This presentation was done in June 2014 by one of our participants in ICST and ICBELSH conferences.

1. 2nd
International Conference on Business Innovation, Economics, Law, Social
Sciences & Humanities (ICBELSH) June 18th
, 2014 ~ Kuala Lumpur
‘Organizational Justice as Moderator in the Relationship between Job
Performance Factor and Career Satisfaction’
Saraih, Ummi Naiemah
College of Business
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
ndolphin03@yahoo.com
Ali, Hassan
College of Business
Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM)
hassan@uum.edu.my
Khalid, Shaiful Annuar
Faculty of Business Management
Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM)
shaiful@uitm.edu.my

2. Introduction (Cont)
 ABSTRACT
 The purpose of this study is to examine the r/ship between Job
Performance (JP) factors and employees’ intrinsic Career Advancement
(CA).
 In addition, this study attempts to explore the roles of OJ as moderator in
the relationship between JP factors and employees’ intrinsic CA in the
context of Malaysia.
 In particular, this study investigated the roles of distributive justice,
procedural justice and interactional justice as moderators in the
relationship between JP factors (e.g. TP, OCB) and teachers’ CS.
 The data was gathered through mail survey method from 390 respondents.
 First, the result showed that teachers’ TP was significantly related to
teachers’ CS.
 Second, this study found that all factors of justice were the predictor to
teachers’ CS.
 Also, the results found that there was a significant interaction between
teacher’s ratings of OCB and distributive justice to teachers’ CS.
 INDEX TERMS:
 Career Satisfaction (CS), Task Performance (TP), Organizational Citizenship
Behaviour (OCB), Organizational Justice (OJ)

3. Introduction (Cont)
 Career Definitions:
 Patton & McMahon (2006) ~ Career provides the opportunity for social
meaning in an individual’s action.
 Young & Valach (1996) ~ acknowledge that the term people use to refer to
career may vary.
 Watts (1981b) ~ Career has a rich ambiguity.
 CA Definitions:
• Seiber & Kraimer (2001):
• Zhou & Zhou (2008):
 CA Components:
• Extrinsic CA (promotion, pay):
• Intrinsic CA (career satisfaction, job satisfaction):
 Carmeli, Shalom & Weisberg (2007) ~ Although promotion may appear as a
major indicator for measuring the extrinsic component of CA.
 Gattiker & Larwood (1989) ~ Individuals evaluation towards their own
success was the criteria that was often more subjective and linked to
personal satisfaction with their jobs.
 Ferris & Judge, 1991 ~ how people perceive and evaluate the concept of
career attainment within them; and how people perceive the expectation
of other people on them is still important.

4. Introduction (Cont)
 In Malaysia, teachers’ performance is very important because it is the
primary criteria that will be taken into consideration in determining
teachers’ CA (PSDM, 2002).
 Although the core business for the Malaysian teachers is to engage
them with teaching and learning (Malakolunthu & Malek, 2008),
however they are also expected to guide students to behave into
good moral behavior (Mohd Syahrom, 2009).
 The combination of both TP and OCB of teachers may become
important in realizing Malaysia’s aspiration towards the development
of its first class human capital.
 This study intends to contribute to the current literature by including
OJ as a moderator in the relationship between TP and OCB to CS.
 Why to conduct this study:
• It will enhance our knowledge regarding the impact of JP (e.g. TP,
OCB) on employees’ intrinsic CA (e.g. CS), particularly in the
Malaysian educational context.

