Procedural Fairness, Public Service Motives, and Employee Work Outcomes: Evidence From Pakistani Public Service Organizations

• Author: Meghna Sabharwal,Samina Quratulain,Abdul Karim Khan
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17718029
• Published date: 01 June 2019
• Date: 01 June 2019

718029ROPXXX10.1177/0734371X17718029Review of Public Personnel AdministrationQuratulain et al.
research-article2017
Article
Review of Public Personnel Administration
2019, Vol. 39(2) 276 –299
Procedural Fairness, Public
© The Author(s) 2017
Article reuse guidelines:
Service Motives, and
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X17718029
DOI: 10.1177/0734371X17718029
journals.sagepub.com/home/rop
Employee Work Outcomes:
Evidence From Pakistani
Public Service Organizations
Samina Quratulain1, Abdul Karim Khan2,
and Meghna Sabharwal3
Abstract
Studies in public administration hypothesize the direct effect of public service
motivation (PSM) on employee attitudes and behavior. We examine the relationship
between public employees’ perceptions of procedural fairness on job satisfaction
and organizational commitment, and propose the moderating effect of PSM
dimensions on the aforementioned relationships. Using a sample of 232 respondents
drawn from multiple public service organizations, our findings indicate a positive
relationship between procedural fairness perceptions and employee work outcomes
(job satisfaction and organizational commitment). PSM dimensions of attraction to
policy making (rational motive) and public interest (normative motive) moderate
the relationship between procedural fairness and employee outcomes. However,
their effect was significant only for individuals who experienced low levels of these
motivations. The moderating effect of compassion (affective motive) was significant
for individuals possessing high level of compassion. The implications and future
research directions are discussed.
Keywords
procedural fairness, public service motivation, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment
1University of Sharjah, UAE
2UAE University, Al Ain, UAE
3The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, USA
Corresponding Author:
Abdul Karim Khan, Assistant Professor, College of Business and Economics, UAE University, Office 2008,
Building H-3, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Road, Al Ain, UAE.
Email: abdul.karim@uaeu.ac.ae

---

Quratulain et al.
277
Introduction
Personnel procedures are important for employees as they provide protection against
arbitrary personnel decisions; thus, the effective implementation of these procedures
ensures the functioning of a merit system. Public managers are increasingly concerned
with the challenge of development and implementation of personnel procedures that are
perceived as both accurate and equitable for the employees. The accurate and fair
implementation of personnel procedures influences important work-related attitudes
and behaviors, for example, organizational commitment, job satisfaction, intrinsic
motivation, turnover intention, and individual/organizational performance (Cohen-
Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001; Simons &
Roberson, 2003). Procedural fairness is considered important because it serves as a
heuristic for employees to trust their organization and supervisors (Alexander &
Ruderman, 1987; Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001). Research evidence sug-
gests that people can experience dissatisfaction even with favorable outcomes when
allocation of these outcomes is based on unjust procedures (Lind & Tyler, 1988).
Conversely, people are willing to accept unfavorable outcomes (e.g., lower salary raise,
denied promotion, or training opportunity) if the allocation is based on fair and just
procedures. These arguments make procedural fairness important for public service
organizations where allocation is made in a world of limited resources (Rubin, 2009).
Realizing the importance of the concept of procedural fairness in public service
organizations, we see a recent surge of studies in public administration literature
examining the direct relationship between procedural fairness and organizational out-
comes (Choi, 2011; Feeney & Langer, 2016; Hassan, 2013; Kim & Holzer, 2016; Ko
& Hur, 2014; Rubin, 2009; Rubin & Kellough, 2012; Rubin & Weinberg, 2016).
Although these studies suggest that public service employees respond positively to
procedural fairness, still little is known about the individual’s variability in these
responses. This is the key question we aim to address in this research.
We build on public service motivation (PSM) and procedural fairness literatures to
study organizational outcomes of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We
argue that a variety of work-related behaviors among public servants may stem from
an intrinsic need, normative pressure, and/or self-interest (Le Grand, 2003, 2010).
These individual differences in terms of PSM dimensions of “attraction to policy mak-
ing,” “commitment to public interest,” and “compassion” can strengthen/weaken the
procedural fairness and work–outcomes relationship. We suggest that employees hav-
ing high levels of “attraction to policy making” and “commitment to public interest”
motives care for procedures as important means to achieve outcomes that promote
their interests. Similarly, employees with high level of “compassion” carry the notion
of doing more than meeting minimum job performance standards, so they will respond
more favorably to procedural fairness.
While answering this question, we make significant theoretical and practical con-
tributions to the extant literature. First, we integrated two distinct, yet related litera-
tures on procedural fairness and PSM. This integration offers additional insights for
procedural fairness and employee outcome relationships. Specifically, we take the first

