European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

The Role of the Organizational Communication on Employees’

Perception of Justice: A Sample of Public
Institution from Turkey

Mehmet İnce
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, 70100, Karaman - Turkey
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: +90-338-2262000; Fax: +90-338-2262023

Hasan Gül
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences
Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey University, 70100, Karaman - Turkey
E-mail: [email protected].
Tel: +90-338-2262000; Fax: +90-338-2262023

Abstract
Organizational peace, communication and justice perception are very important factors in
order to be successful. The objective of this study is to examine the relationships between
the degree of organizational communication and organizational justice perception of
employees. Besides, there is another objective which is identifying the relationships
between employees’ demographic features and organizational communication. The
research was done on 98 employees who are working for Provincial Directorate of
Agriculture allied to Karaman governorship. Data derived from the survey method research
is analyzed by using SPSS 16.0 software program. Descriptive statistics, t-test, one way
variance analysis, correlation and regression analysis are used during the assessment of the
data. At the end of the research, findings show that there is a significant relationship
between communication and interactive justice. Further, findings state that there is a
difference on employees’ organizational communication degree according to their
education status.

Keywords: Organizational Communication, Organizational Justice, Distributive Justice,

Procedural Justice, Interactive Justice, Justice Perception

1. Introduction
With globalization developments in political, social, economic and technological areas affect
communal and organizational lives at an important manner. In parallel with these developments
organization management are obliged to develop new management techniques to struggle even harder
competition conditions. These modern management techniques to a large extent aim to raise
employees’ performance by referring the power of communication (Eroğluer, 2011). Accordingly, for
organization and human as a social being, communication has a vital importance. Communication
whether has pros or cons are an inseparable piece of life and also it has an important role on all
activities aimed at gaining organizational objectives (Ada et al., 2008).
Communication covers all activities that an individual does when he wants to make a
transformation in someone else’s mind. This is a meaning bridge between an individual or individuals
106
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

and organization. Communication is a process that contains expressing, listening and understanding
(Banerji and Dayal, 2005). Similarly, emphasizing social aspect of communication, Gerbner also
defines communication as “social interaction formed by entries”. Communication that takes part on the
base of social life and forms the content of organizational structure is a process which aims conducting
good relationships between groups and organizations (Doğan, 2005). Multidimensional aspect of the
notion of communication along with its analyses from different viewpoints affects its definition.
Eroğluer (2011) propounds that communication concept has 4560 different usages. According to
Oliver (1997) communication is the exchange of ideas, emotions and opinions through words, letters
and symbols among two or more people. He states that this may be defined as a technical fact. Yet it is
uncertain whether symbols are transfer truly or not, to what extent symbols meet the transmitted
message and how effective transmitted fact on the receiver (Kalla, 2005; Baltaş and Baltaş, 2002).
The objective of this study is to determine the effect of organizational communication on
employees’ perception of justice. While unlimited communication opportunities occurred as a result of
technological developments in today’s world present the importance of quality and functionality of
communication in organizations’ activities prominently, the significance of this study emerges.
Considering studies about this issue, justice dimensions used in the study partly or totally are
dependent to employees of organization who are in other words human as a social being. This shows
that employees of organization can cause different results on organizational communication at different
times and conditions. Therefore, examining the effects of employees’ demographics on organizational
communication is also another objective of this study.

2. Organizational Communication and its Importance

Organizations are social units that congregate for production, formed by individuals who have different
views and knowledge to reach a common goal. From a wider perspective, organizations are not only in
the effort to provide intra-organizational cooperation and common sense for production. They are also
trying to establish relationships with the external world and adapt dynamic, competitive and uncertain
conditions by strategize the information they gained from their environment and transferred to
information processing centres of the organization. Organizational and administrative activities for
adapting in and out of organization and information exchange require an effective and functional
communication system (www.donusumkonagi.net). In this context, communication is a vital point of
organizations. Organizations that could not create effective communication would stagger like a ship
without a steer. Effective communication helps organizations to strengthen the employees to reach
organizational goals (Hindi et al., 2004). Groups and individuals are connected to an organization with
communication phenomenon and organizational structure is constituted through communication
(Mumby and Stohl, 1996). Shared reality is occurred between members of organization via
communication. Communication at organizational degree helps to transfer organizational objectives
and goals to employees and intra-organization groups. On the other hand, communication provides
sharing organizational values and believes among employees (Demirel, 2009).
There are so many definitions of organizational communication. For example, while Bovee and
Thill (2000) define organizational communication as “exchanging knowledge and opinions in the
organization”, Argenti (2003) defines it as “creating a positive atmosphere for all employees of
organization”. This definition makes organizational communication a wider dimensional concept rather
than information traffic per se. Communication in the organization should be transferred from an
executive person to another and from an employee to another. When the organizations become bigger
and more complex, organizational communication becomes harder and the necessity of organizational
communication quality increases (Kalla, 2005). According to Goldhaber, (1990) communication, a
process in a given organization is about creating and exchanging information in a dependent relations
network. Price defines organizational communication as “transmitting news about the work from
organization to employees and through employees (Phattanacheewapul and Ussahawanitchakit, 2008;

107
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

Chen et al., 2005). So, regarding different definitions of organizational communication provided
above, a general and comprehensive definition might be like as follows; organizational communication
is a social process provides contact and information exchange between both departments and units of
organization and organization’s environment for the purpose of operation of organization and
accomplishment of the organization’s objective (Kocabaş, www.yordam.manas.kg). Stated process has
combining function to create and hold together all types of relations among people, organizations and
societies (Durğun, 2006). When communication process is done effectively, employees understand the
roles and functions awaited from them and the objective of organization will be well understood. Thus,
organizational communication enable to provide support in areas like making team work possible,
supporting decision process and eliminating the barriers among departments (Ada, 2007).
In organizational communication, beyond the information exchange, it is important that sender
has an attraction will for receiver (Kelly, 1999). According to organizing form in the organization,
there are three formal communication kinds. These are; top-down communication that orders, decisions
and rules are transmitted in pecking order, bottom-up communication that information and results are
transmitted to seniors in pecking order and finally horizontal communication that allows coordination
and information sharing among departments (Adler and Elmhorst, 1996).
Bell and Martin (2008) defined administrative communication which is an important dimension
of organizational communication as “horizontal, vertical, below or above information exchange and
meaning transfer through official and non-official channels to reach managers’ objectives”.
Management academics and executives like Reinsch (2001), Yates and Orlikowski (1992) ve Fulk and
Boyd (1991) consider communication as the core of organization’s life (Paulraj et al., 2008).
Administrative communication is giving information to employees about organization’s institutional
policies and procedures, financial results, group and employee successes, and customer feedback.
Organization management can deliver the information about organization via channels such as control,
group meetings, brochure and newsletters, mission declaration (Soupata, 2005; Argenti, 1998) and
company’s web site (Ng et al., 2006).
The objective of organizational communication is to procure internalizing organization’s goal
and policy from all employees, to give the idea that employees are considered as important by
providing interactivity among employees working in several departments and in this respect to increase
job satisfaction, to maintain operation of organization and to attain the objective of organization
(www.iletisimblogu.blogcu.com). The efficiency of organization is dependent on effective
communication as much as management (Demirtaş, 2010). Sincere and effective communication styles
among organization members enable members to integrate the organization through internalization of
the organization’s objectives and rules by the employees. Thus, commitment of the person who works
in this atmosphere increases and as the rise of job satisfaction, employee contributes to the increase of
organization’s success (Tosun, 2009).
Effective communication in organizations can simplify successful organization operation.
Recent studies about communication show that communication has positive correlation with many
organizational outputs like organizational commitment, performance, organizational citizenship
behaviours, and job satisfaction. In contrast communication failure may cause functionless results like
stress, job dissatisfaction, low trust, decrease in organizational commitment, severance intention, and
absence (Miller, Ellis, Zook and Lyles 1990; Rodwell, Kienzle and Shadur 1998; Malmelin 2007;
Bastien 1987) and this can affect organization’s efficiency negatively (Zhang and Agarwal, 2009). It is
known that especially high stress which is triggered by modern life cause increase in antisocial
communication examples like criticism, yelling, despotism, and clatter. Hostility statements and
interpersonal aggression acts like starting rumours about someone and putting down phone calls
gradually increase (Chory and Hubbell, 2008). These kinds of negations arise from unhealthy
communication and it shows how communication is important for organizational success. Effective
communication in organization is also a great contributor to perform organizations’ strategic plans.

