See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/275097968

Determinants of Organizational Commitment: A Case from the Turkish

Construction Industry

Conference Paper · May 2014

CITATIONS READS

0 849

2 authors:

Heyecan Giritli Dilek U. Duman

Istanbul Technical University University of Reading
47 PUBLICATIONS   302 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   22 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Master Thesis View project

Research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Heyecan Giritli on 10 January 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Proceedings of the International Conference on
Construction in a Changing World, in Kandalana, Sri
Lanka, May 2014
 Determinants of Organizational Commitment: A
Case from the Turkish Construction Industry

Dilek Ulutaş Duman

Phd Candidate, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University
ulutasd@itu.edu.tr

Heyecan Giritli
Proffesor, Faculty of Architecture, Istanbul Technical University
giritli@itu.edu.tr

Abstract

This research focuses on job satisfaction, organizational justice, and organizational

commitment among professionals in the construction industry. Although there is a substantial
amount of research demonstrating the importance of organizational justice and job satisfaction
and their influence on organisational commitment, construction management literature lacks
the empirical implications of the relationship between these organizational factors, which
determine the success of an organization in a competitive environment such as construction.
The present study aims to fill that research gap. In order to assess organizational justice, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment of individuals in the context of construction
industry, a questionnaire survey was utilized based on three well-known and widely accepted
instruments. Research findings will be one of the initial studies that clarify the interrelations
between organizational justice, job satisfaction and organizational commitment from the
perspective of construction industry professionals.

Keywords: Organizational justice, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, construction

industry, INDCOL.
 1. Introduction

Employees are one of the most important factors that determine the success of an organization
in a competitive environment. This is the case for all organizations, but particularly so in
construction, which is distinctly different from other industries. The potential positive
relationship between organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness caused many
research studies to investigate the predictors of organizational commitment (see among others,
Bakhsi et.al.2009; Mathieu and Zajak, 1990; Wasti and Can, 2008). Although identifying
predictors of organizational commitment has been an important area of investigation, few
studies have examined the motivators of organizational commitment within the context of
construction industry (Chiu and Ng, 2013; Lingard and Francis, 2004; Loosemore et al. 2003;
Malone and Issa, 2013). This study aims to fill this gap in organizational behaviour literature
within the specific context of construction.

While an extensive amount of research has been conducted on organizational commitment, the
question of whether employees’ cultural values influence commitment formation is still largely
unanswered. Even in a single collectivist culture, a certain number of people will display the
traits of individualism. Consequently, individuals within these countries may have different
organizational behaviour. The main purpose of the present study was to examine the effects of
cultural values on organizational commitment. While examining the role of cultural values, the
mediating roles of job satisfaction and organizational justice were taken into account in order to
better understand how cultural values affect the organizational commitment. This research
examined self-reported of the relationship between organizational justice perceptions, job
satisfaction and determined their effects on an employee’s organizational commitment, within
the construction industry.

2. Background
2.1. Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment has become an important topic for organizational research because
of its positive contribution to job satisfaction, reduced absenteeism (e.g. Gellatly, 1995) and
reduced staff turnover (e.g. Somers, 1993; Walker, 2011). Organizational commitment can be
described as an employee’s involvement with and motivation for a particular employer. Meyer
et.al. (1993) identified a three-dimension model of organizational commitment: (1) Affective
commitment, which is represented by the respect which employees hold for their organization.
One of the most common reason for this commitment within the construction industry is that
there exit well establish and reputable firms. (2) Continuance commitment, which is based on
the costs that employees associate with leaving the organization. This is evidence in the
construction industry due to the fluctuating workloads, and in times of high unemployment as a
result of economic conditions. Therefore, better alternative employment opportunities will be
limited. (3) Normative commitment, which refers to employees’ feelings of obligation to remain
with an organization for ethical or moral reasons. Walker (2011) argues that this commitment
can be seen for people who have significant roles in projects being executed and who have
responsibility of not leaving at a critical time.

