Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, Volume 19, Issue 1, 2024
The Interplay among Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice,
Self-Efficacy, and Career Satisfaction: A Cross-Sectional Study
Md. Sahedur Rahman
Department of Management Studies, Comilla University
Cumilla-3506, Bangladesh
Email: sahedmgt@cou.ac.bd
Abstract
This study investigates the role of self-efficacy as a mediator in the association between distributive justice,
procedural justice, and career satisfaction. By utilizing a simple random sampling technique, 440 responses were
collected through a pre-tested questionnaire from employees of commercial banks in Bangladesh. The data
analysis was conducted via the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) methodology,
employing the Smart PLS 4.0.9.2v software as a tool. The researchers employed a quantitative research
approach in order to evaluate the validity of the conceptual framework. The findings of the study indicate that
there is a favourable impact of distributive justice and procedural justice on individuals' levels of career
satisfaction. The findings of this study suggest that self-efficacy plays a mediating role in the association
between distributive justice, procedural justice, and career satisfaction. This research has the potential to assist
banks in enhancing their Human Resources (HR) policies, specifically in the areas of performance-based
rewards, promotion criteria, and decision-making processes. By doing so, banks can ensure a greater degree of
fairness and transparency, which in turn could contribute to increased employee satisfaction, engagement, and
overall long-term success.
Keywords: distributive justice, procedural justice, self-efficacy, career satisfaction
Copyright: The Author(s) - This paper is published by the International Journal of Business Science and
Applied Management under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Our journal is an open
access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge. Users are allowed to read,
download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful
purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information about this
paper and our journal visit our website.
Submitted: 2023-09-19 / Accepted: 2024-03-07 / Published: 2024-03-09
Md. Sahedur Rahman
31
1. INTRODUCTION
The banking sector is widely regarded as a critical provider of services and the economic backbone (Karim
& Chowdhury, 2021; Hussain et al., 2023). The success of banks is primarily contingent upon the calibre and
proficiency of their employees (Cherif, 2020; Anwar & Sarfraz, 2023). Researching career satisfaction within
the banking industry is of utmost importance due to its direct impact on customer satisfaction through the
facilitation of employee satisfaction (Hong et al., 2020; Nabi et al., 2017; George & Zakkariya, 2015).
Conversely, the absence of employee happiness may lead to employee attrition (Nham et al., 2023; Desta et al.,
2022; Permatasari & Sriathi, 2021; Ng & Salamzadeh, 2020).
The investigation of the antecedents of career satisfaction is currently a well-explored topic in the field of
organizational behaviour (Osei et al., 2023). It is a multidimensional construct influenced by various
organizational factors, including organizational justice (Gori et al., 2020). Research in various contexts has
consistently demonstrated that organizational justice significantly impacts employee outcomes, such as career
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and performance (Capone et al., 2023; Jilili & Aini, 2023; Majumdar
& Kumar, 2022; Sembiring et al., 2020; Singh & Singh, 2019). Without workplace fairness, employees lose
professional happiness (Siddiqi & Khan, 2023). Two major facets of organizational justice are the fairness of
results (distributive justice) and the fairness of methods (procedural justice) (Greenberg, 2011; Lambert et al.,
2007). These dimensions have been identified as crucial determinants that significantly impact career
satisfaction (Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Ghaderi et al., 2023). Past studies show that employees who perceive
higher levels of organizational justice tend to experience greater career satisfaction (Chen McCain et al., 2010;
Nadiri & Tanova, 2010; Elamin, 2012). While the relationship between organizational justice and career
satisfaction has been extensively studied (Khan et al., 2017; Palaiologos et al., 2011; Ozel & Bayraktar, 2018),
there is a research gap surrounding the mediating role of self-efficacy in this relationship.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their capabilities to successfully perform specific tasks or
roles (Bandura, 1977). It plays a crucial role in determining individuals' responses to different situations (Choeni
et al., 2023) and can mediate the relationship between organizational justice and career satisfaction. Previous
studies have shown that self-efficacy can act as a buffer against negative experiences and enhance individuals'
ability to cope with challenges (Cohrdes & Mauz, 2020; Fida et al., 2015; Stetz et al., 2006). High levels of self-
efficacy are associated with greater motivation, effort, and persistence, leading to increased career satisfaction
(Komarraju et al., 2014). However, the potential mediating effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between
organizational justice and career satisfaction among bank employees remains unexplored. Understanding the
mediating role of self-efficacy is particularly important in the context of Bangladesh's banking sector. The
banking industry in Bangladesh has witnessed significant levels of competition in recent years as a result of its
accelerated growth (Rahman & Taniya, 2017; Al Karim, 2019; Shuvro et al., 2020). Given the intense rivalry
and heightened consumer expectations for superior service within the banking industry of Bangladesh (Al
Karim, 2019), bank authorities and researchers need to prioritize enhancing workers' work engagement,
dedication, and happiness (Kayaalp et al., 2021; Rahman, 2016). Thus, this study aims to fill the aforementioned
research gap by investigating the mediating effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between organizational
justice (distributive justice and procedural justice) and career satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh.
By examining this mediating mechanism, the study will contribute to the existing body of literature on
organizational justice and career satisfaction, while also providing practical implications for banks in promoting
employee satisfaction and well-being.
2. THEORETICAL FOUNDATION
This study is based on Social Justice Theory (Rawls, 1971), which suggests that individuals' views of
fairness and justice in organizational contexts have a substantial influence on their attitudes, behaviours, and
outcomes (Beugr, 2002). This theory was adapted for organizations (Colquitt, 2001; Niehoff & Moorman,
1993), which is pertinent to the financial sector, because it assists in exploring practices that are unfair and
unjust. The aforementioned theory places significant emphasis on the equitable and fair allocation of rewards,
resources, and opportunities within an organization or society (Dahanayake et al., 2018; Wood et al., 2013).
