A Study on Distributive and Procedural Justice of Flight Attendant

Abstract

Purpose: This study demonstrated and analyzed the role of distributive justice and procedural justice in explaining the organizational effectiveness of flight attendant. In addition, analyzing the role of the airline type in the coordination between reward justice and organizational effectiveness. Research design, data and methodology: An abstract is the impact relationship between the reward justice and organizational effectiveness of flight attendant and the adjustment effect of the airline type was reviewed. To examine these research models, samples were collected from 281flight attendants during Nov, 2019. Results: Reward justice has a positive effect on organizational effectiveness, and the types of airlines have a meaningful adjustment effect in terms of the effect of reward justice on organizational effectiveness. Conclusions: Procedural justice and distributive justice have positive influence on two sub factors of organizational effectiveness of the flight attendant. It suggests that the standards, procedures and processes of compensation must be fair, the degree of effort, the stress or the tension of the flight attendant should be considering, and it is necessary for the airline to respect the personality of the flight attendant and provide them with accurate compensation information in a timely manner. This will increase the awareness of reward.

1. Introduction

In a rapidly changing society, individuals and organizations, who are members of an organization, are engaged in constant interaction, but the underlying relationship can be identified from the perspective of reward. Individuals will provide labor for the organization and receive reward in return, which includes monetary reward of wages and non-monetary rewards such as benefits. The reward process creates problems that individuals can perceive.

Members perceive fairness by comparing the rewards that receive from the company for their duties and judge fairness by comparing their reward with their peers. Organizations should increase the organizational effectiveness, which is the resulting variable of fairness, in order to achieve high. Organizational members' mindset and satisfaction with their organization will have a lot of effect on the organizational effectiveness.

Therefore, this study demonstrated and analyzed the role of distributive justice and procedural justice in explaining the organizational effectiveness of flight attendant. In addition, analyzing the role of the airline type in the coordination between reward justice and organizational effectiveness may, depending on the characteristics of the organization structure, provide meaningful implications for inducing job satisfaction and commitment in the organization and for establishing an efficient membership strategy.

2. Literature Reviews

2.1. Reward Justice

Justice refers to the perception that all decision-making processes are being conducted fairly, to the extent that the means or procedures used to determine the total amount of reward are recognized, which is a widely studied concept in terms of enhancing job productivity by inducing organizational effectiveness of employees in the field of corporate organizational management and human resource management (Yim, 2017). In this regard, employees of an enterprise organization say that the more they perceive fairness in the organization, the more effective they are in the organization, such as respect for themselves, satisfaction with their duties, and commitment in the organization. It would be important to note how fairly employees perceive the reward system in order to have the net functional effect of the employee receiving reward as much as they have worked (Yang & Tasnuva, 2009).

In the end, the employee's perception of how fair compensation is will affect their work's positive state of mind, their pride and integrity in the organization, and their trust between users and employees (Yim, 2017).

As Murphy et al. (2003), this study defines reward justice as being perceived to be fair about the extent of reward received by organizational members and to the extent that they feel about the means and processes to determine the amount of reward, and sees it as distributive justice and procedural justice

2.1.1. Distributive Justice

Justice in distributing performance, results, or achievements is called distributive justice, and is based on the three laws of equity, equality and necessity. The principle of equity distribution is that organizational members should be rewarded according to their contribution to any performance or outcome, and the law of equal distribution is that all members should be given equal opportunities for reward without being distinguished by any characteristic such as ability, and the required distribution law should be distributing according to the personal needs of employees. These distribution rules are based on values, so it is difficult to judge which is right, which is wrong, but they can be applied to different distribution rules or they can resolve differences of opinion on justice through consensus among members (Widener, 2005).

2.1.2. Procedural Justice

Procedural Justice can be defined as the perceived impartiality reward. Although the concepts vary slightly from scholar to scholar, the concept of procedural justice can be summed up to indicate the degree of perception about whether the members' reward, promotion and evaluation processes have been carried out fairly (Thanh & Toan, 2018). According to prior studies, procedural justice has been reported as important elements affecting organizational-related outcome variables such as organizational commitment, recognition of organizational support, and organizational civic action.

