Nama : Ni Kadek Rahayu Yulianti

Absen : 28 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm

PR
42,5 Individual and organizational
determinants of turnover intent
Douglas Flint, Lynn M. Haley and Jeffrey J. McNally
552 Faculty of Business Administration, University of New Brunswick,
Fredericton, Canada
Received 10 March 2012
Revised 11 August 2012
Accepted 14 September Abstract
2012 Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to apply social exchange theory to predict the effects of
procedural and interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Specifically, it is predicted that
organizational commitment mediates the effects of procedural justice on turnover intentions and that
supervisory commitment mediates the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions.
Design/methodology/approach – Surveys were administered to 212 call center employees to
measure the effects of procedural justice, interpersonal justice, organizational commitment,
supervisory commitment and turnover intentions. Mediation effects were tested using Baron and
Kenny’s methodology.
Findings – Support was found for a partial mediation effect of organizational commitment on the
effect of procedural justice on turnover intentions; and for a full mediation effect of supervisory
commitment on the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions.
Practical implications – Reduction of turnover is a major problem for the call center industry, as
considerable resources are spent training new employees. This research suggests that turnover
intentions can be reduced by addressing problems with organizational procedures and with the
treatment of employees by supervisors.
Originality/value – The findings of this study replicate the mediation effects of organizational
commitment on the effect of procedural justice on turnover intentions in call centers. In addition, this is
the first study of its kind to show the mediation effects of supervisory commitment on the effect of
interpersonal justice on turnover intentions.
Keywords Call centres, Canada, Employees behaviour, Employees turnover, Social exchange,
Organizational justice, Procedural justice, Interpersonal justice, Supervisory commitment,
Organizational commitment
Paper type Research paper

This study examines organizational and individual determinants of voluntary

employee turnover. The causes of turnover need to be understood in order to adapt
business practices in ways which can minimize its harmful effects. As organizational
determinants, we explore the effects of procedural justice and organizational
commitment on employee turnover intentions. Procedural justice concerns employee
perceptions of the fairness of organizational procedures (Leventhal, 1980; Leventhal
et al., 1980; Thibaut and Walker, 1975). For organizational commitment we employ
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) measure of affective commitment which represents an
emotional attachment to an organization. As individual determinants, we explore the
effects of interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment on turnover intentions.
Personnel Review Interpersonal justice reflects perceptions of the fairness of the treatment received from
Vol. 42 No. 5, 2013
pp. 552-572 supervisors or managers (Greenberg, 1993). Supervisory commitment in this study
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
represents an emotional attachment to a supervisor (Clugston et al., 2000). We
DOI 10.1108/PR-03-2012-0051 specifically propose that the effects of procedural justice on turnover intentions are
mediated by organizational commitment and the effects of interpersonal justice on Determinants of
turnover intentions are mediated by the effects of supervisory commitment. turnover intent
In this study, we focus on turnover intentions in three call centers. There are
generally two types of call centers: inbound and outbound. Inbound call centers handle
organizations’ customer and technical support services and outbound call centers
market organizations’ products in order to attract new customers (Downing, 2011). In
their study of 2,500 call centers across 17 countries Holman et al. (2007) reported that 553
49 percent of call centers provide customer service, while 21 percent provide sales. Two
of the organizations in this study are inbound call centers and one is an outbound call
center. The inbound call centers book hotel reservations and provide customer service
while the outbound call center telemarkets telephone plans.
Turnover is a major problem for call centers due to the heavy upfront investment
that most incur in training employees. In their study Holman et al. (2007) found that on
average newly hired employees receive 15 days of initial training and took between
8 and 16 weeks to become proficient in their jobs. Holman et al. (2007) also reported that
the average turnover rate in call centers is 20 percent and that the direct cost to replace
a call center worker is 16 percent of call center employees’ gross annual earnings.
Direct costs are those to recruit, hire and train new employees. Hillmer et al. (2004)
suggest that there are also intangible costs associated with lower levels of customer
service and lower efficiencies until replacements become proficient at their job.
We employ social exchange theory to provide the theoretical perspective to help
explain the effects of procedural and interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Social
exchange theory suggests that employees are capable of engaging in exchanges with
both organizations and supervisors (Masterson et al., 2000). If employees find benefits
in these exchanges, they are likely to maintain relationships with the exchange
partners. If not, they are likely to withdraw from future exchanges and one form of
withdrawal is to leave the organization. The nature of the exchange relationships
suggests that individuals may be affected by both organizational and supervisory level
influences. We are interested in determining whether either of these influences is
contributing to turnover in call centers as many centers experience high turnover rates.
Procedural justice and organizational commitment both represent employee
reactions to their organizations. Procedural justice influences employees’ perceptions
of the quality of the exchange relationship with their organizations (Masterson et al.,
2000); when employees perceive organizational procedures as fair they form more
positive attitudes toward the organization (Cropanzano et al., 2002; Masterson et al.,
2000; Randall et al., 1999). Organizational commitment has also been seen as contingent
on perceptions of an exchange relationship between individuals and organizations
(Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). We contend that call center employees who
perceive their organizations as fair will be more committed to their organizations.
There is already considerable empirical evidence that supports a positive effect of
procedural justice on organizational commitment in other types of organizations
(e.g. Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). Further, we suggest that
perceptions of higher levels of organizational commitment by call center employees
will lead to lower levels of turnover intentions. There is also empirical evidence from
other types of organizations to support this relationship (e.g. Allen and Meyer, 1996;
Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Tett and Meyer, 1993). Finally, we suggest that the
relationship between procedural justice and turnover intentions is mediated by
PR organizational commitment. One study by Hossam (2010) found a full mediation effect
in five service and industry product organizations in the United Arab Emirates. We
42,5 seek to replicate this finding in call centers.
Interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment represent reactions to
supervisors. We contend that supervisors who treat their subordinates with
interpersonal justice will improve the quality of their exchanges. Further, if
554 interpersonal justice is exhibited consistently employees should show greater levels of
commitment to those supervisors. We believe that the mediating effect of supervisory
commitment on the effects of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions represents a
new application of social exchange theory. To the best of our knowledge the effects of
interpersonal justice on either supervisory commitment or turnover intentions have not
been examined nor has the potential mediating effect of supervisory commitment on
the relationship between interpersonal justice and turnover intentions. Our study
proposes to fill this gap in our understanding of the causes of turnover intentions.

