Organizational justice and innovation in the workplace: the case of the UAE

Organizational justice andinnovation in the workplace:

the case of the UAEAbubakr Suliman

The British University in Dubai, Dubai International Academic City (DIAC),Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper to aim at exploring the links between employees’ perceptions ofdistributive, procedural and interactional justice on one hand and innovation climate and readiness toinnovate on the other hand. The role of innovation climate in predicting readiness to innovate is alsoexamined. Further, the study attempts to test the mediating role of innovation climate in justice-readiness to innovate relationship.Design/methodology/approach – This paper aims at exploring the links between employees’perceptions of distributive, procedural and interactional justice on one hand and innovation climateand readiness to innovate on the other hand. The role of innovation climate in predicting readiness toinnovate is also examined. Further, the study attempts to test the mediating role of innovation climatein justice-readiness to innovate relationship.Findings – The findings revealed that perception of justice played a key role in employees’ perceptionof innovation climate. Innovation climate was found to be positively and significantly related toreadiness to innovate. Employees’ readiness to try new ways of doing things and question the existinghabits of the work tended to show significant and positive relationship to organizational justice.Innovation climate played a significant yet a partial role in mediating the link between justice andreadiness to innovate.Research limitations/implications – The sample represented only governmental sector and onlyone emirate of the UAE’s seven emirates. The implications of the findings for researchers together withsome future guidelines are discussed in the paper.Practical implications – The paper provides practitioners with some advice about understandingand managing justice and innovation.Originality/value – The paper is the first study in the UAE and the Middle East that examines thelinks between justice, innovation climate and readiness to innovate.

Keywords Justice, Fairness, Innovation climate, Readiness to innovate, Work climate,Middle East and developing countries

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionOrganizations, especially in developing countries, have been facing numerouschallenges related to their survival, development and growth. They came to discoverthat they are not sealed-off from the global competition and that creating andsustaining competitive advantage is crucial to operate, compete and develop in today’schallenging and continuously changing workplace. According to Al-Swidi et al. (2011,p. 299) “organizations {in developing countries} are required not only to create theircompetitive advantage to lead the trend, but also to be able to sustain and upgrade thecreated competitive advantage.” Meanwhile, to create and sustain the competitiveadvantage; organizations of developing countries need to adapt to outgoing changes.In other words, they must be creative and innovative as many recent research argue,e.g. Mayson (2011) “businesses must adapt or die” and Ruhanen (2010) “innovate or

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available atwww.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

Received 15 March 2012Revised 17 October 2012

Accepted 21 June 2013

Journal of Management DevelopmentVol. 32 No. 9, 2013

pp. 945-959r Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0262-1711DOI 10.1108/JMD-03-2012-0037

945

Organizationaljustice andinnovation

deteriorate.” To adapt we first need to create the right climate where each member of theorganization feels accepted, respected and valued. Such a conducive work atmospherewill encourage employees to question the old established habits of doing work, thinkoutside of the box and explore new and innovative ways of getting the job done. In thiscontext Suliman (2007) argued that:

There is no doubt that some of the essential ingredients of survival in today’s global marketare productivity, quality, creativity and innovation [y] organisations which aim at survivingand competing in today’s global market should create and innovate (p. 210).

Likewise, Jong and Hartog (2007) tried to find out how leaders influence employees’innovative behaviour. They argued that although innovative behaviour is crucial inwork organizations it has received very little attention from researchers. Jong andHartog concluded that “one way for organizations to become more innovative is tocapitalize on their employees’ ability to be innovative” (p. 57). Thus, it can be arguedthat employees’ readiness to innovate is vital for the survival of work organizations,especially in the current turbulent global economic scenario.

Though there are some studies that examined justice in the workplace and itsassociation to some organizational constructs, still we know very little about how itinfluences innovation and readiness to innovate. To the best of the researcher’s knowledge,no study has attempted to examine as to how the perception of innovation climate is likelyto predict employees’ readiness to innovate. What is the role that organizational justiceplays in predicting the innovation climate and employees’ readiness to innovate? Hence,the current study will examine for the first time in work organizations, especially in theMiddle East (ME), the role of justice climate in shaping the atmosphere of innovation andreadiness to innovate. The paper will also explore the mediating role of innovation climatein justice-readiness to innovate relationship. This funded research project will test theselinks in an environment where the expatriates make for 90 percent of the total workforcewhich is another gap that this paper aims to bridge.

