distributive justice.
As results about relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational salience indicate
there is significant positive correlation between these two variables. In other words when personals could
attain to this perception that their organization and managers behave equally and fairly to them, there will
no discrimination in organization and personal’s efforts and works will be valuable, they feel valuable, and
finally it leads to increasing their commitment to organization and their belonging to organization will
increase. So they will have responsibility to organizations affaires, problems, mistakes, and insufficiency
and they strive to help organization through offering effective suggestions and constructive criticisms.
Indeed if organizations personals think that organization is just one and justice has been established and
increased in their organization, then they will motivated to reveal jobbers. Therefore organizational justice
is one of the important variables in organizations and also based on Iranzade and Asadi (2010), Raminmehr
et al. (2010), Porezzat and Gholipour (2009) it leads to improving organizational citizenship behavior, and
based on Ashja et al. (2010) this lead to increasing organizational trust, Pourezzat and Ghlipour (2009) lead

ijcrb.webs.com
473
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
to improving organizational identity, based on Hoseynzade and Naseri (2008) leads to increasing personals
performance, and finally based on Tengerla and Roumanojam (200) and Hanerbksen and Diton (2006) this
affects organizational salience and could to neutralize organizational salience and provide positive attitude
between personals, so that they strive to achieving organizational goals. Based on this, it is resulted that
organizational justice is very important variable in organization that managers should attend it, because this
variable not only could affect organizational salience, but also could positively affect other variables such
as organizational belonging, personals gratification, job satisfaction, organizational citizenship behavior,
organizational identity, job performance, and personals attitude and then it is necessary that organizational
justice improved and this established in personals mind that there is justice at their organization and
personals will be valuable based on their performance and progress at organization.
Our findings about relationship between perceived organizational distributive justice and organizational
non- salience suggests that there is significant positive correlation between these two variables. In other
words, if there is equity and fairness in responsibility, job related authorities, equity and fairness in
payment and managers divide job responsibilities and authorities between personals fairly, then it will
expected that personals motivated to undertake more responsibilities against their organizations and reveal
peoples who want to misuse organization’s capitals and assets. Therefore distributive justice leads to
personals assess fairness of payments and they result that everyone at organization could receive payment
and benefits to the extent that they spend energy and time for organization. Now if this type of justice
established at organizations they motivated to share their knowledge and information with their managers
and colleagues. Then they have responsibility to their organizations and help to them in order to achieving
organizational goals and criticize personals who want to damage their organizations.
Based on Akola and Borados findings, if there is salience at organizations personals will have bad feel to
their managers and this feel become bad attitude and then leads to offering non- suitable feedback in
organizations and finally leads to decline of organizations. Based on this, organizations in order to achieve
their vision and goals should attend to organizational salience and organizational justice, because each of
these variables could affect other organizational factors such as organizational commitment, organizational
commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, personals happiness, organizational learning,
organizational security, and job performance and then this leads to increasing or decreasing them.
Therefore it is resulted that managers should attend to these variables. As findings about relationship
between organizational procedural justice and organizational non- salience indicate there is positive
correlation between these two variables. In other words, there are situations at organizations such as
fairness in manager’s decisions, decision making base on comprehensive information, introducing
decisions to personals before managers want to implement them, clarity and openness in manager’s
decisions, opportunities to challenging decisions through personals, then personals have more responsibility
to their organization’s affaires and strive to help them in achieving goals through constructive criticism and

ijcrb.webs.com
474
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
offering effective and affective suggestions. Then these personals don’t remain silent against wrong
decisions and strive to dismiss jobber personals.
Henrikson and Diton (2006) suggest that organizational salience lead to loss of organizational security
between personals and they are silent at organization and only do their own work and these personals could
not success and then in these situations organizations will lose. Park & Keil (2009) considered
organizational salience as one of the obstacles to organizational learning. Therefore in which organizations
that there is no organizational security and organizational learning then personals cannot learn new
knowledge and don’t apply it in their organization. These leads to organizations lose against their
competitors and decline. Our findings support Henrikson & Ditmon findings (2006) and Tengerla &
Romanojam (2008) and these two studies found that there is significant relationship between organizational
salience and organizational procedural justice. Based on these findings it is resulted that organizational
procedural justice is necessary for each organization because it motivate managers to decide rationality and
planed for their organizations and decisions making will based on personals ideas and then this processes
lead to personals happiness and their satisfaction and they strive to achieve organizational vision and goals
and resist against jobbers and offer constructive suggestions and ideas for organization.
Our findings about relationship between organizational procedural justice and organizational salience
indicate that there is significant correlation between these two variables. In other words if there are
situations at organizations such as intimate and loving relationship between managers and their personals,
serenity in manager’s behaviors when decision making and offering its information for subordinates,
honesty in manager’s behavior, valuing personal’s works through managers and offering sufficient
information for personals about decisions in organizations motivate them to enter into discussions with
more boldness and have more responsibility about their organization’s decisions and affairs and then if
there is any problem or mistake in decisions personals discuss with managers and offer their own ideas and
attitudes.
As Moresen & Milken (2000) suggested personals usually know facts about problems but dont have any
courage to expressing it and then will silent about important problems and organizational affaires that this
salience leads to bad behaviors and attitudes such as conflict with others, inconsistent with organizational
decisions, shortage of organizational knowledge, worry about unruly behaviors, personals dissatisfaction,
sense of unfairness and lowering of belonging and organizational commitment. Therefore organization
loses its ability to success in competition and finally loosed. Park & Kill (2009) introduced organizational
salience as one of the important factors to decreasing personals partnership at organizations. They believed
that if there is salience in the organization then personals prefer to be silent because of fear of dismiss and
don’t enter into organizational discussions and finally will impartial against the organizational problems.
Therefore organizational justice is the variable that could eliminate organizational salience and reinforces
personals partnership in different organizational affairs and they do effective and targeted efforts and
success at their organizations.