2.2. Job Satisfaction

For the last few decades, job satisfaction has been one of the most popular interests’ among
scientists, researchers and practitioners (Blood et al, 2002; Klassen & Chiu, 2010b; Malik et al.,
2010; Platsidou & Agaliotis, 2008; Perrachione et al., 2008). Job satisfaction or Employee
Satisfaction (also referred to as morale) is one of the most used variables in organizational
behaviour. It is the way of expressing an employee attitude-response to his or her organization.

Scientists have recognized that job satisfaction is strongly influenced by situational factors,
which are internally or externally generated. Internal factors (i.e budgets, physical work
facilities and uncertainty) are within the control of the organization, whereas external factors
(i.e. economic conditions, legal requirement and external political forces) are generated by the
external environment of the organization (Walker, 2011). Along with these factors, job
satisfaction is dependent upon personality and job characteristics.

2.3. Organizational Justice

A review of organizational justice literature shows that organizational justice is a significant

predictor of work attitudes and behaviours (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al.,
2001). Research findings indicate that perception of organizational justice is correlated with
several organizational factors, such as job satisfaction (Dowden and Tellier, 2004), and
organizational commitment (Kwong and Leung, 2002). It is popularly accepted that
organizational justice consists of three constructs: (Masterson et al., 2000; Cohen-Charash and
Spector, 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001). (1) Distributive justice, which refers to the perceived
fairness of the allocation of resources by the organization (Alexander and Ruderman, 1987;
Folger and Konovsky, 1989). (2) Procedural justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of
the process used to make allocation decisions (Korsgaard et al., 1995; Alexander and
Ruderman, 1987). (3) Interactional justice, which refers to the fairness and quality of
interpersonal treatment individuals are given during the implementation of procedures.

Findings in literature show that organizational justice have been linked to important
organizational variables (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Dailey & Kirk, 1992; McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992; Martin & Bennett, 1996). Perceptions of procedural justice are significantly
correlated with organizational commitment whereas distributive justice perceptions tend to be a
strong predictor of job satisfaction (Martin & Bennett, 1996; McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992).

2.4. The Relationship between organizational justice, job satisfaction and

organizational commitment
Since the 1970s, scholars have studied the correlation between organizational justice, job
satisfaction (Masterson et al., 2000; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001),
and organizational commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1996; Masterson et al., 2000; Colquitt et al.,
2001). Some scholars have admitted that organizational commitment may be an independent
variable with job satisfaction (Bateman and Strasser, 1984; Vandenberg and Lance, 1992)
while others claim just the opposite. Most of the research has treated job satisfaction as an
independent and organizational commitment as a dependent variable (Mowday et al., 1982;
Gaertner, 1999; Lok and Crawford, 2001; Jernigan et al., 2002).

In a review of organizational commitment, Allen and Meyer (1996) assessed the relation
between organizational commitment and organizational justice and found strong relationships
among the three dimensions of organizational justice and affective commitment. Loi et al.
(2009), for example, investigated the influence of organizational justice (e.g. distributive,
procedural, and interpersonal) on job satisfaction. The result revealed that, along with
distributive and procedural justice, interpersonal justice was positively related to employees’
job satisfaction. Most of the researchers have claimed that organizational commitment and job
satisfaction are interrelated (Mowday et al., 1982). Many researchers have discussed job
satisfaction as an antecedent of organizational commitment (Bartol, 1979; Mowday et al., 1982;
Gaertner, 1999; Hrebiniak and Alutto, 1972; Yousef, 1998; Gaertner, 1999). However, a few
studies have examined the relationship between organizational justice and job attitudes (i.e. job
satisfaction and organizational commitment) in a non-Western culture (e.g. Pillai et al., 1999;
Yusef, 2002; Suliman, 2007; Bakhshi et al., 2009; Xinyan, 2010). Also, studies based on a
Western theoretical framework have tended to generalize their findings across cultures. Lam et
al. (2002, p. 2) argued that: “studies of the effects of distributive and procedural justice do not
provide consistent and mutually supportive conclusions as to generalizability across cultures”.
Some researchers have attributed satisfaction and commitment to cultural values (i.e. Dorfman
& Howell, 1988; Randall, 1993). Therefore, it is worth examining the justice-job attitudes
relationship in the non-Western context such as Turkey.

Although many studies examined the relationship between organizational commitment and job
attitudes, only few studies have examined the subject within the context of construction
industry. (Du et al., 2007; Yi, et al., 2009; Chiu, and Ng, 2013). Based on the literature
reviewed, the following hypotheses were investigated within the context of the Turkish
construction industry:

H1: Job satisfaction relates significantly and positively to organizational commitment.

H2: Organizational justice has significant impact on organizational commitment.

3. Research Methodology

The survey consisted of four major sections. The first section includes questions about
demographic information of the respondents. The second section includes the items for
measuring three dimensions of organizational justice. The third section consists of the items to
measure job satisfaction. The forth section contained the questions about how much
respondents agreed or disagreed with statements concerning their feelings toward their
employer.

Data were collected through a questionnaire survey administrated to professionals associated

with the construction industry. There are 68 returned questionnaires from a total of 250
contacted survey sample; giving a response rate of 23.6%. All returned questionnaires are
acceptable for analysis as the number of missing data is small and affect a few questionnaires
only.

Organizational justice was evaluated using the scale developed by Niehoff and Moorman
(1993). The scale intended to determine distributive, procedural, and interactional justice.
Distributive justice construct was measured by five-items assessing the fairness of different
work outcomes including work schedule, pay level, workload, rewards, and job responsibilities
(i.e. “I think that my level of pay is fair”). Procedural justice construct was measured by six-
items assessing the degree to which job decisions included mechanisms that insured the
gathering of unbiased, accurate, and complete employee voice, as well as an appeals process
(i.e. “all job decisions are applied consistently across all affected employees”). Interactional
justice construct was measured by nine-items assessing the degree to which the employees felt
they were considered and respected by the managers, and adequate and clear explanations
concerning job decisions.

Organizational commitment was measured by using both the emic and the Meyer et al. (1993)
organizational commitment items, as described in more detail below. Affective commitment
construct was measured by eight-items to assess the affective recognition and participation of
people originating from work experience (“I would be very happy to spend the rest of my career
with this organization”). Continuance commitment construct was measured by seven-items to
assess the requirement and tendency to stay with an organization when employees realize the
cost of resignation. (“I feel that I have too few options to consider leaving this organization”).
Normative commitment construct was measured by ten-items to assess obligation or repayment
to a specific organization based on loyalty and gratitude (“I was taught to believe in the value of
remaining loyal to one organization”).

Job satisfaction was measured with Job Description Index (JDI) (Smith et al, 1969) as revised
by Roznowski (1989). The measurement equivalence of this scale in Turkish was established by
Wasti et al., (2000). This scale is designed to measure employees' satisfaction with their jobs.
The JDI is a “facet” measure of job satisfaction, meaning that participants are asked to think
about specific facets of their job and rate their satisfaction with those specific facets. The JDI is
comprised of five facets, including satisfaction with: coworkers (e.g., ‘‘boring”), the work itself
(i.e. “challenging”), pay (i.e “underpaid”), opportunities for promotion (i.e. good opportunities
for promotion”), and supervision (i.e ‘‘praises good work”). Each scale includes a checklist of
adjectives or adjective phrases, and respondents are asked to fill the blank beside each item as
follows: “Y” (agreement), “N” (disagreement), and “?” (can not decide). We scored all scale
items (after reverse coding where necessary) with 0 for each “no” response, 1 for each “?”, and
3 for each “yes.”

The major shortcoming of the scales and constructs used to in this study has been its relevance
mostly to the North American context. Based on Wasti’s argument that researchers have
typically employed a ‘pseudoetic’ approach, where instruments composed of items reflecting
Western conditions are translated and used in other cultures with little regard to the reliability
or validity of the instrument in the new culture. For this reason, in her study, emic (culture-
specific) items were generated through in-depth interviews with Turkish employees, and the
commitment scales by Meyer et al. (1993) were revised for use in Turkish samples.

In order to control, at least to some extent, their effects, the study included a number of
demographic characteristics. The demographic variables are gender, age, occupation, and
tenure in the organization. The survey also included the INDCOL scale (Singelis et al., 1995),
which is composed of four 8-item subscales, namely horizontal individualism, vertical
individualism, horizontal collectivism, and vertical collectivism. In this study, we only
considered vertical collectivism because vertical collectivism in essence is about prioritizing in-
group preference. It measures the extent to which an individual is concerned with maintaining
the social harmony of the in-group and willing to subordinate personal interests to the wishes of
in-group authorities (e.g., ‘‘I usually sacrifice my self-interest for the benefit of my group”). All
responses were on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

The original English instruments used in this study were finalized using translation and back-
translation by Wasti et.al. (2000). The items that had discrepancies were rewritten to be clearer
and back translated once again.

4. Analysis of Results

Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze the data. Descriptive findings include
the following: (1) respondents ranged in age from 23 to 68 years old, with 31% of the
respondents being between 46 and 55 years old, 24% between 36 and 45 years old, 24%
between 26 and 35 years old, and 15% between 56 and 65 years old, In terms of the age
composition of the sample 30.6 percent represented those below 30 years, 59.6 percent were in
the 31-45 age bracket, and 9.7 percent were above the 46 years age bracket. (2) Bachelor and
master degrees were the highest educational degree received for approximately 38.5 and 31.4 %
of respondents respectively. The mean age was 31 years.

In terms of occupation, 55.9% of the respondents are architects, 35.3% them are civil engineers
and 8.8% them have other educational background. The modal tenure was between 1 and 5
years (51%), 6-10 years (%34), 11-15 years (%6) and over 15 years (%9). With regard to the
size of the respondents‘ organizations, 32.4 percent belonged to organizations with 100 staff or
below, 28.2 percent were in the 101-500 organizational size bracket, 14.5 percent were in the
501-2,000 size bracket, and 24.8 percent were in the over 2,001 size bracket.

In terms of the JSI, it can be noted that employees at the construction sector are most satisfied
with the promotion (m = 1,7892; SD =, 95783), followed by the nature of work (m=1,1772;
SD=,85176), and the pay (m=1,0605; SD=,79597). They are however, less satisfied with the
supervision they receive (m=,8473; SD=,77694) and least satisfied with their co-workers
(m=,6422; SD=,68388). Walker (2011) states that if the professionals involved in the
construction industry would be likely to achieve a great job satisfaction if they see a project
through to completion. However, this may not be the case for those who work intermittently on
a number of projects, or are involved in projects including large tracts of relatively monotonous
work.

The mean scores of the Organizational Commitment scales ranged from 2,7196 to 3,1275. The
sample of participants obtained the highest mean score on the affective commitment (m
=3,1275; SD = ,46822) sub-scale and the lowest score on the normative commitment sub-scale
(m = 2,7196; SD = ,73485). This finding means that employees with a high degree of affective
commitment stay in their organization because employees with a collectivistic orientation
appreciate being part of a group and have a stronger striving for belonging to a social entity
(Felfe et.al. 2008).

Descriptive statistics were used to examine respondents’ views on organizational justice, job
satisfaction and organizational commitment. To analyze the relationship between organizational
justice job satisfaction and organizational commitment, hierarchical multiple regression
analysis was used. Multiple regression analyses are generally used to predict a dependent
variable (in this case, organizational commitment) on the basis of two or more independent
variables (predictor variables, in this case organizational justice and job satisfaction).

In hierarchical regression analysis, on the contrary, variables are entered into the model in
stages: first, a group of independent variables are evaluated in terms of how much information
they provide about the independent variable, and then, another group of variables are entered
into the model, and a statistical test of whether we gain any more information about the
dependent variable with their inclusion is conducted. Because it fits the purposes of the present
study better, a hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used in the study.

The hierarchical ordering of the independent variables is as follows: the first set includes the
control variables (i.e. age, gender, occupation); the second set includes the facets organizational
justice and job satisfaction; the third set includes cultural values. These sets are entered into the
analysis through three steps. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was conducted for each
of the facets of organizational commitment as dependent variables. These statistical analyses
are termed Models A, B and C. Tables 1,2 and 3 show the percent of variability in the
dependent variables that can be accounted for by all the predictors (independent variables)
together (that’s the interpretation of R-square). The change in R2 is a way to evaluate how much
predictive power was added to the models by the addition of another variables in step 2 and 3.
The findings of Model A (Table 1) point out a significant negative relation (-.452) between
job satisfaction and in particular satisfaction with type of work done (set 2 factor) and affective
commitment to the organization. This implies that high scores on satisfaction with type of work
are associated with low scores on affective commitment. As a result, the type of work has an

Table 1. Regression analysis results for ‘affective commitment’.

Independent Standardized t-value Significance Collinearity Statistics

Variables Beta level Tolerance Variance
Coefficients (2-taied) Inflation factor
Constant 2,471 ,017
Age -,074 -,566 ,574 ,446 2,241
Gender ,189 1,630 ,109 ,574 1,742
Occupation -,090 -,773 ,443 ,570 2,275
Org.Tenure ,159 1,205 ,234 ,440 1,754
DistribJustice ,041 1,205 ,740 ,510 1,960
ProceJustice ,139 ,872 ,387 ,303 3,303
InterJustice ,298 1,883 ,065 0.308 3,251
Work -,452 -3,534 ,001 0.471 2,123
Coworkers ,064 ,562 ,577 0.589 1,697
Supervisor -,205 -1,598 ,116 0.467 2.141
Pay ,203 1,824 ,074 0.621 1,611
Promotion ,002 ,017 ,987 0.358 2,795
Collectivist ,079 ,814 ,419 0.825 1,213

Table 2. Regression analysis results for ‘continuance commitment’.

Independent Standardized t-value Significance Collinearity Statistics

Variables Beta level Tolerance Variance
Coefficients (2-tailed) Inflation factor
Constant 2,471 ,002
Age -,552 -,566 ,001 ,446 2,241
Gender ,037 1,630 ,794 ,574 1,742
Occupation -,225 -,773 ,119 ,570 2,275
Org.Tenure ,556 1,205 ,001 ,440 1,754
DistribJustice ,138 1,205 ,363 ,510 1,960
ProceJustice -,062 ,872 ,751 ,303 3,303
InterJustice ,000 1,883 ,997 0.308 3,251
Work -,113 -3,534 ,474 0.471 2,123
Coworkers -,144 ,562 ,306 0.589 1,697
Supervisor ,168 -1,598 ,291 0.467 2.141
Pay -,248 1,824 ,074 0.621 1,611
 Promotion -,190 ,017 ,293 0.358 2,795
Collectivist -,021 ,814 ,860 0.825 1,213

effect above and beyond the effects of control variables and organizational justice. Model B
uses continuance commitment as the dependent variable (Table 2) .The first set of predictors
(i.e.age and organizational tenure) explain significantly in the variance in continuance
commitment, but the second and third sets account for an insignificant amount of chance in the
variance. It means that job satisfaction and cultural values do not have an effect above and
beyond the effects of control variables such as organizational tenure and age. As a result,
increasing age(-.552) might lead to lower levels of continuance commitment within the context
of construction industry.

Continuance commitment (CC) is said to be expected to be weak (Dunham et.al., 1994). As

individuals gain experience alternate employment opportunities may increase and this decreases
the magnitude of one important cost of leaving, that of having no job (Cohen, 1993).
Additionally, the exploratory power of the model is provided by the control variable
“organizational tenure (.556)”. This finding provides confirming evidence, which Cohen
(1993) argues “ CC-tenure relations can develop only after the employee has spent some years
in the organization and, hence, develops investments, evaluates them, and decides, based on the
exchange relation, whether or not to commit himself or herself to the organization”. In Model C
(Table 3), the type of work (set 2 variable) and cultural values (set 3 variable) explain most of
the variance in normative commitment. This means that high scores on the work itself and
collectivism (allocentrism)”are associated with low scores on normative commitment. Yet, this
evidence of the present study is in contrast with the view that highly allocentric values tend to
be more normative (Hofstede, 2001).

Table 3. Regression analysis results for ‘normative commitment’.

Independent Standardized t-value Significance Collinearity Statistics

Variables Beta level Tolerance Variance
Coefficients (2-taied) Inflation factor
Constant 0.249 0.804
Age -0.289 -0.251 0.029 0.446 2,241
Gender -0.010 -0.093 0.927 0.574 1,742
Occupation 0.192 1.482 0.144 0.440 2,275
Org.Tenure 0.063 0.553 0.583 0.570 1,754
DistribJustice -0.003 -0.022 0.983 0.510 1,960
ProceJustice 0.157 1.010 0.317 0.303 3,303
InterJustice 0.183 1.183 0.242 0.308 3,251
Work -0.341 -2.730 0.009 0.471 2,123
Coworkers -0.187 -1.670 0.101 0.589 1,697
Supervisor 0.099 0.789 0.434 0.467 2.141
Pay -0.041 -0.381 0.705 0.621 1,611
 Promotion -0.159 -1.107 0.273 0.358 2,795
Collectivism -0.332 3.511 0.001 0.825 1,213

Table 4 presents model summaries based on hierarchical multiple regression analysis. The
exploratory power of Models A, B and C is in the range of 11.5% to 51.0%. Such a range of
exploratory power may be mainly due to the sample size and complexity of the problem. The
exploratory power of Models A and C are partly consistent with the majority of studies on
organizational commitment.

Table 4: Model Summaries Based on Hierarchical Multiple Regression Analysis

Adjusted Change Statistics

R R2
Dependent Variable R2 R2 Change F Change Sig. F Change
Model A: Affective
Commitment
Step1 – (1st Set) .212 .045 -.001 .045 .974 .441
Step 2 (1st and 2st Sets) .765 .585 .500 .540 8,769 .000
Step 3 (1st, 2st and 3rd .768 .595 .497 .005 .676 .415
Sets)
Model B: Continuance
Commitment
Step1 – (1st Set) .308 0.95 .051 .095 2,165 .101
Step 2 (1st and 2st Sets) .512 .263 .112 .168 1,535 .167
Step 3 (1st, 2st and 3rd .528 .278 .115 .016 1,170 .284
Sets)
Model C: Normative
Commitment
Step1 – (1st Set) .243 .059 .013 .059 1,293 .285
Step 2 (1st and 2st Sets) .719 .517 .419 .458 6,404 .000
Step 3 (1st, 2st and 3rd .775 .600 .510 .083 11,030 .002
Sets)

5. Conclusion

The current study seeks to contribute to the literature by exploring the relationship between
organizational commitment and job attitudes in a non-Western context such as Turkey. In
addition, this study attempts to expand the literature by clarifying the role of cultural values for
the relationship between these two organizational factors among the construction professionals
in Turkey. Quantitative research approach and survey data collection method were adopted in
this study to achieve the stated objectives.
Since this study was conducted on a relatively small sampling (n=68), the results cannot be
applied to other contexts and regions. Another limitation of this study is its focus on
allocentrism/ idiocentrism (individualism- collectivism at the individual) without considering
other cultural values. Further research is needed to determine the generalizability of our results.

References
Alexander, S. and Ruderman, M. (1987). “The role of procedural and distributive justice in organization
behavior.” Social Justice Research, 1(2), 177-198.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). “Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organi-
zation: An examination of construct validity.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–276.
Bakhshi A., Kumar K., Rani, E. (2009). “Organizational justice perceptions as predictor of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment”. International Journal of Business Management, 4(9), 145-
154.
Bartol, K.M. (1979), “Professionalism as a predictor of organizational commitment, role stress and
turnover: a multidimensional approach”, Academy of Management Journal, 22, 815-21.
Bateman, T.S., & Strasser, S. (1984). “A longitudinal analysis of the antecedents of organi- zational
commitment”. Academy of Management Journal, 27(1), 95-112.
Blood, G. W., Ridenour, J., Thomas, E., Qualls, C., & Hammer, C. (2002). “Predicting job satisfaction
among speech-language pathologists working in public schools.” Language, Speech, & Hearing Services
in Schools, 33, 282-290.
Chen, C. F. (2006), “Short report: job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and flight attendants’
turnover ıntentions: a note”, Journal of Air Transport Management, 12, 274-276.
Chiu, W. Y. B. and Ng, F. F. (2013) “Improvement of job satisfaction and organisational commitment
through work group identification: an examination of the quantity surveyors in Hong Kong”, Australasian
Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 13 (3), 80-95.
Cohen, A. (1993). “Agand Tenure in Relation to Organizational Commitment”: A Meta-Analysis, Basic
and Applied Psychology, 14(2), 143-159
Cohen-Charash, Y., and Spector, P. E. (2001). “The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis.”
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278-321.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., and Ng., K. Y. (2001). “Justice at the
millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research”. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 86, 425-445.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., and Rupp, D. E. (2001). “Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.” Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58: 164-
209.
Dailey, R. C., and Kirk, D. J. (1992). “Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job
dissatisfaction and intent to turnover.” Human Relations, 45(3), 305-317.
Dorfman, P.W., and Howell, J.P. 1988. “Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns:
Hofstede revisited.” Advances in International Comparative Management, 3, 127-150.
Dowden, C. and Claude, T. (2004). “Predicting work-related stress in correctional officers: A meta-
analysis.” Journal of Criminal Justice, 32 (1), 31–47.
Du, J., Song, Y., Liu, C. and Picken, D. (2007). Variance Analyses of Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment vs Demographic Variables — A Study on Construction Managers in Wuhan, Proceedings of
the Sixth Wuhan International Conference on E-Business, pp.1332-1337)Folger, R. & Konovsky, M.A.
(1989). “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions.” Academy of
Management Journal, 32(1): 115-130.
Dunham, R.Grube, J and Castenada, M. (1994). “Organizational Commitment: The Utility of an
Integrative Definition”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 3, pp.370-380
Felfe, J., Yan, W. and Six, B. (2008). “The Impact of Individual Collectivism on Commitment and Its
Influence on Organizational Citizenship Behaviour and Turnover in Three Countries.” International
Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8 (2), 211-237.
Gaertner S. (1999). “Structural determinants of job satisfaction and organizational commitment ın
turnover models.” Human Resource Management Review. 9(4), 479- 93.
Gellatly, I. R. (1995). “Individual and group determinants of employee absenteeism: Test of a causal
model”. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 16, 469-485.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations, Sage publication
Jernigan I.E., Beggs J.M. and Kohut G.F. (2002). “Dimensions of work satisfaction as predictors
of commitment type.” Journal of Managerial Psychology. 17(7), 564-79.
Klassen, R. M., and Chiu, M. M. (2010). “Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher
gender, years of experience, and job stress”. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741–56.
Korsgaard, M. A., Schweiger, D. M., and Sapienza, H. J. (1995) "Building commitment, attachment, and
trust in strategic decision-making teams: The role of procedural justice." Academy of Management
Journal, 38 (1), 60-84.
Kwong, J.Y.Y. and Leung, K. (2002), “A moderator of the interaction effect of procedural justice and
outcome favorability: importance of the relationship”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 81 (2), 278-99.
Lam, S. S. K., Yik, M. S. M., and Schaubroeck, J. (2002). “Responses to formal performance appraisal
feedback: The role of negative affectivity”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 192-201.
Lingard, H. and Francis, V. (2004). “The work-life experiences of office and site-based
employees in the Australian construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics,
22, 991-1002
Loi, R., Yang, J., and Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). “Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A
multilevel investigation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 770–781.
Lok P. and Crawford J. (2001). “Antecedents of organizational commitment and the mediating role of job
satisfaction”. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 16(8), 594-613.
Malik, M.E., Nawab, S., Naeem, B., and Danish, R.Q. (2010). “Job satisfaction and organizational
commitment of university teachers in public sector of Pakistan.” International Journal of Business and
Management, 5(6), 17-26.
Malone, E.K. and Issa, R.R.A. (2013). “Work-Life Balance and Organizational Commitment of
Women in the U.S. Construction Industry”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering
Education & Practice, 139 ( 2 ), 87-98
Martin, C. L., & Bennett, N. (1996). “The role of justice judgments in explaining the relationship between
job satisfaction and organizational commitment.” Group & Organizational Management, 21(1), 84-104.
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, 43, 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, 108, 171-194
McFarlin, D. B., and Sweeney, P. D. (1992). “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes.” Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 626-
637.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., and Smith, C.A (1993). “Commitment to organizations and occupations:
Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 538-551.
Mowday R., Porter L. and Steers R. (1982). Employee- organization Linkages: The Psychology of
Commitment, Absenteeism, and Turnover, Academic Press: New York.
Niehoff, B., and Moorman, R. H. (1993). “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior.” Academy of Management Journal, 36(3), 527- 56.
Perrachione, B.A., Rosser, V.J., and Petersen, G.J. (2008). “Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’
perceptions of job satisfaction and retention”. The Professional Educator, 32(2), 1-17.
Pillai, R., Schrieshem, C., & Williams, E. S. (1999). “Fairness perceptions and trust as mediators for
transformational and transactional leadership: A two-sample study.” Journal of Management, 25(6), 897–
933.
Platsidou, M., & Agaliotis, I. (2008). “Burnout, job satisfaction and instructional assignment-related
sources of stress in Greek special education teachers.” International Journal of Disability, Development
and Education, 55(1), 61-76.
Randall, D.M. (1993). “Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application
of Hofstede’s Value Survey Module”. Journal of Business Research, 26, 91-110.
Roznowski, M. (1989). “Examination of the measurement properties of the Job Descriptive Index with
experimental items.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 805–814.
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., and Gelfand, M. J. (1995). “Horizontal and vertical
dimensions of individualism and collectivism: A theoretical and measurement refinement.” Cross-Cultural
Research, 29, 240-275.
Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M.,and Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement of satisfaction in work and
retirement. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Somers, M. J. (1995). “Organizational commitment, turnover and absenteeism: An examination of direct
and interaction effects.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(1), 49–58.
Suliman, A. M. T. (2007). “Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the workplace: A
survey in the UAE and Arabic context.” Journal of Management Development, 26(4), 294-311.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (1992). “Examining the causal order of job satisfaction and
organizational commitment”. Journal of Management, 18(1), 153-167.
Walker, A. (2011). Organizational Behaviour in Construction Industry. Wiley-Blackwell: Portland.
Wasti, S. A., Bergman, M. E., Glomb, T. M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). “Test of the cross-cultural
generalizability of a model of sexual harassment.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 766–778
Wasti, S.A. and Can, O. (2008). “Affective and normative commitment to organization, supervisor, and
coworkers: Do collectivist values matter?”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 73, 404-413
Xinyan W., Jianqiao L., Degen X., Tao C. (2010) "The impact of organizational justice on work
performance: Mediating effects of organizational commitment and leader-member exchange",
International Journal of Manpower, 31 (6), 660 – 677.
Yi, C., Lin, P., Hsu, L., and Liao, P. (2009). “Applying Structural Equation Models to Study the Influence
of Job Characteristics, Organization Commitment, and Job Satisfaction: A Case of Construction Industry
in Taiwan”, ICEE 2009 Conference. Korea , August 23-28, 2009
Yousef, D.A. (1998), “Satisfaction with job security as a predictor of organizational commitment and job
performance in a multicultural environment”, International Journal of Manpower, 19 (3), 184-94.
View publication stats