5. Literature Review (Cont)
Examinations of the empirical works reveal different predictors of CA such
as gender roles (Akhtar, 2010), mentoring (Okurame & Balogun, 2005),
career commitment (Ballout, 2009), career aspiration (Feldman & Bolino,
1996), cognitive ability (Dreher & Bretz, 1991), acquisition of social capital
(Metz & Tharenou, 2001), and political behavior (Judge & Bretz, 1994).
In more recent years, several scholars (Bergeron, 2005; Carmeli et al.,
2007) propose the factor of OCB as a predictor of CA.
Previous researchers (e.g. Bergeron, 2005; Carmeli et al., 2007) present
the inconsistent link between OCB and CA in their studies.
A few empirical investigations addressing CA in Malaysia have been
reported (Ismail, Kho Khian Jui & Zainal Shah, 2011; Ismail & Arokiasamy,
2007; Mat Zin, Ngah, Ismail, Ahmad Tajuddin, Abdullah & Salleh, 2010;
Poon, 2004; Zainal, 2009).
However, there is still lack of evidence regarding the influence of TP and
OCB on individuals’ intrinsic CA.

6. Literature Review (Cont)
Bergeron (2005) conducted the study that involved with 1,004
academicians from 69 private & public universities in UK.
•Bergeron (2005) referred CA to promotion & speed to CA (extrinsic CA).
All data were obtained in the perspectives of employees.
Results presented that all dimensions of TP (e.g. research TB, teaching
TB, service TB) were positively and negatively related to CA (e.g.
promotion, speed to CA).
Results presented that four dimensions of OCB (e.g. research OCB,
advising OCB, service OCB, professional service OCB) were positively
and negatively related to CA (e.g. promotion, speed to CA).

7. Literature Review (Cont)
Carmeli et al. (2007) conducted a study to investigate the effects of TP
& OCB on employees’ CA that involved with respondents from both
service & non service organizations in Israel.
•CA is measured based on extrinsic CA (career mobility) & intrinsic CA
(promotion prospect).
All data were obtained in the perspectives of employers.
Results showed that TP is associated with career mobility and
promotion prospects.
Results presented that there were no significant r/ship between OCB
(e.g. altruism, compliance) to level of employees’ CA (e.g. career
mobility, promotion prospect).
Although TP was found as a predictor to CA; however, there were
inconsistent results regarding the r/ship between OCB and CA.

8. Literature Review (Cont)
Career Advancement (CA)
Zhou & Zhou (2009) - indicate that CA is one of the objectives that all
employees are looking forward throughout their career.
Zainal (2009) - there are a wide range of definitions of career used by
various researchers.
Judge, Cable, Boudreau & Bretz (1995) - the real or perceived
achievement of individuals that have accumulated from their work
experiences.
Task Performance (TP)
Borman & Motowidlo (1993) - the effectiveness with which job
incumbents perform activities that contribute to the organization’s
technical core.
Williams & Anderson (1991) - the extent an employee fulfills the
formal requirements of the essential job duties.

9. Literature Review (Cont)
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)
Organ (1988) - individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or
explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, but in the aggregate
promotes the effective functioning of the organization.
DiPoala et al. (2004) - OCB is a useful term to describe voluntary and
discretionary teacher behaviors that go the ‘extra mile’ to help students and
colleagues succeed and that are not performance expectations of their
official role.
Organizational Justice (OJ)
Colquitt (2001) - in broad terms, OJ refers to perceived fairness of
interactions between employees and the organization.
Distributive justice refers to employee’s perception towards the rewards that
he/she receives including promotion and incentives (Adams, 1965).
Procedural justice refers to the perceptions of the employees regarding the
procedures and process of gathering rewards (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).
Interactional justice is referred to the fairness of the interpersonal treatment
that is received during all allocation decision (Bies & Moag, 1986).

10. Theoretical Framework
Task Performance
Intrinsic CA
(Career Satisfaction)
IV DVMV
OCB
OJ
(Distributive)
(Procedural)
(Interactional)

11. Methodology (Cont)
POPULATION & SAMPLE SIZE:
√ The respondents of this research include all teachers from all primary
schools in Kedah. [Population=17,467, Sample=375].
SAMPLING TECHNIQUE:
√ Simple random sampling technique (Table of Random Numbers).
DATA COLLECTION:
√ Teachers Questionnaires ~ mailed to 900 randomly selected teachers
DATA ANALYSIS:
√ Frequency, descriptive, factor, reliability, correlation, hierarchical
multiple regression, split regression analyses