Theory and literature review

Turnover
The determinants of turnover and its correlates (e.g. turnover cognitions, turnover
intentions, job search behaviors, etc.) have been widely examined in the management
literature. The reason for such close examination is clear – in most organizations,
turnover impacts the bottom-line. Turnover is costly (Hinkin and Tracey, 2000), and
despite recent economic downturns, “labor shortages in critical industries across the
globe have emphasized the importance of retaining key employees for organizational
success” (Holtom et al., 2008, p. 232). Indeed, it has been discovered that although labor
market conditions do significantly impact turnover rates (Schervish, 1983; Terborg
and Lee, 1984), high rates of voluntary turnover are often found to be harmful to firm
performance (Glebbeek and Bax, 2004).
There are many hidden costs associated with turnover:
From a financial perspective, turnover costs are important but often hidden from managers.
There are no profit and loss statements that specifically capture the “cost of voluntary
turnover”. Instead, the costs are buried in line items like recruitment, selection, temporary
staffing and training. Or worse still, the real but unmeasured costs from losses of customer
service continuity or critical implicit knowledge are never calculated (Holtom et al., 2008, p. 236).
In this study, we examined turnover in the call center industry in a small Canadian
province. The average turnover rate in our sample is 25 percent (Contact NB, 2006).
Turnover is costly to the call center industry due to substantial upfront investments in
employee training. For example, the average time to train a new employee in the three
call centers that participated in our study was four weeks of in-class training followed
by three weeks of on-the-job training on the telephones. In the month following
training, only one employee was typically retained for every four employees that are
trained. The average wage of a call center employee, at the time of this study, was
$11.37 per hour. Thus, when an employee left an organization after seven weeks of
full-time training, the call center incurred a cost of $12,734.40 to train four employees in
order to replace the employee with a new hire. In a call center of 500 employees, with a
turnover rate of 25 percent per year, this represented a training cost of $1,591,800
per center per year. For every one percent reduction in turnover, the call center in this
example could have potentially saved $63,672 per year.
 Factors contributing to turnover are of practical concern to the call center industry Determinants of
as identification of the antecedents of turnover may point the way to reducing the turnover intent
problem. In this study, we measured turnover intentions which can serve as a
surrogate for turnover. Fishbein and colleagues (Fishbein, 1967; Fishbein and Ajzen,
1975) have argued that behavioral intentions are a strong predictor of actual behavior.
In their meta-analysis of the turnover literature, Griffeth et al. (2000) reported a
correlation of r ¼ 0.38 between turnover intentions and turnover; Zimmerman and 555
Darnold (2009) in a meta-analysis of the relationship between job performance and
turnover intentions showed a significant standardized pathway of .43 between
intentions to quit and voluntary turnover. Zimmerman (2008), in a meta-analysis
between personality factors and turnover, showed a significant standardized pathway
of 0.42 between intention to quit and turnover. One of the main purposes of this study
is to determine the effects of organizational justice on turnover intentions and whether
these effects result from organizational or supervisory exchanges.
Although prior turnover models have included relational aspects such as
attachment and exchange, most empirical research up until the late 1990 s had
ignored these variables (Mossholder et al., 2005). In recent years, however, turnover has
increasingly been examined from a relational perspective, both theoretically and
empirically (Holtom et al., 2008). These relations, or exchanges, have been widely
studied at both the individual and organizational level of analysis. At the individual
level, for example, Bauer et al. (2006) reported on the moderating role of extraversion on
the leader-member exchange (LMX), turnover relationship during new executive
development. It was found that the negative relationship between LMX and executive
leaving was significant for those with low extraversion but not significant for high
extraversion. At the organizational level, it has been proposed that organizational
culture influences turnover through the development of a unique turnover culture in
which employees engage in sense-making and social information processes that trigger
withdrawal cognitions (Abelson, 1993). One of the primary aims of this study is to
examine turnover within the context of social exchange theory, to which we now turn.

Social exchange
Social exchange theory has been highly influential in a variety of disciplines, including
anthropology (e.g. Firth and Banton, 1967), clinical psychology (e.g. Foa and Foa, 1974),
social psychology (e.g. Homans, 1958), and sociology (e.g. Blau, 1964). In his highly
cited book, Exchange and Power in Social Life, Blau (1964) identified two kinds of
exchange relationships: social and economic. According to Blau, social exchanges
entail unspecified obligations as when an individual does another party a favor, there
is an expectation of some future return. Because it is unclear when the favor will be
returned, and in what form, social exchange relationships depend on trust (Blau, 1964).
In contrast, “obligations, trust, interpersonal attachment, or commitment to specific
exchange partners” (Emerson, 1981, p. 35) are not incorporated into economic exchange
relationships. Rather, economic transactions between parties are not long term or
ongoing, but represent discrete, financially oriented interactions (Shore et al., 2006).
Thus, social exchange has emphasized socioemotional aspects of the exchange
relationship (i.e. feelings of obligation and trust), while economic exchange has
emphasized the financial, material and more tangible aspects of the exchange
relationship.
PR Most theorists agree that, in general, social exchange involves a series of
42,5 interdependent interactions that generate obligations between two parties (Emerson,
1976). Accordingly, an individual’s perceived relationship with a specified other party
has been conceptualized as a form of social exchange in which individuals attempt to
strike a balance between the perceived costs and benefits of maintaining their
relationships (Homans, 1958). Three elements are fundamental to social exchange:
556 relationship, reciprocity, and exchange (Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007). A social
exchange relationship begins when one party offers a benefit to another. When the
party receiving the benefit reciprocates with something valued by the other party, a
series of benefit exchanges develop over time. Thus, social exchange is a process that
entails the continuous exchanging of benefits over time in which both parties
understand that “the bestowing of a benefit creates an obligation to reciprocate”
(Coyle-Shapiro and Shore, 2007, p. 167).
The use of exchange principles to explain workplace behaviors dates back many
decades (e.g. Adams, 1965; Blau, 1964; Homans, 1973). Many researchers have
examined the exchange relationships between employees and their various exchange
partners in organizational contexts. In general, when organizational researchers
discuss exchange relationships, they are referring to “an association between two
interacting partners” (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005, p. 883). Masterson et al. (2000)
have suggested that employees are involved with at least two social exchange
relationships at work: one with the organization and another with supervisors or
managers. This implies that there are two levels that might affect employees: an
organizational level; and a supervisory level.
Perceptions of procedural justice influence the quality of employee exchanges with
their organizations (Masterson et al., 2000). We contend that perceptions of fair
treatment by organizations increase their employees’ commitment to the organizations.
Research has shown that committed employees exhibit lower levels of turnover
intentions (e.g. Allen and Meyer, 1996; Mathieu and Zajac, 1990; Tett and Meyer, 1993).
Conversely we suggest that perceptions of unfair treatment by organizations decrease
their employees’ commitment to their organizations which leads to increased turnover
intentions.
In this study we also suggest that perceptions of interpersonal justice influence the
quality of subordinate exchanges with their supervisors. We contend that perceptions
of fair treatment by a supervisor increase their subordinates’ commitment to them.
Further, we test whether increases in supervisory commitment lead to lower levels of
turnover intentions. Conversely we suggest that perceptions of unfair treatment by
supervisors decrease their subordinates’ commitment to them which leads to increased
turnover intentions. We now turn to a discussion of both of these variables, justice and
commitment, in an exchange context.