108
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

Well organized, proactive and effective communication which is placed at strategic planning degree
has an important role to reach organization’s objectives (Kuchi, 2006).
Lack of communication that occurs in higher degrees and spread to whole organization may
cause misunderstanding of the employees. In addition to this communication barrier that interrupts
organizational activities, some organizations have limited capacity to provide required information due
to lack of money and time. Also, the scarcity of the formation of necessary relations between resource
and receiver is another obstacle (Johnston and Joyner, 2005). Establishing effective communication
system in organization can be provided by developing and establishing participative spirit among
employees. Human resources management encourages bottom-up communication in organizations.
This means participative management, in other words this is installing psychological partnership
between employees and management (İbicioglu, 1992). Champoux (1996) states that regarding the
development of degree of organizational communication, sharing a common culture of the receiver and
sender is very important. Besides, in addition to organization members have verbal and written skills
and they are giving feedbacks he emphasizes that it is important when the receiver understand the
message sent by the resource. Message sent by resource should be short, clear, plain and
understandable, noise should be reduced as much as possible during communication and technologic
developments must be rejoiced in communication are other organizational communication recruitment
suggestions of Champoux (Bolarinwa and Olorunfemi, 2009).
In today, communication is an important component of organizational activity. Because global
market becomes widespread, the most of organizations to meet their needs with lower resource oblige
to recruit communication and lower communication fails. Therefore, organizations should eliminate
the barriers on communication and create efficient, participative and transparent communication
medium. Constantly developing new technologies present the need of organizations should have open
and correct communication (Hindi et al., 2004).
Degree of organizational communication shows existing information opportunity that a person
can meet his demand about his job role and providing information about organization activities (Green,
1987). Studies in the last decade emphasize the relationship between organizational communication
and employees’ justice perception. Employees’ sense of justice perceived about organizational
operations and resource distribution to a large extent determined by communication degree. In as far as
organizational communication degree is “individual satisfaction degree when employee make a
successful relation or someone made a successful relation with him (Rube, 1984), communication
degree definitely affect organizational justice perception whether direct or indirect. Former studies
show that rise on information quantity what employee has had positive effects on employee satisfaction
and justice perception. In this respect, organization’s publication and tools that create communication
relation between employees and executives is not only a communication tool but they are also strong
strategies that support job enthusiasm, job satisfaction and sense of justice (Putti and Aryee, 1990).

3. The Concept of Organizational Justice and its Importance

Recently, organizational justice becomes an important study field in industrial and organizational
psychology (Eberlin and Tatum, 2008; Bolat, 2010). Organizational justice is a sophisticated field that
has many distinctions and confusing definitions. Despite it has many not enough enlightened parts,
organizational justice means individuals’ perceptions about moral and ethical procedure.
Organizational justice is important because it has contacts with critical organizational processes like
commitment, citizenship, job satisfaction and performance. Also in some studies in literature, it is
propound that organizational justice has close relations with leadership style and decision making
process (Eberlin and Tatum, 2005; Abu Elanain, 2010). Employees are becoming more important in
decision making processes. Even though employees take more responsibility in configuration of
organization’s decisions, it is examined that whether decision about employees are moral or not
(Colquitt et al., 2001). In this respect, the concept of “organizational justice” which is referred to moral

109
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

distribution of acquisition generated from relations in organization gradually becomes more important
(Özmen et al., 2007). Tatum and his friends (2003) state that justice is adopted as organizational justice
for organizations (Eberlin and Tatum, 2008).
Justice notion includes employees’ perceptions about prizes, results, preparation of decision
and participation to decision making process. Organizational justice is defined in different ways by
different authors. Organizational justice as a notion is protection of accuracy and rightfulness in
organization by authority (Pillai et al., 1999). Many researchers like Folger, Konovsky, and Greenberg
define organizational justice as a positive value related to several organizational outputs (Eroğlu,
2009). According to Cropanzano and Greenberg, organizational justice is a perception and
considerations about process and result convenience of organizational implementations. Another
definition says that it is a structure that affects job patterns of employees and determines the quality of
social interaction in organization with implementations that consists of employee’s distribution of
work, wage, rewarding and resting conditions (Dinç and Ceylan, 2008).
It is stated that people’s right and truth perception about organization life is one of the
definitions about organizational justice. In this context, justice principles in a society help to define
rights and liabilities between social institutions and people. Hoy and Tarter (2004) state that general
principles about organizational justice can be as follows:
• The equity principle: It suggests that contribution of individual revenue and other earnings
gained from the organization should be proportional.
• The perception principle: It states that individual evaluations are effective on creating
general justice perception.
• The voice principle: It supposes that the rise on employees’ participation degree would
affect justice perception in positive way.
• Interpersonal justice principle: It grounds on that respectful, responsive and mature
behaviour among people is needed to strengthen justice perception.
• The consistency principle: This principle is based on the opinion which is consistency in
leader’s behaviours is needed to create a justice perception in lower degree employees.
• The egalitarian principle: It highlights the need of making decisions not only for individual
acquisitions but also share an organizational mission during the decision making process.
• The correction principle: It is about recruitment and correction of bad and wrong decision.
• The representation principle: Decisions should be grounded on objective, rational, correct
and reliable information.
• Ethical principle: Moral and ethical standards should be taken into the consideration about
monitoring employees and decisions.
Although there is an observable rise on studies about justice in last twenty years, most of the
theoretical findings of the literature are based on Equity Theory which is developed by Adams in 1965
(Thurston Jr, and McNall, 2010; Karriker and Williams, 2009). Equity theory is based on employee’s
effort-benefit comparison. Employee compares “the benefit” from effort he makes for his job, his
skills, his education, and his job performance with “the result”. These benefits and results are rewards,
which acquired when the job is done, like wage, promotion, appreciation, success and status etc.. As a
result of comparison, person’s effort-benefit ratio may be higher, same and lower than other employees
(Tutar, 2007). If the person thinks that he has same or higher results with his efforts, he satisfies and
develops positive attitudes and behaviour for his organization. On the contrary, if he thinks that other
employees gain more benefits from the results with lower effort, he has lower satisfaction and develops
negative attitudes and behaviours. By the time, Adams’ Equity Theory evolves to the notion of
distributive justice. As mentioned before, Adams base justice perception on comparison of person’s
input and output and others’ input and output. Equity or distributive justice is occurred when an
employee’s input-output ratio conceptually equal to other’s (Berneth et al., 2007).
Another theory which has similar model in to comparison highlighted in Equity Theory is
Crosby’s (1976) Relative Deprivation Theory. Accordingly, an employee in lower degree always
110
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