12. Methodology
PAR
T
VARIABLES DIMENSIONS NUMBE
R OF
ITEM
A Demograp
hics
Gender, Race, Qualification, Age,
Year of First Appoinment as
Teachers, Year of First
Confirmation as Tecahres, Total
Years of Teachers’ Experience after
Confirmation
7
B CA Intrinsic (career satisfaction) -
Greenhaus et al. (1990)
5
C
D
Task
Performanc
e
Developed based on AWPR Form
DiPoala et al. (2004)
14
12
MENTATION & MEASUREMENT

13. Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)
• Response Rate – 390 of returned questionnaires’ cases constituted as the
sample of this study. Effective Response Rate: 43.33%.
Cohen et al. (2007), the response rate for mail survey which is more than
40% is considered as good.
The total number of usable questionnaires for analysis; that is, 390 is
greater than what is suggested by Krejcie and Morgan (1970) as cited by
Sekaran (2003).
• Factor Analysis - The results suggest that all scales used in this study
measure the proposed constructs appropriately except for the OJ variable.
Other variables such as CS, TP, & OCB revealed that only 1 single factor had
emerged for this analysis. The number of factor emerged were consistent
with the dimension of variables as first proposed by the researcher in this
study.
• Although OJ had been measured in 4 dimensions as suggested by Colquitt
(2001), this study revealed that OJ in the context of the Malaysian teachers
only related with 3 dimensions (e.g. interactional, distributive & procedural
justice).

14. •14
β t p R2
R2
∆ F Change
Model 1 - Main Effect .04 - 8.43
Task Performance .22 3.45 .00*
OCB -.03 -.42 .68
Model 2 – Moderators .17 .13 16.07
Interactional Justice .21 4.40 .00*
Distributive Justice .28 6.02 .00*
Procedural Justice .13 2.76 .01*
Model 3 - Two Way Interactions .21 .04 9.07
Task Performance * Interactional Justice -.07 -1.16 .25
Task Performance * Distributive Justice 0.5 .70 .48
Task Performance * Procedural Justice 0.7 1.27 .21
OCB * Interactional Justice .05 .72 .47
OCB * Distributive Justice .11 1.66 .01*
OCB * Procedural Justice .05 .91 .36
*p<0.05; **p<0.01
Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)
REGRESSION ANALYSIS ~ Results of hierarchical
multiple regression evaluating the effects of self-
ratings of TP and OCB on CS

15. H1a TP will be significantly related to teachers’ CS. Supported
H1b OCB will be significantly related to teachers’ CS. Not Supported
•15
MAIN EFFECTS : Relationship between TP and OCB to CS
Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)
MODERATOR EFFECTS: Relationship between OJ and CS
H2a There is significant relationship between procedural justice and CS. Supported
H2b There is significant relationship between distributive justice and CS. Supported
H2e There is significant relationship between interactional justice and CS. Supported
INTERACTING EFFECTS : Interacting effects of OJ with TP and OCB on CS
H3a Teachers’ procedural justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported
H3b Teachers’ distributive justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported
H3e Teachers’ interactional justice moderates the relationship between TP and CS. Not Supported
H4a Teachers’ procedural justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Not Supported
H4b Teachers’ distributive justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Supported
H4e Teachers’ interactional justice moderates the relationship between OCB and CS. Not Supported