Literature reviewThe concept of organizational justice has been driven from different angles by differentresearchers. Generally speaking, employee perception of fairness in all organizationalprocedures, processes and practices is assumed to affect his/her behavior and otherwork outcomes. Most of the scholars (e.g. Forret and Love, 2008; Li and Cropanzano,2009) tend to agree on the multifaceted nature of this construct, and incline to cite threemain factors. Procedural justice which is concerned with the fairness of the processesby which decisions are made, distributive justice that refers to employee satisfaction withwork outcomes and interactional justice; which examines the nature of the relationshipsbetween superiors and subordinates. Innovation climate is the perceptions, feelings andattitudes that employees share about innovation in the workplace. The term “readinessto innovate” will be used in this study to refer to how prepared are the employees towillingly try new ways of doing things.

Some scholars have demonstrated that workplace justice is likely to predictemployees’ behaviours and attitudes (e.g. Cropanzano et al., 2001; Cropanzano andGreenberg, 1997). McFarlin and Sweeney (1992), for example, found it related to jobsatisfaction, Folger and Konovsky (1989) to commitment, Olkkonen and Lipponen(2006) to organizational identification, Moorman (1991) to organizational citizenshipbehaviour and Alder and Tompkins (1997) to performance and Forret and Love (2008)to coworker trust and morale. Spell and Arnold (2007) reported that the interactive

946

JMD32,9

effects of distributive and procedural justice climates significantly influence individualfeelings of both anxiety and depression. Thompson and Heron (2005, p. 383) arguedthat “the quality of the employment relationship is [y] central to knowledge workers’commitment, which in turn supports knowledge creation.” They found that propermanagement of interactional justice is important in maintaining levels of commitmentimportant for knowledge creation. Cropanzano et al. (2007) studied organizationaljustice and its role in work organizations. They concluded that it is important for boththe employers and employees and that if it is positively perceived it can lead to greatertrust, commitment and improved job performance. Similarly, Clark and James (1999)examined the role of justice in shaping creativity. They found that the employees whoshowed more positive perception of justice climate inclined to report significantlypositive creativity, whereas those who are unjustly treated reported negative creativity.

Gonz�alez-Rom�a et al. (2002) examined antecedents and moderator influences of climatestrength. They found that social interactions among employees showed a significant,positive relationship with climate strength in goals orientation and innovation climate.Gonz�alez-Rom et al. also uncovered that climate strength in innovation moderated theimpact of innovation climate on satisfaction and commitment. Suliman (2001) conducted astudy aimed at understanding the role of work climate in predicting innovation in a sampleof companies in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Findings showed that both are relatedand that fairness and employee-immediate supervisor relationship – factors of climate – arethe most important predictors of supervisor-rated innovation. Monge et al. (1992)explored the roles of “level of information and group communication” and “perceptions ofequity, expectations of benefits, and perceived social pressure” in predicting the numberof innovative ideas contributed by organizational members. Results revealed thatcommunication variables cause organizational innovation, while motivation variables not.

Ramamoorthy et al. (2005) developed and tested a causal model to predict innovativework behaviour (IWB). Findings uncover that IWB is significantly predicted byorganizational process of meritocracy, equity perceptions and procedural justiceperceptions. Suliman (2007) attempted to examine the nature, strength and significanceof the links between organizational justice, job satisfaction and work performance.He reported that employees’ perceptions of justice influence their work performance(innovation was a factor) and that job satisfaction plays a partial role in mediating thiseffect and influencing work performance. Suliman (2007) studied emotional intelligence(EI) and its links to conflict and innovation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).The study results indicated that frustration, goal conflict and role conflict are allnegatively and significantly related to readiness to create and innovate. Both self andmanager-rated EI were found to be significantly and positively related to innovation(r¼ 0.40, significance 0.00, for both). Patterson et al. (2004) argued that workatmosphere is shaped by people behavior and that:

[y] climates for creativity, innovation, safety, or service, for example, may be found in theworkplace. These climates represent employees’ perceptions of organizational policies,practices, and procedures, and subsequent patterns of interactions and behaviors thatsupport creativity, innovation, safety, or service in the organization (p. 381).

Patterson et al. found very strong correlations between “Innovation andFlexibility” (0.94) and between “Participation and Communication” (0.98), all factorof organizational climate. Likewise, Patterson et al. (2004) examined the link betweenorganizational climate and company productivity and the role of employee affect andemployee level in this relationship. They found that company productivity was more

947


strongly linked to elements of work climate that are related to job satisfaction.Patterson et al. also reported that superiors’ perception of work climate was found to bea significant predictor of organizational performance. In this context, Giberson et al.(2005) suggested that leaders in an organization are major contributors to thedevelopment of organizational environments. They found that managers in anorganization “embed their personality into the organizations they lead by surroundingthemselves with individuals who are similar to themselves” (p. 1007).

As the previous review of the literature exhibits, there is a general agreementamong scholars that how we manage justice in the workplace is likely to shape someimportant work outcomes such as commitment, satisfaction and performance. It isassumed that the positive feeling toward organizational procedures and processesas well as good relationships with superiors and co-workers are likely to createa conducive workplace that fosters loyalty and sense of belonging. This will in turnreflects positively on organizational outcomes including productivity and readinessto innovate. On the other hand, a few studies have attempted to examine how theperception of justice is likely to shape the innovation climate of the organization. But,unfortunately none of them was conducted in the ME nor examined the role ofinnovation climate in predicting employee readiness to create and innovate or its role inmediating the link between justice and innovation. The library search, both e-sourcesand hardcopies, revealed that plethora of studies is devoted to examine the impactof justice on employees’ work outcomes, including performance. However, the linksof justice-readiness to innovate, innovation climate-readiness to innovate and themediating role of innovation climate in justice-readiness to innovate relationshipremains unexplored.

The current study attempts to explore all these relationships and the said mediatingrole in one of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries – the UAE. To examine thelinks between the study variables, four hypotheses are developed. Since no study, to thebest of the researcher’s knowledge, attempted to explore these relationships, especiallyin a ME setting, the researcher opted to make them in null format:

H1. Organizational justice plays no significant role in influencing employees’perception of innovation climate.

H2. Organizational justice plays no significant role in predicting employees’readiness to innovate.

H3. Innovation climate plays no significant role in explaining the variance inemployees’ readiness to innovate.

H4. Innovation climate does not mediate the relationship between organizationaljustice and employees’ readiness to innovate.

MethodsSampleUsing a self-administered questionnaire; 1,000 employees were randomly selected andsurveyed in order to examine the study hypotheses. The participants were selectedfrom three Emirates, namely, Abu-Dhabi, Dubai and Sharjah, representing top, middleand bottom levels of management. Out of the 1,000 questionnaire distributed by theresearcher, only 875 were collected back, representing a response rate of 87.5 percent.

948

JMD32,9

Nonetheless, only 829 instruments out of the 875 were found to be suitable for dataanalysis, i.e. 46 instruments are excluded due to different reasons such as missing 25þpercent of the data and/or ticking more than one answer for all or part of the questions.Table I summarizes the backgrounds of the sample.

As can be seen from the table, the majority of respondents were female (731),married (554), have first degree or above (393) and were 35 years old or less (375). Themajority of them have seven years or less job tenure (390) and organizational tenure(365), work in the middle level of management (478), are Asian background (295) andwork in the private sector (420).

MeasuresThe study instrument was developed in English and translated into Arabic by theresearcher. The translated Arabic version of the instrument was translated back intoEnglish by a colleague who is an expert in both the languages, which was latercompared with the original English version. A few variations between the two versionswere found and corrected accordingly. The semi-final instrument was given to tenemployees, five Arabic and five English speaking, selected by the researcher to pilotand test it further. Given the feedback from the piloted employees the final instrumentwas prepared and sent out to the co-opted sample.

Demographic and career variables. Gender, marital status, age, education, tenure(job and organizational), job level and nationality are measured using four differentscales developed by the researcher, they ranged between two-point (e.g. gender) andsix-point for nationality as Table I shows.

Organizational justice. This variable is measured as follows:

(1) Distributive justice: measured with a five-point scale adapted from the distributivejustice index, developed by Price and Mueller (1986); and

(2) Procedural justice and interactional justice measured using a scale adaptedfrom Moorman (1991).

The total number of items in the scale was 25. Co-opted sample was told to respond tothese items using Likert’s five-point scale, e.g. considering my work responsibilities,I think that I am fairly rewarded; I have an opportunity to express my feelings whenmy performance is evaluated and my performance has been accurately assessed.

Innovation climate. This is the mediating variable in the current study. UsingLikert’s five-point scale this variable is measured using ten items instrument, e.g. I amencouraged to try new ways of doing things; I always feel free to question the waywork is done. The scale is developed by the researcher.

Readiness to innovate. This construct, dependent variable, is measured using a five-point scale composed of five items developed by the researcher, e.g. I am prepared totry new ways of doing work and I try to apply innovative methods when completingmy tasks. The instrument used to measure this construct is adapted from Suliman’s(2001) scale: “Are we ready to innovate? Work climate: Readiness to innovaterelationship: The case of Jordan.”

Whereas the “innovation climate” variable is an organizational level construct, i.e.shaped by organizational practices, actions, policies, procedures and rules, the“readiness to innovate” component is an individual level, i.e. how prepared andenthusiastic are the employees to innovate. The factor analysis of the SPSS software isapplied in order to examine the items of both variables and how they are distinct from

949


Gen

der

Mar

ital

stat

us

Ed

uca

tion

Ag

eO

rgan

izat

ion

alte

nu

reJo

bte

nu

reJo

ble

vel

Nat

ion

alit

yS

ecto

r

Mal

e73

1F

emal

e09

8M

arri

ed55

4N

on-m

arri

ed27

5H

igh

sch

ool

orle

ss22

1D

iplo

ma

215

Fir

std

egre

ean

dab

ove

393

35ye

ars

orle

ss37

536

-46

year

s26

947

year

san

dab

ove

185

7ye

ars

orle

ss39

08-

13ye

ars

253

14ye

ars

and

abov

e18

67

year

sor

less

365

8-13

year

s21

314

year

san

dab

ove

251

Top

lev

el11

4M

idd

lele

vel

478

Bot

tom

lev

el23

7E

mir

ate

nat

ion

al19

6A

rab

icn

atio

nal

233

Asi

ann

atio

nal

295

Eu

rop

ean

079

Am

eric

an02

0O

ther

006

Pri

vat

ese

ctor

420

Pu

bli

cse

ctor

409

Tot

al82

982

982

982

982

982

982

982

982

9

Table I.The description of thestudy sample

950

JMD32,9

one another. Both the principal factors component (PF) method and the varimaxrotation of the factor analysis were selected to run the test. The PF method producesparameter estimates that are the most likely to have produced the observed correlationif the sample is drawn from a multivariate normal population. Moreover, the varimaxmethod rotates to simplify the interpretation of factors. Table II below presents theresults of the factor analysis.

As Table II shows, the items of innovation climate and readiness to innovate loaded intwo different factors, i.e. F1 and F2. Meanwhile, items IC2, IC7 and IC9 of the innovationclimate were deleted as they scored loadings below 0.5. Likewise, item RI3 of readiness toinnovate is also deleted as it scored a loading below 0.50. Thus, it can be concluded that“innovation climate” and “readiness to innovate” are two separate constructs.

Study modelFigure 1 below presents the hypothesized links between independent, moderating andthe dependent variables of the study. As the model shows, justice and its three factorsprocedural, distributive and interactional are assumed to be related to readiness toinnovate, but this link is expected to be mediated by innovation climate. “Organisationaljustice” will be used in this paper to refer to the justice and fairness in all organizationalpolicies, procedures, rules and practices as perceived by employees. “Innovation climate”refers to how employees perceive management support regarding questioning currentwork habits and trying new ways/methods in doing work.

Whereas “readiness to innovate” refers to how prepared are the employees to thinkoutside the box and enthusiastic to create and innovate.

Itemsa Factor 1 Factor 2

IC1 0.5IC3 0.61IC4 0.53IC5 0.72IC6 0.55IC8 0.59IC10 0.82RI1 0.75RI2 0.69RI4 0.71RI5 0.54

Notes: aIC, innovation climate; RI, readiness to innovateTable II.

The factor analysis results

Procedural Justice

Distributive Justice

Interactional Justice

Innovation ClimateReadiness toCreate andInnovate

Figure 1.The study model

951


Findings and discussionsIn order to examine the study hypotheses the collected primary data are analyzedusing SPSS software. Both descriptive and inferential statistics are applied for thispurpose, i.e. frequency distribution, means, reliability test, correlation test, regressiontest and Baron and Kenny’s (1986) three-step process.

Means presented in Table III uncover that males showed more positive perceptionof procedural (3.2) and distributive (3.3) justice than females, whereas femalestend to perceive interactional justice (3.01) more positively than males. Marriedrespondents showed more positive perception of procedural (3.3), distributive(3.2) and interactional justice (3.5) than their non-married counterparts. Likewise,UAE nationals inclined to show more positive perception of procedural (3.7),distributive (3.8) and interactional justice (3.6) than expatriates (non-UAEnationals). Similarly, public sector employees exhibited more positive perceptionof procedural (3.01), distributive (3.6) and interactional justice (3.3) than privatesector employees.

Table III also reveals that male employees reported more positive perception ofinnovation climate (2.8) and higher readiness to innovate (3.1) compared to femalerespondents. Married respondents inclined to exhibit more positive perception ofinnovation climate (3.4) and higher readiness to innovate (3.3) compared to non-married employees. Workers in the private sector found to be more positive in theperception of innovation climate (3.1) and more ready to innovate (3.2) compared to theemployees in the public sector.