Organizational justice
Organizational justice concerns the fair treatment of employees in the workplace
(Greenberg, 1987), and it is grounded in exchange theory. Four dimensions of
organizational justice have been identified: distributive, procedural, interpersonal and
informational justice (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001). Distributive
justice determines the fairness of an outcome (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice
concerns perceptions about the fairness of procedures that lead to organizational
outcomes. Interpersonal justice is treatment involving respect and propriety by a Determinants of
supervisor or manager. Informational justice concerns justification and truthfulness turnover intent
(Greenberg, 1993). In this study, we specifically examine the effects of procedural and
interpersonal justice because the best argument can be made that procedural justice is
associated with organizational exchanges and interpersonal justice with supervisory
exchanges. Informational justice and distributive justice were excluded from our
analysis because the exchanges involving these variables are less clear. 557
Informational justice could be associated with either organizational or supervisory
exchanges. Informational justice concerns the fairness of the information provided
about organizations’ procedures (Greenberg, 1993) and, therefore, could be expected to
influence employees’ exchanges with their organizations. However, informational
justice is provided by a supervisor and as such could be expected to influence
employees’ exchanges with their supervisors.
The types of exchanges associated with distributive justice are even more difficult
to classify. Empirical evidence associates distributive justice with both organizational
and supervisory exchanges. For example, meta-analysis (Cohen-Charash and Spector,
2001) has also shown effects of distributive justice on supervisory outcomes such as
supervisory satisfaction, trust in supervisor, and leader member exchanges. However,
there are a number of studies that also link distributive justice to organizational
outcomes such as organizational commitment (e.g. Clay-Warner et al., 2005; Hossam,
2010; Lambert et al., 2007), trust in the organization, and turnover intentions
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Thus it appears that distributive justice sometimes
has an effect on organizational outcomes and sometimes on supervisory outcomes. It is
not clear why distributive justice appears to influence both organizational and
supervisory exchanges.
Procedural justice increases when employees perceive that an organization’s
procedures are fair. Procedures are felt to be fair to the extent that they allow
employees to give voice to their own positions prior to a decision (Thibaut and Walker,
1975); suppress bias; result in consistent allocations; use accurate information; can be
corrected after a poor decision has been made; represent the concerns of all affected by
a decision; and reflect prevailing norms of moral and ethical standards (Leventhal,
1980; Leventhal et al., 1980). It has been suggested that treatment with fair procedures
signify individuals’ value by organizations (Tyler and Blader, 2000; Tyler and Lind,
1992; Tyler and Smith, 1999). We therefore suggest that increases in perceptions of
procedural justice should increase the likelihood that employees will have positive
exchanges with organizations and conversely decreases in perceptions of procedural
justice should increase the likelihood that employees will have negative exchanges
with organizations to the point that employees will express intentions to turnover.
Interpersonal justice involves the fair treatment of employees by their supervisors
or managers and is concerned with respect, which is being polite rather than rude; and
propriety, which involves refraining from making improper or prejudicial remarks
(Greenberg, 1993). We suggest that it is possible that supervisors who treat their
subordinates with interpersonal justice will increase the likelihood that employees will
have positive exchanges with their supervisors. Conversely, if supervisors treat their
subordinates in an interpersonally unfair manner this should increase the likelihood
that employees will have negative exchanges with supervisors to the point where
employees will express intentions to turnover.
PR Organizational commitment
42,5 Organizational commitment can be viewed as an attitude toward an organization
dependent on exchange. As such, organizational commitment is contingent on
perceptions of an exchange relationship between individuals and organizations (Van
Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006). Most definitions of commitment suggest that it is a
stabilizing or obliging force; and gives direction to behavior, for example, by binding
558 an individual to a particular action or set of actions (Meyer and Herscovitch, 2001).
Early conceptualizations of organizational commitment focused primarily on a single
dimension of the construct, with commitment either being defined as the evaluation of
the costs associated with quitting (Becker, 1960) or an emotional attachment to the
organization (Mowday et al., 1979). Commitment has more recently been defined as a
construct with multiple dimensions (Allen and Meyer, 1990).
According to Meyer and Allen (1997), commitment can reflect varying combinations
of desire (affective commitment), obligation (normative commitment), and perceived
cost of leaving (continuance commitment). Although all three facets of commitment
tend to bind individuals to their organizations, their relations with other types of
behavior might be quite different. For example, in workplace settings, Meyer and Allen
(1997) argued that affective commitment and normative commitment relate positively
to job performance and a variety of discretionary behaviors (i.e. behaviors that are not
explicitly required in a job or role), whereas continuance commitment would be
unrelated, or even negatively related to these same behaviors. Meta-analytic results
have generally been supportive of these propositions (e.g. Meyer et al., 2002). Research
has shown that procedural justice correlates more strongly with affective commitment
than with either continuance or normative commitment (e.g. Konovsky and
Cropanzano, 1991; Meyer et al., 2002). We have employed affective commitment in
this study and refer to it as organizational commitment.

Supervisory commitment
Supervisory commitment can be viewed as an attitude toward a supervisor or manager
that is also dependent on exchange. As such, supervisory commitment is contingent
upon perceptions of an exchange relationship between individuals and their
supervisors. Landry et al. (2010, p. 287) note that “supervisors differ from
organizations in that they represent concrete, human targets, whereas organizations
represent diffuse and abstract entities.” Research has shown that supervisors can
provide employees with supportive experiences that can result in affective
commitment (Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe, 2003). Clugston et al. (2000) have
defined affective commitment to a supervisor as an identification with and emotional
attachment to a supervisor. Although, supervisors can be perceived of as agents of an
organization (Levinson, 1965), affective commitment to supervisors has been shown to
be related to, yet distinct, from organizational affective commitment (Bentein et al.,
2002; Landry et al., 2010).