2.2. Organizational Effectiveness

Organizational effectiveness is the basis for evaluating an organization's performance by indicating how well the organization's goals are achieved and how effectively it is being operated. Organizational effectiveness a criterion for assessing organizational performance in a concept that represents the effectiveness of organizational operations; defined organizational effectiveness as a psychological state caused by self-awareness of job satisfaction and claimed that it is a component of job satisfaction that relates to colleagues, innovative values, fairly shared work environment (Oh & Tak, 2016).

2.2.1. Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction depends on individual beliefs, values and attitudes, and is an emotional one you can feel in relation to your job or job environment, not an activity or behavior. Job Satisfaction is defined as individual positive feelings regarding his job (Jalal, Zeb, & Fayyaz, 2019).

Cho (2015) argued that the study to verify the relationship with variables that affect job satisfaction is significant because the degree of job satisfaction not only affect individual job attitude but also company perfomance. Therefore, the study argued that job insecurity could negatively effect on workers' job satisfaction and that members' job satisfaction would be compromised if job insecurity, a pressure from the environment, was triggered.

2.2.2. Organizational Commitment

Suong, Thanh, Dinh, and Dao (2020) said that organizational commitment is important to create actions that are oriented toward an organization's performance. It said that organizational commitment includes deep trust and affection for the goals and values that the organization is aiming for, the willingness to constantly strive for the achievements of the organization, and the powerful desire to remain in the organization. In order to increase organizational commitment, the organization's culture and atmosphere, the perspective of colleagues and bosses working together, and the external assessment of its work should be recognized as important. It also said that increased organizational commitment can result in higher organizational effectiveness.

Koys (2001) said that organizational effectiveness is the attitude and attachment of an organization member to the organization. They also said that the vision of an organization includes how much members agree with it, and the loyalty and affection of its members. Emotional attachment to the organization, the cost of moving, and the sense of duty to remain in the organization are one of the reasons for organizational commitment.

2.3. The Relationship Between Reward Justice and Organizational Effectiveness

Wolfe, Nix, Kaminski, and Rojek (2015)'s study stated that there is a correlation between reward satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. The research is showing that when an organization experiences unfairness that does not provide adequate external reward, the employee's perception of career identity increases.

A survey of local government employees by Park and Yoon (2009) showed that distribution justice has the greatest influence on job satisfaction, also interaction fairness has a constant impact on organizational commitment. Kim and Kim (2015) argues that in relation to organizational effectiveness, such as belief in one's job performance and organizational commitment, emotional propensity for one's competence is explained as an important predictor for organizational commitment. Fu and Deshpande (2013) also analyzed the impact of organizational innovation on job commitment and organizational commitment by employees' attitudes toward various rewards, and found that the negative attitude of employees reduces job commitment and organizational commitment.

In this study, the following assumptions were established to reveal the relationship between the reward justice and the organizational effectiveness of for flight attendants.

H1: The higher the perceptual level of reward justice, the level of job satisfaction will be higher.

H1-1: The higher the perceptual level of distributive justice, the level of job satisfaction will be higher.

H1-2: The higher the perceptual level of procedural justice, the level of job satisfaction will be higher.

H2: The higher the perceptual level of reward justice, the level of organizational commitment will be higher.

H2-1: The higher the perceptual level of distributive justice, the level of organizational commitment will be higher.

H2-2: The higher the perceptual level of procedural justice, the level of organizational commitment will be higher.

H3: The airline type will be modulated in relation to reward justice and organizational effectiveness.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Model

Flight attendants are the workforce that elicits customer satisfaction at a very close point. In this regard, to maximize the organization's objectives, we must devise ways to increase the organizational effectiveness of the airline's.

So, we would like to study the rewards that can increase the organizational effectiveness of airline flight attendants subject to the study.

The study presented the same research model as Figure1 to examine the relationship between the reward justice and organizational effectiveness of flight attendant and the effect of regulating airline types.