compares the benefit he gets with higher degree employees’ benefits and this comparison between
different classes cause deprivation for the employee (Cowherd and Levine, 2001). So, people’s justice
perception has an important role in all theories about justice (Yeniçeri et al., 2009). In this context, the
organizational justice perception can be a descriptive factor on increasing organizational success.
Evaluation of organization in this sense is about working behaviour types resulting from the reaction
whether being fair or not (Eskew, 1993). There are three organizational justice types in the existing
literature. These are (McDowall and Fletcher, 2004; Erdoğan et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2009;
Klendauer and Deller, 2009):
Distributive Justice: Roots of distributive justice reach Equity theory developed by Adams and
the perception about employees’ results and acquisitions is called distributive justice (Yılmaz and
Taşdan, 2009; Abu Elanain, 2010; Klendauer and Deller, 2009; FitzGerald, 2002). Whilst this justice
type focuses on reward and punishment distribution degree of working performance (Nirmala and
Akhilesh, 2006), it involves the perception of employee about organization’s distribution of resources
and rewards (Blakely et al., 2005).
Distributive justice is a notion about share of all employee acquisitions such as task, good,
service, opportunity, reward/punishment, role, status, wage, promotion and etc. both in social and
organizational context. So, distributive justice is about honesty and accuracy about distribution of
organizational resources. Because of this, it mainly emphasizes outputs like wage increase,
performance evaluation, rewarding and punishment (Tutar, 2007). Positive distribution justice
perception of employees is dependent on how organization able to act distribution role fairly. For this
reason, employees’ emotion about distributive justice substantially is the output of organization
(Cremer et al., 2004).
Procedural Justice: Studies in recent years state that when employees react against
organizational decision that they are affected by them, they are influenced by operations caused
decisions as much as decision itself. In other words, employees are interested in procedural justice and
try to understand procedures during the decision making. Procedural justice is based on perceptions of
procedures, policies, tools to solve a complaint, time to overcome complaint (Gursoy et al., 2007).
According to Folger and Konovsky (1989), procedural justice means to understand procedures which
are being used for identifying decisions. In other words, it contains justice perceptions of decision
making processes (Konovsky, 2000; Chory and Hubbell, 2008; Yılmaz and Taşdan, 2009).
According to Brett and Goldberg (1983) and Lind and Tyler (1988) this justice type is an
important variable to provide employees’ participation to decision (Turunç, 2009). Effects of
procedural justice are independent from distributive justice and this presents that employees are
interested in procedures because of the reasons beyond results they get with procedures (Karabay,
2004). Procedural justice is defined as the degree of being fair on methods, procedures and policies
which are the bases of identifying and measuring the elements like wage, promotion, financial
potential, working conditions, and performance evaluation (Doğan, 2002). This kind of justice is
mainly about trust on identifying distributive justice elements’ quantity and ratio process. According to
Leventhal and his friends’ study in 1980, procedural justice includes (Berneth el al., 2007):
a) It requires being consistent among people and in time,
b) It contains behaving unprejudiced,
c) It uses correct, objective, reliable and related information in decision making,
d) It allows to make reformative activities when contractors have conflicts,
e) It considers the opinion of contractor that affected by the result.
Procedural justice means to avoid distribution of wages unfair, to implement organizational
operations like participation to decisions and information sharing fairly (Colquitt and Chertkoff, 2002).
Interactional justice: Justice type about perception of interpersonal communication (Karriker
and Williams, 2009; Gefen et al., 2008) and developed by Bies and Moag (1968) is called interactional
justice. Interactional justice has two aspects (Berneth et al., 2007): First is interpersonal interaction
justice and second is briefing justice. Interpersonal justice is required to subordinates behave respectful

111
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

and kind to executives and other employees. Respect of decision maker is perceived as dignity and
elegancy. in addition to executives give information to subordinates, briefing justice means giving
information about social and employee personal rights to subordinates, explaining process in total,
making reasonable explanations to orders, protection of interest, and respecting the right to information
(Berneth et al., 2007; Tutar, 2007). According to Moorman (1991), interactional justice is the way what
and how will be said to employees in decision making process or it is the interaction between the
people who make the distribution and who affected by distribution. People are careful about how they
are treated and whether enough briefing is made or not rather than what the procedures are during
decision making and how trustfully these procedures are implemented. Perceptions about the quality of
interpersonal behaviour during the implementation of procedures form interactional justice (Yılmaz,
2004).

4. The Relations between Organizational Communication and Organizational

Justice
In literature, there are many researches to discover the relations between communication and several
organizational outputs. In this research, communication’s relations with job performance (Pincus,
1986), organizational commitment (Puttie et al., 1990; Varona, 1996), efficiency (Clampitt and Downs,
1993), and job satisfaction (Pettit et al., 1997; Pincus, 1986) are discussed in details (Johnston et al.,
2007). Just like in social life, uncertainties and obscurities are always seen as a source of suspicion in
organizational life. People develop some kind of stereotypes or negative behaviours about the things
they do not know or are not informed (Doğan, www.eab.ege.edu.tr).
Information means trust and openness as much as it means power. Having open communication
channels to reach every kind of information has formative effect on people’s perception and evaluation
process about their job lives. Communication in this context is accepted as a/the tool that provides
information to organizations for reaching organizations’ strategic targets (Waterhouse and Lewis,
2004). Implementing organizational communication open and honest leads employees feel themselves
reinforced (Doğan, 2006). Berger and Calabrese – considering this fact – state that people are
communicating in order to decrease ambiguity. Shapiro, Sheppard and Cheraskin (1992) think that
regular communication develops trust among individuals. Schweiger and DeNisi (1991) state that two
way communication – performed by weekly meetings, telephones, newsletters – between management
and employees decreases ambiguity and increases job satisfaction, commitment, trust and honesty
(Yamaguchi, 2009).
Mueller and Wynn (2000) state in their many conceptual and applied studies about justice for
more than thirty years that individual has fictive and behavioural answers to perceived injustice. These
studies have a common ground which is the assumption of “people are not unconcerned to justice
notion” namely “they value justice” (Özmen et al., 2007). In this respect, there are close relations
between justice and organizational atmosphere, and communication.
The key concept of communication with its relationship to justice is trust. Communication is a
kind of glue that holding employees and organization together and bringing trust. When there is a lack
of communication and trust between employees and organization, there is loss of productivity, quality,
sale and income. People have the need of knowing what is going on in the organization, what is their
place in it and if the right information reach them in right time or not. This process comes up as a
function of effective and powerful communication (Rosen, 1998). Rhenman mentions conflicts
happening from unsuccessful information exchange and he shows insufficient information and
communication as reasons of these conflicts. If reaching and sharing information is easy in an
organization, it is also easy to solve individual and organizational problems. In one way,
communication is sharing information among people. People, who have information about his
department, unit, job, applied technique, organizational objective, strategy, policies and intended
change, would be more compatible and empathetic (Yeniçeri, 2006). People who are informed
112
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