Perceiving fairness and justice in the workplace has a favourable effect on individuals' overall career
satisfaction. Conversely, the absence of fairness and justice increases the likelihood of individuals seeking other
employment opportunities (Killen, 2018; Tyler, 2012; Chan et al., 2017). Colquitt et al. (2003) identify
distributive justice and procedural justice as two crucial elements of organizational justice that impact the way
in which individuals perceive equity. The concept of distributive justice pertains to the manner in which
employees perceive the fairness of significant outcomes such as compensation, benefits, job assignments,
performance evaluations, promotions, and disciplinary actions (Colquitt & Greenberg, 2005; Lambert et al.,
2007; Lambert, 2003; Greenberg, 1990; Balassiano & Salles, 2012; Moon, 2017; Jasso et al., 2016). In the
context of bank employees, distributive justice pertains to the equitable allocation of salaries, promotions,
bonuses, and other forms of compensation (Choi & Chen, 2007). When employees perceive an equitable
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
32
distribution of these results, they are more inclined to feel elevated levels of career satisfaction (Killen, 2018;
Tyler, 2012). Procedural justice, in contrast, relates to the manner in which employees perceive the fairness and
justness of the processes and procedures employed to achieve distributive outcomes (Colquitt et al., 2001;
Greenberg, 1990; Lambert et al., 2007; Tyler & Allan Lind, 2001). These criteria encompass transparency,
consistency, and the ability of employees to express their opinions and participate in decision-making
(García‐Izquierdo et al., 2012). Bank employees who believe that the methods utilized to distribute incentives
are equitable are more inclined to experience career satisfaction (Frenkel & Bednall, 2016; Cropanzano et al.,
2007).
Self-efficacy, defined as an individual's confidence in their own ability to effectively complete tasks and
attain desired results (Bandura, 2000), acts as a mediator in the connection between distributive justice,
procedural justice, and career satisfaction. According to social justice theory, people who see fairness in the
distribution of resources and fairness in the procedures inside their organizations tend to have increased levels of
self-confidence and belief in their own abilities (Aşkun, et al., 2018; Ford, 2012). Consequently, this enhanced
belief in one's own abilities leads to elevated degrees of satisfaction in one's career (Abele & Spurk, 2009; Dacre
Pool & Qualter, 2013).
The relevance of understanding the mediating role of self-efficacy is particularly significant in the context
of bank employees in Bangladesh. Bank personnel frequently encounter arduous and exacting responsibilities,
and their confidence in their own capabilities to effectively execute these jobs can greatly influence their level of
career satisfaction. This study aims to provide useful insights into the mechanisms by which organizational
justice affects career satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh, by exploring the mediating role of self-
efficacy. To put it simply, social justice theory offers a conceptual framework for comprehending how self-
efficacy acts as a mediator in the connection between distributive justice, procedural justice, and career
satisfaction.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW & HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT
Previous research has established a positive association between distributive justice and career satisfaction,
as evidenced by studies conducted by Chen McCain et al. (2010), Zainalipour et al. (2010), Hao et al. (2016),
Ibrahim et al. (2016), Ghran et al. (2019), Lambert et al. (2020), Lambert et al. (2021), Ghaderi et al. (2023),
and Zacharias (2023). According to Chen et al. (2019), employees are more inclined to express greater levels of
career satisfaction when they view the outcomes they receive to be fair and equitable. However, other research
has found that distributive justice does not affect people's feelings about their careers (Lambert et al., 2021; Al-
douri, 2020; Kim & Park, 2017; Ozel & Bayraktar, 2018; Lambert et al., 2007). The current understanding of
the association between distributive justice and career satisfaction needs more clarity and conclusive evidence,
necessitating further inquiry. Consequently, the following hypothesis is formulated:
H1: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and career satisfaction.
Prior studies have demonstrated a significant correlation between procedural justice and career satisfaction
(Pathardikar et al., 2023; Zacharias, 2023; Jilili & Aini, 2023; Okan & Bayraktar, 2022; Lambert et al., 2020;
Hablani, 2021; Lambert et al., 2020; Al-douri, 2020; Yorulmaz & Özbağ, 2020; Gori et al., 2020; Maria et al.,
2020; Ali et al., 2019; Qureshi et al.,2017). Conversely, some research has indicated a negative correlation
between procedural justice and career satisfaction (Zahednezhad et al., 2021; Ghran et al., 2019; Lambert & Liu,
2018; Castillo & Fernandez, 2017; Rahman et al., 2015; Iqbal, 2013; Wu & Li, 2007). The current body of
research presents divergent and conflicting results, thereby necessitating more inquiry into the connection
between procedural justice and career satisfaction. Based on the information noted above, a hypothesis may be
formulated, suggesting that:
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and career satisfaction.
Self-efficacy is an individual's subjective assessment of their ability to handle a problem based on their
abilities and circumstances (Schwarzer & Luszczynska, 2008; Choeni et al., 2023; Zhang, 2020). The social
cognitive theory of self-efficacy holds that workplace fairness and justice and how an organization handles them
enhance career satisfaction. Human achievement and welfare increase with self-efficacy, according to Krishnan
and Krutikova (2013). Employee well-being, professional involvement, and success are linked to self-efficacy
(Kodden, 2020; Krishnan et al., 2018). Participation in employee research influences self-efficacy (Peiró &
Schaufeli, 2002; Halbesleben, 2010; Salanova et al., 2010). Personal self-efficacy boosts career satisfaction and
productivity (Judge & Bono, 2001). Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice increase self-efficacy
(Hosseinkhani & Giyaove, 2015; Janati et al., 2017; Vatankhah, 2013). Distributive justice, procedural justice,
and self-efficacy improved employee performance, according to Yahaya et al. (2020). Lisa et al. (2013) reported
a strong correlation between self-efficacy and distributive and procedural justice. According to Shen et al.
Md. Sahedur Rahman
33
(2012), self-efficacy boosts career satisfaction. According to You et al. (2017), self-efficacy strongly impacts
career satisfaction. Procedural and distributive justice improves career happiness. Procedural, distributive,
interactional justice and self-efficacy affect teacher performance, according to Sangadji and Narmaditya (2021).
