organizational justice and motivation relationship:...

353

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND MOTIVATION RELATIONSHIP: THE CASE OF ADIYAMAN UNIVERSITY

Mücahit ÇELİK 54*

Mehmet SARITÜRK55**

ABSTRACT

Organizational Justice is fairly influential factor acting on the workers’ motivation level in the public insti-tutions and establishments and private businesses. An empirical study has been carried out in the Adıyaman University in order to determine the level of the relationship between organizational justice and motivation. In this study, organizational justice has been handled from the distributional justice, procedural justice and interpersonal justice approaches. At the end of the study it has been determined that there’s a direct relation between organizational justice and motivation and there are factors that affect the worker motivation posi-tively or negatively.

Key Words: Justice, Organizational Justice, Motivation, Top Director, Organizational Justice and Motivation Relationship

ÖRGÜTSEL ADALET VE MOTİVASYON İLİŞKİSİ: ADIYAMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ ÖRNEĞİ

ÖZET

Örgütsel Adalet, kamu kurum ve kuruluşlarında ve özel işletmelerde, işgören motivasyon düzeyi üzerinde oldukça etkili bir faktördür. Örgütsel adalet ile motivasyon arasındaki ilişkinin düzeyini belirlemek amacı ile Adıyaman Üniversitesi’nde ampirik bir çalışma yapılmıştır. Bu çalışmada örgütsel adalet; dağıtımsal adalet, prosedürel adalet ve etkileşimsel adalet alt boyutlarında ele alınmıştır. Çalışma sonucunda örgütsel adalet ile motivasyon arasında doğru orantılı bir ilişki olduğu, işgören motivasyonunu olumlu/olumsuz etkileyen faktörler bulunduğu tespit edilmiştir. Ayrıca işgörenlerde meydana gelen olumsuz tutumların tekrar olumlu tutumlara dönüşmesi için yapılması gerekenlere yönelik çözüm önerileri sunulmaya çalışılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Adalet, Örgütsel Adalet, Motivasyon, Üst Yönetici, Örgütsel Adalet ve Motivasyon İlişkisi.

54 * Assist. Prof. Dr., Adıyaman University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Tel: 0090 416 223 38 00-2129, E-Mail: [email protected] (Corresponding author)55 ** Assist. Prof. Dr., Adıyaman University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Tel: 0090 416 223 38 00-2108, E-Mail: [email protected]

İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi Yıl: 11 Sayı: 21 Bahar 2012 / 1 s.353-382

354

1. INTRUDUCTION

Human beings are social by their nature. They want to interact and cooperate with ot-her human beings. On the other hand, there are many factors that push people towards communal life. Of these, the most prominent factors are; the desire to address the vital necessities and physiological and psychological needs and to realize social expectati-ons. The need to have these met propels people towards a harmonious interaction and cooperation. Without doubt, cooperation requires reaching common goals, and for this purpose, distribution of work. (Gündüz, 2004). People must live and work together (distribution of work) to satisfy their needs. Distribution of work means, specific tasks are handled carried out by specific people. (Çelik & Duran, 2011). This means gathe-ring around common goals, or in other words, organizing.

It is a natural fact to have some rules where there is organization. If we mention about rules in an organization, we must also mention about justice as a natural outcome of perceiving implementation of the rules. In this study, it is endeavored to comprehend the impact of the perception of justice of the personnel employed in Adıyaman Univer-sity on the work motivation.

In this context, the justice within the organization is identified as the organizational justice and the perception of organizational justice prevailing in Adıyaman University and the impact of such perception on the employee’s motivation is researched.

In this study the effect of the organizational justice on motivation was investigated at Adıyaman University. Moreover, this work will set an example to other universities that would make it easier for them to understand the perspectives and expectations of university-employees about the justice and how the justice can be ensured among the employees better. Concurrently, behaviors of senior management are defined which can lead the employees to take negative attitudes. In this study, it was clearly stated that university managements should evade from these negative behaviors and if there are any occurred, how universities can change these negative attitudes to positive. Furthermore, this research points out that senior managements should be fair to every employee of the university and they should know that every action of the senior mana-gement is observed by the employees. As a result, this work is very important in filling a gap in research on organizational justice at universities.

2. ORGANIZATION, ORGANIZING AND MOTIVATION

Organization is the cooperation system that is formed by two or more people conscio-usly joining their efforts to realize a specific goal. Organizing means a series of actions or the process in relation with the forming of the organization’s structure (Şimşek and Çelik, 2009: 34; Ayverdi, 2010: 966) .

Mücahit Çelik, Mehmet Sarıtürk

355


Barnard defines organization as, “a system of the activities or powers of two or more people, which are consciously coordinated” and says that an organization emerges only if people that are willing to reach a common goal, that can communicate with each other and that complete each other exist (Baransel, 1993: 269-270). Schein de-fines organization as; “the mental coordination of the people that come together for or in order to realize a common goal, under an authority and responsibility hierarchy, through work and distribution of work”, Etzoni as “social units established in order to reach specific goals”, and Marc and Simon as “a social structure that is defined by the relationship between its members” (Güçlü, 2003: 148).

Organizing is carrying out or coordinating the tasks pertaining and activity, with a certain understanding. It is people or the persons undertaking the tasks gathering or being gathered around the solution under the circumstances, and in order to properly and equally carrying out the activities. Organizing is ensuring the workers gathering around common goals and professionalizing in their tasks so that the works don’t go wrong.

One of the first to examine the worker’s specializing and the organizational structure in establishments is Frederick Taylor. Taylor (Taylor, 1911) has determined that the work level at the workplaces is inefficient, and this causes waste and loss in the magnitude to effect the national economy, the existence of tendency to under-work or laziness which is common among the workers, that the works have not been standardized, everyone is a law unto himself, and the organizational structure of the establishments are not towards increasing efficiency and are not scientific (Bolat and other, 2008: 28 ) and he has tried to create solutions to these problems. In this regard, he recommends de-veloping standard work procedures in order to increase efficiency, defining the works clearly, employing qualified workers for each work, scientifically examining the orga-nizational structure, and shaping it under the light of science in order to create work consciousness in the workers (Çelik and Doğan, 2011).

2.1. Organizational Structure of Adıyaman University

Adıyaman University was established by combining – under the law that took effect by being published in the March 17, 2006 dated 26111 numbered Official Gazette by the March 1, 2006 dated 5476 numbered law- academic units (3 faculties, 1 High School and 4 Vocational High Schools) from three different Universities which were the Adı-yaman Vocational High School founded in 1983, Health High School founded in 1996 and Faculty of Arts and Sciences founded in 1998 affiliated with İnönü University, The Faculty of Education founded in 1987, Gölbaşı Vocational High School founded in 1988, Besni Vocational High School founded in 1997 and Adıyaman Vocational and Technical Education Faculty founded in 2003 affiliated with Gaziantep University and Kahta Vocational High School founded in 1997 affiliated with Harran Universit (http://www.adiyaman.edu.tr/index.php?lo=hakkinda, 15.08.2011).