constantly and whose opinions’ are considered important behave with drives that he is valuable and he
is considered important. Source of self-commitment and powerful loyalty to executives and
organization is mostly effective communication. In other words, effective communication is itself an
important motivation tool to create fairness and justice perception that increase person’s self-
commitment (Barutçugil, 2004).
Applied studies show that in the cases when justice perception is high, employees expose
positive attitudes and behaviours increasingly. Nonetheless, organization in which low justice
perception is intensive, employees’ performance and inter organizational communication profiles are
low, they behave unwilling to adapt organization culture and they found insufficient to reach targets, to
have loyalty and to naturalize organization policies (Yürür, 2008). Concordantly, speed and degree of
freedom of communication process lead to evaluation of justice perception in a more free
circumstance. Freedom of information flow affects employees’ justice perception positively and
derives them to adapt job easily. Justice is in the centre of all humanistic relations. Organizational
justice is form of employees’ behaviour, activities and tendencies in an organization. Organizational
justice creates a base for strategic thinking and value management and besides it is a/the base of all
organizational values and principles. Injustice is the fact that it threatens continuousness and growth
which are the most important objectives of organizational life (Chegini, 2009).
In order to be effective in organizational communication, management should make employees
believe that it interacts with all employees equally. Manager should interact with all employees
equally, communicate with them voluntarily, listen to subordinates’ problems and suggestions and
show that he is ready to solve problems (www.iletisimblogu.blogcu.com). Bad news like rejection of a
suggestion or evaluation of a performance very low when it may not lead employees develops unfair
justice perception and distrust to managers. Nonetheless, good communication may lighten or remove
this kind of negative and reverse reactions. On the other side, if there is an emotion arising from
perceived injustice or experiences or communication tactics about injustice, these communication
tactics and trust may affect trust without having relations among each other. For this reason,
communication tactics in a particular form or perceived procedural justice or both of them may create
an effect on a particular form of trust (Yamaguchi, 2009). Communication in an organization consists
of one of the most important parts of organizational processes. Effective communication not only
causes successful implementation of exchanging and settlement processes, but also positive
organizational perceptions among employees. Perception of distributive and procedural justice support
more job satisfaction and performance recruitment (Gupta and Kumar, 2010). Researches interested in
justice perception in working place (Folger and Bies, 1989; Skarlicki and Folger, 1997; Ambrose and
Cropanzano, 2003) present direct and indirect roles of communication in configuration with justice
perceptions.
One of the basic studies about relationships between organizational communication and
procedural justice is Gopiath and Becker’s (2000) study. In their comprehensive research they state that
there is a meaningful relation between communication and procedural justice perceptions. In another
study from Moideenkutty and others (2006), a strong correlation is found between procedural justice
and appreciation arising from communication with managers.
Yamaguchi (2005) says that different aspects of interpersonal communication describe 62 % of
procedural justice. Researchers argue that procedural justice perception is arisen from resentment and
satisfaction that employees bear for organizational managerial activities. Effective interpersonal
communication affects employees’ procedural justice perceptions (Yamaguchi, 2005). Bringing
procedural justice positive is an effective method of participation of the employees to decision making
process and supporting them to give suggestions (Bies and Shapiro 1988; Salancik and Meindel 1984).
“The voice effect” –providing active participation of employees to decisions– is closely related
to procedural justice (Wang and Nayir, 2010). High quality communication in organizations not only
allows employees providing organizational input in decision making process, but also it enables
employees to understand decision easily. Therefore, it is logical to expect a relationship between

113
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

communication and procedural justice. Although there are very few studies which present experimental
results for connection between procedural justices a communication (Zhang and Agarwal, 2009). Just
like there is a relation between organizational communication and procedural justice, there exist(s) a
high correlation between distributive justice and communication. As mentioned before, communication
plays an important role on configuration of employees’ justice perception. In meta-analysis studied by
Shaw, Wild and Colquitt (2003) – to explain effects of justice – it is stated that explanation to
employees is significantly effective on distributive justice (Gupta and Kumar, 2010).
Although there are several researches about relationships between organizational
communication and distributive and procedural justice and several findings from these researches,
there are not many studies about relations between communication and interactional justice. Certainly,
this is because interactional justice is more recent than other justice types. Interactional justice type
contains more social and humanistic features rather than distributive and procedural ones. Managers
listen to employees, trying to empathize with them and explaining the decision to them are the
examples of interpersonal behaviour and these kinds of behaviours cause interactional justice (Gupta
and Kumar, 2010).

5. Research Method
5.1. The Objective and Scope of the Research
The fundamental objective of the research is to present the relationship between organizational
communication degree and employees’ justice perceptions. To present effect of organizational
communication on employees’ procedural, distributive and interactional justice perceptions,
organizational communication is assumed as independent and organizational justice dimensions are
assumed as dependent variables and relations among them are examined.
Also, impacts of demographic features like employees’ age, sex, etc. on organizational
communication are evaluated. Population of the research is employees of Provincial Directorate of
Agriculture allied to Karaman governorship. There are 162 employees working in this public institute.
Comparative to employee number, 120 survey forms are delivered and only 103 of them returned. 5 of
the survey forms are filled wrong or incomplete and that is why they are not accepted. So, research is
examined on 98 survey forms. Sample ratio of the research is determined as n/µ: 98/162: 0,60.

5.2. Scope of the Research and Scales

To collect data, a survey form with three categories is utilized. In first part, there are questions to
identify employees’ demographic – like age, sex and marital status – and individual features. Second
and third categories involve statements about organizational communication and organizational justice
types which are also dependent and independent variables of our research. Fivefold Likert scale is used
and (1) correspond to “totally disagree” and (5) “totally agree”.
A Scale which is originally developed by Huseman and others (1980), summarized to 24
questions by Miles and others (1996) and then interpreted to Turkish and applied 109 employees
working in a company in defence industry by Yüksel (2005) is used to measure organizational
communication. To measure organizational justice, Justice Scale developed by Moorman is used.
Moorman’s Justice Scale evaluates organizational justice in three dimensions which are procedural,
distributive and interactional. These scales consist of 25 statements, 7 of them are developed to
measure procedural justice, 10 of them are interactional justice and 8 of them are distributive justice.

5.3. Research Model and Hypothesises

The model showed at Figure 1 is developed to evaluate organizational communication and
organizational justice types.

114
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)
Figure 1: Research Model

Sex
Procedural
Justice
Age

Organizational Interactional
Marital Status Justice
Communication

Level of
Education Distributive
Justice

Seniority

Hypothesis will be tested in the research toward this model as follows:

H1: Degree of employees’ organizational communication differs from their sex.
H2: Degree of employees’ organizational communication differs from their age
H3: Degree of employees’ organizational communication differs from their marital status.
H4: Degree of employees’ organizational communication differs from their level of education.
H5: Degree of employees’ organizational communication differs from their seniority.
H6: There is a positive relation between degree of organizational communication and
employees’ procedural justice perceptions.
H7: There is a positive relation between degree of organizational communication and
employees’ interactional justice perceptions.
H8: There is a positive relation between degree of organizational communication and
employees’ distributive justice perceptions.

6. Results of Hypothesis Testing

6.1. Demographic Profiles of Respondents
In addition to factor and reliability analysis, there is frequency analysis in the research. In Table 1,
demographics of participators are seen. 85,7 % of participators is man and 14,3 % is woman. 2 % of
participators is between 21-25 age, 6,1 % is between 26-30 age, 13,3 % is between 31-35 age and 78,6
% is in 36 and more age group. So, majority of the participators is middle age and older employees.
91,8 % of the participators is married, 6,1 % is single and 2 % is divorced. 14,3 % of the participators
has high school degree, 35,7 % has associate degree and 41,8 % has bachelor degree and finally 8,2 %
has master or doctorate degree. 14,3 of the participators has less than 1 year seniority, 11,2 % has
between 1-5 years seniority, 12,2 % has 6-10 years seniority and finally 62,3 % has more than 11 years
seniority.