Internal motivation is linked to them. Nielsen et al. (2009) and Chegini (2019) found no correlation between
self-efficacy and career contentment. The above factors led to more hypotheses:
H3: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between distributive justice and career satisfaction.
H4: Self-efficacy mediates the relationship between procedural justice and career satisfaction.
The conceptual model presented in Figure 1 was established by the authors after an extensive review of the
existing literature and a thorough examination of the underlying theoretical framework.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
4. METHODOLOGY
4.1 Sample
The research was carried out at thirteen specifically chosen commercial banks in Dhaka and Chittagong,
Bangladesh. The selection of the thirteen banks was predicated on their congruity in terms of organizational
structure and operational procedures. A total of ten branches were chosen from each bank in accordance with
the formal authorization obtained. The individuals who willingly participated in this research endeavour by
completing the survey were provided with a guarantee of the confidentiality of their answers. Employing a
simple random sampling technique, a comprehensive set of 1,480 questionnaires and an invitation link through
Google Forms was dispatched via email to potential respondents. Subsequently, a total of 440 questionnaires
were successfully retrieved, constituting the sample size (N=440). The response rate of this survey was 30%, a
level considered acceptable according to previous research (Sekaran, 2010; Hair et al., 2021). The demographic
profile of the participants revealed that a significant proportion, namely 86.1 per cent, were male, while the
remaining 13.9 per cent identified as female. Furthermore, the age range of the majority of respondents fell
within the 31-40 years category. Most participants possessed a master's degree, accounting for 92.3% of the
total responses. In all, 61.1 per cent maintained their employment for fewer than five years and 25% for less
than 10. Entry-level workers made up 71.6 per cent and middle-level employees 28.4 per cent. Table 1 shows
the basic information about the survey object.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
34
Table 1. Sample characteristics
Variables
Categories
Frequency
%
Variables
Frequency
%
Gender
Male
379
86.1
Highest Education
1
0.2
Female
61
13.9
31
7
Age
Less than 30
Years
182
41.4
406
92.3
31 – 40 Years
239
54.3
2
0.5
41 – 50 Years
18
4.1
Length of Service
269
61.1
Above 50
Years
1
0.2
114
25.9
Position
Entry Level
Management
315
71.6
57
13
Mid-Level
Management
125
28.4
Source: Customized output of SPSS
4.2 Measurements and Data Analysis
The study's instruments underwent a process of translation from English to Bangla and were then back-
translated to English, as per the recommended guidelines outlined by Brislin (1986). Two bilingual academics
carried out this translation process. The study's questionnaire had four components: the respondents'
demographic characteristics, the scales measuring distributive and procedural justice, self-efficacy, and career
satisfaction.
Distributive Justice: A scale created by Niehoff and Moorman (1993) was used to evaluate the degree of
distributive justice. There are a total of 5 items on the scale. Examples of the statements include “My working
hours are reasonable, my job responsibilities seem fair to me”. The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.852.
Procedural justice: The researchers used the procedural justice scale created by Niehoff and Moorman
(1993) in order to measure procedural justice. This scale has six components. The sample item is “The decisions
of my bank are made fairly and impartially, my organization has procedures that allow employees to appeal or
challenge decisions” The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.896.
Self-Efficacy: A scale created by Schwarzer and Jerusalem (1995) was used to assess levels of self-efficacy.
There are 10 components to the scale. Examples of the items include “I am confident in my ability to deal with
unpredicted circumstances, I am typically capable of dealing with any situation that arises” The Cronbach’s
alpha of the scale was estimated to be 0.894.
Career Satisfaction: The researchers used the career satisfaction scale generated by Greenhaus et al. (1990)
in order to assess levels of career satisfaction. The scale has a total of five components. Sample items are “I am
happy with how far I have progressed in my career, I am pleased with my progress in achieving my long-term
career objectives.” The Cronbach’s alpha of the scale was 0.914.
SEM was applied through Smart-PLS 4.0 for testing and analysis. This technique is appropriate when the
research model involves complex model structures (Hair et al., 2017). PLS-SEM has greater statistical power
than CB-SEM because of its efficiency in parameter estimation (Hair et al., 2014). It is a more reliable method
of analysis, and it can be applied to data that does not follow a normal distribution (Hair et al., 2017).
5. RESULTS
5.1 Results of Measurement Model
To evaluate the strength of construct reliability and validity, the research examined the measurement model
extensively, as shown in Table 1. The findings revealed significant indicators: Cronbach's alpha coefficients
beyond the threshold of 0.80, as Hair et al. (2021) recommended, indicating the constructs' reliability and
internal consistency. The researchers demonstrated a solid dedication to methodological rigour by closely
following the guidance provided by Hair et al. (2021), Shmueli et al. (2019), and Sarstedt et al. (2021).
Remarkably, the reported rho values for all constructs were more than 0.80, providing further evidence of their
reliability. Concurrently with the above-mentioned assessments, the measuring scales' internal consistency was
assessed using composite reliability (CR). Exemplifying a steadfast commitment to precision, the coefficient
alpha values for the scales were observed to be 0.936 for career satisfaction, 0.893 for distributive justice, 0.920
for procedural justice, and 0.914 for self-efficacy, aligning with the recommendations put forth by Hair et al.
(2021) and Shmueli et al. (2019). The extensive methodology adopted in this study strengthens the careful
validation process and ensures the constructs' robustness. The idea of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) is
highlighted by Saunders et al. (2019) and supported by Sarstedt et al. (2014). AVE serves as a metric that
Md. Sahedur Rahman
35
quantifies the amount of variation accounted for by a construct concerning the variance caused by measurement
errors. In order to ensure strong convergence, it is very advisable to achieve an average variance extracted (AVE)
value of at least 0.50, as suggested by Hair et al. (2021), Shmueli et al. (2019), and Rahman et al. (2023).
According to the findings of Hair et al. (2021), it is worth noting that an average variance extracted (AVE) value
below 0.50 indicates that the survey questions contribute more to measurement errors rather than explaining the
variability within the constructs. Therefore, it is crucial, as emphasized by Hair et al. (2021) and Sarstedt et al.
(2021), that every construct in a measurement model passes an assessment of Average Variance Extracted
(AVE), with a minimum threshold of 0.50 (Hair et al., 2021; Shmueli et al., 2019; Rahman et al., 2023). It is
important to note that all constructs in this research had AVE values greater than 0.57, as seen in Table 2. Full
compliance with AVE standards demonstrates how well the examined constructs were vetted for reliability and
validity.
Table 2. Measurement model analysis
Constructs
Items
Loading
α
rho
CR
AVE
Career Satisfaction
CS1
0.878
0.914
0.918
0.936
0.747
CS2
0.909
CS3
0.873
CS4
0.906
CS5
0.746
Distributive Justice
DJ1
0.817
0.852
0.858
0.893
0.626
DJ2
0.806
DJ3
0.771
DJ4
0.765
DJ5
0.797
Procedural Justice
PJ1
0.819
0.896
0.898
0.920
0.658
PJ2
0.793
PJ3
0.847
PJ4
0.837
PJ5
0.826
PJ6
0.739
Self-Efficacy
SE10
0.749
0.894
0.907
0.914
0.572
SE2
0.743
SE3
0.761
SE4
0.8
SE5
0.785
SE6
0.731
SE7
0.738
SE9
0.74
Abbreviations: CR= Composite Reliability, AVE = Average Variance Extracted, α = Cronbach's alpha. ***All indicators
are significant at p < 0.001
Source: Customized output of Samrt-PLS
As Shmueli et al. (2019) discussed, discriminant validity is essential in the context of PLS-SEM path
analysis. It refers to the statistical differentiation between two latent variables that reflect separate theoretical
constructs. The findings from Tables 3 and 4 highlight the achievement of discriminant validity, meeting the
stringent requirements outlined by the Fornell-Larcker Criterion and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
Consistent with the concepts established by Fornell and Larcker, the squared correlations across latent
constructs exhibit a clear correspondence with the squared roots of Average Variance Extracted (AVE), as
shown comprehensively in Table 3. By adopting the viewpoint of Shmueli et al. (2019) and Hair et al. (2021), it
becomes evident that the HTMT metric is used to evaluate the similarity between two latent variables. For
discriminant validity to be confirmed, HTMT has to be below 1. The HTMT value in this research impressively
agrees with this standard, providing more evidence of its discriminant validity.
Table 3. Fornell-Larcker criterion and HTMT
Career Satisfaction
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Self-Efficacy
Career Satisfaction
0.864
0.609
0.574
0.440
Distributive Justice
0.547
0.791
0.635
0.332
Procedural Justice
0.522
0.566
0.811
0.405
Self-Efficacy
0.405
0.315
0.382
0.756
Source: Smart-PLS output
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
36
5.2 Goodness of Fit
The model's effectiveness and the degree to which it fits the data have been evaluated using the
"Coefficient of Determination" ( ), the "Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual" (SRMR), and the
"Normed Fit Index" (NFI). According to Latan et al. (2018), an value ranging from 0.25 to 0.50 is
considered optimum, but any value beyond 0.20 is deemed acceptable. Hair et al. (2021) provide a persuasive
rule of thumb wherein an R square value closer to 1 is required, with a threshold of 0.25 for meaningful effect
explanation inside the path model. The R square values of 0.160 and 0.400 in the present research demonstrate a
significant relationship between the variables (see Table 5). Shmueli et al. (2019) provide an essential concept
of adjusted R square that coincides with the researchers' all-encompassing strategy of taking into consideration a
number of independent variables inside a regression model. This realistic factor contributes to the robustness of
the model and is evident in the findings. If the NFI is near to 0 and the SRMR is less than 0.01, then the model
fits well (Hair et al., 2021; Shmueli et al., 2019). The NFI value of 0.868, which is in close proximity to 1, and
the SRMR value of 0.065 (Table 5), which falls below the threshold of 0.08, indicate that the model is deemed
to be a good fit (Latan et al., 2018).
Table 4. Model fitness
Constructs
Adjusted
SRMR
NFI
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Self-Efficacy
0.160
0.157
0.065
0.868
Career Satisfaction
0.400
0396
0.065
0.868
Source: Smart-PLS output
5.3 Test of Hypothesis
The results shown in Table 5 and Figure 2 of the PLS-SEM output indicate a statistically significant
positive relationship between distributive justice and career satisfaction (t = 7.160, p = 0.000). As a result,
hypothesis 1 was deemed valid. Career satisfaction is highly influenced by procedural justice in a positive
direction (t = 5.016, P = 0.000). Therefore, hypothesis 2 was confirmed.
The bootstrapping method was employed to test this study's mediation effect because it has been
recommended for its robust statistical power in detecting significant mediation mechanisms (Cheung & Lau,
2008; Taylor et al., 2008), and the most relevant for PLS-SEM method since bootstrapping does not make any
assumptions regarding the sampling distribution of the statistics and applies to smaller samples sizes with higher
confidence (Hair et al., 2017). Table 5 shows that self-efficacy significantly mediates the relationship between
distributive justice and career satisfaction (t = − 2.285, p = 0.022). As a result, hypothesis 3 was confirmed.
Similarly, the relationship between procedural justice and career satisfaction is also mediated by self-efficacy (t
= 3.199, p = 0.001). Therefore, hypothesis 4 was confirmed. (see table 6).