356

Under the requirements of the Law Regarding the Higher Education Institu-tions’ Organization, (2809) universities are organized as faculties, high scho-ols, vocational high schools, administrative and other organs. Based on this law, the organizational diagram of Adıyaman University can be seen as figure 1.

Figure 1

:Academical Organization Structure of Adıyaman University (Source: http://www.adi-yaman.edu.tr/gunluk/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/performans.pdf)

As can be seen from the organization diagram (figure 1), the rector, vice rector, senate and the administrative board form the senior management of the university. Faculties, Institu-tes and High Schools form the middle management directly connected to the rectorship. Academical units have their own sub organization structure. Adıyaman University also has an administrative organization structure having similar style. In the administrative orga-nization, the upper management is formed by the rector and its assistants and the general secretary and the department heads serve subject to the general secretary.

Although the sub organizations have adopted the university culture and organizational structure extrinsically, they have also created their own sub cultures, unit norms and organizations (Duran and Çelik, 2011: 5). In this regard, the sub units have their own budgets, visions and missions, albeit subject to the rectorship. Since Adıyaman Uni-versity has been chosen as an example for the “organizational justice and motivation” study, a brief information has been provided about its organization and organizational structure. Additional information can be obtained both from the website of the univer-sity and from the related organs.


357

2.2. Motivation

Motivation (Motivasyon) is a reflection in Turkish from the “motivation” word, ge-nerated from the “movere” in Latin, which is used in English language and literature, French, German and many other languages. It has been translated into Turkish as “in-centive”, but it has not been used liked that very much. The word is used in Turkish in its original form, and maintains its meaning in the language it was derived from.

Motivation, is the individuals taking action in order to attain a specific goal. When this word is adapted to workplaces, it can be defined as any and all tools, attitudes and motives that will ensure efficiency and effectiveness, and maximize this efficiency and effectiveness.

Motivation is individuals acting willingly and on their own accord in order to realize a certain purpose. In other words it is the process of motivating workers to work and making them believe that they will satisfy their personal needs in the best way if they work efficiently in the organization. Motivation, which is perhaps the most impor-tant one among the human resources functions which direct human relations, at the same time one of the most neglected subjects, application wise. In this, the managers administrators not being able to foresee concretely what the organization could gain through keeping the motivation high (Ölçer, 2005: 2).

Recently, motivation studies are being conducted both in businesses and state institutions and organizations, and its effectiveness on increasing the efficiency of workers and especi-ally preventing time and resource losses is being realized. When the “motivated” attitude of the workers is combined with the justice in job and resource distribution inside the organization, the ideal institution, worker and workplace emerges. In this regard, all state institutions and organizations, particularly the private businesses, try to increase the com-mitment of the personnel to the organization and their job satisfaction levels by increasing the motivation level of the personnel, and try to carry out the job distribution (management) through observing and approaching the personnel as objectively as possible.

In this study, the effects of the justice perception of the personnel in Adıyaman Uni-versity on the job motivation has been studied and the results obtained have been evaluated in the “Findings” section.

3. ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND SUB-DIMENSIONS

3.1. Justice Notion

Justice is a notion that needs to be addressed as a guiding principle in distribution of various resources needed in life and providing order in societies. The “Adl” word has originated from a root, associated with meanings such as right, straight, honest, level,


358

balanced, and has become “Adalet” in Turkish, which means “Justice”. Justice is a wide ranging concept that includes value judgments such as, goodness, trueness, right, law, and equality and also can mean coherence, regularity, and the rightness of an order (Çakır, 2006: 17).

Justice is the character of that which is just, and it means right, law and agreeing with fairness. As it means the honesty of knowing and recognizing everybody’s rights and value, it also means the character of that which is positive or in accordance with the natural law. As a law term it also represents the judicial power. Justice, which requires trueness, impartiality and equality, has been approached from social and political ang-les according to the objective understanding, and has been understood as “the ideal and criterion for seeing the basic order of a individualistic action, institutions or a politic collective”. Justice, having been interpreted as such, is related to legislative power and courthouses in the scope of law and is mostly a measure for preventing injustice, justification and the rules for the shared life. On the other hand, according to subjec-tive mindset it is a moral attitude in the individual’s relationships with others and it is counted accepted as a virtue. When justice is used in the context of a single person’s actions, it means the action carried out by the rightful and also that which is done with a pronounced faith. At the heart of the justice concept lies the inviolability of the individual’s honor, freedom and rights and the idea of equality of all people in the view of inviolabilities. These are the ideas that cause justice to be as understood as a moral concept rather than a political one. In the face of these inviolabilities, every unfair act and breach of the inviolabilities are judged as injustice. As a measure, justice can be thought as being a principle for upholding the law and fairness and showing respect to others rights. Since this principle is moral it is also understood as an obligation and justice can be accepted as commitment to the moral obligation. Moral obligation is a principle that requires no emotion and requires the individual to act in whatever way he is required to act. This principle requires the action to be carried out as it is requi-red, even though it may be against other’s wish, and any other action is considered as immorality. In other words, not violating the rights and abiding by the rights is a moral obligation and in this respect injustice, as it is not acting in accordance with the moral obligation, is immoral (Gündoğdu, 2008: 4).

The relationship between justice and rights is reciprocal and justice happens on the basis of rights. Because justice is connected to rights and if a right is about being aut-horized to do and want something, it means something in the case that the doing and wanting actions are secured, in other words the conditions are made suitable. The state conducts such regulations. The state can realize the regulations through justice, which is a norm, criteria, ideal of law. A right is something that must be respected, be it ow-ned naturally, or something given positively. Since it’s not an emotional attitude like respect, love or favor, justice is a value that requires insistence to be acquired, due to the nature of right. But the authority to do and want is realized by having the power to do or want. Justice is this power. This power is moral through its spiritual characteristic and judicial through its material aspect (Gündoğdu, 2003: 5).


359

Justice is a concept which can form in a society and which is related with people. It can be accepted to be the highest moral ideal, a basic idea that points to the best and trust solution, a virtue. The concept of justice can have varying meanings according to its emotion and world view; intuition, cultural, economical and social status. Also, due to reasons such as national cultural differences, and economical and cultural develop-ment levels, the concept of justice varies from society to society and from age to age (Aybay, 2008: 32).

Theoretical enquiries regarding the notion of justice reveal the difficulty of determi-ning the notion on its own, independently from tangible conditions. From these enqu-iries it is understood that justice can be determined by starting with a case of injustice. Because where there’s injustice and inequality, a desire for justice surfaces and is voca-lized (İyi, 2008: 125). The opposing condition that brings justice into force is injustice (Çakır, 2006: 8). What is tangible about justice is injustice and inequality. In the face of injustice, the idea that expresses human beings should not face unjust treatment due to the existential essence, is justice. Since justice is only an idea, it is difficult to reach the information content and for it to be comprehended as an idea, its relationship with injustice has to be taken into consideration. Regarding this relationship Kuçuradi states; “….By starting with injustice which gives voice to a human condition and ap-pears before us, we can express the idea of justice as follows: justice is a demand for protection of the personal rights and demand for the requirements to be continuously realized across the countries and across the world, under the current circumstances.” Thus, he states that justice is a “high principle”, it demands the conditions for the self-realization of an individual, and therefore social and judicial regulations must be performed on the basis of human rights information (İyi, 2008: 125).