Table 1: Demographic Information of Respondents

CONTROL VARIABLE (n:83) f %

Male 84 85,7
SEX
Female 14 14,3
21-25 2 2,0
26-30 6 6,1
31-35 13 13,3
AGE
36-40 34 34,7
41-45 20 20,4
46 and more 23 23,5

115
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)
Table 1: Demographic Information of Respondents (Continued)

Single 6 6,1
MARITAL STATUS Married 90 91,8
Divorced 2 2,0
High School 14 14,3
Associate Deg. 35 35,7
LEVEL OF EDUCATION
Bachelor Deg. 41 41,8
Master Deg. + 8 2,0
Less than 1 year 14 14,3
1-5 11 11,2
6-10 12 12,2
SENIORITY
11-15 14 14,3
16-20 29 29,6
21 and more 18 18,4

6.2. Correlation Analysis

Directions and degrees of relations between values is tried to be calculated by using Pearson
correlation coefficient. For correlation analysis, organizational communication’s and of organizational
justice’s sub-scales’ correlation coefficients are calculated.

Table 2: Correlations between Organizational Communication and Organizational Justice

Mean S. D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. SEX 1,1429 ,35173 1
2. AGE 5,3571 1,26206 -,348** 1
3.MS 1,9796 ,37935 -,132 ,209* 1
4. LOE 3,4388 ,83809 -,075 -,237* -,199 1
5. SEN 3,8878 1,70435 -,111 ,671** -,020 -,182 1
6. PJ 2,9111 ,99705 -,031 -,014 -,180 -,203 -,132 1
7. IJ 3,0827 1,06025 ,095 -,174 -,244* -,073 -,208* ,840** 1
8. DJ 2,7194 1,19439 -,002 -,025 -,189 -,169 -,107 ,772** ,818** 1
9. OC 3,3698 ,79119 ,004 ,019 -,164 -,112 ,060 ,578** ,705** ,627** 1
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
MS: Marital Status; LOE: Level of Education; SEN: Seniority; PJ: Procedural Justice; IJ: Interactional Justice; DJ:
Distributive Justice; OC: Organizational Communication.

It is specified in correlation analysis that there are relations between employees’ organizational
communication degree and perceptions of organizational justice types in several degrees.
Organizational communication has positive and meaningful relation with procedural justice at (r: ,578)
p<0.01 degree, interactional justice at (r: ,705) p<0.01 degree and distributive justice at (r: ,627)
p<0.01 degree. So, it is seen that organizational communication is related to all three types of
organizational justice.
Especially the relation with interactional justice perception is stronger than other two.
Interactional justice that is about perception of interpersonal communication and has two sub-
dimensions which are interpersonal communication and briefing (Karriker and Williams, 2009; Chory
and Hubbell, 2008; Gefen et al., 2008; Berneth et al., 2007) is highly related to the degree of
communication in the/a organization. When employees believe they are well informed about the job,
organizational decisions, rules, activities and policies by their managers in the organization, their
perceived interactional justice degree increases. In this situation, employees’ belief and trust about
managers and colleagues are respectfully solid.

116
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

6.3. Findings about Comparison between Employees’ Organizational Communication Degree

and Demographics
It is seen at the table below what the results of t-test are about comparison between employees’
organizational communication degrees and their sex. At Table 3, it is seen that male and female
employees have similar values for organizational communication degrees and no significant difference
(t= 1,191; p>0,05) is found between their organizational communication degrees. Therefore,
Hypothesis 1 is rejected.

Table 3: T-test Results of Comparison between Employees’ Organizational Communication Degrees and Sex

Sub-Scales Sex n X S.D. t Sig (p)

ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION Male 84 3,3686 ,81940
1,191 ,278
Female 14 3,3771 ,61962

Anova test results regarding comparison of employees’ organizational communication degrees

with their age, marital status, level of education and seniority are seen at the table below. When Table 4
is examined, there is no meaningful difference with age, marital status and seniority with regard to
organizational communication. Only, employees’ level of education (F = 4,029; p:0,01) has significant
difference with regard to organizational communication degree. Therefore, Hypothesis 2, Hypothesis 3,
and Hypothesis 5 are rejected and Hypothesis 4 is accepted.

Table 4: Anova Test Results Regarding Comparison of Employees’ Organizational Communication Degrees
with Their Age, Marital Status, Level of Education and Seniority

Age N X S. D. F Sig (p)

21-25 2 3,3600 ,00000
26-30 6 3,6133 ,37919
31-35 13 3,4400 ,54577
36-40 34 3,1953 ,77424 ,547 ,740
41-45 20 3,4480 1,06303
ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION

46 and more 23 3,4574 ,78103

Total 98 3,3698 ,79119
Marital Status N X S. D. F Sig (p)
Single 6 3,6000 ,24265
Married 90 3,3733 ,81187
1,421 ,247
Divorced 2 2,5200 ,00000
Total 98 3,3698 ,79119
Level of Education N X S. D. F Sig (p)
High School 14 3,1200 ,62007
Associate Degree 35 3,6160 ,64419
Bachelor Degree 41 3,3815 ,88954 4,029 ,010**
Masters Degree 8 2,6700 ,65926
Total 98 3,3698 ,79119
Seniority N X S. D. F Sig (p)
Less than 1 year 14 3,4229 ,44645
1-5 11 3,4473 ,71951
6-10 12 3,2333 ,85669
11-15 14 3,1200 ,89333 1,286 ,277
16-20 29 3,2634 ,74608
21 year and more 18 3,7378 ,93780
Total 98 3,3698 ,79119

117
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

6.4. Regression Analysis and Hypothesis Test

At Table 5, regression analysis’ results of effects of organizational communication degree on
employees’ justice perceptions are given. In other words, number 6, 7 and 8 hypothesises are tested
with this regression analysis. In the model, organizational communication is independent and
organizational justice types are dependent variables.

Table 5: Regression Analysis on the Effect of Organizational Communication on the Organizational Justice

Independent Variables
Dependent Variables Organizational Communication
Standardized Coefficients Beta t Sig.
PJ -,097 -,701 ,485
IJ ,644 4,205 ,000**
DJ ,175 1,333 ,186
F 32,264
R ,712
R2 ,507
** p < 0,01

F value in regression model is the value that shows model’s significance and it 32,264.
Therefore, the model that created to measure relations between organizational communication degree
and justice types is significant. As it is seen on the table, there is a positive relationship between (p:
,000**) organizational communication degree and interactional justice. As mentioned at correlation
analysis, organizational communication degree plays an important role on interactional justice which is
about perception of interpersonal communication and has dimensions like briefing and interpersonal
interaction. In addition to sincerity that managers presents during/throughout communication with
employees, organizational operations, informing of subordinates about their social and personal rights,
explanations processes purely, making reasonable explanations to suggestions, protecting their rights,
respecting their right to information (Berneth et al., 2007; Tutar, 2007) cause interactional justice
perceived in positive way. So, in the light of these findings, Hypothesis 7 propounded parallel to
literature is accepted. But there are no findings to support Hypothesis 6 and 8. Yet, in regression
analysis, no relationships are found between organizational communication and procedural and
distributive justice types. There are some researches in literature Ambrose and Harland, 1995;
Gopinath and Becker, 2000; Moideenkutty et al., 2001; Yamaguchi, 2005) about positive relationships
between organizational communication and distributive and procedural justice. But as Zhang and
Agarwal mentioned (2009), very few studies present empirical evidence for relationship between
organizational communication and procedural and distributive justice. Also, it is not reached to
experimental evidence to show relationship between organizational communication and those two
justice types. This situation shows that – as Johnston and Joyner (2005) mentioned – there is not
enough relationship between managers who are assumed as a resource and employees who are
assumed as receiver in the public institution that the research done. Also, it shows that employees
believe that distribution of rewards and punishments are not fair (Nirmala and Akhilesh, 2006; Blakely
et al., 2005).