As Table IV presents, all the scales used in this study are highly reliable, they rangedbetween 0.71 for procedural justice and 0.91 for interactional justice. The results ofcorrelation analysis presented in Table IV show that organizational justice issignificantly and positively related to innovation climate, i.e. r¼ 0.63 (0.00). This meansthat organizational justice can explain up to 39.7 percent of variance in innovationclimate, and that the more positive the perception of justice in the organization the morepositive the perception of innovation climate. Hence, H1 is rejected.

This mirrors Suliman’s (2001) finding that climate perception is likely to be linkedto innovation. Since “one of the greatest challenges now facing organisations is todevelop an ongoing capacity to generate new ideas and put them into effectivepractice”, managers need to recognize the fact that employees’ perception of theirinnovation climate is shaped by their superiors’ practices and overall organization’spolicies and procedures.

Variables Gender Marital status Nationality Sector

Procedural justice Males: 3.4 Married: 3.3 UAE: 3.9 Private: 2.4Females: 2.4 Non: 2.8 NON: 2.5 Public: 3.01

Distributive justice Males: 3.3 Married: 3.2 UAE: 3.7 Private: 2.7Females: 2.9 Non: 2.7 NON: 2.6 Public: 3.6

Interactional justice Males: 2.9 Married: 3.5 UAE: 3.8 Private: 2.8Females: 3.01 Non: 3.0 NON: 2.4 Public: 3.3

Innovation climate Males: 2.8 Married: 3.4 UAE: 3.6 Private: 3.1Females: 2.6 Non: 2.6 NON: 2.5 Public: 2.6

Readiness to innovate Males: 3.1 Married: 3.3 UAE: 3.5 Private: 2.8Females: 2.8 Non: 2.8 NON: 2.6 Public: 3.2

Total 829 829 829 829Table III.Means of study variables

952

JMD32,9

Var

iab

les

Dis

trib

uti

ve

just

ice

Pro

ced

ura

lju

stic

eIn

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice

Inn

ovat

ion

clim

ate

Rea

din

ess

toin

nov

ate

Org

anis

atio

nal

just

ice

1.D

istr

ibu

tiv

eju

stic

e(0

.82)

2.P

roce

du

ral

just

ice

0.74

**(0

.71)

3.In

tera

ctio

nal

just

ice

0.46

**0.

75**

(0.9

1)

4.In

nov

atio

ncl

imat

e67

**0.

54**

0.71

**(0

.74)

5.R

ead

ines

sto

inn

ovat

e0.

61**

0.69

**74

**0.

81**

(0.8

6)

6.O

rgan

isat

ion

alju

stic

e0.

82**

84**

0.78

**0.

63**

0.71

**(0

.88)

Note

s:

**C

orre

lati

ons

sig

nif

ican

tat

0.01

.R

elia

bil

itie

sar

ein

par

enth

eses

Table IV.The relationships between

study variables

953


In order to see which factor of organizational justice plays the most important role inpredicting innovation climate, the correlation test is further applied. Table IV reveals thatall the factors of justice played significant and positive role in predicting innovationclimate. However, interactional justice (r¼ 0.71, 0.00) seems to play more important rolein this prediction than procedural justice (r¼ 0.54, 0.00) and distributive justice (r¼ 0.67,0.00). Interactional justice focusses on the behavior of the organization’s leaders, i.e. howthey carry out policies and procedures and treat those who are subject to their authority,decisions, and actions. Do supervisors allow workers to have a say in decisionmaking? Do they adequately communicate the ground rules of change? Are theyseen as fair or biased? What quality of communication they are having with theirsubordinates? And so on. The more happy the employees with the behaviors and/oractions of their superiors the more likely they will show a positive perception of theinnovation climate.

According to Asgari et al. (2008), it is not uncommon for employees to be asked to goabove and beyond the call of duty at work, but superiors should do their best to maintaina good dual relationship with their subordinates, increase organizational inflexibilitywith clarity about rules and procedures, more support of employees by employers, andincrease justice in workplace. They suggested that this could be accomplished by tradingemotion, loyalty and contribution with their subordinates, which eventually will improvethe relationships between superiors and subordinates. They concluded that fair andunbiased allocation of resources would promote the extra efforts of subordinates.

To examine the role of organizational justice in predicting employees’ readiness toinnovate (H1) the correlation test was also used. Table IV shows that the r value (0.71)is positive and highly significant. This means that justice has a positive and significantrelationship with employees’ readiness to innovate and that it can predict the variancein each other up to 50.4 percent.