Table 5. Result of hypothesis testing
Hypothesis
Relationships
t-statistics
p-values
Decision
H1
Distributive Justice -> Career Satisfaction
7.160
0.000***
Supported
H2
Procedural Justice -> Career Satisfaction
5.016
0.000***
Supported
H3
Distributive Justice -> Self-Efficacy -> Career Satisfaction
2.285
0.022**
Supported
H4
Procedural Justice -> Self-Efficacy -> Career Satisfaction
3.199
0.001***
Supported
Source: Smart-PLS output
Md. Sahedur Rahman
37
Figure 2: Results of the path analysis
6. DISCUSSION
The focus of the present study was to test the mediating effect of self-efficacy in the relationship between
distributive justice, procedural justice and career satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh. Firstly, this
study measured distributive justice using five questions adjusted from Niehoff and Moorman's (1993) work. The
statistical results support the construct's and its items' validity and dependability. In the analysis, PLS-SEM was
utilized, and the results demonstrated that distributive justice was positively associated with the career
satisfaction of commercial bank employees in Bangladesh (t=7.160, p=0.000). The study findings indicate that
individuals exhibited greater levels of career satisfaction when they had heightened notions of distributive
justice. According to Lambert et al. (2020), there is a positive relationship between workers' perception of a fair
distribution of organizational resources and results, such as compensation and promotion, and their satisfaction
with their professions. Hence, H1 is supported. This finding aligns with past studies (Crawshaw, 2006; Chen
McCain et al., 2010; Zainalipour et al., 2010; Lambert et al., 2020) that have shown a substantial correlation
between distributive justice and career satisfaction. In addition to the aforementioned research, several studies
have identified a significant relationship between distributive justice and various facets of employee satisfaction
pertaining to their career trajectories (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Choi & Park, 2006; Colquitt et al.,
2001). However, it is worth noting that the findings of this particular study contradict those reported by Lambert
et al. (2007), as they found that only procedural justice was linked to career satisfaction.
Secondly, this study assessed procedural justice using six questions modified from Niehoff and Moorman's
(1993). The statistical results support the construct's and its items' validity and dependability. The PLS-SEM
method was used for the analysis, and the results revealed a significant relationship between procedural justice
and career satisfaction (t=5.016, p=0.00). The study's participants exhibited elevated levels of career satisfaction
when they had greater judgments of procedural fairness. That is, employees are happier with their jobs and their
careers when they believe their organization's decision-making process is equitable. According to the study
conducted by Pathardikar et al. (2023), there is a positive correlation between workers' perception of fair and
transparent processes inside their firms and their level of career satisfaction. Thus, H2 is supported through this
study. The present results are consistent with the research conducted by Clay-Warner et al. (2005), Lambert et
al. (2007), García‐Izquierdo et al. (2012), and Lambert et al. (2020), which also showed a substantial association
between procedural fairness and career satisfaction. Furthermore, some studies have shown a substantial
correlation between procedural fairness and several aspects of employee satisfaction pertaining to their careers
(Choi & Park, 2006; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). In Crawshaw's (2005) research,
which focused on workers in the private sector of the United Kingdom, it was shown that there was no
significant correlation between procedural justice and career satisfaction. However, distributive justice was
found to have a favourable association with career success. The present study, in conjunction with previous
research, indicates that organizational justice has a significant role in influencing career satisfaction among bank
employees. However, it is worth noting that the impact of distributive and procedural justice aspects may vary
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
38
depending on the specific facility under investigation. Furthermore, the results of this study align with previous
research on social justice theory (Rawls, 1971), since it is grounded in the fundamental notion that workers want
fair, reasonable, and equitable treatment from their employers (Zhou et al., 2020). When employees are certain
that their efforts will be treated fairly, they are more invested in the success of the organization as a whole
(Saboor & Rehman, 2018).
Thirdly, this research also investigated the mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between the
independent and dependent variables. A person's self-efficacy may be defined as their confidence in their
capacity to successfully carry out a set of actions and achieve a set of goals. The main rationale for this
hypothesis is in the notion that individuals who have good attitudes about distributive justice, procedural justice,
and who possess strong self-efficacy in executing their responsibilities are inclined to exhibit higher levels of
job engagement and experience enhanced career satisfaction. The findings of this study lend support to the
proposed hypotheses concerning the mediating influence of self-efficacy. The results indicate that self-efficacy
plays a significant mediating role in the association between distributive justice and career satisfaction (t =
2.285, p = 0.022), as well as between procedural justice and career satisfaction (t = 3.199, p = 0.001). According
to Sheikh and Siddiqui (2023), workers are more inclined to cultivate higher levels of self-efficacy when they
perceive the presence of organizational justice, which encompasses equal treatment, impartial decision-making
and fair resource distribution. Social cognitive theory (SCT) confirms that higher levels of self-efficacy are
associated with better levels of career satisfaction. Organizations may boost employee self-efficacy and, in turn,
career satisfaction by promoting an equitable workplace (Ng et al., 2023). This research helps us better
understand the processes that determine employee satisfaction in the banking industry in Bangladesh by
focusing on the effect of self-efficacy as a mediator. It argues that employees are more likely to be happy in
their jobs and to put in longer hours if they feel that their workplace is fair in terms of both distributive and
procedural fairness.
6.1 Theoretical Contributions
Firstly, the present study extends the application of social justice theory to the context of the banking sector
in Bangladesh. While social justice theory has been widely studied in various organizational settings, its
application specifically in the banking sector in Bangladesh is limited. By examining the role of distributive
justice, procedural justice, and self-efficacy in shaping career satisfaction, this study contributes to a deeper
understanding of the mechanisms through which justice perceptions impact employees' career outcomes in the
specific context of the banking sector in Bangladesh.
Secondly, the study explores the mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between justice
perceptions and career satisfaction. While previous research has established the direct effects of distributive
justice and procedural justice on career satisfaction, the mediating role of self-efficacy has received less
attention. By investigating this mediating mechanism, the study provides insights into the underlying processes
through which justice perceptions influence career satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh.