7. Summary and Concluding Remarks

Communication in organization management is one of the basic tools to perform management
functions effectively and efficiently. To maintain all kinds of process in organizational activities and to
perform objectives and goals, communication is used. Yet, realizing employees’ knowledge and skills
is possible with communication. Accordingly, flow of information among people precisely and reliable
is important for organizations to get sustainable competitive advantage in today’s world. Another fact

118
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

that is effective on organization’s success is employees’ justice perceptions. Organizational justice is

employees’ perceptions about whether activities about distribution of organizational resources, degree
of interpersonal relationships and operation organizational processes are being done fairly or not.
This study’s fundamental objective is to highlight the opinion of increasing degree of
organizational communication would affect employees’ justice perception in the positive way, by
examining the relationship between organizational communication and justice types. In this regard,
survey study is done at Provincial Directorate of Agriculture allied to Karaman governorship. In the
survey, study to measure employees’ communication degree, Organizational Communication Scale
developed by Miles and his co-authors (1996) and translated to Turkish by Yüksel (2005) is used.
Organizational justice is measured by Organizational Justice Scale which is developed by Moorman. In
the research which is done with 98 participants, it is seen that employees’ perception on organizational
communication is positive and moderate level ( : 3,3698), in other words organizations and
executives communicate with their employees at middle level. There are no significant differences on
employees’ communication degree with regard to employees’ demographics like sex, age, marital
status and seniority (H1, H2, H3 and H5) and there is a significant difference on organizational
communication with regard to their level of education (H4). So, we can say that managers and
executives should take employees’ level of education consideration while they are communicating with
them. This provides developing employees’ appropriation of their jobs, increasing employee morale,
creating healthier communication medium.
In the research, one (H7) of three (H6, H7 and H8) hypothesises is accepted about identifying
the relations between organizational communication and organizational justice types. A positive
relationship is found between organizational communication and perception of interactional justice. As
mentioned before, organizational communication plays important role on configuration of interactional
justice. Behaviours like respect and kindness from managers to employees, sincere on communication,
informing subordinates about organizational operations, social personal rights, objective and rational
explanations to suggestions, looking after employees’ benefits lead interactional justice perceived
positively. But, no relationship found between organizational communication between procedural and
distributive justice perceptions. In spite of the general opinion in literature like organizational
communication is related to both procedural and distributive justice (Ambrose and Harland, 1995;
Moideenkutty et al., 2001; Yamaguchi, 2005), it is reached no findings to support hypothesises about
relation between organizational communication and distributive and procedural justice.
When employees perceive organizational decisions and activities fair, it leads their trust to
increase towards their manager. Concordantly, employees’ perceptions whether it is fair or not
participating to decisions, performance evaluation, allocation of organizational resources and rewards
like wage and promotions and procedures that play role on operation of these is very important for
managers in communication with them. It is clear that process of procedural informing and effective
and fair distribution of resources is needed to create a positive employee perception for organization
and results of the research is supporting it. Creating positive employee perception like executive
policies are fair is only possible with managing organizational communication and information flow
effectively and in a healthy way. Managers’ fair decisions and applications generally are not enough
for employees’ positive justice perceptions. It definitely should be supported by an effective
communication and sharing process. In this context, organization managers have important
responsibilities to create a structure that help to spread sharing of organizational information among
employees.
As a consequence, organizational communication is effective to create positive justice
perception at subjects as follows:
• To administer the participation of employees to decisions,
• To give feedbacks on employees’ performances,
• To inform employees about organizational processes,
• To identify organizational objective, goal, policies and rules clearly and transparently,
119
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

• To create reward/punishment system that evaluates employees’ performance fairly,

• To care to create a balanced language between being sincere or being diplomatic in
organizational communication,
• To communicate with obeying respect and kindness rights in organizational relations,
• To encourage knowledge sharing.
This research has some constraints as other studies have. The biggest constraint is that the
research is applied in one public institution and done with only its employees. Hence, making
generalization with research’s findings would not give healthy results. Besides, the reason the research
is done in a public institution; it does not explain evaluation of differences between public and private
sector employees. Another important constraint is the reason justice perception is a time manner
attitude; it can change by time.
In the light of the constraints mentioned above, these suggestions are made for future studies:
• To contribute both national and international literature, the scope of the research should
involve both public and private sector employees and it should be made comparative
studies,
• It should be identified that whether justice perception is inconstant or not by doing
researches on the same organizations and employees in different times,
• Organization culture should be added as a moderator variable to studies about examining
relations between organizational communication and justice.

References
[1] Abu Elanain, H. M., 2010. “Testing the direct and indirect relationship between organizational
justice and work outcomes in a non-Western context of the UAE”, Journal of Management
Development 29(1), pp. 5-27.
[2] Ada, N., 2007. “Örgütsel İletişim ve Yeni Bilgi Teknolojileri; Örgütsel İletişim Ağları”, Ege
Akademik Bakış / Ege Academic Review 7(2), pp. 543-551.
[3] Ada, N., Alver, İ. ve A. Fatma, 2008. “Örgütsel İletişimin Örgütsel Bağlılık Üzerine Etkisi:
Manisa Organize Sanayi Bölgesinde Yer Alan ve İmalat Sektörü Çalışanları Üzerinde Yapılan
Bir Araştırma”, Ege Akademik Bakış / Ege Academic Review 8(2), pp. 487-518.
[4] Adler, R. B. and J. M. Elmhorst, 1996. Communicating at Work, ISBN 0-07-114001-8 (5th ed).
McGraw Hill. New York.
[5] Ambrose, M. L., and L. K. Harland, 1995. “Procedural justice and influence tactics: Fairness,
frequency, and effectiveness”. in R. Cropanzano and M. Kacmar (Eds.), Organizational politics,
justice and support: Managing the social climate of the workplace (pp. 97-130). Westport, CT:
Quorum.
[6] Baltaş, Z., ve A. Baltaş, 2002. Bedenin Dili, Remzi Kitabevi, İstanbul.
[7] Banerji, A. and A. Dayal, 2005. “A Study of Communication in Emergency Situations in
Hospitals”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and Conflict 9(2), pp. 35-45.
[8] Barutçugil, İ., 2004. Stratejik İnsan Kaynakları Yönetimi, Kariyer Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
[9] Bell, R. L., and J. Martin, 2008. “The Promise of Managerial Communication as a Field of
Research”, International Journal of Business and Public Administration 5(2), pp. 125-142.
[10] Berneth, J. B., Armenakis, A. A., Feild, H. S. and H. J. Walker, 2007. “Justice, Cynicism, and
Commitment: A Study of Important Organizational Changes Variables”, The Journal of
Applied Behavioral Science 43(3), pp. 303-326.
[11] Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C. and R. H. Moorman, 2005. “The Moderating Effects of
Sensitivity on The Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors”, Journal of Business and Psychlolgy 20(2), pp. 259‐273.