3.2. Organizational Justice

Organizational justice is a concept that emerged with the questioning of justice in the organizational life and it is related with the working conditions and relationships that create the belief in the workers that they are treated fairly (Çakır, 2006: 32). The no-tion of organizational justice has been developed in connection with the distribution of earnings and the social norms and rules that govern the methods and interpersonal relations applied for the decisions of distribution (Yürür, 2008: 296).

The organizational justice concept is essentially based on the equality theory develo-ped by Adams Smith. The equality theory focuses on the reactions of the individuals in the face of unjust situations in the organization related with the distribution decisi-ons made in the organization. According to Smith, they consciously and with no end compare their own positions with different references that are in the same positions as themselves. As a result of these comparisons they might hold the idea that they have been treated unfairly. These thoughts influence the attitude of the individuals and cause them to develop certain behaviors. Therefore these behaviors that have been developed are usually directed towards organizations, although they can be directed towards


360

other individuals. Based on this, organizational justice is the perception of the worker concerning the applications at the workplace(Altıntaş, 2006: 21).

As Moorman defines organizational justice as a term that explains justice in direct re-lation with the workspaces, he refers to the opportunities provided by the organization, and the responsibilities, knowledge and skill level, efforts and the total contribution made to the work by the workers (Moorman, 1991:845). Özkalp and Kırel defines the perceived justice of all exchanges occurring socially or economically in the orga-nization as a concept that contains the individuals’ relationship with their superiors, co-workers, and the organization as a social system (Özkalp and Kırel, 2004: 235); and Yıldırım defines the organizational justice as rules regarding the managing and distributing of the awards and penalties emerging in the organizations and the social norms. These rules and social norms are rules and norms regarding how the awards and penalties are distributed, the process that shows how certain distribution decisi-ons are made and the interpersonal applications. According to Çakmak, organizational justice is the totality of rules and social norms regarding how the distribution of or-ganizational resources (awards, penalties), the procedures used for determining these distribution decisions and the interpersonal behavior occurring during the conducting of these procedures should be. In general, researchers have discussed organizational justice under three primary titles, which are distributional justice, procedural justice and interpersonal justice (Yazıcıoğlu, 2009: 3).

3.2.1. Distributional Justice

Distributional justice is the individuals’ perceived level of justice regarding the organi-zation-wise distribution of organizational gains such as earnings, premiums, promoti-ons and social rights. These resources can be resources produced within the organiza-tion or resources coming from out of the organization. These resources are sometimes financial opportunities, sometimes promotions and sometimes physical opportunities provided. The decisions regarding the distribution of these within the organization fall in the scope of distributional justice (Altıntaş, 2006: 21). It is related with whether the distribution of resources within the organization is fair or not. The perception of dist-ributive justice regarding the awards and other earnings given to the individual comes forth through evaluation of the suitability of the award. Distributive justice has been developed by making use of Homans distribution justice and the equality theories of Adams. This is because individuals usually determine whether something is just or not by evaluating their contributions the organization and what they have received from the organization and comparing with the others in the organization. Therefore, in distributive justice, comparison and the criterions taken as references are important concepts. The person that is taken as a reference point for comparison of earnings and investments is another worker in the organization. In Adam’s theory, the comparison object taken which as a reference can also be any person within or out of the organi-zation. It is assumed that a similar comparison is made within the organization (Çakır, 2006: 33; Yürür, 2008: 297). The second dimension of distributional justice is the


361

Justice Judgment Model of Leventhal (Yazıcıoğlu, 2009: 5). This model shows that contrary to Adam’s statement, individuals do not evaluate the fairness of their ear-nings only based on the rule of equity and they can adopt different distributional rules under different circumstances. Leventhal has specified this distribution rules as fair-ness, equity and necessity. The determining of individual’s earnings according to their contributions is explained as the rule of fairness. According to the rule of fairness, the individual evaluates the justness of his earnings in accordance with his participation. Consequently, the fairness rule is also called the rule of participation. During the de-termination of the earnings, rule of equality is defined as everybody obtaining the gain without taking personal contributions into account. The rule of necessity is set forth as the person that needs more gets more of the earnings without taking the equality nor the personal contributions into account (Aykut, 2007: 11).

3.2.2. Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is defined as the fairness level of the methods, procedures and po-licies used in determining and measuring factors such as fees, promotions, financial possibilities, working conditions and performance evaluations and administering fa-irness regarding intraorganization processes, methods and applications and outcomes (Demirel and Seçkin, 2011: 102). While the fairness of the distribution of performance awards is a subject of distributional justice, the fairness of the methods used in de-termining the same performance awards makes up the subject of procedural justice concept (Doğan, 2002: 74).

Procedural justice concept has first entered the justice literature with the studies of Thibaut and Walker. Thibaut and Walker have measured the defendants’ reactions in the investigations regarding the functioning of the legal processes in the court (Çakır, 2006: 33). It has been observed that if the legal processes function in a just manner, even if the outcome is unfavorable on the defendants’ part, they react positively to this outcome. For the first time Folger and Greenberg have carried procedural justice into organizational matters and it has rapidly become one of the most researched subjects (Yazıcıoğlu, 2009: 5). The need for justice to be examined in terms of processes has risen with the increasing interest in how the fees and fee systems are determined, how the complaint and problem solving mechanisms are operated, “which decisions are made” as well as “how these decisions are made”. This is because having information about the ways decisions are made is influential on the acceptance and adoptation of the aforesaid decision. Workers evaluate the treatments they are subjected to in the organization and the processual justice judgment formed this way is influential in sha-ping of the relationship with the employer. Leventhal has collected the characteristics required for the process to be just under six headings. These are, a) appropriateness, b) being unbiased, c) trueness, d) correctability in case of a mistake, e) representing all related parties , f) conformance with general morality. These characteristics have been specified as, a) providing the workers with the opportunity to express their emotions, b) being based on an objective evaluation system, c) the manager’s knowledge on the


362

subject and the worker’s success, d) the frequency of the evaluation and e) getting feedback regarding the outcome of the evaluation (Çakır, 2006: 33).

3.2.3. Interpersonal Justice

Bies and Moag brought a new expansion to the concept of justice by drawing attention to the importance of interpersonal behavior during the application of functions and importance of showing respect and value to employers (Bies & Moag, 1986: 43). And they have called this viewpoint as interpersonal justice. They have argued that workers believe they have been treated fairly if the organization’s officials presented them with correct and complete information and showed rightful reasons for the decisions they made. They have pointed to the importance of this dimension of justice on the grounds that individuals perception of justice was formed mainly on the basis of the intraorga-nizational interpersonal interactions rather than the structure of the decision making process (Aykut, 2007: 21).

