JAMAR Vol. 11 · No. 1 2013Table 4: The Results <strong>of</strong> ANOVA TestsVariable F Sig<strong>Procedural</strong> fairness 17.580 0.000Participation 4.448 0.013Transparency 29.802 0.000Goal specificity 14.042 0.000F<strong>in</strong>ancial measures 0.152 0.859Nonf<strong>in</strong>ancial measures 0.579 0.449Table 5: The Results Of Correlation AnalysisPF Part L<strong>in</strong>k GS FM NM<strong>Procedural</strong> <strong>Fairness</strong> 1(PF)0.447** 0.570** 0.467** 0.059 0.005Participation1(Part)0.433** 0.484** 0.070 0.148Reward l<strong>in</strong>k1(L<strong>in</strong>k)0.515** 0.225** 0.128Goal specificity1(GS)0.191* 0.083F<strong>in</strong>ancial measures1(FM)0.223*Nonf<strong>in</strong>ancial1measures (NM)** Correlation is significant at <strong>the</strong> 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Correlation is significant at <strong>the</strong> 0.05 level (2-tailed).Table 6: The Results Of Regression Analysis Us<strong>in</strong>g OLS Approach.Variables Coefficient Coefficient value p-valueConstant b 0 1.759 .001Participation b 1 .199 .036Transparency l<strong>in</strong>k b 2 .415 .000Goal specificity b 3 .169 .097F<strong>in</strong>ancial measures b 4 -.064 .444Nonf<strong>in</strong>ancial measures b 5 -.077 .349Company b 6 .015 .862Adjusted R 2 = 36.8%F = 10.993; p= 0.000Table 7: The Results <strong>of</strong> Regression Us<strong>in</strong>g PLS Approach (T-Statistics <strong>in</strong> Brackets)VariablePath to<strong>Procedural</strong> fairnessParticipation <strong>in</strong> target sett<strong>in</strong>g 0.191 (2.218)*Goal-atta<strong>in</strong>ment-reward l<strong>in</strong>k 0.374 (4.771)**Goal specificity 0.175 (2.077)*F<strong>in</strong>ancial measures -0.071 (1.214)Nonf<strong>in</strong>ancial measures 0.112 (0.821)Company 0.026 (0.314)R 2 41.4%** Significant at <strong>the</strong> 0.01 level (2-tailed).* Significant at <strong>the</strong> 0.05 level (2-tailed).38
JAMAR Vol. 11 · No. 1 2013Overall, <strong>the</strong> results <strong>of</strong> statistical analysissupport <strong>the</strong> arguments that procedural fairnessis affected by participation <strong>in</strong> target sett<strong>in</strong>g,transparency <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> goal-atta<strong>in</strong>ment-rewardl<strong>in</strong>k, and goal specificity. As argued earlier,<strong>the</strong>se three variables are consistent with <strong>the</strong>justice rules proposed by Leventhal (1980) ascontended <strong>in</strong> this study. However, <strong>the</strong> resultsdo not support <strong>the</strong> argument that <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong>f<strong>in</strong>ancial and nonf<strong>in</strong>ancial measures isassociated with procedural fairness (c.f. Lauand Sholih<strong>in</strong>, 2005; Lau and Moser, 2008).The <strong>in</strong>terview results support <strong>the</strong> abovef<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs. For example, a production managerfrom CO1 emphasised <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> goalspecificity as follows:“… well def<strong>in</strong>ed targets help me to getorganised which improves myperformance…if targets are not welldef<strong>in</strong>ed (I am) not able to achieve <strong>the</strong>m”.Ano<strong>the</strong>r manager, a market<strong>in</strong>g manager, from<strong>the</strong> same company said:“…(specific goals) allow me (to be) morefocused on achiev<strong>in</strong>g targets, (to make)more focused effort”.The above two managers argued that specificgoals/targets are important because <strong>the</strong>y help<strong>the</strong>m to achieve better performance. Hence, itis likely that goal specificity is positivelyassociated with procedural fairness because itis <strong>in</strong>strumental <strong>in</strong> achiev<strong>in</strong>g betterperformance (c.f. Locke and Latham, 1990;2002). To some extent, it supports <strong>the</strong><strong>in</strong>strumental approach to procedural fairness,i.e. an <strong>in</strong>dividual prefers fair proceduresbecause it will give <strong>the</strong>m better outcomes(L<strong>in</strong>d and Tyler, 1998). A similar reason israised by a market<strong>in</strong>g manager from CO2:“Specific goals are important to mebecause specific goals motivate me tohigher performance and provide me withrequired focus”.With regard to participation, <strong>the</strong> abovemarket<strong>in</strong>g manager <strong>of</strong>fers reasons why it isimportant:“Participation allows me to give <strong>in</strong>put and…I feel <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> bus<strong>in</strong>ess and …I canexpress my op<strong>in</strong>ions and I can <strong>in</strong>fluenceoutcomes”.Likewise, <strong>the</strong> production managers argued:“Participation gives me a betterunderstand<strong>in</strong>g <strong>of</strong> how to achieve targetsand understand why I have to do it … itimproves my motivation …”.However, a health and safety manager saidthat participation was “…just for personalsatisfaction”. Presumably, part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>satisfaction is an assurance that <strong>the</strong> evaluationprocedures are conducted <strong>in</strong> a fair manner.The above quotes suggest various reasons whymanagers value participation. This isconsistent with previous studies <strong>in</strong>organisational justice on <strong>the</strong> positive effects <strong>of</strong>participative decision mak<strong>in</strong>g on proceduralfairness (see Greenberg and Folger 1983; Biesand Shapiro 1988; Magner et al. 1992). Ehlenand Welker (1996) identified whyparticipation affects <strong>the</strong> perception <strong>of</strong> fairness.They are: (1) participation serves to enhance aperception <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> s<strong>in</strong>cerity <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> positiontaken by a decision maker; (2) participationmay generate a perception <strong>of</strong> enhanceddecision quality; (3) participation sends amessage to participants about how <strong>the</strong>y areperceived by o<strong>the</strong>rs; and (4) people desirecontrol over decision outcomes which affect<strong>the</strong>m, and participation is seen as a way toachieve this control.Conclusion, Limitations andSuggestion for Future ResearchThe objective <strong>of</strong> this study is to <strong>in</strong>vestigate <strong>the</strong>antecedents <strong>of</strong> procedural fairness <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong>context <strong>of</strong> PMERS. This study is important asprevious studies <strong>of</strong> fairness with<strong>in</strong> PMERScontext produce <strong>in</strong>conclusive f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs onfactors affect<strong>in</strong>g fairness perception. Draw<strong>in</strong>gon organisational justice literature and goal<strong>the</strong>ory <strong>the</strong> study argues that perceivedprocedural fairness is affected by goal-relatedvariables, i.e. participation <strong>in</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>gperformance targets, <strong>the</strong> goal-atta<strong>in</strong>mentrewardl<strong>in</strong>k, and <strong>the</strong> specificity <strong>of</strong> goals to beachieved by managers. Us<strong>in</strong>g a questionnairesurvey with samples derived from three pr<strong>of</strong>itorientedorganisations, one manufactur<strong>in</strong>gcompany and two f<strong>in</strong>ancial servicesorganisations, this study f<strong>in</strong>ds that perceivedprocedural fairness is affected by participation<strong>in</strong> sett<strong>in</strong>g performance targets, <strong>the</strong> goalatta<strong>in</strong>ment-rewardl<strong>in</strong>k, and <strong>the</strong> specificity <strong>of</strong>39
Change language