Hospital Management:
Employee Perceptions about Organisational Justice

By

Sunayana Kumar
Lecturer
Department of Management Studies
Government Engineering College
Jhalawar

Surendra Kumar
Reader
Department of Management Studies
Rajasthan College of Engineering for Women
Jaipur

Nisha Kala
Lecturer
Department of Management Studies
Jyoti Vidhyapeeth Women University
Jaipur
 

Abstract:-

Purpose – The purpose to clarify what kind of managerial challenges employees experience regarding organisational justice in small scale hospitals of Rajasthan.

Research Methodology – This exploratory study of employees working at different levels in small scale hospitals in Rajasthan and examines the concept of organisational justice in management with qualitative and quantitative methods.

Findings – An inductive content analysis of the comments revealed five integrative frames describing challenges in small scale hospital management at respondents' workplaces. These frames should be regarded as major managerial challenges in small scale hospitals of Rajasthan. These findings illustrate important antecedents of organisational justice and suggest that work units tend to share the same perceptions of justice. They also reveal that individually produced comments reflect collective experiences in the case of organisational justice. Further, the results indicate that problems in management and policies are often experienced in a complex way, and people making justice judgements do not separate procedural and interactional factors (factors present within the organisation).

Research limitations/implications – Although the commentators producing qualitative data represented at many organisational hierarchy levels present, the results should not be generalised to apply to horizontal, informal social relationships working in different aspects.

Practical implications – This paper gives useful information regarding challenges in human resources management in small scale hospitals.

Originality– The paper suggests that people making fairness judgements do not make a distinction between procedural and interpersonal factors present at workplace. Instead, they use any information available to judge the righteousness of the management events. This paper serves to guide small scale hospital managers towards a better understanding of the importance of organisational justice and its collective nature.

Keywords - Hospital management, Employee attitudes, Employee relations, Organisational hierarchy

Paper type- Research paper

Introduction

Organisational justice has been an object of extensive discussion on the agenda in organisational research during the past ten years. Justice has shown to be associated with several outcomes such as job satisfaction, job motivation, work commitment (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Moorman, 1991), work performance (Lind et al., 1990; Phillips et al., 2001), and physical and mental health (Tepper, 2001; Kivima¨ki et al., 2003) of employees. As justice judgments seem to influence so many important factors in organisational behaviour which are related to employees working their and well being, it is crucial to study what concrete issues people perceive as unfair in organisational life.

Despite a wealth of theoretical analyses focusing on organisational justice, there are few approaches that describe the content of justice with other than quantitative approaches (Mikula et al., 1990; Miller, 2001; Taylor, 2001). This study aimed to test whether employees' unforced written comments in a large small scale hospital survey were associated with organisational justice as measured in the same survey with the help of a structured questionnaire. Another objective was to analyse if the producers of comments manifested their individual experimental interpretations without connections to broader organisational contextual activities. With these bases, we wanted inductively to elaborate on what justice really means for real situations of real-world employees. Our plan was to approach the qualitative data without any "a priori" theoretical justice model by means of providing a descriptive analysis of perceptions emerging from the employees' written comments (Strauss, 1987; Strauss and Corbin, 1990; Miles and Huberman, 1994).

In this paper, we first introduce the theoretical construct and the content included in organisational justice. In the empirical part, we describe what kind of subjective perceptions the employees of the study organisations produced, and then how these perceptions were connected to organisational justice as measured and compared with the help of a structured questionnaire scales. Finally, we integrate our findings to current theoretical justice models available on organisational justice.

The concept of organisational justice

Organisational justice can be interpreted as a virtue allowing for mutual consideration and involving both relationships with others and outcomes that affect others' physical, psychological and social welfare (Cropanzano et al., 2001; Meara, 2001). In previous organisational justice research, the construct has often been divided into at least three aspects: distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice (Leventhal, 1980; Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Cropanzano et al., 2001; Masterson et al., 2000). In this paper, we concentrate on procedural and interactional aspects of organisational justice.