Summary
Social exchange theory suggests that employees can have exchanges with both their
organizations and supervisors. Perceptions of procedural justice and organizational
commitment are influenced by employees’ exchanges with their organizations. Fair
organizational procedures should cause employees to form more positive attitudes
towards their organizations and increase their organizational commitment. As Determinants of
employees become more committed to their organizations they should be less likely to turnover intent
express intentions to turnover.
Interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment are variables that are influenced
by employees’ exchanges with their supervisors. Interpersonal justice involves fair
treatment of employees by their supervisors. Perceptions of fair treatment by a
supervisor should increase employees’ commitment to their supervisors. Employees 559
who are more committed to their supervisors should be less likely to express turnover
intentions. The hypotheses that follow test our predictions based on employee
exchanges with their organizations and supervisors.

Hypotheses
In this section we label our hypotheses to correspond with the pathways laid out by
Baron and Kenny (1986). The complete pathways for the mediation of procedural and
interpersonal justice are shown in Figures 1 and 2. Baron and Kenny (1986) label the
pathway between the predictor and the mediator as pathway a. Therefore, the effect of
procedural justice on organizational commitment is described in H1a. Similarly, the
effect of interpersonal justice on supervisory commitment is described in H2a. The
pathway between the mediator and the criterion is labeled pathway b by Baron and
Kenny (1986). The effect of organizational commitment on turnover intentions is
described in H1b and the effect of supervisory commitment is described in H2b. The
effect of the predictor on the criterion is labeled pathway c. Therefore, the effect of
procedural justice on turnover intentions is described in H1c and the effect of
interpersonal justice on turnover intentions is described in H2c. According to Baron
and Kenny (1986) the final test of mediation is whether, when the predictor and
mediator are entered simultaneously into a regression equation, the effects of the
predictor on the criterion becomes insignificant. This is labeled pathway c’. The effect
of procedural justice when entered simultaneously with organizational commitment is
described in H1c’ and the effect of interpersonal justice when entered simultaneously
with supervisory commitment is described in H2c’.

Figure 1.
Mediation of
organizational
commitment on the effect
of procedural justice on
turnover intentions

Figure 2.
Mediation of supervisory
commitment on the effect
of interpersonal justice on
turnover intentions
PR Organizational determinants
42,5 In this section we build an argument for the mediation of organizational commitment
on the effects of procedural justice on turnover intentions (see Figure 1). According to
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) methodology, for full mediation to occur, there are three
conditions. First, procedural justice should have a significant effect on organizational
commitment (pathway a). The effects of procedural justice on organizational
560 commitment are well documented (see meta-analyses by Colquitt et al., 2001; and
Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).
H1a. Perceptions of procedural justice are positively related to employees’
perceptions of organizational commitment in call centers.
For the second Baron and Kenny (1986) criterion to be met procedural justice should
have a significant effect on turnover intentions (pathway c). The effects of procedural
justice on turnover intentions are also well documented (see Colquitt et al., 2001; and
Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).
H1c. Perceptions of procedural justice are negatively related to employees’
turnover intentions in call centers.
Third, when procedural justice and organizational commitment are entered
simultaneously in a regression equation, organizational commitment should show a
significant effect on turnover intentions (pathway b).
H1b. When entered simultaneously in a regression equation with procedural
justice, perceptions of organizational commitment are negatively related to
employees’ turnover intentions in call centers.
In addition, for full mediation, procedural justice should not show a significant effect
on turnover intentions (pathway c’).
H1c.’ When entered simultaneously in a regression equation, with organizational
commitment, perceptions of procedural justice have no significant effect on
employees’ turnover intentions in call centers.
There is empirical evidence showing a significant effect between organizational
commitment and turnover intentions (e.g. Allen and Meyer, 1996; Mathieu and Zajac,
1990; Tett and Meyer, 1993). There is also one study, by Hossam (2010), which
surveyed five service and industrial product organizations in the United Arab
Emirates and found that organizational commitment fully mediated the relationship
between procedural justice and turnover intentions. The purpose of testing these
organizational level mediation effects in our study is to replicate these effects in a call
center context.

Individual determinants
The mediating effect of supervisory commitment on the relationship between
interpersonal justice and turnover intentions represents a new application of social
exchange to predict the effects on turnover intentions (see Figure 2). To the best of our
knowledge, the specific effects of interpersonal justice on supervisory commitment
have not been examined. In two meta-analyses (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001;
Colquitt et al., 2001) of the organizational justice literature no studies examining a
relationship between interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment were reported. Determinants of
However, other outcome variables associated with perceptions of supervisors have turnover intent
shown links to interpersonal justice. For example, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001)
report a significant effect of interactional justice on supervisor satisfaction.
Interactional justice is a combination of interpersonal and informational justice.
Interpersonal justice has shown strong relationships to what Colquitt et al. (2001) refer
to as “agent-referenced evaluation of authority” (p. 434). Our study seeks to extend 561
these findings to show a significant relationship between interpersonal justice and
supervisory commitment. Applying the first criterion of Baron and Kenny’s (1986)
methodology, interpersonal justice should have a significant effect on supervisory
commitment (pathway a).
H2a. Perceptions of interpersonal justice are positively related to employees’
perceptions of supervisory commitment in call centers.
The second criterion would suggest that interpersonal justice should have a significant
effect on turnover intentions (pathway c). To the best of our knowledge the direct
effects of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions have not been measured.
However, Colquitt et al. (2001) identified a weak relationship (r ¼ 20:02; r c ¼ 20:02)
between interpersonal justice and withdrawal behaviors. They did not directly report
turnover intentions, although turnover intentions are captured under withdrawal
behaviors, along with absenteeism and neglect. Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001)
reported on the relationship between interactional justice and turnover intentions and
they showed stronger results (r ¼ 20:26; r c ¼ 20:40). However, interactional justice
is a composite of interpersonal and informational justice. Neither of the meta-analyses
reported the direct effects of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. Our study
will be the first to examine this relationship.
H2c. Perceptions of interpersonal justice are negatively related to employees’
turnover intentions in call centers.
According to the third Baron and Kenny (1986) criterion, when interpersonal justice
and supervisory commitment are entered simultaneously in a regression equation
supervisory commitment should show a significant effect on turnover intentions
(pathway b). Although it has not been tested simultaneously with interpersonal justice,
prior research has shown that supervisory commitment is significantly related to
turnover intentions. Examples of this include studies on alumni from a Belgian
University (Stinglhamber and Vandenberghe, 2003); graduates of a US University
(Becker et al., 1996); employees at a pharmaceutical company and nurses
(Vandenberghe and Bentein, 2009). Our study will extend the examination of the
effects of supervisory commitment on turnover intentions to call center employees.
H2b. When entered simultaneously in a regression equation with interpersonal
justice, perceptions of supervisory commitment are negatively related to
employees’ turnover intentions in call centers.
In addition for full mediation interpersonal justice should not show a significant effect
on turnover intentions (pathway c’)
PR H2c.’ When entered simultaneously in a regression equation, with supervisory
42,5 commitment, perceptions of interpersonal justice have no significant effect on
employees’ turnover intentions in call centers.
To the best of our knowledge the mediation of the effects of interpersonal justice on
turnover intentions by supervisory commitment has not yet been demonstrated. Our
study attempts to address this research gap.
562
Method
Participants
Surveys were directed to samples of employees in three call centers in the Province of
New Brunswick. A total of 212 employees participated in this study. The average age
was 27 years, and 62 percent were female. The item about average tenure with the
organization asked how long employees had worked for their current organization; the
average reported tenure with the organizations was 17 months. Seven employees did
not indicate tenure with the organization. The average tenure within the call center
industry, measured by how long employees had worked in the industry prior to their
current jobs, was 11 months.
Two of the call centers handled inbound calls and the other one handled outbound
calls. The inbound call centers booked hotel reservations and dealt with customer
problems concerning service delivery. The outbound center sold long distance
telephone plans. One of the inbound call centers had 52 employees, with 45 completing
the questionnaire for a response rate of 86 percent. The seven employees who did not
respond were either on vacation or not working the shifts when the questionnaires
were administered. The second inbound call center had 428 agents at the time of this
survey. Participants in the study were chosen at random. The call center had a
program for conducting surveys that was used to randomly select employees. Of the
80 employees chosen to participate two were unavailable at the time of the study.
The outbound center employed 312 agents at the time of our study. Participants in
the study were also chosen at random. This center also had a program for conducting
surveys that was used to randomly select employees. In total, 90 were selected and
89 participated. One employee was away due to illness at the time of the study.
Table I shows a breakdown of demographics by organization, differentiating
between the two inbound and the outbound organizations. Significant differences in
the demographics across the organizations are measured with a 3 £ 1 ANOVA.
Across the three organizations there are significant differences in gender, age and