120
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

[12] Bolarinwa, J. A. and D. Y. Olorunfemi, 2009. “Organizational Communication for

Organizational Climate and Service in Academic Libraries”, Library Philosophy and Practice,
pp. 1-5.
[13] Bolat, O. İ., 2010. “The Relationships between Leader-Member Exchange and Organizational
Justice in Hotels”, European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences 26,
pp. 115-125.
[14] Chegini, M. G., 2009. “The Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior”, American Journal of Economics and Business Administration 1(2), pp.
171-174.
[15] Chen, J. C., Silverthone, C. and J. Y. Hung, 2005. “Organizational Commmunication, Job
Stress, Organizational Commitment, and Job Performance of Accounting Professionals in
Twain and America”, Leaderships and Organization Development Journal 27(4), pp. 242-249.
[16] Chory, R. M. and A. P. Hubbell, 2008. “Organizational Justice and Managerial Trust as
Predictors of Antisocial Employee Responses”, Communication Quarterly 56(4), pp. 357-375.
[17] Cohen, R. L., 1987. “Distributive Justice: Theory and Research”, Social Justice Research 1, pp.
19–40.
[18] Colquitt, J. A. and J. M. Chertkoff, 2002. “Explaining Injustice: The Interactive Effect of
Explanation and Outcome on Fairness Perceptions and Task Motivation”, Journal of
Management 28(5), pp. 591–610.
[19] Colquitt, J. A., D. E. Conlod, M. J. Wesson., C. Porter and K. N. G. Yee, 2001. “Justice at the
Millennium: A Meta Analytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research”, Journal
of Applied Psychology 86(3), pp. 425–445.
[20] Cowherd, D. M., I. D. Levine, 1992. “Product Quality and Pay Equity Between Lower-Level
Employees and Top Management: An Investigation Of Distributive Justice Theory”,
Administrative Science Quarterly 37(2), pp. 303-304.
[21] Cremer, D. D., Dijke, M. V. and A. Bos, 2004. “Distributive Justice Moderating the Effects of
Self-sacrificial Leadership”, The Leadership & Organization Development Journal 25(5), pp.
466-475.
[22] Demirel, Y., 2009. “Örgütsel Bağlılık ve Üretkenlik Karşıtı Davranışlar Arasındaki İlişkiye
Kavramsal Yaklaşım”, İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 8(15), pp. 115-
132.
[23] Demirtaş, M., 2010. “Örgütsel İletişimin Verimlilik ve Etkinliğinde Yararlanılan İletişim
Araçları ve Halkla İlişkiler Filmleri Örneği”, Marmara Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi XXVIII(1),
pp. 411-444.
[24] Dinç, A. ve A. Ceylan, 2008. “Kaçak Elektrik Kullanımıyla İlgili İdare Çalışanı Tutumunun
Örgütsel Adalet ve İs Memnuniyeti ile İlişkisi, Çalışma Gruplarına Göre Farklılıklar”,
Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi İİBF Dergisi 9(2), pp. 13-29.
[25] Doğan, H., 2002. “İşgörenlerin Adalet Algılamalarında Örgüt İçi İletişim ve Prosedürel
Bilgilendirmenin Rolü”, Ege Akademik Bakış Dergisi 2(2), pp. 71‐78.
[26] Doğan, H., “İşgörenlerin Adalet Algılamalarında Örgüt İçi İletişim ve Prosedürel
Bilgilendirmenin Rolü”, http://eab.ege.edu.tr/pdf/2_2/C2-S2-%20M7.pdf.
[27] Doğan, S., 2005. Çalışan İlişkileri Yönetimi, Kare Yayınları, İstanbul.
[28] Doğan, S., 2006. Personel Güçlendirme Rekabette Başarının Anahtarı, Kare Yayınları, İstanbul.
[29] Durğun, S., 2006. “Örgüt Kültürü ve Örgütsel İletişim”, Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim
Fakültesi Dergisi III(II), pp. 112-132.
[30] Eberlin, R. J. and B. C. Tatum, 2005. “Organizational Justice and Decision Making, When
good intentions are not enough”, Management Decision 43(7/8), pp. 1040-1048.
[31] Eberlin, R. J. and B. C. Tatum, 2008. “Making just decisions: organizational justice, decision
making, and leadership”, Management Decision 46(2), pp. 310-329.

121
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

[32] Erdoğan, B., Liden, R. C. and M. L. Kraimer, 2006. “Justice and Leader-member Exchange:
The Moderating Role of Organizational Culture”, Academy of Management Journal 49(2), pp.
395-406.
[33] Eroğlu, Ş. G., 2009. “Örgütsel Adalet Algılaması ve İş Tatmini Hakkında Bir Araştırma”,
Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Denizli, pp. 1-223.
[34] Eroğluer, K., 2011. “Örgütsel İletişim ile İş Tatmini Unsurları Arasındaki İlişkiler: Kuramsal
Bir İnceleme”, Ege Akademik Bakış / Ege Academic Review 11(1), pp. 1409-1424.
[35] Eskew, E. D., 1993. “The Role Of Organizational Citizenship Behavior”, Employee
Responsibilities And Rights Journal 6(3).
[36] FitzGerald, M. R., 2002. “Organizational Cynicism: Its Relationship to Perceived
Organizational Injustice and Explanatory Style”, University of Cincinnati, UMI Microfilmed
2002, pp. 1-70.
[37] Folger, R., 1987. “Distributive and Procedural Justice in the Workplace”, Social Justice
Research 1(2), pp. 143–159.
[38] Gefen, D., Ragowsky, A. and C. Ridings, 2008. “Leadership and Justice: Increasing non
Participating Users’ Assessment of an IT Through Passive Participation”, Information &
Management 45, pp. 507‐512.
[39] Green, D., 1987. Business Guide to Communication Systems, Pitman Publishing, Great Britain,
pp. 7-22.
[40] Greenberg, J., 1990. “Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow”, Journal of
Management 16(2), pp. 399–432.
[41] Gupta, M. A. and R. Kumar, 2010. “Look Who’s Talking! Impact of Communication
Relationship Satisfaction on Justice Perceptions”, VIKALPA 35(3), pp. 55-65.
[42] Gursoy, D., Ekiz, E. H. and C. G. Chi, 2007. “Impacts of Organizational Responses on
Complainants’ Justice Perceptions and Post-Purchase Behaviors”, Journal of Quality Assurance
in Hospitality & Tourism 8(1), pp. 1-25.
[43] Hindi, N. M., Miller, D. S. and S. E. Catt, 2004. “Communication and Miscommunication in
Corporate America: Evidence From Fortune 200 Firms”, Journal of Organizational Culture,
Communications and Conflict 8(2), pp. 13-26.
[44] Hoy, W. K. and C. J. Tarter, 2004. “Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust”,
International Journal of Educational Management 18(4), pp. 250-259.
[45] http://iletisimblogu.blogcu.com/orgutsel-iletisim-nedir/5621454, AD: 03.01.2011.
[46] http://www.donusumkonagi.net/makale.asp?id=2909&baslik=orgutsel_iletisim, AD: 10.02.2011.
[47] İbicioğlu, H., 1999. “İşletmelerde İnsangücü Verimliliğinin Arttırılması”, Dumlupınar
Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 1(2).
[48] Johnston, M. K. and B. E. Joyner, 2005. “Leadership And Communication: A Multiple-
Perspective Study Of Best Practices”, Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications and
Conflict 9(2), pp. 1-14.
[49] Johnston, M. K., Reed, K., Lawrence, K. and M. Onken, 2007. “The Link between
Communication and Financial Performance in Simulated Organizational Teams”, Journal of
Managerial Issues XIX(4), pp. 536-553.
[50] Kalla, H. K., 2005. “Integrated Internal Communications: A Multidisciplinary Perspective”,
Corporate Communications: An international Journal 10(4), pp. 302-314.
[51] Karabay, E., 2004. “Kamuda ve Özel Sektörde Örgütsel Adalet Algısı İle Örgütsel Bağlılık
Arasındaki İlişkiler”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Hacettepe Üniversitesi SBE, Ankara.
[52] Karriker, J. H. and M. L. Williams, 2009. “Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model”, Journal of Management 35(1), pp.
112‐135.
[53] Kelly, D., 1999. “Using Vision to Improve Organizational Communication”, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal 21(2), pp. 92-101.