6.2 Practical Implications
The implications of the study's findings hold practical significance for bank managers and specialists in the
field of human resources. By comprehending the significance of distributive and procedural fairness, individuals
might formulate tactics to augment employee contentment and overall well-being. This may entail the
implementation of equitable and transparent mechanisms for distributing rewards, establishing unambiguous
procedures for decision-making, and offering avenues for enhancing skills and receiving training. The research
places emphasis on the significance of self-efficacy as a mediator. Banks have the potential to enhance
employees' self-beliefs and confidence by implementing training programs, mentorship initiatives, and
facilitating avenues for personal and professional development. This phenomenon has the potential to exert a
beneficial influence on employees' impressions of fairness, hence resulting in a subsequent enhancement in
career satisfaction. The outcomes of this study may offer valuable insights for policymakers inside the banking
industry in Bangladesh. This statement underscores the significance of fostering equity and impartiality inside
the workplace as a means to augment employee contentment and overall organizational effectiveness.
Policymakers may contemplate the integration of rules and legislation aimed at fostering distributive and
procedural fairness within the banking sector. Overall, the study highlights the importance of fairness in reward
distribution, decision-making processes, and the development of employees' self-efficacy for enhancing career
satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh. By implementing the findings of this study, banks can
review and revise their HR policies, such as performance-based rewards, promotion criteria, and decision-
making procedures, to ensure fairness and transparency that promotes employee satisfaction, engagement, and
long-term success.
Md. Sahedur Rahman
39
7. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
There are a few limitations with the present research. Firstly, the study's sample was constrained to certain
kinds of banks and a specific location in Bangladesh, perhaps restricting the generalizability of the results. In
order to enhance the external validity of the findings, future research endeavours should strive to include a more
expansive and heterogeneous participant pool, including numerous financial institutions and geographical
locations. Secondly, the research used a cross-sectional approach, which records information at a particular time
point. The capacity to determine cause and effect is hindered by this structure. Longitudinal study designs may
be used in the future to better understand the interrelationships between the variables and how they evolve over
time. Thirdly, the self-reported measures used in this research may have been skewed by response bias or social
desirability effects. More thorough comprehension of the factors at play might be achieved with the use of
objective measurements in future studies, as well as the collection of data from numerous sources (such as
supervisors or coworkers). Fourthly, this study’s sample was imbalanced in terms of gender, and male
participants were dominant compared to female participants, which may affect the results and generalizability of
the findings. In order to mitigate these issues, future researchers may choose other sampling strategies such as
stratified sampling or oversampling. Fifthly, while the study examined mediation through self-efficacy, there
could be other potential mediators that were not explored. Future research could explore additional mediators or
moderators that might influence the relationship between distributive justice, procedural justice, and career
satisfaction. Sixthly, the current study focused on bank employees in Bangladesh, and cultural factors may
influence the results. It would be valuable to compare findings across different cultures to understand potential
variations. Future research could examine the impact of distributive justice, procedural justice, and self-efficacy
on career satisfaction in different cultural contexts. Lastly, the study considers distributive justice and procedural
justice as predictors of career satisfaction. However, there may be other models or factors that could provide
alternative explanations. Future research could explore other models or variables that might contribute to career
satisfaction among bank employees. Considering these limitations and expanding research in these areas could
provide a more comprehensive understanding of the combined effect of distributive justice and procedural
justice on career satisfaction among bank employees in Bangladesh, mediated by self-efficacy.
REFERENCES
Abele, A. E., & Spurk, D. (2009). The longitudinal impact of self-efficacy and career goals on objective and
subjective career success. Journal of vocational behavior, 74(1), 53-62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.10.005
Ahmed, S.F., Eatough, E.M., Ford, M.T. (2018). Relationships between illegitimate tasks and change in work-
family outcomes via interactional justice and negative emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 104, 14–
30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2017.10.002
Al Karim, R. (2019). Impact of Different Training and Development Programs on Employee Performance in
Bangladesh Perspective. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Research, 2(1), 8-14.
https://doi.org/10.31580/ijer.v2i1.497
Al-Douri, Z. (2020). Organizational justice and its impact on job satisfaction: Evidence from transportation
industry. Management Science Letters, 10(2), 351-360. http://dx.doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.8.035
Ali, M., Lei, S., & Wei, X. Y. (2018). The Mediating Role of the Employee Relations Climate in the
Relationship between Strategic HRM and Organization Performance in Chinese Banks. Journal of
Innovation & Knowledge, 3, 115-122.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.12.003
Anwar, J., & Sarfraz, M. (2023). The Impact of Psychological Capital and Subjective Well-being on the
Relationship of Job Insecurity and Job Performance. International Journal of Business Science & Applied
Management, 18(2), 35-52.
Aşkun, D., Yeloğlu, H. O., & Yıldırım, O. B. (2018). Are self‐efficacious individuals more sensitive to
organizational justice issues? The influence of self‐efficacy on the relationship between justice perceptions
and turnover. European Management Review, 15(2), 273-284. https://doi.org/10.1111/emre.12161
Awal, R., Kumar, B., Saha, P., & Saha, A. (2021). Employees’ Job Satisfaction, Job Alternatives, and Turnover
Intention: Evidence from Private Banks, Bangladesh. Economic Insights – Trends and Challenges, IX
(LXXII), 67 - 76.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
40
Bandura, A. (1997). Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bandura, A. (1986). Social
Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Find
this resource.
Bandura, A. (2000). Self-efficacy: The foundation of agency. Control of human behavior, mental processes, and
consciousness: Essays in honor of the 60th birthday of August Flammer, 16.
Beugr, C. D. (2002). Understanding organizational justice and its impact on managing employees: An African
perspective. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 13(7), 1091-1104.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210131311
Boamah, S. A., Kalu, M. E., Havaei, F., McMillan, K., & Belita, E. (2023). Predictors of NursingFaculty Job
and Career Satisfaction, Turnover Intentions, and Professional Outlook: A National Survey.