Organization 3 £ 1 ANOVA
Inbound Inbound
1 2 Outbound df F p

Gender (% female) 73 75 45 2/208 11.21 , 0.001

Table I. Average age 25.4 30.8 24.9 2/199 9.66 , 0.001
Demographic differences Average tenure with the organization
across the three (months) 21.7 22.4 10.4 2/202 11.36 , 0.001
organizations in this Average tenure in the industry prior
study to current job (months) 11.4 11.5 10.6 2/195 0.04 0.96
tenure with the organization. As a result these demographic variables are controlled in Determinants of
the regression analyses performed in the results section. turnover intent

Measures
The scales used to measure all of the items in this study were measured on a
seven-point Likert scale from 1 (completely disagree) to 7 (completely agree). This 563
format required us to adjust some of the standard scales employed in this study. These
changes are discussed in the following. Means, medians, standard deviations,
maximums, minimums, and Cronbach’s alphas for the scales used in this study are
shown in Table II. Correlations between the scales and the employee demographic
measures are shown in Table III. Items used in each scale can be found in the Appendix
(see Table AI).
The procedural and interpersonal justice items were adapted from Colquitt (2001).
Procedural justice was measured with seven items; interpersonal justice with five.
Colquitt’s scales are in the form “To what extent . . . ,” with a five point scale from
1 ¼ to a small extent to 5 ¼ to a large extent. We have used the seven point
disagree/agree anchors and modified the items accordingly. For example, Colquitt’s
first procedural justice item is: “Have you been able to express your views and feelings
during those procedures.” Our modified version is: “I am able to express my views and
feelings about my organization’s procedures.” Items used in this scale can be found in
the Appendix.
The organizational commitment scale is the six affective commitment items from
Meyer et al. (1993). The supervisory commitment is measured with five items from
Becker et al. (1996).
Turnover intentions consist of two items adopted from Konovsky and Cropanzano
(1991). The turnover intentions scale, that was adapted from Konovsky and
Cropanzano (1991), employed three items to measure turnover intentions which are:
“How likely is it that you will look for a job outside of this organization during the next
year?”. “How often do you think about quitting your job at this organization?” “If it
were possible, how much would you like to get a new job?”. The first two items were
adapted to fit the rating scales in our questionnaire which asked respondents to
disagree/agree with statements. The adapted items are: “It is likely that I will actively
look for a new job in the next year.” “I often think about quitting.” A focus group of
managers and service representatives examined the questionnaire with the three items
from Konovsky and Cropanzano (1991) and found the third item to be confusing so this
item was removed. The reliability of the two item scale in this study is 0.82
(see Table II).

Mean Median SD Minimum Maximum Cronbach’s alphas

1 Procedural justice 4.40 4.50 1.50 1.00 7.00 0.92

2 Interpersonal justice 6.08 6.50 1.25 1.00 7.00 0.93
3 Organizational commitment 3.58 3.50 1.51 1.00 7.00 0.84
4 Supervisory commitment 3.66 3.60 1.65 1.00 7.00 0.90 Table II.
5 Turnover intentions 4.61 5.00 2.08 1.00 7.00 0.82 Descriptive statistics
 PR
42,5

564

Table III.
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Procedural justice 1
2 Interpersonal justice 0.47 * * * 1
3 Organizational commitment 0.61 * * * 0.24 * * * 1
4 Supervisory commitment 0.34 * * * 0.42 * * * 0.50 * * 1
5 Gender 0.10 0.22 * * 0.08 0.09 1
6 Age 0.02 0.07 0.23 * * 0.16 * 0.13 1
7 Tenure with organization 0.13 0.07 0.24 * * 0.17 * 0.06 0.29 * * * 1
8 Tenure with industry 2 0.07 20.01 20.05 0.09 0.02 0.14 * 2 0.09 1
9 Turnover intention 2 0.50 * * * 20.26 * * * 20.66 * * * 2 0.41 * * * 20.11 20.16 * 2 0.11 0.07 1
Notes: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * *p , 0.001
Results Determinants of
Mediation effects of organizational commitment turnover intent
To test the mediation effect of organizational commitment on the effects of procedural
justice on turnover intentions we employed Baron and Kenny’s (1986) methodology.
The model for this is shown in Figure 1. For full mediation, procedural justice must
show a significant effect on organizational commitment (pathway a); procedural justice
must show a significant effect on turnover intentions (pathway c); and, for full 565
mediation, when procedural justice and organizational commitment are entered
simultaneously into a regression equation organizational commitment should show a
significant effect on turnover intentions (pathway b) and the effect of procedural justice
on turnover intentions should be insignificant (pathway c’). For partial mediation the
effect of procedural justice on turnover intentions will remain significant, but the
significance will be reduced from that of pathway c.
Table IV shows the regression analyses for the mediation effects of organizational
commitment. Due to the significant differences in the demographics across the three
organizations gender, age and tenure with the organization were controlled in the
following regressions by entering them in a first step in the regression analysis.
Applying Baron and Kenny’s (1986) methodology, support was found for a positive
relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and organizational commitment
(path a: b ¼ 0:57; p , 0:001). This finding supports H1a. Support was also found that
perceptions of procedural justice are negatively related to turnover (path c:
b ¼ 20:47; p , 0:001). This supports H1c. When entered simultaneously in a
regression equation with procedural justice perceptions of organizational commitment
are negatively related to the expression of turnover intentions (path b:
b ¼ 2:54; p , 0:001). This supports hypothesis 1b. In addition, procedural justice
shows a reduced significance (path c’: b ¼ 20:16; p , 0:01; t is reduced from 2 7.32 to
2 2.27) in its effect on turnover intentions. This provides partial support for H1c’. This
pattern of results is consistent with a partial mediation effect of organizational
commitment on the relationship between procedural justice and turnover intentions.