122
 European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

[54] Klendauer, R. and J. Deller, 2009. “Organizational Justice and Managerial Commitment in
Corporate Mergers”, Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(1), pp. 29-45.
[55] Kocabaş, F., “Değişime Uyum Sürecinde İç ve Dış Örgütsel İletişim Çabalarının Entegrasyonu
Gerekliliği”, http://yordam.manas.kg/ekitap/pdf/Manasdergi/sbd/sbd13/sbd-13-22.pdf, AD:
12.01.2011.
[56] Konovsky, M. A., 2000. “Understanding Procedural Justice and Its Impact on Business
Organizations”, Journal of Management 26(3), pp. 489‐511.
[57] Kuchi, T., 2006. “Constant Change and the Strategic Role of Human Communication. A
Selective Annotated Bibliography”, Library Management 27(4/5), pp. 218-235.
[58] McDowall, A. and C. Fletcher, 2004. “Employee development: an Organizational Justice
Perspective”, Personnel Review 33(1), pp. 8-29.
[59] Moorman, R. H., 1991. “Relationship between Organizational Justice and Organizational
Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?”, Journal of
Applied Psychology 76, pp. 845–855.
[60] Mumby, D. K. and C. Stohl, 1996. “Diciplining Organizational Communication Studies”,
Management Communication Quarterly 10, pp. 50-72.
[61] Ng, W. H. T., Butts, M. M., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M. and M. G. Wilson, 2006. “Effects
of Management Communication, Opportunity for Learning, and Work Schedule Flexibility on
Organizational Commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior 68, pp. 474–489.
[62] Nirmala, M. C. and K.B. Akhilesh, 2006. “An attempt to Redefine Organizational Justice: in
the Rightsizing Environment”, Journal of Organizational Change Management 19(2), pp. 136-
153.
[63] Özmen, Ö. N., Arbak, Y. T. ve P. S. Özer, 2007. “Adalete Verilen Değerin Adalet Algıları
Üzerindeki Etkisinin Sorgulanmasına İlişkin Bir Araştırma”, Ege Akademik Bakış / Ege
Academic Review 7(1), pp. 17–33.
[64] Paulraj, A., Lado, A. A. and J. J. Chen, 2008. “Inter-organizational Communication as a
Relational Competency: Antecedents and Performance Outcomes in Collaborative buyer–
supplier Relationships”, Journal of Operations Management 26, pp. 45–64.
[65] Phattanacheewapul, A. and P. Ussahawanitchakit, 2008. “Organizational Justice Versus
Organizational Support: The Driven-factors of Employee Satisfactıon and Employee
Commitment on Job Performance”, Journal of Academy of Business and Economics 8(2), pp.
114-123.
[66] Pillai, R., A. S. Chester and S. W. Eric, 1999. “Fairness Perceptions and Trust as Mediators for
Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Two‐Sample Study”, Journal of
Management 25(6), pp. 897–933.
[67] Putti, J. M. and S. Aryee, 1990. “Communication in Organizations”, Group & Organization
Management 15(1), pp. 44.
[68] Rosen, R. H., 1998. İnsan Yönetimi, MESS Yayınları, İstanbul.
[69] Ruben, B., 1984. Communication and Human Behavior, Macmilan Publishing Comp., New
York, pp. 11-18.
[70] Taylor, J. R., 2001. “The ‘Rational’ Organization Reconsidered: An Exploration of some of the
Organizational Implications of Self-Organizing”, Communication Theory 11, pp. 137-177.
[71] Thurston Jr, P. W. and L. McNall, 2010. “Justice perceptions of performance appraisal
practices”, Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(3), pp. 201-228.
[72] Tosun, C., 2009. “Kamu İşletmelerindeki İletişim Biçimlerinin Verimliliğe Etkisi-1”, Anahtar,
Milli Prodüktivite Merkezi Aylık Yayın Organı 21(242), pp. 20-23.
[73] Turunç, Ö., 2009. “İş Performansının Artırılmasında Adalet ve Motivasyonun Rolü: Bankacılık
Sektöründe Bir Model Araştırması”, 17. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, 21-23
Mayıs 2009, Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İşletme Bölümü, pp. 141-148.

123
European Journal of Social Sciences – Volume 21, Number 1 (2011)

[74] Tutar, H., 2007. “Erzurum’da Devlet ve Özel Hastanelerde Çalışan Sağlık Personelinin İşlem
Adaleti, İş Tatmini ve Duygusal Bağlılık Durumlarının İncelenmesi”, Süleyman Demirel
Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 12(3), pp. 97‐120.
[75] Wang, K. Y. and D. Z. Nayir, 2010. “Procedural justice, participation and power distance
Information sharing in Chinese firms”, Management Research Review 33(1), pp. 66-78.
[76] Waterhouse, J. and D. Lewis, 2004. “Communicating Culture Change (HRM implications for
public sector organizations)”, Public Management Review 6(3), PP. 353–376.
[77] Yamaguchi, I., 2005. “Interpersonal Communication Tactics and Procedural Justice for
Uncertainty Management of Japanese Workers”, Journal of Business Communication 42(2), pp.
168-194.
[78] Yamaguchi, I., 2009. “Influences of Organizational Communication Tactics on Trust with
Procedural Justice Effects: A Cross-cultural Study between Japanese and American Workers”,
International Journal of Intercultural Relations 33, pp. 21-31.
[79] Yeniçeri, Ö., 2006. “Yönetim Süreçlerinin Etkinleştirilmesinde Açık Yönetim Anlayışının
Rolü”, Yönetimde Yeni Yaklaşımlar, IQ Kültür Sanat Yayıncılık, İstanbul.
[80] Yeniçeri, Ö., Y. Demirel ve Z. Seçkin, 2009. “Örgütsel Adalet İle Duygusal Tükenmişlik
Arasındaki İlişki: İmalat Sanayi Çalışanları Üzerine Bir Araştırma”, KMÜ İİBF Dergisi 11(16),
pp. 83-99.
[81] Yılmaz, G., 2004. “İnsan Kaynakları Uygulamalarına İlişkin Örgütsel Adalet Algısının Tutum
ve Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkisi”, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler
Enstitüsü.
[82] Yılmaz, K. and M. Taşdan, 2009. “Organizational citizenship and organizational justice in
Turkish primary schools”, Journal of Educational Administration 47(1), pp. 108-126.
[83] Yüksel, İ., 2005. “İletişimin İş Tatmini Üzerindeki Etkileri: Bir İşletmede Yapılan Görgül
Çalışma”, Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi 6 (2), pp. 291-306.
[84] Yürür, Ş., 2008. “Örgütsel Adalet ile İş Tatmini ve Çalışanların Bireysel Özellikleri Arasındaki
İlişkilerin Analizine Yönelik Bir Araştırma”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari
Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 13(2), pp. 295-312.
[85] Zhang, H. and N. C. Agarwal, 2009. “The mediating roles of organizational justice on the
relationships between HR practices and workplace outcomes: an investigation in China”, The
International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(3), pp. 676-693.
[86] Zhang, L., Nie, T. and L. Yongtai, 2009. “Matching Organizational Justice with Employment
Modes Strategic Human Resource Management Perspective”, Journal of Technology
Management in China 4(2), pp. 180-187.

124