Interpersonal justice is about the interaction between those that who will be effected by the distribution decisions and the source of the distribution. Bies has defined interper-sonal justice as the quality of the attitudes and behaviors people are faced with during the application of organizational operations (Bies and Moag,1986: 45). In other words, it is the perception regarding how a decision that is made or will be communicated to the individuals. People working in organizations expect their managers to communica-te with themselves the same way they communicate with other workers. And they seek justice in this communication. Those managers or resource allocators who treat some workers respectfully and others disrespectfully are not perceived as just. The perceived interpersonal interaction injustice cause the workers to react to their managers (Öz-devecioğlu, 2003: 78). There are two prerequisites for the realization of interpersonal justice. These are; a) the reasons for the decision being clear and sufficient and b) the person to implement the decision treating those who will be effected by the decision with respect and esteem. They have determined that in order to provide an interper-sonal justice environment, honesty, respect, kindness and just causes for the decisions made must be present. İnterpersonal justice puts emphasis on the behaviors demons-trated by the decision maker during the acceptance and application of the objective processes (Çakır, 2006: 35).

4. THE CASE STUDY

4.1. Purpose, Scope and Limitations

The purpose of this research is to determine the relationship between organizational justice and motivation and to put forth the influence of organizational justice on mo-tivation.


363

While analyzing the influence of organizational justice on motivation, justice has been examined under three main headings: “distributional justice, procedural justice and interpersonal justice”.

The application phase of the research has been carried out at the Adıyaman University. The fact that employees (academic and administrative personnel) from only one uni-versity was included in the research forms the research’s limitation. The reason for the research being carried out in only one university is that the researchers are employees of the said university and to measure their own university’s personnel’s perception on the success of the administrators in the same university on establishing organizational justice and to examine the effect of these perceptions on the intraorganizational mo-tivation. In spite of this limitation, it is thought that the results obtained will provide important clues to the academic community, other sector workers and administrators.

4.2. Method and Evaluation Form

In this study, two basic research methods have been used, which are literature review and field research. The theoretical information has been compiled from the informa-tion obtained from the literature and various scientific studies, whereas the empirical research has been compiled from the data from the survey carried out with 130 acade-mic and administrative personnel employed in the Adıyaman University. The survey has been conducted in March 2011. For the results of the analysis to reflect the truth as much as possible, all pages of the survey have been examined one by one and it has been decided to take 90 surveys into evaluation. Incomplete surveys and surveys that rise a doubt regarding their truth have been sorted out.

In this study, four-point Likert analysis technique has been utilized. The highest posi-tive attitude has been taken as 4 in this study’s scale and the lowest negative attitude has been taken to be 1. However, it has become a tradition for the statistical remarks in Turkey to be carried out over 100. This situation has been taken into account in the study. The corresponding values of 1-4 interval over 100 are also shown in the table. And all remarks concerning the table are made taking the system over 100 into consi-deration.

In case the percentage calculations carried out based on the general averages do not contain correct information, frequency analysis have been made and shown in the table as an attachment. The remarks for the table have been based on the frequency analysis percentages. This is because the average of the subjects with an absolutely negative opinion (which is a 1 in this studies scale) and the subjects with an absolutely should not be calculated as (1+4)/2=2,5. According to this result the average of these two is positive. In other words, on a 1-4 scale 2,5 corresponds to %57,25, which is a misle-ading result. To avoid this, the percentage values in the frequency analysis have been taken in to account.


364

In the tables prepared, (--) I absolutely disagree, (-) I disagree, (+) I agree, (++) I abso-lutely agreesymbolize the answer choices.

28 questions have been asked in the survey. Under the light of the data obtained from the survey, the influence of the dimensions forming organizational justice (distributio-nal, procedural and interpersonal justice) on motivation has been examined. The data have been subjected to tests such as “Independent Samples T-Test, Anova, Descriptive and Frequencies Tests, Regression and Correlation Analysis”. The data obtained from the survey has been evaluated in the computer environment by making use of SPSS 16.0 (Statistical Package for Social Science) program.

Reliability analysis towards the reliability and validity of the scale developed for this research has been carried out and the reliability coefficient has been determined to be (α=0,949). Following the reliability analysis a legal expert’s opinion has also been obtained.

4.3. Questions, Hypothesis and Expected Results of the Research

The questions to be answered, the basic hypothesis of the research and the expected results from the research are given in Table 1.

Table 1: The Questions, Hypothesis and Expected Results of the Research

Research Question Hypothesis Expected Results

1. Is there a relationship betwe-en distributional justice and motivation?

H0: There is a relationship bet-ween distributional justice and motivation.H1: There is no relationship between distributional justice and motivation.

There is a positive rela-tionship between dist-ributional justice and motivation.

2. Is there a relationship between procedural justice and moti-vation?

H2: There is a relationship between procedural justice and motivation.H3: There is no relationship between procedural justice and motivation.

There is a positive relati-onship between procedu-ral justice and motivation.

3. Is there a relationship between interactional justice and mo-tivation?

H4: There is a relationship between interactional justice and motivation.H5: There is no relationship between interactional justice and motivation.

There is a positive relati-onship between interactio-nal justice and motivation.

4. Is there a relationship between organizational justice and motivation? (Distributional+Procedural+ Interactional justice)/3=Organizational justice

H6: There is a relationship between organizational justice and motivation.H7: There is no relationship between organizational justice and motivation.

There is a positive rela-tionship between orga-nizational justice and motivation.


365

As can be seen from Table 1, the basic assumption of the research has been specified as: “There’s a positive relationship between organizational justice and motivation”.

4.4. Findings

4.4.1. The Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Research

We can summarize the socio-demographic characteristics of the university employees included in the scope of the research as follows:. Of the total 90 employees, %37,8 are female, %62,2 are male; %31,1 are single, %63,3 are married, %5,6 are divorced; educational level %13,3 middle-high school, %14,4 two-year degree, %32,2 underg-raduate, %14,4 graduate, %25,6 Ph.D.; %43,3 are in the 26-35 age range. It has been determined that the employment times of the employees in the university are, %38,9 1-5 years, %14,4 6-10 years, %21,1 11-15 years and %25,6 16 years or more.

4.4.2. Distributional Justice

In Table 2, the viewpoint of the employees at the success of the senior administration of the Adıyaman University with regard to distributional justice has been measured with help of Likert Technique. As can be seen from the table, in order to present the distributional justice understanding of the senior administration, their just behavior regarding the distribution of social rights (lodging, education and research rights, be-nefitting from social facilities, etc.), distribution of money yielding resources, giving of earned promotions and distribution of the physical work environment.

According to the values on Table 2, Adıyaman University employees have found the senior administration to be %40 (27,8+12,2) just regarding distribution of social rights; %47,8 (38,9+8,9) just in distribution of money yielding resources. Additionally, according to the table, it has been found that the senior administration is %48,9 just re-garding the effective and quick realization of the promotional rights of the employees and %52,2 just regarding the distribution of physical environment.

When the general attitude is considered, it has been determined that the senior admi-nistration is %47,2 successful regarding organizational justice. The reasons for the Adıyaman University personnel regarding the senior administration so unsuccessful from with regard to distributional justice have been determined taking account the conclusions and the questions in the scale and have been presented in the “Results and Suggestions” part of the study.


366

Table 2: Distributional justice

Distributional justice N Avg. Dv.