Mediation effects of supervisory commitment

The model to test the mediation effects of supervisory commitment on the effects of
interpersonal justice on turnover intentions is shown in Figure 2. For full mediation,
interpersonal justice must show a significant effect on supervisory commitment
(pathway a); interpersonal justice must show a significant effect on turnover intentions
(pathway c); and when interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment are entered

Procedural justice
Path Independent variables Dependent variable Beta df t Sig.
Table IV.
a Procedural justice Organizational 0.57 4/181 8.32 , 0.001 Mediation the effects of
c Procedural justice Turnover intentions 20.47 4/181 27.32 , 0.001 procedural justice on
c’ Procedural justicea Turnover intentions 20.16 5/179 22.27 0.03 turnover intentions by
b Organizational commitment 20.54 27.26 , 0.001 organizational
commitment controlling
Notes: aProcedural justice and organizational commitment variables entered simultaneously into for gender, age, and
regression equation tenure with organization
PR simultaneously into a regression equation supervisory commitment should show a
42,5 significant effect on turnover intentions (pathway b). For full mediation, the effect of
interpersonal justice on turnover intentions should be insignificant (pathway c’). For
partial mediation the effect of interpersonal justice on turnover intentions will remain
significant but the significance will be reduced from that of pathway c.
Table V shows the regression analyses for the mediation effects of supervisory
566 commitment. Due to the significant differences in the demographics across the three
organizations gender, age and tenure with the organization were controlled in the
following regressions by entering them in a first step in the regression analysis.
Applying Baron and Kenny’s (1986) methodology, support was found for a positive
relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment
(path a: b ¼ 0:42; p , 0:001). This provides support for H2a. Support was also found
for a negative relationship between perceptions of interpersonal justice and the
expression of turnover intentions (path c: b ¼ 20:22; p , 0:01). This provides support
for H2c. Further, when supervisory commitment was entered simultaneously in a
regression equation with interpersonal justice, perceptions of supervisory commitment
showed a negative relationship with the expression of turnover intentions (path b:
b ¼ 20:33; p , 0:001). This provides support for H2b. In addition, the effect of
interpersonal justice on turnover intentions becomes insignificant (path c’:
b ¼ 20:09; p ¼ 0:21). This provides support for H2c’. This pattern of results is
consistent with full mediation of supervisory commitment on the relationship between
interpersonal justice and turnover intentions.

Discussion
Theoretical implications
This study contributes to our understanding of the antecedents of turnover intentions
involved with employee exchanges with their organizations and supervisors. With
regard to the organizational exchanges, social exchange theory suggests that
employees can have interactions with their organizations (Masterson et al., 2000). It has
been argued that procedural justice affects the quality of employees’ exchanges with
their organizations (Masterson et al., 2000). It has also been suggested that
organizational commitment is contingent on the quality of exchange relationships
between employees and their organizations (Van Knippenberg and Sleebos, 2006).
Prior research has shown that perceptions of procedural justice are linked to both
perceptions of organizational commitment (e.g. Konovsky and Cropanzano, 1991;
Meyer et al., 2002) and turnover intentions (see Colquitt et al., 2001; and Cohen-Charash

Independent variables Procedural justice

Path Dependent variable Beta df t Sig.
Table V.
Mediation the effects of a Interpersonal justice Supervisory commitment 0.42 4/191 6.26 , 0.001
interpersonal justice on c Interpersonal justice Turnover intentions 2 0.22 4/193 2 3.13 , .01
turnover intentions by c’ Interpersonal justicea Turnover intentions 2 0.09 5/190 2 1.25 0.21
supervisory commitment b Supervisory commitment 2 0.33 2 4.50 , 0.001
controlling for gender,
age, and tenure with the Notes: aInterpersonal justice and supervisory commitment variables entered simultaneously into
organization regression equation
and Spector, 2001). Further, one study by Hossam (2010) has demonstrated that Determinants of
organizational commitment mediates the effects of procedural justice on turnover turnover intent
intentions. Our study replicated these findings within a call center context and found
that organizational commitment partially mediated the effects of procedural justice on
turnover intentions. Given that both procedural justice and organizational commitment
are organizational variables the implication is that turnover intentions are affected by
organizational exchanges. The mediation finding partially replicates the finding of 567
Hossam (2010) who showed complete mediation of the effect of procedural justice on
turnover intentions by organizational commitment. The partial effect found in our
sample may be due to differences in the participants as those in the Hossam (2010)
study were from five different product and service organizations while our participants
were from call center organizations.
Social exchange theory further suggests that employees can have interactions with
their supervisors (Masterson et al., 2000). We argued that interpersonal justice affects
the quality of employees’ exchanges with their supervisors. We also suggest that
supervisory commitment is contingent on the quality of the exchange relationships
with supervisors. Our study shows support for the contention that interpersonal justice
has an effect on supervisory commitment and turnover intentions. Given that both
interpersonal justice and supervisory commitment are supervisory variables, the
implication is that turnover intentions are affected by supervisory exchanges. Further,
we have demonstrated a full mediation effect of supervisory commitment on the effects
on interpersonal justice on turnover intentions. While the mediation effects involving
procedural justice and organizational commitment generalize the effects of these
organizational exchanges to call centers, the mediation effect of interpersonal justice
and supervisory commitment constitutes a new application of social exchange theory
and, therefore, represents a more significant contribution to the understanding of the
antecedents of turnover intentions.