Figure 1: Research Model

Subject to the study were the crew members of Korean Air, Asiana Airlines and LCC Airlines. The survey was collected through self-entering, and a total of 296 questionnaires were retrieved during the Nov, 2019, of which 281 were sampled.

3.2. Measurement of Variable

3.2.1. Reward Justice

In this study, the reward justice was divided into sub parameters of distributive justice and procedural justice, and the distributive justice was focused on the fairness of distribution, which plays a significant role in the outcome in individual tasks such as wages and promotions, to complement the measures cited in the study by Yim (2017) and Vuolo, Wright, and Lindsay (2019) to measure a total of four paragraphs on a 5 scale of Likert.

3.2.2. Organizational Effectiveness

In this study, organizational effectiveness is defined as a guideline for the success of an organization, indicating the level of goal achievement and the degree to which the organization continues to develop through the performance of its employees and productivity improvement. The survey items on organizational effectiveness were selected as four items of job satisfaction and four items of organizational commitment by Oh and Tak (2016), Lee (2019), used in the research by Cho (2015), and measured using the 5 scale of Likert.

4. Results

4.1. The Demographic Characteristics

The demographic analysis of 281 samples is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics

4.2. Feasibility and Reliability of Data

The validity of the measurement tools was assessed through the concentration and validity of the judgement and internal consistency assessments were conducted for reliability evaluation based on Cronbach's α coefficients. To ensure this constructability and reliability, this study conducted a positive factor analysis using AMOS 18.0 and a reliability analysis using SPSS 18.0.

The results of the verification factor analysis are shown in Table 2. For the suitability of the measurement model, the values are 245.032 (df=98, p=.000) indicates nonconformity, but this is not the only reason for the sensitivity of the sample size and the number of observations, and hence the appropriateness of the consideration of the absolute compliance index and the simplified conformance index was diagnosed. The model‘s goodness-of-fit results showed that the AGFI figure was below the threshold, but was generally considered acceptable because it was above the threshold (/df=2.500, RMR=.046, GFI=.909, AGFI=815, NFI=.955, TLI=.936, CFI=.975, RMSEA=.052). In addition, the value of the standardized factor load carrying capacity of all measurement items was 0.5 or higher, and the AVE and CCR suggested by Fornell and Larcker (1981) meet the criteria of AVE>0.5 and CCR> 0.7, which are sufficient to determine the validity of the study. The Cronbach's α coefficient for all conceptions was 0.7 or higher. The reliability of the measured items was ensured.

Table 2: Verification Factor Analysis

X²=245.032(df=98, p=.000), X²/df=2.500, RMR=.046, GFI=.909, AGFI=.815, NFI=.955, TLI=.936, CFI=.975, RMSEA=.052

***: p<.001

Finally, the relationship between all potential variables appears to be less than the value of 0.7. There is no need to question the porosity. Like shown in Table 3, the AVE value for potential variables is greater than the square value of the correlation between potential variables. Therefore, it was deemed that the judgement justification between the concepts of each component would be established. In addition, the directions of the relationship between the concepts of each component is a positive relationship that coincides with the directions of the hypothesis built in this study, which establishes the legitimacy of the law. Therefore, it was deemed sufficient to justify the measurement tools in this study.

Table 3: Verification of Discriminant Feasibility and Legal Feasibility

a: AVE Value, b: Two-variable relationship formula (R²).

4.3. Hypothesis Verification

Table 4 shows an analysis of the structural model for the hypothesis. For goodness of fit in this study, the values are 250.666(df=99, p=.000). As with the confirmation factor analysis, it was indicating nonconformities. However, the sensitivity of the sample size and number of observation variables led to the diagnosis of the suitability of the absolute compliance index and the consideration of the incremental convergence index, as well as the significance of the conformity. The GFI and AGFI values were found to be below the threshold but were generally higher than the threshold, which was determined to be acceptable (/df=2.532, RMR=.048, GFI=.904, AGFI=.812, NFI=.949, TLI=.930,CFI=.969, RMSEA=.053).

Meanwhile, 96.7% of the sub-factor of the compensation process for job satisfaction was described as "distributive justice" and "procedural justice." The sub-factor of reward justice for organizational commitment, namely distributive procedural process, was also very high at 75.0%.