In Healthcare (Vol. 11, No. 14, p. 2099). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11142099
Brislin, R. W. (1986). The Wording and Translation of Research Instruments. In W. L. Lonner, & J. W. Berry
(Eds.), Cross-Cultural Research and Methodology Series, Vol. 8. Field Methods in Cross-Cultural Research
(pp. 137-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Capone, V., Joshanloo, M., & Sang-Ah Park, M. (2023). Job Satisfaction Mediates the Relationship between
Psychosocial and Organization Factors and Mental Well-Being in Schoolteachers. International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(1), 593. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010593
Castillo, C., & Fernández Alarcón, V. (2017). Relationships between the Dimensions of Organizational Justice
and Students’ Satisfaction in University Contexts. Intangible Capital, 13(2), 282-301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/ic.774
Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived
justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of business research, 70, 214-223.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.017
Chegini, Z., Janati, A., Asghari-Jafarabadi, M., & Khosravizadeh, O. (2019). Organizational commitment, job
satisfaction, organizational justice and self-efficacy among nurses. Nursing Practice Today, 6(2), 86-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18502/npt.v6i2.913
Chen McCain, S. L., Tsai, H., & Bellino, N. (2010). Organizational justice, employees' ethical behavior, and job
satisfaction in the casino industry. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 22(7),
992-1009.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011066644
Chen McCain, S. L., Tsai, H., & Bellino, N. (2010). Organizational justice, employees' ethical behavior, and job
satisfaction in the casino industry. International journal of contemporary hospitality management, 22(7),
992-1009.
Chen, X., Ran, L., Zhang, Y., Yang, J., Yao, H., Zhu, S., & Tan, X. (2019). Moderating role of job satisfaction
on turnover intention and burnout among workers in primary care institutions: a cross-sectional
study. BMC public health, 19, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7894-7
Cherif, F. (2020). The role of human resource management practices and employee job satisfaction in predicting
organizational commitment in Saudi Arabian banking sector. International Journal of Sociology and Social
Policy, 40(7/8), 529-541. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSSP-10-2019-0216
Cheung G. W., Lau R. S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables. Organizational
Research Methods, 11, 296–325.
Choeni, P., Babalola, S. S., & Nwanzu, C. L. (2023). The Effect of Leader's Emotional Intelligence and Role-
Breadth Self-Efficacy on Proactive Behaviour at Work. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied
Management, 18(1).
Choeni, P., Babalola, S. S., & Nwanzu, C. L. (2023). The Effect of Leader's Emotional Intelligence and Role-
Breadth Self-Efficacy on Proactive Behaviour at Work. Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied
Management, 18(1), 63-75.
Choi, J., & Chen, C. C. (2007). The relationships of distributive justice and compensation system fairness to
employee attitudes in international joint ventures. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International
Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(6), 687-703.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.438
Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., & Roman, P. (2005). Organizational justice and job satisfaction: Atest of three
competing models. Social Justice Research, 18, 391-409. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-005-8567-5
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. (2001). The Role of Justice in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis. Organization
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 278-321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958
Md. Sahedur Rahman
41
Cohrdes, C., & Mauz, E. (2020). Self-efficacy and emotional stability buffer negative effects of adverse
childhood experiences on young adult health-related quality of life. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(1),
93-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.01.005
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On The Dimensionality of Organizational Justice: A Construct Validation of a Measure.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386-400. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386
Colquitt, J. A. and Shaw, J. C. (2005). In Greenberg, J., and Colquitt, J. A. (Eds.). How should organizational
justice be measured? Handbook of organizational justice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),
425–445. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0021-9010.86.3.425
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of
the literature. Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 159-200.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Organizational justice: A fair assessment of the state of
the literature. Organizational behavior: The state of the science, 159-200.
Colquitt, J., & Greenberg, J. A. (2005). Handbook of organizational justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crawshaw, J. R. (2006). Justice source and justice content: Evaluating the fairness of organizational career
management practices. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 98-120.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2006.00006.x
Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy
of Management Perspectives, 21(4), 34-48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895338
Dacre Pool, L., & Qualter, P. (2013). Emotional self‐efficacy, graduate employability, and career satisfaction:
Testing the associations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 65(4), 214-223.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12023
Dahanayake, P., Rajendran, D., Selvarajah, C., & Ballantyne, G. (2018). Justice and fairness in the workplace: a
trajectory for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 37(5), 470-
490. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0105
Desta, A. G., Tadesse, W. M., & Mulusew, W. B. (2022). Aspects of Human Capital Management and
Employee Job Performance: The Mediation Role of Employee Engagement. International Journal of
Business Science & Applied Management, 17(3), 31-48.
Elamin, A. M. (2012). Perceived organizational justice and work‐related attitudes: A study of Saudi
employees. World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(1), 71-88.
https://doi.org/10.1108/20425961211221633
Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Farnese, M. L. (2015). “Yes, I Can”: the protective
role of personal self-efficacy in hindering counterproductive work behavior under stressful
conditions. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 28(5), 479-499. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2014.969718
Ford, D. L. (2012). The role of self-efficacy, distributive justice, and procedural justice on large scale
organizational change initiatives (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Frenkel, S. J., & Bednall, T. (2016). How training and promotion opportunities, career expectations, and two
dimensions of organizational justice explain discretionary work effort. Human Performance, 29(1), 16-32.
García‐Izquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & Ramos‐Villagrasa, P. J. (2012). Reactions to the Fairness of Promotion
Methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4),
394-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12002
García‐Izquierdo, A. L., Moscoso, S., & Ramos‐Villagrasa, P. J. (2012). Reactions to the Fairness of Promotion
Methods: Procedural justice and job satisfaction. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20(4),
394-403. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12002
George, E. and Zakkariya, K.A. (2015). The Relationship between Demographic Variables and Job-Related
Stress among Bank Employees. Asian Journal of Management, 6(3), 169-175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5958/2321-5763.2015.00025.6
Ghaderi, Z., Tabatabaei, F., Khoshkam, M., & Shahabi Sorman Abadi, R. (2023). Exploring the role of
perceived organizational justice and organizational commitment as predictors of job satisfaction among
employees in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Administration, 24(3), 415-444. https://doi.org/10.1080/15256480.2021.1988882
Ghran, L. A. Z., Jameel, A. S., & Ahmad, A. R. (2019). The effect of organizational justice on job satisfaction
among secondary school teachers. International Review, 3(3-4), 82-90.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/intrev1903082L
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
42
Gori, A., Topino, E., Palazzeschi, L., & Di Fabio, A. (2020). How can organizational justice contribute to job
satisfaction? A chained mediation model. Sustainability, 12(19), 7902. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197902
Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2),
399–432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208
Greenberg, J. (2011). Organizational justice: The dynamics of fairness in the workplace. In S. Zedeck (Ed),
Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology, vol. 3: Maintaining, expanding, and contracting the
organization (pp. 271-327). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DOI:10.1037/12171-
008
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormely, W. M. (1990). Effects of Race on Organizational Experiences,
Job Performance, Evaluations, and Career Outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 64-86.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256352
Hablani, S., & Sharma, P. (2021). Impact of Organizational Justice on Job Satisfaction. UNNAYAN, 13(1),
215-233.