---

278
Review of Public Personnel Administration 39(2)
step in exploring the boundary conditions of procedural fairness and work–outcomes
relationship in public personnel management. Second, most of the research on proce-
dural fairness and PSM has been conducted in the West (Van der Wal, 2015). We
conducted this study in a non-Western context, that is, Pakistan, where the public sec-
tor is undergoing numerous changes and emphasis is placed on emulating private sec-
tor’s best practices such as rewarding, disciplining, and terminating employees while
introducing a performance-driven culture. Our findings will also add to the evidence
of generalizability of existing findings on procedural fairness and PSM. Third, we
conceptualized and operationalized PSM at the dimension level (i.e., attraction to pol-
icy making, commitment to public interest, and compassion). Thus far, we found only
one study (Taylor, 2007) that operationalized PSM at the dimensional level. The ben-
efit of studying PSM at the dimension level is that it helps in identifying employees
with different motives. Recently, Perry and Vandenabeele (2015) also stressed the
need to conduct more research on the individual dimensions of PSM, because indi-
vidual dimensions are important in their own right. Fourth, in practical terms, our
findings will help public sector managers to understand the role of procedural fairness
as an effective leadership tool that may help in motivating employees and manage the
challenges of providing an equitable work environment.
Literature Review
Procedural Fairness in the Context of Public Service Organizations
Procedural fairness refers to the perceived fairness of the procedures by which organi-
zations and supervisors make allocation decisions (Tyler, 1998). Public sector organi-
zations are characterized by law-based procedures, impersonal rules, and imposition
of due process requirements on personnel decisions. These characteristics give legiti-
macy to the organization and its decisions. The presence of due process requirements
create disincentive for managers to discipline or terminate the poor performers.
Franklin and Pagan (2006) suggested that organizations develop informal mechanisms
to discipline or terminate poor performing employees, thus circumventing the rules
made to protect the employees and treat them fairly. Similarly, public personnel schol-
ars suggest that procedural requirements can make personnel decisions legally defen-
sible but they lack sound interpersonal management (Rainey, 1997). Cooper (2000)
also echoed the same concern that “management with a strong basis in due process
[leads to] effective internal agency management. Clearly, organizational morale is sig-
nificantly better where there is a sense that managers operate fairly” (p. 219).
In addition to legitimacy, procedural requirements may lead to negative results.
Some organizational decisions are considered legally defensible but they do not
advance the true purpose of public service (Rainey, 1997; Sitkin & Bies, 1994). This
is actually a dilemma of the red tape where “one person’s red tape is another’s trea-
sured procedural safeguard” (Kaufman, 1977, p. 4). Strong reliance on the fulfill-
ment of administrative due processes acts as a major form of control but it may
conflict with the goals of efficiency and effectiveness, thus affecting the morale of

---

Quratulain et al.
279
employees who may attribute this to procedural unfairness (Cooper, 2000). Similarly,
research evidence suggests that an overreliance on meeting due process require-
ments is not sufficient to foster a procedurally fair work environment (Skarlicki &
Latham, 1996). The compliance of multiple procedures, rules, and regulations serve
as a guiding principle of administrative behavior in public organizations but the
employees of these organizations often exhibit varied levels of procedural fairness
perceptions...