4.3.1. The Relationship between Reward Justice and Job Satisfaction

Table 4 also Figure 2 show the results of the verifications of the effect of distribution process and procedural process, which are sub-factors of H1 organizational commitment, on job satisfaction, which are sub-factors of organization effectiveness. Standardized path coefficients for the effects of H1-1 distributive process on job satisfaction. It was shown to be very high at .974, with t=8.991 (p<.001) having a statistically significant effect. Therefore, H1-1 was adopted. The standardized path coefficient for the effect of H1-2 on task satisfaction was shown as .133, and t=3.192(p<.01), which has a statistically significant effect. Therefore, H1-2 was adopted.

4.3.2. The Relationship between Reward Justice and Organizational Commitment

Table 4 also Figure 2 show the results of the verifications of the effect of distribution process and procedural process, which are sub-factors of H2, on organizational commitment, which is a sub-factor of organizational effectiveness. The standardized path coefficient for the effects of H2-1 distribution process on organizational commitment was very high at .841, with t=5.751(p<.001) showing a statistically significant effect. Therefore, H2-1 was adopted.

Table 4: Structural Equation Model Analysis Results

X² Value 250.666(df=99 p=.000), X²/df=2.532, RMR=.048, GFI=.904, AGFI=.812, NFI=.949, TLI=.930, CFI=.969, RMSEA=.053

*** p<.001, a: Squared Multiple Correlations

Figure 2: Structural Equation Model Analysis Results

Standardization path coefficient in the effect of H2-2 procedural process on organizational commitment .205, t=3.582 (p<.001). H2-2 was adopted as it appeared to have a statistically significant effect.

4.3.3. Airline Type Adjustment Effectiveness

To verify differences according to airline type with H3, a comparison between the groups of FSC(Full Service Carrier)s and LCC(Low Cost Carrier)s analyzed the adjustment effect of the airline type in the relationship between potential factors. To this end, this study conducted a comparison of the variation in the χ² value between the non-pharmaceutical model and the freedom of the pharmaceutical model and compared the path coefficients of potential factors between the airline types as show in Table 5.

Table 5: Airline Type Adjustment Effect

***:p<.001

The FSC's standardized path coefficient in relation to the impact of distributive justice and job satisfaction is shown as 994, and C.R=11.462 (p<.001) showed that distributive justice significantly positive affects FSC staff members' job satisfaction. In addition, the LCC's standardized path coefficient was shown to be .982 and C.R=2.945(p<.01), indicating that distributive justice significantly positive affects job satisfaction. On the other hand, the differences in χ² values between models that constrain the impact of distribution justice and job satisfaction was 8.725, larger than the 3.84 threshold for freedom 1 variation, indicating a significant difference in the relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction between types of airlines. Therefore, H3-1 was adopted.

In the context of the impact of procedural justice and job satisfaction, the standardized path coefficient of the FSC was shown as .025 and C.R=.485(p>.0.05), indicating that procedural justice does not significantly affect job satisfaction for the staff of the FSC staff. In addition, the LCC's standardized path coefficient was found to be .167, and C.R=2.066(p<.05), indicating that the procedural justice has an important effect on job satisfaction of the LCC's staff.

On the other hand, the differences in χ² values between models that constrain the impact of procedural justice and job satisfaction was 3.051, which is less than the threshold of 3.84 for freedom 1 variation, indicating that there is no significantly positive differences in the impact of procedural justice and the impact of job satisfaction. Therefore, H3-2 was rejected.

In relation to the influence of distributive justice and organization commitment, the standardized path coefficient of FSC was found to be .831, and C.R=6.696 (p,05), indicating that the distributive justice does not significantly affect the organizational commitment to employees of the LCC. Meanwhile, the differences in values between the models that constrain the relationship between the distributive justice and the effect of the organization commitment was 7.725, larger than the χ² threshold of 3.84 for the change in freedom 1 and showed significantly positive differences between the types of airlines. Therefore, H3-3 was adopted.