To find out which component of justice played more important role in explainingthis variation in readiness to innovate the values of Pearson’s correlation (r) for thesefacets can be extracted from Table IV. Again interactional justice (r¼ 0.74, 0.00) playedmore significant role in this variation compared to distributive justice (r¼ 0.61, 0.00)and procedural justice (r¼ 0.69, 0.00). Given these findings, it can be concluded that H2is rejected and that justice is a significant predictor of readiness to innovate.

To explore the role of innovation climate in explaining the variance in employees’readiness to innovate the results of Table IV can be considered. The correlation value(r¼ 0.81) is positive and highly significant (0.00). This means that the more positivethe perception of innovation climate in the surveyed organizations the more prepared/ready is the employee to create and innovate. Given this result H3 is rejected.

To examine the role of innovation climate in mediating organizational justice-employees’ readiness to innovate relationship the mediated regression approach of Baronand Kenny’s (1986) three-step process is used. Tables V and VI show the summary of themediated regression results. Given these findings it can be suggested that the threemediation conditions are established. However, in the third equation the justice conceptremained highly significant (sig. t¼ 0.00). This indicates that the assumption of fullmediation is not indicated. Nevertheless, the effect of justice on readiness to innovate inthe third equation is diminished, i.e. the b-weight reduced from 0.71 in Equation (2) to0.60 in Equation (3), hence the possibility of partial mediation is indicated.

The mediating role was further examined using the correlation test. As the first partof Table VI shows, the correlation between justice and readiness to innovate is 0.63,however, when justice is controlled (second part) the correlation magnitude falls to

954

JMD32,9

0.60. Hence, innovation climate has partially mediated the justice and readiness toinnovate relationship. Given the results of the mediated regression and correlation test,it can be concluded that the null hypothesis is partially established. In other words,innovation climate does not fully mediate the relationship between justice and readinessto innovate; but it does play a partial role in this relationship. Put differently, justice playsa significant role in predicting employees’ readiness to try new ways of doing things.However, the magnitude of this effect is likely to increase in the presence of a supportiveinnovation climate. If employees are positive and satisfied with the organizationaljustice, the more likely to positively perceive the innovation climate which in turnincreases their readiness to create and innovate. Organizations these days incline to hireinnovative employees based on candidates’ vita and previous innovation experiences.However, if they hire them without creating the right justice and innovation climatesthe less likely that these new recruits will continue to act as change agents. Since workorganizations cannot predict the new recruits’ intention to innovate and that they simplydepend on some tests here and there; they should now strive to create just and fairworkplace that fosters innovation climate and increases readiness to innovate.

According to Suliman (2007) the unconducive work climate, e.g. full of negativeconflicts, mistrust and unjust, is likely “[y] to have negative influence on theirreadiness to create and innovate” (p. 218). In this context, Jong and Hartog (2007) foundthat organizations (leaders) can significantly influence employees’ innovation. Theyconcluded that the quality of the work environment in terms of superior-subordinates

No.Dependentvariable

Independentvariable b t-value

Significantt F-value

SignificantF

AdjustedR2

1 Innovationclimate

Justice 0.63 42.04 0.00 362.4 0.00 0.39

2 Readinessto innovate

Justice 0.71 49.45 0.00 551.7 0.00 0.50

3 Readinessto innovate

Justice 0.60 17.20 0.00 291.5 0.00 0.43

Innovationclimate

0.19 7.33 0.00

Table V.Results of the mediated

regression approachfor innovation climate

(justice-readinessto innovate)

Bivariate correlationOrganizational justice Innovation climate Readiness to innovate

Organizational justice 1.000Innovation climate 0.63 1.000

p¼ 0.00Readiness to innovate 0.63 0.81 1.000

p¼ 0.00 p¼ 0.00

Partial correlationOrganizational justice Innovation climate

Organizational justice 1.000Innovation climate 0.60 1.000

p¼ 0.00

Table VI.Results of the correlation

test between justice,innovation climate and

readiness to innovate

955


relationships, fairness of process and procedures are crucial for employees’ readiness toinnovate. In their words:

Given our findings, leaders trying to enhance individual innovation among their employeescould attempt to consult them more often, ensure that employees have sufficient autonomy indeciding how to go about their task, and support and recognize people’s initiatives andinnovative efforts. Creating a positive and safe atmosphere that encourages openness andrisk taking seems to encourage idea generation and application (p. 58).

Conclusions and recommendationsAll organizational justice components – procedural, distributive and interactionaljustice – played significant role in explaining the variance in employees’ perception ofinnovation climate. The more satisfied the employees with methods, procedures,policies [y], etc. of the organization and the quality of the relationships that they arehaving with their superiors the more prepared they will be to create and innovate.Further, innovation climate was found to play a significant yet a partial role inmediating the link between justice and readiness to innovate. This means that justicehas a direct relationship with readiness to innovate, however, this relationship can bepartially mediated by innovation climate.

Not by the bread alone. Organizations need to monitor and assess their policies,procedures, methods of distributing work loads, rewards, praises [y], etc. as well asthe quality of the relationships between superiors and subordinates on a regular basis.One way of doing this is through surveying their employees to get their views on theseissues rather than speculating or predicting them. There is a chance that employees’perception of fairness and that of their superiors to disagree. Therefore, there is a needto establish fairness and organizational justice from subordinates’ points of view.Managers need to understand that unless employees feel a balance between what theyare giving and what they are getting, positively perceive justice and fairness in allorganizational actions and practices they are very less likely to try new ways of doingtasks. Accordingly, the organization will lag behind and leave the place for those whoare able to create the right climate for innovation. It is time, especially under thecurrent global downturn, that employers be aware of their responsibility to instillcreativity and innovation in their employees. Generally speaking, there are five mainissues that cause organizational readiness to innovate (ORI), in practical employees’readiness to innovate, namely:

(1) employee readiness to innovation;

(2) co-workers’ relationship;

(3) the atmosphere in which co-workers act and interact;

(4) superior-subordinate’s relationship; and

(5) context (out side environment) readiness to innovation.

Managing the first four factors in the above list is the direct responsibility of employersand their superiors who should firmly believe in innovation and its vital role in successand survival. Further, apart from the improvement of human side of the organization tonurture innovation, organizations in the UAE may try to adopt some innovative workpractices. For example, flextime policy may help employees to strike a balance betweentheir organizational roles and other family and societal different roles; which maypositively reflects on their readiness to create and innovate.

956

JMD32,9

Researchers on the other hand, need to examine the effect of other organizationalfactors, e.g. leadership, on employees’ readiness to innovate as well as trying to developspecialized, reliable and valid measure/instrument for assessing ORI. Such measurescan be adopted by quality assessment organizations such as ISO, UKAS and DubaiQuality Award and used for assessing ORI. Given the current economic downturn, the“Rule of the Fittest Doctrine” is expected to be a very dominant player in the years tocome, i.e. only “fit” organizations will survive and all “unfit” ones will decline. It is timenow researchers redirect their efforts to focus on the survival and adaptation research,including innovation, to help work organizations to survive through the current andfuture global economic crisis.

References

Alder, G.S. and Tompkins, P.K. (1997), “Electronic performance monitoring: an organizationaljustice and concertive control perspective”, Management Communication Quarterly,Vol. 10, pp. 258-288.

Al-Swidi, A., Kaid, A. and Mahmood, R. (2011), “Enhancing a bank’s competitive advantagethrough the integration of TQM practices, entrepreneurial orientation (EO), andorganizational culture”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 299-313.

Asgari, A., Silong, A., Ahmad, A. and Abu Samah, B. (2008), “The relationship between leader-member exchange, organizational inflexibility, perceived organizational support,interactional justice and organizational citizenship behaviour”, African Journal of BusinessManagement, Vol. 2 No. 8, pp. 138-145.

Baron, R. and Kenny, D. (1986), “The moderator – mediator variable distinction in socialpsychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.

Clark, K. and James, K. (1999), “Justice and positive and negative creativity”, Creativity ResearchJournal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 311-320.

Cropanzano, R. and Greenberg, J. (1997), “Progress in organizational justice: tunneling throughthe maze”, in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Wiley, New York, NY, pp. 317-372.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. and Gilliland, G. (2007), “The management of organizational justice”,The Academy of Management Perspectives Archive, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 34-48.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z., Bobocel, D. and Rupp, D. (2001), “Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice”, Journal of VocationalBehavior, Vol. 58, pp. 164-209.

Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactionto pay raise”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-130.

Forret, M. and Love, M.S. (2008), “Employee justice perceptions and coworker relationships”,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 248-260.

Giberson, T., Resick, C. and Dickson, M.W. (2005), “Embedding leader characteristics:an examination of homogeneity of personality and values in organizations”, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 90 No. 5, pp. 1002-1010.

Gonz�alez-Rom�a, V., Peir�o, J. and Tordera, N. (2002), “An examination of the antecedents andmoderator influences of climate strength”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 3,pp. 465-473.

Jong, J. and Hartog, D. (2007), “How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour”,European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 41-64.

Li, A. and Cropanzano, R. (2009), “Fairness at the group level: justice climate and intraunit justiceclimate”, Journal of Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 564-599.

957


McFarlin, D. and Sweeney, P. (1992), “Distributive and procedural justice as predictors ofsatisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-637.

Mayson, S. (2011), “Businesses must ‘adapt or die, warns industry expert’ ”, Human ResourceManagement International Digest, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 34-35.

Monge, P., Cozzens, M. and Contractor, N. (1992), “Communication and motivational predictors ofthe dynamics of organizational innovation”, Organization Science, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 250-274.

Moorman, R. (1991), “Relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenshipbehaviors: do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?”, Journal AppliedPsychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 845-855.

Olkkonen, M. and Lipponen, J. (2006), “Relationships between organizational justice, identificationwith organization and work unit, and group-related outcomes”, Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, Vol. 100 No. 2, pp. 202-215.

Patterson, M., Warr, P. and West, M. (2004), Organizational Climate and Company Productivity:The Role of Employee Affect and Employee Level, (ISBN 0753017512), CEPDP, 626 Centrefor Economic Performance, London School of Economics and Political Science, London.

Patterson, M., Warr, M., Shackletonand, V., Dawson, J., Lawthom, R., Maitlis, S., Robinson, D. andWallac, A. (2004), “Validating the organizational climate measure: links to managerialpractices, productivity and innovation”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 26 No. 2,pp. 379-408.

Price, J. and Mueller, C. (1986), “Distributive justice”, in Price, J.L. and Muller, C.W. (Eds),Handbook of Organizational Measurement, Pitman, Cambridge, MA, pp. 122-127.

Ramamoorthy, N., Flood, P., Slattery, T. and Sardessai, R. (2005), “Determinants of innovativework behaviour: development and test of an integrated model”, Creativity and InnovationManagement, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 142-150.

Ruhanen, L. (2010), “Innovate or deteriorate: moving tourism education into the 21st century”,Tourism Recreation Research, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 75-80.

Spell, C. and Arnold, T. (2007), “A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate, structure,and employee mental health”, Journal of Management, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 724-751.

Suliman, A. (2001), “Are we ready to innovate? Work climate: readiness to innovate relationship:the case of Jordan”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 49-59.

Suliman, A. (2007), “Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the workplace:a survey in the UAE and Arabic context”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 26No. 4, pp. 294-311.

Thompson, M. and Heron, P. (2005), “The difference a manager can make: organizational justiceand knowledge worker commitment”, The International Journal of Human ResourceManagement, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 383-404.

Further reading

Al-Sheikh, F. and Suliman, A. (2003), “Utilization of creative problem solving techniques indeveloping countries: the case of the United Arab Emirates”, International Journal ofApplied Human Resource Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 66-82.

Black, S. and Lynch, L. (2004), “What’s driving the new economy? The benefits of workplaceinnovation”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 114 No. 493, pp. F97-F116.

Fahr, J., Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1990), “Accounting for organizational citizenship behavior:leader fairness and task scope versus satisfaction”, Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 1,pp. 705-722.

Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,Sage, Beverley Hills, CA.

958

JMD32,9

Greenberg, J. (1996), The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments, Sage,Thousand Oaks, CA.

Johnson, R. and Chang, C. (2008), “Relationships between organizational commitment and itsantecedents: employee self-concept matters”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 38No. 2, pp. 513-541.

Kim, W. and Mauborgne, R. (1998), “Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and theknowledge economy”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19 No. 4, pp. 323-338.

Moenaert, R., Caeldries, F., Lievens, A. and Wauters, E. (2003), “Communication flows ininternational product innovation teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 360-377.

Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), “Justice as a mediator of the relationship betweenmethods of monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior”, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-556.

Robert, E., Peter, F. and Valerie, D. (1990), “Perceived organizational support and employeediligence, commitment, and innovation”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 1,pp. 51-59.

Sauermann, S. and Cohen, W. (2010), “What makes them tick? Employee motives and firminnovation”, Management Science, Vol. 56 No. 12, pp. 2134-2153.

Suliman, A. and Al-Sheikh, F. (2007), “Emotional intelligence and work outcomes: a MiddleEastern perspective”, Employee Relations, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 208-220.

Corresponding authorDr Abubakr Suliman can be contacted at: [email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

959


Organizational justice and innovation in the workplace: the case of the UAE

Documents

Transcript of Organizational justice and innovation in the workplace: the case of the UAE