The fairness of procedural aspects by which outcomes are allocated and implemented has attracted special interest in the field of organisational justice research. The domain called procedural justice emphasises the voice perspective of the same (i.e. opportunity to be heard and taken into consideration) and the process control perspective of the same (opportunity to influence information used in decision-making). (Thibaut and Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980; Lind and Tyler, 1988; Folger and Cropanzano, 1998; Masterson et al., 2000; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001; Elovainio et al., 2001; Tepper, 2001). Procedural justice has been interpreted to be most appropriate for reflecting the way employees make their judgments concerning the fairness of practices at organisational level in the small scale hospitals. Accordingly, it has particularly been assumed to relate to organisational commitment (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001). Interactional justice also called relational justice, (Elovainio et al., 2001) is often distinguished from procedural justice in organisational justice. It refers to perceptions concerning the way authorities treat their subordinates within the organisation, and how these subordinates respond to these perceptions (Bies and Moag, 1986; Masterson et al., 2000; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). This response contains interactional as well as emotional aspects that are crystallised in social accounts of politeness, honesty and respect (Bies and Moag, 1986).

In reflecting interpersonal attributes, interactional justice is interpreted as dealing with Cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects towards the immediate superior (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001), whereas procedural justice attributes more to organisation as a whole (Masterson et al., 2000; Cropanzano et al., 2001).

Methods and results

Research data

To generate new insight into the concept of procedural and relational organisational justice, we inductively extracted categories from qualitative data obtained describing challenges in management, and tested the extent to which these categories were associated with the conventional self-reported measures of justice. Categories with a strong relation to organisational justice were considered to reflect the justice concept. The qualitative data comprised unprompted comments produced by small scale hospitals employees in the free-text area at the back of a survey questionnaire sent out to 2883 employees in 30 small scale hospitals of Rajasthan in 2008. The free-text area was specifically provided for respondents' open comments type of questions, without any indicating questions. The questionnaire was completed and returned by 2242 employees, giving the response rate of 78 percent. Of the returned questionnaires, 641 (15 percent) contained written messages in the free-text area, ranging from a couple of words or a para to small stories. In addition to these messages, we used information obtainable from the structured section of the same questionnaire used, including scales of procedural and interactional methods of organisational justice.

Qualitative study

In the first phase, an inductive analysis of the open comments was conducted following the principles of content analysis (Miles and Huberman, 1994; Berg, 1998; Punch, 1998; Labianca et al., 2000). The main objective was to generate a conceptual description grounded in the data obtain from the questionnaire. Moreover, content analysis allowed us to use both qualitative and quantitative methods concurrently and to render the overall picture of the phenomenon as broad as possible (Berg, 1998).

The hand written messages were first transcribed verbatim from the postal questionnaires and linked to the quantitative data and respondents interests. Then, the textual material was printed out and the authors read the material carefully through several times for proper interpretation. After this scrutinising process, a coding scheme following Miles and Huberman (1994) was developed, adding new content analytic elements (codes) as they emerged from the textual material. After the phase of coding, known as open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1990), the concepts were organised and integrated into descriptive categories that served as retrieval and organising devices relating to a particular concept or theme (Carney, 1972; Berg, 1998; Punch, 1998).

The descriptive category labelled as "challenges in hospital management" subsumed 87 (38 percent) of all items coded from the questionnaire. Being obviously larger than the other frames, it set up the super-ordinate category (Berg, 1998). Further, the codes in this super-ordinate category were subsumed into five integrative frames with which we wanted to work towards a condensed, emerging interpretation of what was central in the data (Berg, 1998; Punch, 1998).

Integrative frames

The five emerging integrative frames as mentioned in Table I all reflect challenges in hospital management. There were few positive statements among the messages coded.

The most salient frame in the final analysis, labelled as "Attitude towards personnel" mentioned in Table I, Category I, dealt with insufficiencies in management's concern and support perceived to be unfair. The categories within the frame can broadly be interpreted to symbolise shortcomings of interpersonal processes and deficiencies in the main areas of leadership praxis. This integrative frame was composed of eight categories that concentrated around the feeling of avoidance and indifference using descriptions such as "nobody cares for us" and "our well-being is not a goal" were used. They also called for equality, recognition and respect, seen as an inseparable part of dignity.

The second integrative frame, named as "Personnel policy procedures" mentioned in Table I, Category II, consisted of four descriptive categories aggregated around processes related to challenges in human resources management in small scale hospitals of Rajasthan. The commentator messages demonstrated contradictions experienced between available resources and existing needs, eliciting exhaustion and moral anxiety such as incapability to do the work properly in small scale hospitals. These messages also reflected a lack of security and fear for the unknown future, describing the vulnerable position of the non-permanent personnel working in these small scale hospitals.

The third frame in Table I, Category III aggregated around qualitative aspects in the management mainly attributed to general properties such as "bad management" or "unsubstantial managerial skills". This integrative frame was named as "Qualitative attributes of management". It contained messages dealing with trust or mistrust associated with experiences of unfairness in the working of organisational systems.

The fourth frame mentioned in Table I, Category IV, named as "Decision-making practices", concerned the perceived fairness of decision-making procedures and the experience of involvement in these processes. Moreover, it dealt with the possibilities to be heard before decisions were practically implemented. Like the third frame, these comments also contained a component of uncertainty, but this uncertainty originated in voice-less ness and perceptions of being overlooked in matters of organisational concerning important things in the subjects' lives using descriptions such as "things just come . . . ".

The fifth frame included in Table I, Category V, likewise, followed the path of uncertainty describing factors that were experienced as unmanageable factors in the organisational working of small scale hospitals of Rajasthan. The frame, named as "Implementation of change in the organisation" and containing expressions such as "continuous changes in working community generate overwhelming uncertainty", reflects the turbulent nature of the working life and the pressures dealing with these changes involving in the organisational justice. Financial objectives and frames were seen as a threat that created negative impressions conflicting with the values and morale of employees (see McArthur and Moore, 1997).

Quantitative study

The dimensions in the integrative frames may represent different elements on the correlates of organisational justice. For this reason, we wanted to test the extent to which qualitative categories in the integrative frames were associated with the responses to the procedural and interactional justice scales in the structured questionnaire (Moorman, 1991).

First, we used two-tailed analysis of variance to test whether the authors of the comments differed in terms of background factors and organisational justice perceptions from those who did not write comments. Background factors included psychological distress as assessed by the 12-item version of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12, a = 0:89, response scale from 0 = not at all to 3= much more than usual, Goldberg et al., 1997), job satisfaction as indicated by Job Diagnostic Survey (Hackman and Oldham, 1975, 14 items with seven-point response scale (from 1 = extremely dissatisfied to 7 = extremely satisfied, a = 0:86), and health status as inquired by self-rated five-point health scale (from 1 = poor to 5 = excellent) indicating poor health by health ratings less than good (Idler and Angel, 1990). These background factors were chosen because we wanted to analyse whether personal features, such as poor health, have an effect on justice evaluations (Taylor, 2001).

To test organisational justice, we used the evaluation scale developed by Moorman (1991), consisting of seven items' procedural justice factor (a = 0:90) and six items' including interactional justice factor (a = 0:92). Responses were obtained on a five-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

To eliminate confounding due to potential differences in reporting organisational justice between the producers and non-producers of comments, we assigned the comments to all members of the work units in which the comment producers worked and excluded all producers of comments from the data. Differences between units with producers of comments and other work units were tested using two-tailed analysis of variance for the available data from the questionnaire used for survey proposes.

As shown in Table II, the producers of messages were over three years older than non-producers, they worked more likely in central than in regional small scale hospitals, and they more often belonged to nursing like registered nurse, practical nurse or comparable, supporting services like technical, nutrition or cleaning or doctors' occupations than non-producers of comments. Further, they more frequently appraised their health status as unsatisfactory as those not producing comments, and experienced more mental distress than other employees (also Tepper, 2001). Finally, it is clear that persons who wrote comments were more likely to be unsatisfied with their work than other employees who have not given their answers in the form of comments.