The FSC's standardized path coefficient in relation to the impact of procedural justice and organizational commitment is .223, C.R=3.723(p.05), indicating that procedural justice does not significantly affect the organizational commitment for LCC staff. The differences in values for models that constrain the impact of procedural justice and organizational commitment was 6.634, larger than the χ² threshold of 3.84 for freedom 1 variation, indicating that there is significantly meaningful differences between the types of airlines between the impact of procedural justice and organizational commitment. Therefore, H3-4 was adopted.

5. Conclusions

This study has verified through empirical analysis that the organization‘s reward justice for improving the performance of the organization and managing competent personnel by utilizing limited resources is affecting organizational effectiveness. To this end, the concept of reward justice and the preceding studies were reviewed, and empirical analysis was conducted by setting up a research model design and research theory on the effect of procedural justice and distributive justice on organizational effectiveness in reward justice.

First implication for study has been shown that procedural and distributive justice in reward justice have a positive effect on job satisfaction also organizational commitment of the flight attendant. This means that the standards, procedures and processes of compensation must be fair in order to be a satisfactory reward for the flight attendant, and that responsibility, degree of effort, stress or strain must be considered, and especially, it is necessary for the airline to respect the flight attendant‘s personality and provide employees with accurate reward information.

Second, it has been shown that the types of airlines have a regulating effect on the effectiveness of their organization. This means that the flight attendant will contribute to organizational development and increase their sense of belonging if duties and organizational rewards are properly fulfilled depending on the type of organization of the airline.

In particular, unlike LCCs, it is important for FSCs to form an organizational culture that can perceive the fairness of procedures highly. In other words, in order to elicit job satisfaction and organizational commitment of flight attendants through reward justice, the airline must show much interest in the task and treat the flight attendants fairly and without discrimination or prejudice in the course of their work. In addition, the company must provide to its employees. with accurate information at an appropriate time, such as the form of compensation, the amount of compensation and the timing of compensation.

Third, the greater the perception that distribution is fair, the higher the voluntary action to contribute to the organization. Since the work of the flight attendant is often completed through a common teamwork, support and cooperation between the flight attendant members are essential at each stage of the task. In this process, there will be a willingness and action to respect the roles and rights of each other and to complete the task while preventing disorganization. Fourth, if the standards, procedures and processes related to job-related compensation are already sufficiently perceived by employees through in-house briefings, promulgation of compensation regulations, and deliberation committees, they can be considered important factors that can affect flight attendant satisfaction and organizational commitment.

This study provides several meaningful implications: First, it has been demonstrated that it should be a 'fair reward‘ as in implementing the reward justice. In other words, details of compensation, such as the form of compensation, the criteria for determining compensation amount, etc., shall be fully notified to the flight attendant members in advance, and the details of compensation, such as the amount determined, shall be consulted with the flight attendant on the preparation or modification of the compensation provisions, and benefit made by the flight attendant to the compensation amount should be taken into account. In other words, the compensation form, the compensation amount and other relevant information, such as the compensation amount, should be provided in a straightforward and transparent manner through smooth communication with the flight attendant, taking into account the responsibilities, experience and performance of the crew when the reward or distribution is made. Second, the compensation level should be met by the expectations of flight attendants. In order to induce voluntary actions by flight attendants to contribute and contribute to the organization and function so that the level of compensation is sufficient for flight attendant responsibilities, effort, and stress, etc. To this end, detailed and specific contribution calculation criteria should be established and reflected in order to clearly determine the contribution level, which is a key elements in determining the compensation level, or the compensation level through an objective and reliable evaluation process.

Third, while existing studies have analyzed the relationship between compensation fairness and organizational effectiveness in general compensation for performance, this study will be different from previous studies because it has examined the relationship between justice and organizational effectiveness in compensation for the intellectual and mental contributions of flight attendants and demonstrated that they are influencing each other.

The limitations of this study are first, it may be difficult to produce generalized results because the survey respondents are based on subjective experience and sentiment. Second, the survey targets only the flight attendant of some airlines, so it has limitations to represent the flight attendant of all airlines. This is expected to be improved by further research.

The study was written with the support of a research fund from Hanseo University.