ijcrb.webs.com
475
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Conclusion
This article was aimed to studying relationship between perceived organizational justice and organizational
salience. Perceived organizational justice consists of three types including perceived organizational
distributive justice, perceived organizational procedural and perceived organizational interactional justice.
Research methodology is descriptive and correlation. Statistical population of this study is Khorshid
hospital’s 715 personals at Isfahan and based on limited population sampling formula, 236 of them has
been selected by random method as sample. In order to collecting data, questionnaire including 35 items
has been used. In order to data analysis, Pearson correlation, regression analysis, and Freedman test has
been used. Pearson correlation results indicate that there is positive correlation with 77% value between
non salience and each of perceived organizational justice. Also results about relationship between
organizational salience and demographic variables indicate that there is meaningful negative relationship
between organizational non salience and personals educational level, but meaningful positive correlation
between organizational non salience and age, and job antecedent. There is meaningful negative relationship
between organizational justice and its dimensions with personals educational level. Though there is no
relationship between organizational justice and distributive and procedural dimensions with age and job
antecedent but there is meaningful negative relationship between intercourse justice with age and job
antecedent.

ijcrb.webs.com
476
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
References
Aryee, S, (2002), "Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work
outcome:Trust of social exchange modle",Journal of Organizational Behavior,Vol.23.
Ashja, A., Nori, A., Arizi, H., Samavatian, H., (2009) Relationship between Organizational Justice with
Organizational Trust, journal of Knowledge and research in Applied Psychology, Vol 11 (39).
Bos,K .V , (2001), "Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better
understanding of organizational justice",Journal of Vocational Behavior ,Vol.58, PP. 254-259.
Gambarotto,F. Cammozzo, (2010), A " Dreams of silence: Employee voice and innovation in a public
sector community of practice",No.12, PP.166-179.
Hoseynzade, A., Naseri, M., (2007), Organizational Justice, Journak of Tadbir, Vol 190.
Morrison, E.W ,Milliken, F. J, (2006), "Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a
Pluralistic World", Academy of Management Review, No.4, PP. 706-725.
Henriksen, K. Dayton,E," Organizational Silence and Hidden Threats to Patient Safety" , Health Services
Research, No.41,PP.1539-1554.
Iranzadeh, S. Asadi, N., (2009), Analysis of Relationship between Social Behavior and Organizational
Justice with Job Satisfaction, Journal of Farasoye Modiriat, Vol 10, 43-75
Moukhtarian Pour, M., (2008), Studying Perceptional Obstacles of Justice in organization, Journal of
Second Perception, Vol 8.
Park,C.W.Keil, M, (2009), "Organizational Silence and Whistle-Blowing on IT project: An integrated
model" ,Decision Science Institute,No.4,PP.901-918.
Pourezat, A., Ghoulipour, A., (2008), Studying the Structural Obstacles of Justice in organization, Journal
of Bardashte Dovom, Vol 8, pp 53-70.
Raminfar, H., Hadizade Moghadam, A., Ahmadi, A., (2009), Studying relationship between perceived
Organizational Justice with Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Journal of Change Management, Vol 2,
pp 65-88.
Rezaeian, A., (2008), Organizational Justice, Journal of Srcond Perception, Vol 8, pp 53-70.
Robbins, Stephen. P, Judge, Timothy. A, (2008), Organizational Behavior, Prentise Hall.
Tangirala,S. Ramanujam,R, (2008), "Employee silence on critical work issues: The cross level effects of
procedural justice climate", Personnel Psychology, No.61, PP. 37-68.
Taheri, Gh., (2000), Organizational Justice, Journal of Amozashe Hamahang, Vol 202, pp 8-10
Vakola, M . Bouradas, D, (2005), "Antecedents and consequences of organizational silence: An empirical
investigation Employee Relations",No. 27, PP. 441-458.

ijcrb.webs.com
477
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Table1: Summary of main hypothesis
Dimension frequency correlation sig Hypothesis
Perceived organizational justice and
organizational salience 222 74% 0.001 accepted
Table 2: Summary of first secondary hypothesis
Perceived organizational distributive
justice and organizational salience 222 67% 0.001 accepted
Table 3: Summary of second secondary hypothesis
Perceived organizational procedural
justice and organizational salience 222 77% 0.001 accepted
Table 4: Summary of third secondary hypothesis
dimension frequency correlation sig Hypothesis
Perceived organizational
interactional justice and
organizational salience
222 64% 0.001 accepted
Table 5: descriptive results of questionnaires
dimension Standard
deviation
Regression
coefficient
T determination
ccoefficient
sig
Descriptive
justice
0.12 0.44 5/45 0.64 0.001
Procedural
justice
0.12 0.79 10/36 0.64 0.001
Interactional
justice
0.6 0.42 4/10 0.64 0.001

ijcrb.webs.com
478
FEBRUARY 2012
VOL 3, NO 10
Table 6: Freedman statistics
Rank resource Average Df Freedman
statistic
sig
1 interactional
justice
2/53
2 procedural
justice
2/38
3 distributive
justice
1/09
2 293/58 0.001

468 478

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 468 478

Similar to 468 478 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

468 478