Practical implications
The main problem expressed by the call centers that participated in our study was the
high level of employee turnover. Our results suggest that perceptions of both
procedural and interpersonal justice are contributing to the intentions to leave the
organizations. Therefore, the organizations should target attempts to reduce turnover
to an examination of the procedures that are employed by the organizations and to the
treatment afforded employees by supervisors.
The items used to measure perceptions of organizational and interpersonal justice
are fairly general (see Colquitt, 2001). These provide a general sense that there are
problems associated with the organizations’ procedures and with the treatment of
employees by their supervisors; however, the specifics of which procedures are
involved and what kinds of treatment are affecting employees cannot not be
determined from these scales. Further research is needed within each organization to
determine which organizational procedures and what supervisory actions are
associated with turnover intentions. The findings of this study suggest that if
organizations are able to address problematic procedures and improve interpersonal
treatment of subordinates by supervisors, there should be an overall reduction of
turnover intentions by their employees.
PR Limitations and future research
42,5 The findings of this study need to be taken with caution. It is through replication of
similar effects in different contexts that confidence in the findings can be built. The
mediation effects of organizational commitment on the effects of procedural justice on
turnover intentions replicates previous studies that have shown significant effects of
procedural justice on organizational commitment and of organizational commitment
568 on turnover intentions (see Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). This
is, however, only the second study to test the mediation effect. A previous study by
Hossam (2010) showed similar mediation effects in service and industrial product
organizations in the Arab Emirates. Future research is needed to replicate these effects
in call centers in other parts of the world and in other industries to increase confidence
in the findings reported here.
The mediation effect of supervisory commitment on the effects of interpersonal
justice on turnover intentions needs to be treated with even more caution. We believe
we have provided a reasonable theoretical justification, based on social exchange
theory, for testing the pathways in this model. However, this is the first research of its
kind to test the pathways of this model and future research is needed to replicate the
effects reported here in order to increase confidence of this mediation effect.

Concluding remarks
The determinants of turnover from various relationships have been, to date, poorly
understood. Our research responds to previous calls in the extant literature (e.g. Holtom
et al., 2008) to conduct turnover research from a variety of different relationship
perspectives within an organization. Our findings show that, from an individual
employee’s perspective, turnover can be differentially impacted by relationships with
various targets in an organization, namely with the organization itself and with
supervisors. We believe these findings constitute a unique contribution to the turnover
literature.

References
Abelson, M.A. (1993), “Turnover cultures”, Research in Personnel and Human Resource
Management, Vol. 11, pp. 339-376.
Adams, J.S. (1965), “Inequity in social exchange”, in Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, New York, NY, pp. 267-299.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1990), “The measurement of antecedents of affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization”, Journal of Occupational Psychology, Vol. 63,
pp. 1-18.
Allen, N.J. and Meyer, J.P. (1996), “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of the construct validity”, Journal of Vocational Behavior,
Vol. 49, pp. 252-276.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bauer, T.N., Erdogan, B., Liden, R.C. and Wayne, S.J. (2006), “A longitudinal study of the
moderating role of extraversion: leader-member exchange, performance, and turnover
during new executive development”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 91 No. 2,
pp. 298-310.
Becker, H.S. (1960), “Notes on the concept of commitment”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 66 Determinants of
No. 1, pp. 32-42.
Becker, T.E., Billings, R.S., Eveleth, D.M. and Gilbert, N.I. (1996), “Foci and bases of employee
turnover intent
commitment: implications for job performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 39
No. 2, pp. 464-482.
Bentein, K., Stinglhamber, F. and Vandenberghe, C. (2002), “Organization-, supervisor-, and
workgroup-directed commitments and citizenship behaviours: a comparison of models”, 569
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 341-362.
Blau, P. (1964), Exchange and Power in Social Life, Wiley, New York, NY.
Clay-Warner, J., Hegtvedt, K.A. and Roman, P. (2005), “Procedural justice, distributive justice:
how experiences with downsizing condition their impact on organizational commitment”,
Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 89-102.
Clugston, M., Howell, J.P. and Dorfman, P.W. (2000), “Does cultural socialization predict multiple
bases and foci of commitment?”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-30.
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), “The role of organizational justice in organizations:
a meta-analysis”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2,
pp. 278-321.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001), “On the dimensionality of justice: a construct validation measure”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), “Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-445.
Contact NB (2006), “Membership survey”, unpublished provincial contact centre industry
association report.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. and Shore, L.M. (2007), “The employee-organization relationship: where do we
go from here?”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Cropanzano, R. and Mitchell, M.S. (2005), “Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary review”,
Journal of Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 874-900.
Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C.A. and Chen, P.Y. (2002), “Using social exchange theory to distinguish
procedural from interactional justice”, Group and Organizational Management, Vol. 27
No. 3, pp. 324-351.
Downing, J.R. (2011), “Linking communication competence with call center agents’ sales
effectiveness”, Journal of Business Communications, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 409-425.
Emerson, R.M. (1976), “Social exchange theory”, Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 335-362.
Emerson, R.M. (1981), “Social exchange theory”, in Rosenberg, M. and Turner, R.H. (Eds), Social
Psychology: Sociological Perspective, Basic Books, New York, NY, pp. 30-65.
Firth, R. and Banton, M. (1967), Themes in Economic Anthropology, Tavistock, New York, NY.
Fishbein, M. (1967), Readings in Attitude Theory and Measurement, Wiley, New York, NY.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to
Theory and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Foa, U.G. and Foa, E.B. (1974), Societal Structures of the Mind, Charles Thomas, Oxford.
Glebbeek, A.C. and Bax, E.H. (2004), “Is high employee turnover really harmful? An empirical
test using company records”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 277-286.
Greenberg, J. (1987), “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories”, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
PR Greenberg, J. (1993), “The social side of fairness: interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice”, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching
42,5 Fairness in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 79-103.
Griffeth, R.W., Hom, P.W. and Gaertner, S. (2000), “A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates
of employee turnover: update, moderator tests and research implications for the next
millennium”, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 463-488.
Hillmer, S., Hillmer, B. and McRoberts, G. (2004), “The real costs of turnover: lessons from a call
570 center”, Human Resource Planning, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 34-41.
Hinkin, T.R. and Tracey, J.B. (2000), “The cost of turnover: putting a price on the learning curve”,
Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, Vol. 41 No. 3, pp. 14-21.
Holman, D., Batt, R. and Holtgrewe, U. (2007), The Global Call Center Report: International
Perspectives on Management and Employment, Cornell University ILR School, Ithaca, NY.
Holtom, B.C., Mitchell, T.R., Lee, T.W. and Eberly, M.B. (2008), “Turnover and retention research:
a glance at the past, a closer review of the present, and a venture into the future”, The
Academy of Management Annals, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 231-274.
Homans, G.C. (1958), “Social behavior as change”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 63 No. 6,
pp. 597-606.
Homans, G.C. (1973), Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms, Taylor and Francis, New York,
NY.
Hossam, M.A.E. (2010), “Testing the direct and indirect relationship between organizational
justice and work outcomes in a non-western context of the UAE”, Journal of Management
Development, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 5-27.
Konovsky, M.A. and Cropanzano, R. (1991), “Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a
predictor of employee attitudes and job performance”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 76 No. 5, pp. 698-707.
Lambert, E.G., Hogan, N.L. and Griffin, M.L. (2007), “The impact of distributive and procedural
justice on correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment”,
Journal of Criminal Justice, Vol. 35, pp. 644-656.
Landry, G., Panaccio, A. and Vandenberghe, C. (2010), “Dimensionality and consequences of
employee commitment to supervisors: a two-study examination”, The Journal of
Psychology, Vol. 144 No. 3, pp. 285-312.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980), “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of
fairness in social relationships”, in Gergen, K., Greenberg, M. and Willis, R. (Eds), Justice
and Social Interaction, Plenum, New York, NY, pp. 29-55.
Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J. and Fry, W.R. (1980), “Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation
preferences”, in Mikula, G. (Ed.), Justice and Social Interaction, Springer-Verlag, New York,
NY.
Levinson, H. (1965), “Reciprocation: the relationship between man and organization”,
Administration Science Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 370-390.
Masterson, S.S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B.M. and Taylor, M.S. (2000), “Integrating justice and social
exchange. The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships”,
Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 738-748.
Mathieu, J.E. and Zajac, D.M. (1990), “A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates,
and consequences of organizational commitment”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 108 No. 2,
pp. 171-194.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1991), “A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment”, Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 1, pp. 61-98.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and
Application, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Meyer, J.P. and Herscovitch, L. (2001), “Commitment in the workplace: toward a general model”, Determinants of
Human Resource Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 299-327.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J. and Smith, C.A. (1993), “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
turnover intent
extension and test of a three-component conceptualization”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 78 No. 4, pp. 538-551.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Herscovitch, L. and Topolnytsky, L. (2002), “Affective, continuance, and
normative commitment to the organization: a meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and
consequences”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 20-52. 571
Mossholder, K.W., Settoon, R.P. and Henagan, S.C. (2005), “A relational perspective on turnover:
examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors”, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 607-618.
Mowday, R.T., Steers, R.M. and Porter, L.W. (1979), “The measurement of organizational
commitment”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 14, pp. 224-247.
Randall, M.L., Cropanzano, R., Bormann, C.A. and Birjulin, A. (1999), “Organizational politics
and organizational support a predictors of work attitudes, job performance, and
organizational citizenship behaviours”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20,
pp. 159-174.
Schervish, P.G. (1983), The Structural Determinants of Unemployment, Vulnerability and Power
in Market Relations, Academic Press, New York, NY.
Shore, L.M., Tetrick, L.E., Lynch, P. and Barksdale, K. (2006), “Social and economic exchanges:
construct development and validation”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4,
pp. 837-867.
Stinglhamber, F. and Vandenberghe, C. (2003), “Organizations and supervisors as sources of
support and targets of commitment: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 251-271.
Terborg, J.R. and Lee, T.W. (1984), “A predictive study of organizational tenure rates”, Academy
of Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 793-810.
Tett, R.P. and Meyer, J.P. (1993), “Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention, and turnover: path analyses based on meta-analytic findings”, Personnel
Psychology, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 259-293.
Thibaut, J. and Walker, L. (1975), Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Erlbaum,
Hillsdale, NJ.
Tyler, T.R. and Blader, S.L. (2000), Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and
Behavioral Engagement, Psychological Press, New York, NY.
Tyler, T.R. and Lind, E.A. (1992), “A relational model of authority in groups”, Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 25, pp. 115-191.
Tyler, T.R. and Smith, H. (1999), “Justice, social identity, and group processes”, in Tyler, T.R.,
Kramer, R.M. and Oliver, O.P. (Eds), The Psychology of the Social Self, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Van Knippenberg, D. and Sleebos, E. (2006), “Organizational identification versus organizational
commitment: self-definition, social exchange, and job attitudes”, Journal of Organizational
Behavior, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 571-584.
Vandenberghe, C. and Bentein, K. (2009), “A closer look at the relationships between commitment
to supervisors and organizations and turnover”, Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82, pp. 331-348.
Zimmerman, R.D. (2008), “Understanding the impact of personality traits on individuals’
turnover decisions: a meta-analytic path model”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 61, pp. 309-348.
Zimmerman, R.D. and Darnold, T.C. (2009), “The impact of job performance on employee
turnover intentions and the voluntary turnover process: a meta-analysis and path model”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 38 No. 2, pp. 142-158.
PR Appendix
42,5
Procedural justice
Pj1 I am able to express my views and feelings about my organization’s procedures
Pj2 I have influence over the assessments made as a result of my organization’s
procedures
572 Pj3 The procedures used in my organization been applied consistently
Pj4 The procedures used in my organization are free of bias
Pj5 The procedures used in my organization are based on accurate information
Pj6 I am able to appeal the assessments made by procedures used in my
organization
Pj7 The procedures used in my organization uphold ethical and moral standards
Interpersonal justice
Ipj1 My supervisor treats me in a polite manner
Ipj2 My supervisor treats me with dignity
Ipj3 My supervisor treats me with respect
Ipj4 My supervisor refrains from improper remarks or comments
Organizational commitment
Oc I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career with my organization
Oc2 I really feel as if my organization’s problems are my own
Oc3 I do not feel a strong sense of “belonging” to my organization (R)
Oc4 I do not feel “emotionally attached” to my organization (R)
Oc5 I do not feel like “part of the family” at my organization (R)
Oc6 Being part of my organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me
Supervisory commitment
Sc1 When someone criticizes my supervisor, it feels like a personal insult
Sc2 When I talk about my supervisor, I usually say “we” rather than “they”
Sc3 My supervisor’s successes are my successes
Sc4 When someone praises my supervisor, it feels like a personal compliment
Sc5 I feel a sense of “belongingness” with my supervisor
Table AI. Turnover intentions
Items used to measure the TI1 It is likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next year
variables in this study TI2 I often think about quitting

Corresponding author
Douglas Flint can be contacted at: dflint@unb.ca

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints