THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN NAFTAL (GPL) BECHAR ALGERIA

International Journal of Management (IJM) Volume 8, Issue 3, May June 2017, pp. 169 179, Article ID: IJM_08_03_019 Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?jtype=ijm&vtype=8&itype=3 Journal Impact Factor (2016): 8.1920 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com ISSN Print: 0976-6502 and ISSN Online: 0976-6510 IAEME Publication THE IMPACT OF ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE ON ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR IN NAFTAL (GPL) BECHAR ALGERIA Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui Laboratory of Study Economics & Development Local in South west of Algeria Department of Management, University of Bechar, Algeria BP 49 HAI Merah Bechar, Algeria 08008 ABSTRACT This study aims to identify the relationship of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior, and a relationship of Procedural justice and Distributive justice and Interactive justice of the organizational justice of the relations on organizational citizenship behavior. This study has been conducted on the workers National Company NAFTAL Bechar Algeria Despite the positive perception of the physical side of the organizational justice of the dominant institution, but there is a relative decline in organizational citizenship behavior of individuals out, which explains the contribution of the other sides of the organizational justice in influencing organizational citizenship behavior, and this is what translates the results in the relationship between each of these variables. Which needs to be mentioned the existence of a relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior, in addition to the high value of the correlation coefficient between them. Key words: Organizational Justice; Distributive Justice; Interactive Justice; Interactive Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Cite this Article: Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui, The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria. International Journal of Management, 8(3), 2017, pp. 169 179. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/issues.asp?jtype=ijm&vtype=8&itype=3 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 169 editor@iaeme.com

The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria 1. INTRODUCTION The norms and values of fairness and justice constitute a fundamental feature of behavior in organizations (and in other situations, for that matter), it should come as no surprise that the issue of justice has received considerable attention from many academic disciplines, each with its own perspectives on the study of organizational justice. This is important because a multi-perspectives approach probably will yield the most thorough insights into the object of study. Furthermore, I argue that because organizational justice is important, it is essential to study it by means of various research methods. Each method has its own strengths and weaknesses, and in my opinion the justice domain will make the most progress if it uses equally all available methods. This is a paper about organizational justice and organizational behavior. I start from the premise that justice processes play a crucial role in organizations. The problem of the study What is the effect of organizational justice on organizational citizenship behavior in corporation NAFTAL Bechar - Algeria 2. DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP 2.2. Defining organizational justice Justice is the loveliest, holiest and most perfect words in the vocabulary of human civilization that its observation is considered the most essential affairs in term of every human perspective. Justice is namely to justice. According to the Dictionary of Dehkhoda Justice means endurance, in law is perseverance through right and avoiding what difficulty (forbidden) in religion. Oxford dictionary is described justice as protect the rights by using the authority and power, defending the rights with determines reward or punishment. Concept of justice means fairness, equality, judge with truth and honesty in dealing with the organization's staff is closer our goals in definition of this word. Justice is an abstract concept that it takes consider the different interpretations. When this concept is used in the enterprise environment, in fact is organizational justice. Organizational justice concept first formed in philosophy and then entered to the social psychology literature. In organization and management literature, many definitions of organizational justice are provided: Organizational justice can be defined as follows: Study of equality at work. Organizational justice refers to fairness and ethical behavior within an organization. Organizational justice is defined as personal sense from fair wages and benefits. Organizational Justice emphasizes manager decision, perceived equality, effects of justice, and the relationship between individual and environmental and describes individuals' perceptions of fairness in organizations. In Greenberg opinion, organizational justice is related to staff perceptions from work fairness in organization. In fact this term used to describe and interpret role of fairness in work environment. Folger&Cropanzano two of the main researchers in the field of organizational justice are defined conditions of involvement people that they believe that have fair or unfair treatment with them. 2.2. Dimensions of Organizational Justice Organizational justice research started with a focus on the fairness of the allocation of outcomes, which is termed distributive justice. Different theories evolved around this concept, the most wellknown of which is equity theory (Adams, 1965). The basic tenet of equity theory is that individuals http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 170 editor@iaeme.com

Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui perceive an outcome as fair when it matches the extent of their contributions (in relation to others or their own earlier contributions). For instance, when a co-worker with the same educational background receives more pay than oneself for the same work, one is likely to perceive the situation as unfair. In this example, the equity rule was violated. Other rules for allocations exist, concerning distributing according to need and allocating the same outcomes to all (Deutsch, 1975; Leventhal, 1976). Another key facet of justice, procedural justice, was advanced by two research groups around the same time. One research group, led by Thibaut and Walker (1975), showed, in studies on dispute resolution, that when defendants were able to voice their points of view during the decisionmaking process (i.e., a specific type of process control), they perceived the outcome to be fairer than when their voice was denied. The second research group, led by Leventhal (1980; Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980), suggested that individuals are not only interested in rewards, punishments, and outcomes but also in how the outcomes are arrived at. Even when an outcome is just, individuals can perceive injustice when the outcomes are achieved through an unfair procedure. Leventhal (1980) proposed six rules for a fair process: that decisions are based on accurate information, are correctable, representative of all parties involved, free of bias, and ethical, and that the allocation process is consistent for different individuals and over time. 3. DEFINING ORGANIZATIONAL CITIZENSHIP Dennis Organ is generally considered the father of OCB. Organ expanded upon Katz's (1964) original work. Organ (1988) defines OCB as individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization". Organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) was first introduced by Bateman and Organ (1983) and by Smith, Organ, and Near (1983). OCBhas received a considerable amount of scholarly attention since then. Much of that attention focused on the identification of predictors of OCB. Individual characteristics (e.g., organizational commitment), task characteristics (e.g., task feedback, reutilization), organizational characteristics (e.g., reward structure, perceived organizational support), and leadership behaviors (e.g., transformational leadership) have all been identified as important predictors. We can look at a company like a little city. It has a mayor (typically the owner or the person highest in charge) as well as different departments (heck, we can even have the cleaning crew as the sanitation department). So if we can look at a company like a little city, we can begin to look at the employees as citizens of that city. With that perspective in mind, we can see how citizens of our little city want it to be the best city it can be. They have a stake in wanting the city to be clean, prosperous and friendly. 3.1. The characteristics of the organizational citizenship behavior (Johns 1996) identified several characteristics of organizational citizenship behavior, including: - That the behavior is optional, it does not have a description for the individual function. - Voluntary behavior that stems from the additional roles that can be done by the individual. - It contributes to increasing the effectiveness of the organization. -.Do not be rewarded through formal incentive systems of the organization. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 171 editor@iaeme.com

The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria 3.2. Three main proposed components of organizational justice are distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (which includes informational and interpersonal justice). Distributive justice is conceptualized as the fairness associated with decision outcomes and distribution of resources. The outcomes or resources distributed may be tangible (e.g., pay) or intangible (e.g., praise). Perceptions of distributive justice can be fostered when outcomes are perceived to be equally applied (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice is defined as the fairness of the processes that lead to outcomes. When individuals feel that they have a voice in the process or that the process involves characteristics such as consistency, accuracy, ethicality, and lack of bias then procedural justice is enhanced (Leventhal, 1980). Interactional justice refers to the treatment that an individual receives as decisions are made and can be promoted by providing explanations for decisions and delivering the news with sensitivity and respect (Bies&Moag, 1986). A construct validation study by Colquitt (2001) suggests that interactional justice should be broken into two components: interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice refers to perceptions of respect and propriety in one's treatment while informational justice relates to the adequacy of the explanations given in terms of their timeliness, specificity, and truthfulness. Interpersonal justice "reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes". Informational justice "focuses on explanations provided to people that convey information about why procedures were used in a certain way or why outcomes were distributed in a certain fashion". 4. METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY 4.1. Research Hypotheses The study is based on the following hypotheses: The main hypothesis There is significant relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. The secondary hypotheses There is significant relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship. There is significant relationship between distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior. There is a significant relationship between justice interactive and organizational citizenship behavior. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 172 editor@iaeme.com

Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui Variables of the study Independent variables Organizational justice Distributive justice; Procedural justice; Interactive justice. Dependent variable: organizational citizenship behavior. 4.2. The study population and Methodology The study population consisted of this study has been conducted on the workers National Company naftalbechar Algeria The study is an explorative analytical one which used the systematic data collection and analysis to conclude findings. 105 questionnaires have been distributed to all employees who are able to answer. 95 valid for analysis questionnaire were recovered. These forms represented the population and sample of the study. We used to divide the Likert where it meets every question from the axis of the questionnaire five options divided into grades as follows: Table 1 Divide the Likert class V Acceptable strongly Fourth class Acceptable third-class balanced second-class not agree First-class Strongly isagree 4.3. of the study The dependent variable Independent variables Organizational justice x organizational citizenshipbehavior y Distributive justice;x1 Procedural justice;x2 Interactive justice.x3 Figure 1 of the study http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 173 editor@iaeme.com

The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria 5. RELIABILITY Cronbach s alpha".9440 Table 2 Reliability Nombre de phrases Source: Preparation researchers relying on spss output Note from Table (2) alpha coefficient greater than the minimum acceptable and is 60% to overall reliability coefficient 94.4%, indicating a high reliability. 6. TEST THE HYPOTHESES OF THE STUDY First hypothesis: relationship organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. H0: There are no significant differences between the organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior H1: There are significant differences between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Table 3 Shortcut 36 The correlation coefficientr Factor Specifically 2 R Factor Specific ally Debugger the standard error 1,464 a0,2150 0,199 0,35547 a. Predicted values: (constants), organizational justice Source: the preparation of researchers and the adoption of the spss19. Correlation coefficient R = 0464, equivalent to 46.8% of this and to say that there is little between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior while 2 R correlation coefficient of determination = 0.119 means that 11.9 % of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior Table 4 ANOVA b test of the of organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior 1 Level of Sum of squares freedom Degree Average square Valuesd Significance Regression 1,663 1 1,663 13,162,001 b Residuals 6,065 48,126 Total 7,728 49 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 174 editor@iaeme.com

Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui ince Sig less than ᾳ means we reject H 0 and accept H 1 a. Predicted values: (constants : organizational justice b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Source: data spss Table 5 Coefficients a Standard non transactions Standard transactions T Sig. A Erreur standard Bêta 3,660,175 20,955,000 1 organizatio nal justice,202,056,464 3,628,001 ةbehavior a. Variable dependant: organizational citizenship Source: data spss Through the table we can conclude gradient between organizational justice (x) and organizational citizenship behavior(y) Y= 0.202X+3.66 Hypothesis 1 There is significant relationship between procedural justice and organizational citizenship. H0: There are no significant differences between the procedural justice and organizational citizenship H1: There are significant differences between procedural justice and organizational citizenship. Table 6 Shortcut The correlation Factor Specifically coefficient 2 FactorSpecific ally R the standard error Debugger R 1,459 a,210,194,35657 Predicted values: (constants procedural justice Source: the preparation of researchers and the adoption of the spss19. Correlation coefficient R = 0459, equivalent to 45.9% of this and to say that there is little between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior while 2 R correlation coefficient of determination = 0.194 means that 19.4 % http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 175 editor@iaeme.com

The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria Table 7 ANOVA b test of the Of procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior Sum of squares freedom Degree Average square Valuesd Level of Significance0 1 Regression 1,626 1 1,626 12,785,001 b Residuals 6,103 48,127 Total 7,728 49 a. Predicted values: (constants : procedural justice b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Since Sig less than ᾳ means we reject H 0 and accept H 1 1 Table 8 Coefficients Standard non transactions A Erreur standard Bêta Standard transactions T Sig. (Constante) 3,776,146 25,844,000 procedural justice,163,046,459 3,576,001 a. Variable dependant : organizational citizenship behavior Source: data spss Through the table we can conclude gradient between procedural justice (x1) and organizational citizenship behavior(y) Hypothesis 2 There is significant relationship between distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior 2. H0: There are no significant differences between the distributive justice and organizational citizenship H1: There are significant differences between distributive justice and organizational citizenship The correlation coefficient R Table 9 Shortcut Factor Specifically 2 R Factor Specific ally Debugger the standard error 1,294 a,086,067,38356 redacted values: (constants distributive justice b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Source: the preparation of researchers and the adoption of the spss19. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 176 editor@iaeme.com

Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui Correlation coefficient R = 0,086 equivalent to 8,6% of this and to say that there is little between distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior while 2 R correlation coefficient of determination = 0.67 means that 6.7 % Of distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior Table 10 ANOVAb test of the distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior 1 Source: data spss Through the table we can conclude gradient between distributive justice (x2) and organizational citizenship behavior(y) Y= 0.109X 2+3.943 Source: data spss Through the table we can conclude gradient between distributive justice (x2) and organizational citizenship behavior(y) Y= 0.109X 2+3.943 Sum of squares freedom Degree Average square Valuesd Level of Significan ce0 Regression,667 1,667 4,533,038 b Residuals 7,062 48,147 Total 7,728 49 a. Predicted values: (constants distributive justice b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Since Sig less than ᾳ means we reject H 0 and accept H 1 1 distributive justice Table 11 Coefficients Standard T Sig. Standard non transactions transactions A Erreur standard Bêta 3,943,161 24,440,000,109,051,294 2,129,038 a. Variable dependant : organizational citizenship behavior Hypothesis 3 There is a significant relationship between justice interactive and organizational citizenship behavior. H0: There are no significant differences between the justice interactive and organizational citizenship H1: There are significant differences between justice interactive and organizational citizenship. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 177 editor@iaeme.com

The Impact of Organizational Justice On Organizational Citizenship Behavior In Naftal (GPL) Bechar Algeria Table 12 Shortcut Modèle R R-deux R-deuxajusté Erreur standard de l'estimation 1,421a,177,160,36399 b. redacted values: (constants justice interactive b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Source: the preparation of researchers and the adoption of the spss19. Correlation coefficient R = 0,177 equivalent to 17,7% of this and to say that there is little between justice interactive and organizational citizenship behavior while 2 R correlation coefficient of determination = 0. 160 means that 16 % Ofthe justice interactive and organizational citizenship behavior Table 13 ANOVA b test of the justice interactive and organizational citizenship behavior Sum of squares freedom Degree Average square Valuesd Level of Significan ce0 Regression 1,369 1 1,369 10,331,002b 1 Residuals 6,360 48,132 Total 7,728 49 c. redacted values: (constants justice interactive b. Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Table 14 Coefficientsa Coefficients Coefficients non standardisés Modèle standardisés T Sig. A Erreur standard Bêta (Constante) 3,762,165 22,775,000 1 justice interactive,163,051,421 3,214,002 d. redacted values: (constants justice interactive b Variable dependant organizational citizenship behavior Through the table we can conclude gradient between justice interactive (x3) and organizational citizenship behavior(y) Y= 0.109X3+3.943 http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 178 editor@iaeme.com

Souad Douli, Ilyes Slimani, Kamel Berbaoui 7. CONCLUSION And through all of the above and after the test all the assumptions we conclude that all of the study of organizational justice has increased markedly in the past few years, little work has focused on the relationship between justice perceptions and extrarole behaviors. This study examined the relationship between perceptions of fairness and organizational citizenship behaviors in a sample drawn from naftal. A theoretical basis for a relationship between fairness and citizenship was drawn from theory and other theories of social exchange. Structural equation analysis found support for 3 hypotheses, including support for a relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and citizenship dimensions. Conversely, perceptions of distributive justice failed to influence any dimension of citizenship. Implications for the relationship between procedural justice and citizenship are discussed. REFERENCES [1] Farahbod, Farzin, Mohammad Reza Azadehdel, and Mohadeseh NezhadiJirdehi. Organizational justice, employees trust and organizational support, Kuwait Chapter of the Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review 3.2 (2013): 74. [2] ibid [3] Eib, Constanze. Processes of Organizational Justice: Insights into the perception and enactment of justice. Diss. Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 2015. [4] Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior, Behavioral Science.9: 131 133 [5] Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and employee, citizenship, Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 587-595. [6] Tjai M. Nielsen, George A. Hrivnak, Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Performance, small group research 40 (5) October 2009, The author(s)available at : http://sgr.sagepub.com [7] Rob Wengrzyn,: http://study.com/academy/course/organizational-behavior-help-course.html [8] LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 52-65. [9] R. Kalpana, Dr. N.S.Shibu, Factors Relating To Organizational Commitment with Special Reference To Women Faculties of Engineering Colleges, 6(1), January (2015), pp. 151-160, International Journal of Management. [10] Dr. M. A. Shakila Banu and A. Vidhya. A Study on Driving in-role Performance Through Citizenship Behavior, Knowledge Sharing Behavior and Organizational Commitment in Multilink Company, Hosur. International Journal of Management, 7(2), 2016, pp. 593-600. [11] N. Kamakshi Priya and Dr. M. Kalyana Sundaram, A Study on Relationships Among Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Turnover Intention In Kolors Healthcare India Pvt ltd, Chennai. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management, 7(1), 2016, pp. 58 71. [12] Al-Zu bi, Hasan Ali, A study of relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Business and Management 5.12 (2010): 102-109. http://www.iaeme.com/ijm/index.as 179 editor@iaeme.com