Frequency Analysis

Frequency (N) Percentage (%)

-- - + ++ -- - + ++

Your senior manager is fair with regard to distribution of social rights

90 2,21 1,02 28 26 25 11 31,1 28,9 27,8 12,2

Your senior manager is fair with regard to distribution of money yielding services or resources

90 2,28 0,98 26 21 35 8

28,9 23,3 38,9 8,9Your senior manager is fair with regard to promotion of deservers

90 2,42 0,98 19 27 31 1321,1 30,0 34,5 14,4

Your senior manager is fair with regard to distribution of physical resources of the work environment

90 2,41 0,91 18 25 39 8

20,0 27,8 43,3 8,9

Average 90 2,33 0,97 23 25 32 10 25,3 27,5 36,1 11,1

52,8 47,2

4.4.3. Procedural Justice

In Table 3, the functioning of procedural justice in Adıyaman University has been exa-mined. As can be seen from the table, in order to set forth the procedural justice per-ception in Adıyaman University, the functioning of the complaint and problem solving mechanisms, the information gathering level of the employees regarding the methods for making of decisions concerning them, their faith levels regarding that justice was pursued when decisions concerning them were made, whether they had a say about location and service distribution and the decision making processes, especially about subjects concerning them were questioned.

According to the data of Table 3, the general belief towards procedural justice func-tioning fairly in the Adıyaman University is at the level of %43,4. The employees, resulting from the study, have stated that if they believed that the decision making process of any decision concerning them functioned in a healthy and fair manner, then this would influence them positively. It has been found that in the Adıyaman University, the belief that decision making processes for decisions concerning the employees functioning fairly is %46,7. The mistakes effecting this manner level and solution recommendations that could be developed against these mistakes have again been presented in the “Results and Suggestions” part of the study.


367

Table 3 : Procedural justice

Procedural justice N Avg. Dv.

Frequency Analysis


-- - + ++ -- - + ++

The functioning of complaint and problem solving mecha-nisms is fair

90 2,30 0,84 15 40 28 7 16,7 44,4 31,1 7,8

Employees have knowledge regarding the ways decisions concerning them are made

90 2,28 0,82 17 35 34 418,9 38,9 37,8 4,4

I believe that the decision mak-ing processes concerning the employees are fair

90 2,71 0,86 8 40 26 168,9 44,4 28,9 17,8

I have a say in job, location and service distribution, and espe-cially in the decision making processes about issues concern-ing me

90 2,33 0,96 21 28 31 1023,3 31,1 34,4 11,1

Average 90 2,40 0,87 15 36 30 9 16,9 39,7 33,1 10,3

56,6 43,4

4.4.4. Interpersonal Justice

Whether the communication of the senior administration with the subordinates was healthy or not at the Adıyaman University and whether a when decision was made that concerned the employees, complete information was given to the employees when in-forming them of the decision was examined under “interpersonal justice” heading. The results that followed, as can be seen in Table 4, can be interpreted as “satisfactory”. It was determined that the senior administration at the Adıyaman University gave suffi-cient information during the announcement of any favorable or unfavorable decisions made which concerned the employees (%55,3) and they used a polite language when telling the employees about these decisions (%62,2). In the study that was carried out, it was determined that the senior administration did not communicate at the same level with everyone (%47,8), in other words they did not communicate with everyone in the work environment. This situation can be interpreted as the senior administration, du-ring the day, in general, visit only some of the personnel and they give a visit to some of the personnel only when they have a specific task concerning them. However it has been found that the administrators are %55,3 just when they communicate with the employees, whoever these employees might be. In other words, it has been determined that senior administration discriminate at a level of %44,7 (100-55,3) between their subordinates and they don’t communicate with them.


368

Table 4: Interpersonal justice

Interpersonal justice N Avg. Dv.

Frequency Analysis


-- - + ++ -- - + ++

Administrators present rightful reasons and give complete infor-mation regarding the decisions that concern me

90 2,27 0,84 19 32 35 4 21,1 35,6 38,9 4,4

Administrators express the deci-sions made that concern me in a polite and friendly manner

90 2,68 0,80 7 27 44 12

7,8 30 48,9 13,3Administrators communicate in the same way with all employees 90 2,40 0,94 18 29 32 11

20 32,2 35,6 12,2Administrators show respect and esteem to their subordinates 90 2,71 0,85 10 19 48 13

11,1 21,1 53,3 14,4Average 90 2,51 0,86 13 27 40 10 15 29,7 44,2 11,1

44,7 55,3

When speaking of senior administrators in the study, this doesn’t mean only the rector, vice rector, dean, vice deans, directors and vice directors. Every chief serving in the Adıyaman University, present in a unit is a senior administrator.

4.4.5. The Influence of Justice Perception on Motivation

Another purpose of this study is to measure the administrators level of motivating the employees. This is because providing efficiency, increasing the current efficiency and the quality of the services produced in the establishment/state institutions and organizations is in direct proportion to the morale and motivation levels of the employees. For example, an employee who feels happy in the organization he works for and who is satisfied with the working conditions arrives at the workplace on time and sometimes makes sacrifices without expecting anything in return. In other words, even though he doesn’t receive any return (fee) he continues to work after normal working hours and he does it fondly. All of these positive attitudes are dependent on the employees motivation. And the employee’s motivation is dependent mostly on the administration’s attitude.

In the 50’s, the famous philosopher Douglas McGregor (X-Y Theory) has examined the relationship between motivation and human nature and efficiency and has found the administrators to be responsible of the inefficiency at the institutions. Also in this study, an attempt to measure the success of the administrators at the Adıyaman Univer-sity in motivating their subordinates or employees has been made.

As can be seen in Table 5, it has been determined that senior administrators are %54,3


369

successful in motivating the personnel affiliated personnel. The employees at the Adı-yaman University have expressed that administrators continuously urge them to work (%57,8), prepare the necessary environment to increase effectiveness and efficiency (%57,7), they can minimize the factors that can negatively affect efficiency (%58,9). In addition to these, the employees have stated that the senior administrators don’t find them successful enough with regard to financial or moral awards (%48,9) and they can’t get in return for the activities performed within the organizational structure (%47,8). This information has been revealed by the senior administration falling below %50 level in both cases.

In general, it can be said that the employees in the Adıyaman University are content with the senior administrators (%54,3). This is because the level of the attitude that was revealed is over %50. However, although this attitude has been measured as po-sitive, the level of attitude that was determined is not pleasing. An attempt to explain the reasons of this attitude and probable solution recommendations are given in the “Conclusion and Suggestions” section.

Table 5: Motivation

Motivation N Avg. Dv.

Frequency Analysis


-- - + ++ -- - + ++

The administrators urge their employees to work with en-thusiasm

90 2,54 0,79 10 28 45 7 11,1 31,1 50 7,8

The administrators prepare the necessary environment to increase work effectiveness and efficiency

90 2,64 0,79 6 32 40 12 6,7 35,6 44,4 13,3

The administrators take pre-cautions to dissuade attitude and behavior that negatively affect work effectiveness and efficiency

90 2,60 0,76 7 30 45 8 7,8 33,3 50 8,9

The administrators financially or morally reward success 90 2,39 0,92 18 28 35 9 20 31,1 38,9 10

I think I receive a recom-pense for my work in the organization

90 2,42 0,87 14 33 34 9 15,6 36,6 37,8 10

Average 90 2,51 0,82 11 30 40 9 12,2 33,5 44,3 10

45,7 54,3


370

4.4.6. Other Factors Influencing Motivation

Effectiveness and efficiency in organizations is ensured through motivation of the employees. The motivation levels of the employees is in direct proportion with fair distribution of organization’s facilities and fair functioning of the work, reward and punishment processes (Çelik, 2011). Organizational justice, which becomes a reality in line with reasonable expectations of the employees, provides positive contribution to increasing the job satisfaction, developing social relationships and intraorganizati-onal justice.

Individuals being fair with regard to issues such as mutual trust, social sensibility, respect, sincerity in attitude and behavior, makes intraorganizational justice easier. De-veloping intraorganizational applications and interpersonal relationships, reaching the specified organizational goals and targets depends on bringing behavioral, procedural and interpersonal justice into force (Demirel and Seçkin, 2011: 2).

Justice in the organizations is obtained by everyone’s participation. However while the employees offer indirect contribution to the ensuring of justice, an employee in the position of an administrator plays a direct role in the existence or insurance of justice. In this context, it is carries great importance that the administrators at the Adıyaman University know what the employees think and on what subjects, in order to ensure justice among the employees.

As can be seen in Table 6, five motivating questions based on justice were directed to the employees in the Adıyaman University and through these questions an attempt to explain the other factors influencing motivation with “Adıyaman University Example”. Also, this study gives information to the administrators about the situations that could harm the posi-tive attitudes of the employers, which they can always keep in mind and provides practical information on how to act when these negative attitudes occur.

Table 6: Other Factors Influencing Motivation

Other Factors Influencing Motivation N Avg. Dv.

Frequency Analysis

Frequency Percentage (%)

-- - + ++ -- - + ++

Acting justly in distribution of organizational resources motivates me

90 3,21 0,81 6 4 45 35 6,7 4,4 50 38,9


371

The fair functioning of the complaint and problem solv-ing mechanisms motivates the employees

90 3,27 0,80 4 8 38 40 4,4 8,9 42,3 44,4

I am happy that the admin-istrators show respect and esteem to their subordinates.

90 2,73 0,87 9 22 43 16 10 24,4 47,8 17,8

The physical facilities of my work environment being suitable to my job increases my effectiveness and ef-ficiency.

90 2,84 0,88 9 16 45 20 10 17,8 50 22,2

My administrators commu-nication with every employ-ee in the same way increases my desire to work.

90 2,89 0,82 7 15 49 19 7,8 16,6 54,5 21,1

Average 90 2,99 0,84 7 13 44 26 7,8 14,4 48,9 28,9

22,2 77,8

According to the results of Table 6, complaint and problem solving mechanism func-tioning equally fair for everyone (%86,7), fair distribution of organizational resources (physical; money, materials… and conceptual; information, data..) (%88,9) are de-termined to be the most motivating instruments for the employees of Adıyaman Uni-versity. In addition, it has been revealed that a senior administrator’s using the same communication with everyone (%75,6) rather than using a polite language in commu-nication (%65,6)is more important. To explain this with an example; an administrator being polite and respectful when giving a task to a personnel is important. This mo-tivates the personnel and ensures him to perform his job faster more effectively and efficiently, and enjoy the task he is performing. However, more important than this, is that the administrator showing this attitude equally to everyone. In other words, if the administrator is polite to some employees when assigning work (this could result from family ties or a private or out of work relationship), but looks down on another employee, this will cause negative attitude to form between workers. These attitudes increase in time and threaten organizational integrity and efficiency. To avoid this, the administrator has to approach everyone with a polite and respectful manner. Thanking the personnel that performed the task at the end of every completed work will play a role that increases the motivation and job satisfaction of the personnel. The study car-ried out with the Adıyaman University personnel confirms this. In other words, rather than the administrator being polite or rude due to character, it is more important for him to treat everybody in the same way.

4.4.7. Test of Hypothesis

In order to test the hypothesis’ that are the subject of the research, regression and correlation analysis have been used. According to this, “motivation” has been taken


372

as the dependent variable and the sub dimensions of organizational justice such as “distributional, procedural and interpersonal justice” have been taken as independent variables in the analysis. As can be followed from Table 7, %69 of the total variance of motivation variable is explained by distributional justice, procedural justice and in-terpersonal justice variables, in order. The effect of distributional justice (Beta = ,412 p<0,05), procedural justice (Beta = ,676 p<0,05) and interpersonal justice (Beta = ,490 p<0,05) on the motivation of employees is fairly high. At this point, it can be said that the H1, H3, and H5 hypothesis that are the subject of the research are supported.

Table 7: The Effect of Perception of Distributional, Procedural and Interactional jus-tice on Motivation

R2=,702 Corrected R2=,692F=67,60 p=,000

Variables Beta Coefficient t-value P

Distributional justice 0,412 3,64 0,003

Procedural justice 0,676 8,61 0,000

Interactional justice 0,490 5,58 0,000

Table 8: The Effect of Perception of Organizational justice on Motivation

R2=,671 Corrected R2=,667F=179,12 p=,000

Variables Beta Coefficient t-Value P

Organizational justice 0,819 13,38 0,000

Table 8 shows the results of the regression test carried out in order to determine if the study was meaningful or not as a whole. In other words the regression of the com-bination of the three sub dimensions of organizational justice has been carried out in order to measure the effect of organizational justice on motivation. This test has been obtained by regressing the new value obtained by taking the average of the data obtained from the three justice perceptions with the motivation dependent variable. According to this, organizational justice explains %66 of the total variance of the mo-tivation variable. When Beta (0,819) and significance (p<0,05) values are taken into consideration, it is seen that organizational justice is very effective on motivation. This finding supports H7.


373

Table 9: Correlation between Organizational justice and Motivation (Correlation Analysis)

Avg. Std. Dv. 1 2 3 4 5

1-Distributional justice 2,33 0,824 p 12-Procedural justice 2,40 0,661

p 0,825409r 0,000000 1

3-Interactional justice 2,51 0,728

r 0,724785 0,686636p 0,000000 0,000000 1

4-Organizational justice 2,41 0,673

r 0,939813 0,911986 0,881230p 0,000000 0,000000 0,000000 1

5-Motivation 2,51 0,699r 0,767029 0,676449 0,788459 0,818880p 0,000000 0,000000 0,000000 0,000000 1

N:90 and correlation relationship meaningful at p<0.05 level.

Correlation analysis has been performed in order to determine the level (degree-strength) and direction of the relationship between organizational justice and motiva-tion. As it is known, the correlation coefficient is represented by the letter “r” and has a value between -1 and +1 (-1≤ r ≤+1). Here, the level of the relationship between the variables is determined by the absolute value of the numbers and the direction is deter-mined by the sign of the numbers (positive or negative)56. In this study, the correlation coefficients are given in Table 9. According to this, there’s a strong correlation between motivation and organizational justice (r=0,81 p=0,00) and this correlation is directly proportional. In other words the more the justice mechanism inside the organization is functioning justly, this will increase the employee motivation proportionally. Also, there’s a directly proportional correlation between motivation and the sub dimensions of organizational justice. As can be seen in Table 9, the strongest correlation is mea-sured between motivation and interpersonal justice (r=0,78 p=0,00). This is followed by distributional justice (r=0,76 p=0,00) and procedural justice (r=67 p=0,00). This is very normal. This is because among the sub dimensions making up organizational justice, interpersonal justice addresses the human social structure and needs more than the others. In other words, people feel comfortable as long as they can express them-selves and they are addressed. This enables the employee to see himself as a part of the organization.

If the effect of the sub dimensions of organizational justice on motivation is to be ordered in descending order, in this study we get interpersonal justice, distributio-nal justice and procedural justice respectively (İnterpersonal justice>Distributional

56 Correlation coefficient being positive, means, when the data corresponging to a varibale incre-aes the other one also increases or when the data corresponging to a varibale decreaes the other one also decreases, and it is interpreted as there’s a direct proportion between the variables.Correlation coefficient being negative, means, when the data corresponging to a varibale increaes the other one decreases or when the data corresponging to a varibale decreaes the other one increases and it is interpreted as there’s an inverse proportion between the variables.


374

justice>Procedural justice). In this ordering, procedural justice has the least influence on the motivation of the employees. However this ratio is not small enough to be ig-nored. This is because the influence of procedural justice on motivation is at the level of %67 (Table 9).

5. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS (SUGGESTIONS)

There are many factors that increase the motivation of the employees in organizations. The wishes and expectations of the employees from the organization being met are just two of these factors. The basic expectation of the workers from the organization that they belong to is the equal distribution of the deserved earnings or income generating resources between all employees and the fair (objective) functioning of the decision making processes concerning how this distribution is to be made. In other words it is the expectation of justice in the organization.

Organizational justice is a subject every administrator should put emphasis on. This is because every employee wants his senior administrator to be just. In the case of not having or damaging this belief on the employees, the employee can show wrong/negative attitudes that could harm the organization. In other words, even the smallest doubt about the decision and work processes in the organization will (negatively) ef-fect the organization’s employees (that have this doubt), with the condition that they are on a different level. Isolating this effect from the negative developments rests in bringing functionality to the intraorganizational justice mechanism. The findings of the research also support this judgment. In this context, it is one of the important duties of the organization’s administrators to create the structure and operation that will provide organizational justice.

Positive attitudes may develop depending on different factors in each employee. Ho-wever, in organizations where justice is observed, it is a fact known by everybody that in general positive attitudes emerge. For example, the fair functioning of the fee, adhe-rence to work hours, reward and punishment etc. systems in the organization, the emp-loyees developing the perception that processes function transparently and fairly with the decisions made, ensure the employees developing very positive attitudes towards the organization. When the issue is looked at from this perspective, how important the issue of justice is in the organization will be apparent once more.

In this study, under the light of the data obtained from regression and correlation analy-sis; it has been found that, from the perspective of organizational justice, distributio-nal, procedural and interpersonal justice are important elements which determine the employee’s motivation. Under the light of these findings, when the positive effect and the benefits of organizational justice to the organization are taken into account, it will be apparent that organization’s administrators increasing the employee’s motivation through tools that ensure organizational justice is mandatory. An organizational struc-


375

ture can be made to be effective and efficient only in this way.

When the results of the research are taken into consideration, the factors effecting the levels of the attitudes emerging in employees were attempted to be determined. What needs to be done to transform negative attitudes in the employees into positive attitu-des are provided in Table 10 as a solution recommendation.

Table 10: Mistakes emerging from the Results of the Study that are Assumed to be Made and Solution Recommendations


376

Factors Leading to Negative Attitudes Solution Recommendations

Dis

trib

utio

nal j

ustic

e

1. In the distribution of Social Rights (Lodging, education and research rights (ADYÜBAP Pro-jects), social facilities etc.) it has not been taken into account if they were deserved or not. Peop-le belonging to a specific group or ideology have been favored.

2. Not observing justice in distri-bution of income yielding reso-urces; i.e. giving more than one duty to one person. Example: One individual becoming the manager of a unit, the vice ma-nager of another unit and additi-onally the head of a department.

3. While some employees work in a single room in groups of three, four or five, some people in the same or in a different department working alone, even having two or more rooms for themselves and these people being those clo-se to the administration.

4. While performing the same duty, not providing the same physical environment or office stock to another employee.

5. Not distributing the research as-sistants in the department to the academics according to their areas of interest and evaluating them only to answer to the needs of the senior administration.

6. etc…..

· When lodgings and similar fa-cilities are distributed the de-cision must be made by obser-ving if they are deserved or not.

· One individual should be given one duty only and other duties must be stripped and distribu-ted to other employees. This way, increasing the contributi-on to administration and provi-ding satisfaction.

· Observing justice in the distri-bution of the physical environ-ment in the departments. i.e. If there’s one room for an in-dividual, for whatever reason, emptying the other rooms he’s been given and assigning them to other departments in need of physical space.

· Providing the same physical environment to the people per-forming the same duty. If that is not possible, assigning the improved physical spaces to the superior administrator or providing the space for shared use.

· The research assistant help the academic in the scientific stu-dies according to their fields of study and this not be considered as stationery. Also ensuring the research assistants work with the academics in harmony, ac-cording to their fields of study.


377

Proc

edur

al ju

stic

e

1. Functioning the complaint and problem solving mechanisms on a per person basis. i.e. If the complainer is someone close to the administration his complaint is taken seriously and work is done to resolve the complaint.

2. Assigning employees to other departments or duties without informing them about the way these decisions are made.

3. During the decision making pro-cesses of these decisions, not asking the opinion of the person that is directly affected by the de-cision.

4. Not including the employees into a decision process and running the hierarchical structure too much. i.e. during the decision making process there’s no action that the personnel is effective. Sometimes not being able to ef-fect events that he doesn’t app-rove of.

· Whoever the complainer is, the nature of the complaint should be observed and the essence should be given importance. Running the necessary proces-ses in this context.

· During the decision making processes that concern the employees, the concerned employees be called in and as-ked for opinions and according to the action, observing perso-nal skills, talents and characte-ristics

· The decision making powers of departments should be used by departments. Immediate su-periors not interfering with the used authorities of the depart-ments unduly.

· During assignments using the in-department personnel as much as possible and thus inc-reasing personnel motivation. E.g.: if a department chief is to be assigned (Dean,Ass. Prf., Director,…) assigning the per-son of qualification in the de-partment.


378

1. Senior management visiting or addressing the personnel only when they are needed.

2. Senior management using com-manding language instead of polite. Not addressing personnel unless needed.

3. Administrators visiting some of the personnel in the same physi-cal location often and inquire af-ter their health while neglecting some personnel.

4. Senior administrators develo-ping an oppressive attitude and behavior as chief of department, perceiving reformative criticism from personnel as intervention in personnel authority. i.e. senior administration not accepting cri-ticism and appearing to be open to criticism while being closed.

5. Senior administrator developing an attitude towards the personnel that criticizes himself.

· Senior administration visiting the personnel regularly and pe-riodically.

· Senior administration trying to show the compassionate and smiling face of the administra-tion rather than grumpy.

· Communication in the same way with the personnel wor-king in the same physical space and avoiding behavior that can cause polarization. i.e. visiting everyone and making them feel everyone is a part of the orga-nization. Emphasizing appre-ciation for the existence of the personnel.

· Senior administration not see-ing himself as the sole autho-rity and including all personnel in decision making processes. Being open to criticism during these decision making proces-ses and giving importance to the criticisms made. When the senior administration proposes a more suitable idea or offer, approaching the idea or offer positively with no regard to who offered it and providing the necessary environment for the offer to be accepted to be realized as an action.


379

Mot

ivat

ion

1. Senior administration not va-luing the work of the personnel and not motivation the personnel towards realizing their ideas.

2. Administrators not preparing the environment that will increase effectiveness and efficiency.

3. As senior administrator, not gi-ving the necessary emphasis to the issue of being a good role model to the employees.

· Appraising the offers coming from the personnel and enco-uraging them towards succee-ding in the mentioned studies.

· Encouraging scientific studies and honoring all employees depending on the performance, perfection of the work done..

· Administrators giving more emphasis to being a good role model.


380

6. REFERENCES

Altıntaş, F. Ç. (2006). “Bireysel Değerlerin Adalet ve Sonuçları İlişkisinde Yönlendirici Etkisi: Akademik Personel Üzerinde Bir Analiz.” Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi İşletme Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt 7, Sayı 2:19-40.

Aybay, R. (2008). “Adalet, Hukuk, İnsan Hakları”, Ankara Barosu Uluslararası Hukuk Kurultayı, I. Cilt, 8-11 Ocak, Ankara.

Aykut, S. (2007). “Örgütsel Adalet, Birey-Örgüt Uyumu ile Çalışanların İşle İlgili Tutumları: Pendik İlçesi Örneği.” (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Yeditepe Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.

Ayverdi, İ. (2010). Misalli Büyük Türkçe Sözlüğü. Ankara, Kubbealtı Yayınları.

Baransel, A. (1993). Çağdaş Yönetim Düşüncesinin Evrimi. Klasik ve Neoklasik Yönetim ve Örgüt Teorileri, Birinci Cilt, 3. Baskı. İstanbul, Avcıol Basım Yayın.

Barnard, C. (1994). The Functions of Executive. Cambridge, Harward University Press, Massachusetts.

Bies, R. J. and Moag, J. F. (1986). “International Justice” Communication Criteria of Fairness Research on Negotiations in Organizations, Vol. 1: 43-55.

Bolat, T., Seymen A. O., Bolat O. I. and Erdem, B. (2008). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Ankara, Detay Yayıncılık.

Çakır, Ö. (2006). Ücret Adaletinin İş Davranışları Üzerindeki Etkileri. Ankara. Kamu-İş Kamu İşletme-leri İşverenleri Sendikası Yayını.

Çelik, M. and Duran, H. (2011). “Toplam Kalite Yönetimi ve Örgütsel Bağlılık: Adıyaman Emniyet Müdür-lüğü Örneği” Akademik Bakış Dergisi, Sayı 24, Makale No:11.

Çelik, M. (2011). “A Theoretical Approach to the Job Satisfaction”. Polish Journal of Management Studies(PJMS), Volume 4, p:7-15.

Chen, H. F. (2010). “The Relationships of Organizational Justice, Social Exchange, Psychological Contract, and Expatriate Adjustment: An Example of Taiwanese Business Expatriates.” The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.21, No. 7, p:1090-1107.

Demirel, Y. and Seçkin, Z. (2011). “Örgütsel Adaletin Bilgi Paylaşımı Üzerine Etkisi: İlaç Sektörü Çalışan-larına Yönelik Bir Araştırma.” Bilig Dergisi, Sayı 59: 99- 119

Doğan, H. (2002). “İşgörenlerin Adalet Algılamalarında Örgüt İçi İletişim ve Prosedürel Bilgilendirmenin Rolü.” Ege Akademik Bakış, Cilt 2, Sayı 2: 71-78.

Duran, H. and Çelik, M. (2011). “Demografik Özelliklerin Örgütsel Bağlılık ve İş Tatmini Üzerindeki Et-kileri: Adıyaman Emniyet Müdürlüğü Örneği” NWSA - New World Sciences Academy Dergisi, Cilt 6, Sayı 2, Makale No:4C0099.

Etzioni, A. (1964). Modern Organizations. New York: Printice-Hall Press.

Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., Gavin, M., Gooty, J. and Bradley, S. D. (2010). “Organizational Justice, Trustworthiness, and Trust: A Multifoci Examination.” Group & Organization Management Journal. Vol. 35(I): 39-76.

Güçlü, N. (2003). “Örgüt Kültürü.” Manas Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Sayı 6: 147-159.


381

Gündoğdu, A. O. (2003). Hak ve Adalet. Adalet konulu sempozyum, Muğla Üniversitesi, 9-11 Eylül, p:.4-5, Muğla

Gündüz, M. (2004). Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Sorunları. Ankara, Anı Yayınları.

Güriz, A. (2007). Hukuk Felsefesi, 7. Baskı. Ankara, Siyasal Kitabevi.

Iyi, S. (2008). “Adalet, Hukuk, İnsan Hakları.” Ankara Barosu Uluslararası Hukuk Kurultayı, I. Cilt, 8-11 Ocak, Ankara.

March, J.G. & Simon, H. A. (1958). Organizations. New York, John Wiley Press.

Moorman, H. (1991). “Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Beha-viors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship?” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.76: 845-855.

Ölçer, F. (2005). “Departmanlı Mağazalarda Motivasyon Üzerine Bir Araştırma.” Erciyes Üniversitesi İkti-sadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 25, 4. Makale.

Özdevecioğlu, M. (2003). “Algılanan Örgütsel Adaletin Bireylerarası Saldırgan Davranışlar Üzerindeki Et-kilerinin Belirlenmesine Yönelik Bir Araştırma.” Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Sayı 21: 77-96.

Özkalp, E. and Kırel, Ç. (2004). Sosyolojiye Giriş, Eskişehir, Anadolu Üniversitesi Bilimsel Araştırma Çalışmaları Vakfı Yayınları.

Schein, E. H. (1970). Organizational Psychology. New Jersey, Prentice-Hall Inc Press.

Şimşek, M. Ş. and Çelik, A. (2009). Yönetim ve Organizasyon. Konya, Eğitim Akademi Yayınları.

Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of Scientific Management. Ankara, Adres Yayınları.

Walumbwa, F. O., Russell, C. and Chad A. H. (2009). “Organizational Justice, Voluntary Learning Behavior, and Job Performance: A Test of the Mediating Effects of Identification and Leader-Member Exchange.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 30: 1103-1126.


382


organizational justice and motivation relationship:...

Documents