16. Conclusions (Cont)
R/SHIP BETWEEN TP & OCB TO CS
• Significant r/ship between teachers’ TP (β=.22, p=.00*) & CS. No significant r/ship between teachers’
OCB (β=-.03, p=.68) & CS.
• TP & CS - Consistent with the findings of Carmeli et al. (2007) who find that TP is the only predictor of
employees’ intrinsic CA in the term of promotion prospects.
• OCB & CS - In line with the findings of Carmeli et al. (2007) who believed that OCB (e.g. altruism &
compliance) did not show any significant r/ship with employee’s intrinsic CA.
OJ AS MODERATOR IN THE R/SHIP BETWEEN TP & OCB TO CS
• Significant r/ships between teachers’ perceived OJ and CS. In detail, distributive justice is the most
significant predictor of teachers’ CS with the value of β=.28 and p=.00*, followed by interactional
justice (β=.21, p=.00*), and procedural justice (β=.13 p=.01*).
 These findings are in line with Bagdadli et al. (2006) who found that OJ in the factors of distributive
justice and procedural justice are significantly associated with CS.
 This finding is in line with the results of Jamali and Nejati (2009) study who found that the
enhancement of the interactional justice factor can decrease the barriers for CA among academicians
in the Iranian society.
• Although the findings of this study proved that there is no interaction between TP and any factor of
perceived OJ to teachers’ CS, this study reveals that there is a significant interaction between OCB and
distributive justice to teachers’ CS (β=.11, p=.01*),.
 This study is consistent with the study of Hemdi and Nasurdin (2007) who indicate that distributive
justice perception is significantly related to OCB.
 Lacking of interactional justice and procedural justice in the Malaysian educational setting. •16

17. Conclusions (Cont)
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY
• Should enforce the perception that although there is no direct influence of
the positive evaluation of OCB on teachers’ CS; however, in a longer term,
TP must be beneficial for teachers specifically in increasing the level of their
CS.
• Should improve the appearance of all dimensions of justice in school
environment.
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS OF STUDY ~ Social Exchange Theory (SET)
 By relying on SET, previous scholars (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001) claim
that if employee perceives that there is OJ (input), he will reciprocates to
increase his performance (outcome) in the social exchange relationship; and
the performance from the employee will benefit the organization in return.
 ‘If teachers perceived that there is distributive justice through the CS
process as an inputs, then he will reciprocates to increase the level of his
OCB as an outcome in the social exchange relationship’. Therefore, his
performance will benefit the organization in exchange.

18. Conclusions
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
• A similar study should be conducted in other educational institutions in Malaysia &
should be expanded to include a comparison among teachers from both primary &
secondary schools.
• The generalization of the findings is limited by the single organization data only
(e.g. primary schools). The study needs to be replicated in different institutions in
the Malaysian public education setting (e.g. Secondary Schools, Teaching Institutes,
& Public Universities) since they might have different cultures and environments
that contribute to the CA domain.
• This study is limited by the set of performance factors that are proposed to be
linked to the single factor of intrinsic CA category (e.g. career satisfaction).
• This study is limited by the variable of TP that has been developed based on the
AWPR Forms; and OCBSS as introduced by DiPoala et al. (2004).
• Future studies should employ methodological triangulation by using qualitative
methods, involving participant observations, and using in-depth interview
methods. These methods are ways to get in depth and comprehensive information.
Personal interviews might have different results when subjects are not likely to
respond to survey methods.

19. Publications
• Saraih, U. N., Ali, H., & Khalid, S. A. (2013). The Roles of Organizational
Citizenship Behaviour on Teachers’ Career Advancement, International
Conference on Education and Social Sciences (ICEASS), September 2013,
Singapore.
• Saraih, U. N., Ali, H., & Khalid, S. A. (2014). Task Performance and
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) as Predictors of Career
Satisfaction’, International Review of Social Sciences, Vol. 2 (2).
Thank You

20. Variables N Mean SD Minimum Maximum
CS 390 3.56 0.67 2.00 5.00
TP 390 7.20 1.13 4.00 10.00
OCB 390 4.06 0.40 2.92 5.00
Interactional Justice 390 4.01 0.55 2.25 5.00
Distributive Justice 390 3.81 0.64 1.00 5.00
Procedural Justice 390 3.70 0.58 1.25 5.00
•20
DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS: Means, SD, minimum and maximum
Data Analysis & Research Findings (Cont)
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Interactional Justice -
2. Distributive Justice .28** -
3. Procedural Justice .27** .00 -
4. TP .26** .08 .05 -
5. OCB .30** .09 .09 .62** -
6. CS .33** .29** .13* .20** .11* -
INTER-CORRELATION BETWEEN VARIABLES
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed)