| Literature DB >> 26347451 |
Su-Yueh Chen1, Wen-Chuan Wu2, Ching-Sheng Chang3, Chia-Tzu Lin4, Jung-Yuan Kung5, Hui-Ching Weng6, Yu-Tz Lin7, Shu-I Lee8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is of importance and urgency for hospitals to retain excellent nursing staff in order to improve patient satisfaction and hospital performance. However, it was found that simply increasing the salary is not the best method to resolve the problem of lacking nursing staff; it is necessary to focus on the impact of non-monetary factors. The delicate relationship between organizational justice, organizational trust, organizational identification, and organizational commitment requires investigation and clarification from more studies if application in nursing practice is to be expected. Therefore, this study was to investigate how the organizational justice perception could affect nurses' organizational trust and organizational identification, and whether the organizational trust and organizational identification could encourage nurses to willingly remain in their jobs and commit themselves to the hospitals.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26347451 PMCID: PMC4562203 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-015-1016-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.655
Empirical studies of literature review
| Researchers (Year) | Results and management findings |
|---|---|
|
| |
| Moorman et al. [ | This study’s findings stressed that the influence of procedural justice is more significant than that of distributive justice in predicting organizational trust. |
| Konovsky & Pugh [ | Procedural justice is an important factor in employees’ citizenship behavior. Distributive justice cannot predict organizational citizenship behavior and organizational trust and support. |
| Korsagard et al. [ | This study indicated that procedural justice has a greater influence on trust than distributive justice does. |
| Aryee et al. [ | This study indicated that organizational justice can predict trust in and support for organizations and supervisors within organizational trust, thereby predicting organizational citizenship behavior and performance. |
|
| |
| Tyler & Blader [ | The Group Engagement Model developed in this study explains the formation of group membership. The assumptions of this model infer that perceptions of organizational justice significantly and positively influence organizational identification. |
| Lipponen et al. [ | This study found that organizational justice could predict employees’ identification with their organizations. |
| Lipponen & Olkkonen [ | The results of this study performed on a geographical research institute in Finland with 270 employees indicated that organizational justice (distributive justice and procedural justice) positively influenced organizational identification. |
| Fuchs & Edwards [ | This study examined 137 market research employees and found that organizational justice, particularly fair interpersonal treatment of workers, positively influenced organizational identification. |
| Kreiner & Ashforth [ | This study used multiple regression analysis and indicated that procedural justice can predict workers’ organizational identification in multinational companies. |
|
| |
| Nicholson & Johns [ | This study indicated that workers with psychological contracts with high degrees of trust in their organizations have better work ethics and strong organizational commitment. In contrast, workers with psychological contracts with low degrees of trust in their organizations participate less in organizational affairs and have weak commitment. This study shows that implicit trust seems to influence organizational commitment. |
| McCauley & Kuhnert [ | This study indicated that workers with strong feelings of trust in their organizations feel more satisfied with their jobs and have higher commitment toward their organizations. |
| Geyskens & Steenkamp [ | This study indicated that employees’ trust in their organizations was positively associated with their organizational commitment. |
| Brockner et al. [ | This study found that workers support and are committed to their management teams and organizations when their trust in their organizations’ upper management teams is high. |
| Schoorman et al. [ | This study found a positive correlation between organizational trust and organizational commitment. |
|
| |
| Pratt [ | This study indicated that organizational identification is viewed as a link between the individual and organization. This means that individuals assess the significance of their organizations toward themselves. Employees that identify with their organizations have higher organizational commitment. |
| Riketta [ | This study indicated that organizational identification among workers is positively associated with attitudes toward organizational commitment. |
| Cole & Bruch [ | This study found that organizational identification is seen as a part of organizational commitment. The two are highly correlated. |
| Knippenberg & Schie [ | This study indicated that organizational identification is generated when the internal members of an organization have a self-defined perceptual awareness of all phenomena shaped by the organization. When organizational members are in a psychological state of identification with their organizations, relationships with the organization are further constructed. This is organizational commitment. |
| Van Dick et al. [ | The results of this study indicate that organizational identification has a negative influence on employees’ turnover intentions. That is, organizational identification is positively associated with employee organizational commitment. |
Fig. 1Research model of the relationships among organizational justice, organizational trust, organizational identification, and organizational commitment. Note. ξ(ksi): latent exogenous variables (by x), η(eta): latent endogenous variables (by y), x: observed exogenous variables, y: observed endogenous variables, λx (lambda x): coefficient of ξi and xi (ξ→x), λy (lambda y): coefficient of ηi and yi (η→y), γ(gamma): coefficient of ηi and ξi (ξ→η), β(beta): coefficient of ηi and ηj (η→η)
Summary of constructs and variables
| Construct | Variable | Operational definition | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational justice | Distributive justice | How the nursing staff think about fairness of the resource allocation results and decisions made by the hospital. | [ |
| Procedural justice | How the nursing staff think about fairness of the procedure of the decision-making standards or evaluation methods on which the hospital’s reward and punishment decisions are based. | ||
| Interactional justice | How the nursing staff think about fairness of the hospital’s communication with them before making any decision. | ||
| Organizational Trust | Hospital trust | The degree to which the nursing staff trust the hospital, meaning the degree to which nursing staff, under the circumstances of trust and risk taking, are willing to trust the hospital after overall evaluation of the decisions made by the hospital. | [ |
| Supervisory trust | The degree to which the nursing staff trust their supervisors, meaning the degree to which nursing staff, under the circumstances of trust and risk taking, are willing to trust their supervisors after evaluating their supervisors’ decisions and attitudes. | ||
| Co-worker trust | The degree to which the nursing staff trust their coworkers, meaning the degree to which the nursing staff, under the circumstances of trust and risk taking, are willing to trust their coworkers after evaluating their coworkers’ job performances. | ||
| Organizational identification | Attractive identification | Degree of attracting nursing personnel and making them dedicate themselves to the operation of the organization. | [ |
| Correlative identification | Degree of creating a close relationship with the nursing staff and making the nursing staff understand the hospital. | ||
| Organizational commitment | Affective commitment | Degree that the nursing staff keep working at the hospital because they want to do so. | [ |
| Continuance commitment | Degree that the nursing staff keep working at the hospital because they have to do so. | ||
| Normative commitment | Degree that the nursing staff keep working at the hospital because they are obliged to do so. |
Results of reliability analyses
| Construct | Factor naming | Cronbach’s α (> .6) |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational justice | ||
| Distributive justice | 0.892 | |
| Procedural justice | 0.865 | |
| Interactional justice | 0.820 | |
| Organizational trust | ||
| Hospital trust | 0.897 | |
| Supervisory trust | 0.862 | |
| Co-worker trust | 0.833 | |
| Organizational identification | ||
| Attractive identification | 0.915 | |
| Correlative identification | 0.873 | |
| Organizational commitment | ||
| Affective commitment | 0.920 | |
| Continuance commitment | 0.886 | |
| Normative commitment | 0.827 |
Results of convergent validity analysis
| Indicator | Organizational justice | Organizational trust | Organizational identification | Organizational commitment | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 2.71 | 3.03 | 2.95 | 2.36 | [ |
| GFI (> .9) | 0.93 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.92 | |
| AGFI (> .8) | 0.86 | 0.83 | 0.85 | 0.88 | |
| NFI (> .9) | 0.91 | 0.90 | 0.92 | 0.91 | [ |
| RMSR (< .08) | 0.06 | 0.07 | 0.05 | 0.03 | [ |
Note. χ 2/df. Ratio of Chi-square, GFI Goodness of Fit Index, AGFI Adjusted GFI, NFI Normal Fix Index, NNFI Non-Normal Fix Index, CFI Comparative Fit Index, RMSR Root Mean Square of Standardized Residual
Confirmatory factor analysis of all the constructs
| Construct | Variable/question item | Standardized loading | Measurement error | Composite reliability | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organizational justice | Distributive justice | 0.82 | 0.77 | ||
| 1. I believe my compensation is up to the standard and fair. | 0.84* | 0.29 | |||
| 2. Overall speaking, the rewards I received are quite fair. | 0.83* | 0.31 | |||
| 3. I feel that my job responsibility is fairness. | 0.86* | 0.26 | |||
| Procedural justice | 0.77 | 0.75 | |||
| 4. My supervisor makes sure he/she understands every nursing staff member’s thoughts before making any decision. | 0.77* | 0.41 | |||
| 5. Every decision made by my supervisor can be applied to every nursing staff member affected by it. | 0.82* | 0.33 | |||
| 6. I can raise questions on or make appeals to the decisions made by the hospital management. | 0.80* | 0.36 | |||
| Interactional justice | 0.72 | 0.71 | |||
| 7. When making my job-related decisions, my supervisor would treat me with respect. | 0.69* | 0.52 | |||
| 8. When making my job-related decisions, my supervisor would discuss the implication of the decision with me. | 0.79* | 0.38 | |||
| 9. When making my job-related decisions, my supervisor would explain the content very clearly. | 0.73* | 0.47 | |||
| Organizational trust | Hospital trust | 0.87 | 0.80 | ||
| 1. As far as I am concerned, most of the coworkers think that the hospital is trustworthy. | 0.83* | 0.31 | |||
| 2. I believe that the hospital’s promise to take care of the nursing staff is sincere. | 0.85* | 0.28 | |||
| 3. I believe that the hospital is fair to all nursing staff. | 0.91* | 0.17 | |||
| Supervisory trust | 0.83 | 0.76 | |||
| 4. I believe my supervisors sincerely care about the nursing staff’s opinions. | 0.86* | 0.26 | |||
| 5. I believe my supervisors make wise decisions for the sake of the future of the hospital. | 0.79* | 0.38 | |||
| 6. I believe my supervisors care about nursing staff’s welfare. | 0.82* | 0.33 | |||
| Co-worker trust | 0.82 | 0.75 | |||
| 7. I know that my coworkers will try their best to help me resolve the problems at work. | 0.81* | 0.34 | |||
| 8. I believe that my coworkers will give me a hand when I am in need. | 0.76* | 0.42 | |||
| 9. I am confidence in my coworkers’ job skills. | 0.82* | 0.33 | |||
| Organizational identification | Attractive identification | 0.87 | 0.77 | ||
| 1. In the future, I will still feel proud of being a member of this hospital. | 0.79* | 0.37 | |||
| 2. This hospital’s image in the community quite represents my image. | 0.82* | 0.32 | |||
| 3. I think that I have a strong emotional connection to this hospital. | 0.86* | 0.27 | |||
| 4. I usually take the hospital’s issues as my personal issues. | 0.91* | 0.18 | |||
| 5. As a member of this hospital, it’s my responsibility to make it more competitive. | 0.80* | 0.36 | |||
| Correlative identification | 0.85 | 0.76 | |||
| 6. I am of the work location and environment of the hospital. | 0.79* | 0.38 | |||
| 7. The thought of continuing to work at this hospital in the future and help people makes me happy. | 0.84* | 0.29 | |||
| 8. I care about all the future information related to this hospital. | 0.87* | 0.25 | |||
| 9. My hard work can be evaluated by the overall performance of the hospital. | 0.74* | 0.45 | |||
| 10. Continuing to work at this hospital can improve my work capabilities. | 0.78* | 0.39 | |||
| Organizational commitment | Affective commitment | 0.81 | 0.78 | ||
| 1. I am glad that I am able to devote my future career life to this hospital. | 0.82* | 0.33 | |||
| 2. I am happy to talk about my hospital with those who are not related to the hospital. | 0.84* | 0.29 | |||
| 3. I am emotionally attached and belonged to this hospital. | 0.55* | 0.56 | |||
| 4. I strongly feel that I am part of the hospital. | 0.71* | 0.49 | |||
| Continuance commitment | 0.79 | 0.79 | |||
| 5. It would be a great loss for me to quit from this hospital. | 0.66* | 0.56 | |||
| 6. I have the desire to keep working at this hospital at this moment. | 0.71* | 0.49 | |||
| 7. I think that there will be less job options for me if I leave this hospital. | 0.81* | 0.34 | |||
| 8. The main reason for me to stay at this hospital is that other companies won’t necessarily provide me with better compensation and benefits. | 0.70* | 0.51 | |||
| Normative commitment | 0.77 | 0.75 | |||
| 9. I think it is unethical to change jobs constantly. | 0.60* | 0.64 | |||
| 10. The main reasons for me to keep working at this hospital are being loyal and ethical. | 0.72* | 0.48 | |||
| 11. I was taught to be loyal to the hospital I serve. | 0.61* | 0.63 | |||
| 12. I think that staying at the same hospital will have better career development. | 0.81* | 0.34 |
Note. * t- value > 2; AVE = Average Variance Extracted
Descriptive statistics of sample (N = 386)
| Description | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Male | 6 | 1.6 |
| Female | 380 | 98.4 |
| Age | ||
| 30 or under | 148 | 38.3 |
| 31–40 | 175 | 45.3 |
| 41–50 | 59 | 15.3 |
| 51 or above | 4 | 1.1 |
| Marriage | ||
| Married | 218 | 56.5 |
| Not married | 168 | 43.5 |
| Education | ||
| College or under | 42 | 10.9 |
| Bachelor | 328 | 85.0 |
| Master or above | 16 | 4.1 |
| Seniority | ||
| Less than 3 years | 10 | 2.6 |
| 3–6 years | 99 | 25.7 |
| 6–10 years | 116 | 30.0 |
| 10 years or above | 161 | 41.7 |
| Department | ||
| Internal medicine | 130 | 33.7 |
| Surgical | 145 | 37.6 |
| Gynecology and pediatrics | 73 | 18.9 |
| Others | 38 | 9.8 |
| Job title | ||
| N1 | 53 | 13.7 |
| N2 | 225 | 58.3 |
| N3 | 100 | 25.9 |
| N4 | 8 | 2.1 |
Results of structural equation modeling
|
| ||||
| Path | Path name | Path coefficient |
| |
| Organizational Justice (ξ1) → Organizational Trust (η1) (H1) | γ11 | 0.49 | 10.77** | |
| Organizational Justice (ξ1) → Organizational Identification (η2) (H2) | γ21 | 0.58 | 27.22** | |
| Organizational Trust (η1) → Organizational Commitment (η3) (H3) | β31 | 0.62 | 32.35** | |
| Organizational Identification (η2) → Organizational Commitment (η3) (H4) | β32 | 0.53 | 16.73** | |
|
| ||||
| Path | Path name | Path coefficient |
| |
| Organizational Justice (ξ1) → Distributive justice (x1) | λ1 | 0.56 | 21.12** | |
| Organizational Justice (ξ1) → Procedural justice ( | λ2 | 0.50 | 11.29** | |
| Organizational Justice (ξ1) → Interactional justice (x3) | λ3 | 0.43 | 6.81** | |
| Organizational Trust (η1) → Hospital trust (y1) | λ4 | 0.57 | 23.03** | |
| Organizational Trust (η1) → Supervisory trust (y2) | λ5 | 0.54 | 18.21** | |
| Organizational Trust (η1) → Co-worker trust (y3) | λ6 | 0.52 | 14.41** | |
| Organizational Identification (η2) → Attractive identification (y4) | λ7 | 0.59 | 29.94** | |
| Organizational Identification (η2) → Correlative identification (y5) | λ8 | 0.46 | 9.03** | |
| Organizational Commitment (η3) → Affective commitment (y6) | λ9 | 0.67 | 36.81** | |
| Organizational Commitment (η3) → Continuance commitment (y7) | λ10 | 0.55 | 19.12** | |
| Organizational Commitment (η3) → Normative commitment (y8) | λ11 | 0.51 | 13.02** | |
|
| ||||
| Independent variable | Dependent variable | Direct effect | Indirect effect | Total effect |
| Organizational justice | ||||
| Organizational Trust | 0.49 | 0 | 0.49 | |
| Organizational Identification | 0.58 | 0 | 0.58 | |
| Organizational Commitment | 0 | 0.61 | 0.61 | |
| Organizational trust | ||||
| Organizational Commitment | 0.62 | 0 | 0.62 | |
| Organizational identification | ||||
| Organizational Commitment | 0.53 | 0 | 0.53 | |
|
| ||||
| Hypothesis and sub-Hypothesis | Result | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
|
| Confirmed | |||
Note. ** p < .01, χ 2 / d.f. = 2.62, GFI = .94, AGFI = .89, NFI = .91, RMSR = .029