The first columns in Tables III and IV present the differences in organisational justice for the producers and non-producers of comments of employees. For each descriptive category, we compared levels of procedural and interactional organisational justice variables between comment producers and other employees those who have not given any comment.

In this analysis, the first and largest integrative frame, "Attitude towards personnel", seemed to be substantially more related to interactional organisational justice than procedural organisational justice. However, there were three categories that were significantly associated with procedural organisational justice as well. The second frame, "Personnel policy procedures", was also associated with both procedural organisational justice and interactional organisational justice scales. Categories signalling insecurity, such as "acting as substitute" and "lack of employment security", were more associated with interactional organisational justice factors rather than procedural organisational justice factors on scale. "Insufficient staffing" category differed significantly in both scales indicating the Multi-dimensional nature of both of these factors.

The fifth frame, "Implementation of changes in the organisation", was substantially limited to describing the procedural aspects of organisational justice only. The categories considered in this frame were powerlessness and voiceless-ness, yet without any interpersonal or interactional associations indicating that policies connected to organisational changes were somehow depersonalised and elusive.

To eliminate confounding due to potential differences in reporting organisational justice between producers and non-producers of comments, additional analyses were conducted. We assigned the values of the descriptive categories of comment producers for all employees working in the same unit, and then excluded the comment producers from the data generated. The second columns in Tables III and IV show that the results of comparison between employees in units with comment producers and units without comment producers mainly replicated the results of the first analysis, namely that in connection with management there was more experienced injustice in wards producing textual comments. In other words, the judgment of justice seemed to be socially and collectively shared and experienced, indicating that the textual comments did not exclusively reflect individual ways of perceiving management systems in the case of organisational justice.

Discussion

Prior studies on organisational justice have largely been conducted as experimental experiments, scenario experiments or correlational field studies (Leventhal, 1980; Mikula et al., 1990; Lupfer et al., 2000; Miller, 2001; Van den Bos, 2001). This study aimed at filling the gap between the different methods by identifying the factors experienced as managerial problems in the real working life context and then testing these experiences on the part of organisational justice.

The five integrative frames emerging from employees' subjective, unprompted judgments describe the pain spots in organisations. Problems in safeguarding employees' equal treatment and well-being, lack of professional respect, unsatisfactory qualities and incompetence in administration, and limited participation in decision-making were the most important organisational justice factors associated with perceived unfair management practice connecting the qualitative data and the quantitative organisational justice-related data. The categories mentioned above fit well into the theories of justice in giving answers why organisational justice is important. They demonstrate psychological needs that are fundamental to our well being, and violation of which are experienced as injustice (Cropanzano et al., 2001). The needs termed as control, belonging, self-esteem, and meaningful existence (Williams, 1997) guide our cognitive and emotional processes in reverberating the quality of belonging to an organisation. These dimensions may also indicate something highly important for the people – their status and value within the organisation (Tyler et al., 1996; Lupfer et al., 2000; Miller, 2001).

The researchers of justice have broadly concentrated on the distinction between various types of organisational justice judgments, and consequently, many links between these types have been ignored (Lind, 2001). In a sense, procedural organisational justice and interactional organisational justice both is an aspect of a broader social context (Phillips et al., 2001). According to our findings, the interface between procedural and interactional justice may be described as volatile (Mikula et al., 1990; Greenberg, 1993) since both types of justice were connected to social and non-social aspects. Our findings suggest that people making fairness processing do not clearly separate procedural and interpersonal organisational justice related factors, but they use any information available to judge the righteousness of the chain of events. We also discovered that in employees' comments organisational processes were often personalised, and conversely, a superior was often viewed as a representative of the organisational justice process. These findings indicate that the phenomenology of justice is multifaceted and related to cognitive, individual processing. Further, our findings are in congruence with the results of Mikula et al. (1990) and Bies and Moag (1986), supporting the idea that interactional factors are salient in organisational justice judgments. These factors are often difficult to elicit without diversity of methods. The results comparing commentator-units to other units demonstrated that our findings are not bound to any special characteristic of the producer of comments, instead, the comments may represent working units more broadly. After excluding the commentator from the data, the work unit analysis replicated the findings described above: organisational justice perceptions differed in the expected direction between the units of the commentators and other units in that justice perception seemed to be socially and collectively constructed and mutually experienced (Degoey, 2000). Accordingly, the producers of comments did obviously not display any special personality traits (e.g. low self-esteem, hostility) but they were acting as mouthpieces for the others. Our results were different from Taylor (2001) in statements regarding cognitive biases of individuals' assessments of justice. Especially, our findings were not parallel with the "martyr bias" (Taylor, 2001), occurring when a person has a tendency to overemphasise perceived justice experiences. Overall, the units producing managerial comments were showing symptoms that should be regarded as great managerial challenges.

Strengths of the study

The strengths of our study were large data combining qualitative and quantitative information, triangulation, and the use of well-validated survey instruments. In addition, throughout the qualitative data analysis the authors held discussions and evaluated the data. Following Miles and Huberman (1994) formula for determining qualitative agreement, we took regularly a random sample of the coded material for re-coding. Where disagreements occurred, the coders discussed their options until they reached agreement (Silverman, 1993; Berg, 1998; Dutton et al., 2001).

Reliability in this kind of methodological approach occurs to the degree that there is correspondence between the data and its assimilation to emerging integrative frames. However, evaluating the results as reliable does not guarantee that the categorisation process would lead to totally similar categories should another research team perform it in future. Thus, validity of the method has more to do with the meaningfulness of the findings (Frontman and Kunkel, 1994; Hunter et al., 2002).

Our analysis describing the scope of organisational justice in managerial comments concentrated on the situation where the commentators had less authority than the perceived sources of injustice. The formal and unequal nature of power relationship was a remarkable feature affecting the core findings of this study. Although the commentators represented many organisational hierarchy levels, the results should not be generalised to horizontal, informal, social relationships types of levels. In the future, it seems important to pay more attention to the contextual and relational features of organisational justice to determine the horizontal characteristics of organisational factors. Eventually, it might also be rewarding to approach the social world of the superiors to disentangle the injustice judged to originate from the subordinates.

References

• Berg, B.L. (1998), Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences, Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights, MA.
• Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.S. (1986), "Interactional justice: communications criteria of fairness", in Lewizki, R., Sheppard, B. and Bazerman, M. (Eds), Research on Negotiation in Organizations, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 43-55.
• Carney, T.F. (1972), Content Analysis, University of Manitoba Press, Winnipeg.
• Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P. (2001), "The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, pp. 278-321.
• Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z., Bobocel, D.R. and Rupp, D. (2001), "Moral virtues, fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 164-209.
• Degoey, P. (2000), "Contagious justice: exploring the social construction of justice in organizations", Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 22, pp. 51-102.
• Dutton, J., Ashford, S., O'Neill, R. and Lawrence, K. (2001), "Moves that matter: issue selling and organizational change", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 716-36.
• Elovainio, M., Kivima¨ki, M. and Helkama, K. (2001), "Organizational justice evaluations, job control, and occupational strain", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 418-24.
• Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Frontman, K.C. and Kunkel, M.A. (1994), "A grounded theory of counselors' construal of success in the initial session", Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 4, pp. 492-9.
• Goldberg, D.P., Gater, R. and Sartorius, N. (1997), "The validity of the two versions of the GHQ in the WHO study of mental illness in general health care", Psychological Medicine, Vol. 27, pp. 191-7.
• Greenberg, J. (1993), "The social side of fairness: interpersonal classes of organizational justice", in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 79-103.
• Hackman, J.R. and Oldham, G.R. (1975), "Development of the job diagnostic survey", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 159-70.
• Hunter, A., Lusardi, P., Zucker, D., Jacelon, C. and Chandler, G. (2002), "Making meaning: the creative component in qualitative research", Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 12, pp. 388-98.
• Idler, E.L. and Angel, R.J. (1990), "Self-rated health and mortality in the NHANES-I epidemiological follow-up study", American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 80, pp. 446-52.
• Kivima¨ki, M., Elovainio, M., Vahtera, J., Virtanen, M. and Stansfeld, S.A. (2003), "Association between organisational inequity and incidence of psychiatric disorders in female employees", Psychological Medicine, Vol. 33, pp. 319-26.
• Labianca, G., Gray, B. and Brass, D. (2000), "A grounded model of organizational schema change during empowerment", Organization Science, Vol. 11, pp. 235-57.
• Leventhal, G.S. (1980), "What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships", in Gergen, K.J., Greenberg, M.S. and Willis, R.H. (Eds), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 27-55.
• Lind, E.A. (2001), "Thinking critically about justice judgments", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 220-6.
• Lind, E.A. and Tyler, T.R. (1988), The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
• Lind, E.A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, P.C. (1990), "Voice, control, and procedural justice: instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 59, pp. 952-9.
• Lupfer, M., Weeks, K., Doan, K. and Houston, D. (2000), "Folk conceptions of fairness and unfairness", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 30, pp. 405-28.
• McArthur, J.H. and Moore, F.D. (1997), "The two cultures and the health care revolution.
• Commerce and professionalism in medical care", JAMA, Vol. 277, pp. 985-9.
• Masterson, S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), "Integrating justice and social exchange: the differing effects of fair procedures and treatment of work relationships", Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43, pp. 738-48.
• Meara, N. (2001), "Just and virtuous leaders and organizations", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 227-34.
• Mikula, G., Petri, B. and Tanzer, N. (1990), "What people regard as unjust: types and structures of everyday experiences of injustice", European Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 133-49.
• Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
• Miller, D.T. (2001), "Disrespect and the experience of injustice", Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 527-53.
• Moorman, R.H. (1991), "Relation between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: does fairness perception influence employee citizenship?", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 76, pp. 845-55.
• Phillips, J., Douthitt, E. and Hyland, M. (2001), "The role of justice in team member satisfaction with the leader and attachment to the team", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86, pp. 316-25.
• Punch, K. (1998), Introduction to Social Research. Quantitative and Qualitative Approaches, Sage, London.
• Silverman, D. (1993), Interpreting Qualitative Data, Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction, Sage, London.
• Strauss, A. (1987), Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. (1990), Basics of Qualitative Research, Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
• Taylor, S. (2001), "Reflections on fairness: continuing the progression of justice research and practice", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 243-53.
• Tepper, B.J. (2001), "Health consequences of organizational injustice: tests of main and interactive effects", Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86, pp. 197-215.
• Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
• Tyler, T.R., Degoey, P. and Smith, H.J. (1996), "Understanding why the justice of group procedures matters: a test of the psychological dynamics of the group-value model", Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 70, pp. 913-30.
• Van den Bos, K. (2001), "Fundamental research by means of laboratory experiments is essential for a better understanding of organizational justice", Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 58, pp. 254-9.
• Williams, J.Q. (1997), "Social ostracism", in Kowalski, R.M. (Ed.), Aversive Interpersonal Behaviors, Plenum Press, New York, NY, pp. 133-70.
   

Sunayana Kumar
Lecturer
Department of Management Studies
Government Engineering College
Jhalawar

Surendra Kumar
Reader
Department of Management Studies
Rajasthan College of Engineering for Women
Jaipur

Nisha Kala
Lecturer
Department of Management Studies
Jyoti Vidhyapeeth Women University
Jaipur
 

Source: E-mail March 3, 2010

Articles No. 1-99 / Articles No. 100-199 / Articles No. 200-299 / Articles No. 300-399 / Articles No. 400-499
Articles No. 500-599 / Articles No. 600-699 / Articles No. 700-799 / Articles No. 800-899 / Articles No. 900-1000
Articles No. 1001-1100 / Articles No. 1101 Onward / Faculty Column Main Page