Hair Jr, J. F., Matthews, L. M., Matthews, R. L., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: updated
guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107-123.
https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMDA.2017.087624
Hair Jr, J., Hair Jr, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications.
Halbesleben, J. R. B. (2010). A Meta-Analysis of Work Engagement: Relationships with Burnout, Demands,
Resources and Consequences. In A. B. Bakker & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Work Engagement: A Handbook of
Essential Theory and Research, 102–117, Hove: Psychology Press.
Hao, Y., Hao, J., & Wang, X. (2016). The relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction:
Evidence from China. Journal of Chinese Human Resource Management, 7(2), 115-128.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHRM-07-2016-0012
Hong, S. J., Choi, D., & Chae, J. (2020). Exploring Different Airport Users' Service Quality Satisfaction
between Service Providers and Air Travellers. Journal of Retailing and Customers Services, 52, 101917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.101917
Hosseinkhani M and Giyaove Q (2015). The Effect of Social Justice in Self-Efficacy Development of
Organizations and Institutions Employees. Asian Social Science, 11(22): 247-252.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n22p247
Hussain, A., Nisar, Q. A., Khan, W., Niazi, U. I., & Malik, M. (2023). When and how big data analytics and
work practices impact on financial performance: an intellectual capital perspective from banking
industry. Kybernetes. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-11-2022-1623
Ibrahim, Z., Ismail, A., Mohamed, N. A. K., & Raduan, N. S. M. (2016). Association of managers’ political
interests towards employees’ feelings of distributive justice and job satisfaction in performance appraisal
system. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 523-530.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.429
Islam, N., Zeesan, E. A., Chakraborty, D., Rahman, M. N., Uddin Ahmed, S. I., Nower, N., & Nazrul, T. (2019).
Relationship between Job Stress and the Turnover Intention of Private Sector Bank Employees in
Bangladesh. International Business Research, 12(8), 133. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3428619
Janati, A., Chegini, Z., Gholizadeh, M., Naseri, N., & Ahmadi, Z. (2017). The Relationshipbetween
Organizational Justice Perception and Self-Efficacy in Staff of a Selected Educational Hospital: A Case
Study. Health Based Research, 3(2), 127-139.
Jasso, G., Törnblom, K. Y., & Sabbagh, C. (2016). Distributive justice. Handbook of social justice theory and
research, 201-218.
Jilili, M., & Aini, A. (2023). Examining the Moderating Effect of Occupational Status on the Association of
Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction. Public Organization Review, 23(1), 97-111.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00602-3
Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of Core Self-Evaluations Traits - Self-esteem, Generalized
Self-Efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional Stability - With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A
Meta-Analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.80
Karim, M. W., & Chowdhury, M. A. M. (2021). Antecedents of customer loyalty towards private commercial
banks in Bangladesh. Management & Accounting Review (MAR), 20(2), 35-57.
https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/2894
Md. Sahedur Rahman
43
Kayaalp, A., Page, K. J., & Gumus, O. (2021). Job satisfaction and transformational leadership as the
antecedents of OCB role definitions: The moderating role of justice perceptions. International Journal of
Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM), 16(2), 89-101. http://hdl.handle.net/10419/261655
Khan, J. A., Jan, S., & Baloch, Q. B. (2017). The Impact of Organizational Justice on Career Satisfaction of
Employees in the Public Sector Organizations of Pakistan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 11.
Killen, M. (2018). The origins of morality: Social equality, fairness, and justice. Philosophical
Psychology, 31(5), 767-803. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2018.1486612
Kim, W. & Park, J. (2017). Examining Structure; Relationships between Work Engagement, Organizational
Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations.
MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020205
Kodden, B. (2020). The Impact of Self-efficacy. In The Art of Sustainable Performance (pp. 31- 38). Springer,
Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46463-9_5
Komarraju, M., Swanson, J., & Nadler, D. (2014). Increased career self-efficacy predicts college students’
motivation, and course and major satisfaction. Journal of Career Assessment, 22(3), 420-432.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1069072713498484
Lambert, E. G. (2003). The impact of organizational justice on correctional staff. Journal of Criminal Justice,
31(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2352(02)00222-2
Lambert, E. G., Hogan, N. L., & Griffin, M. L. (2007). The impact of distributive and procedural justice on
correctional staff job stress, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment. Journal of criminal
justice, 35(6), 644-656. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.001
Lambert, E. G., Keena, L. D., Leone, M., May, D., & Haynes, S. H. (2020). The effects of distributive and
procedural justice on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff. The Social
Science Journal, 57(4), 405-416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.02.002
Lambert, E. G., Tewksbury, R., Otu, S. E., & Elechi, O. O. (2021). The association of organizational justice
with job satisfaction and organizational commitment among Nigerian correctional staff. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 65(2-3), 180-204.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X20946926
Latan, H., Jabbour, C. J. C., de Sousa Jabbour, A. B. L., Wamba, S. F., & Shahbaz, M. (2018). Effects of
environmental strategy, environmental uncertainty and top management's commitment on corporate
environmental performance: The role of environmental management accounting. Journal of cleaner
production, 180, 297-306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.106
Maria, S., Darma, D., & Setyawan, H. (2020). PLS-SEM to Predict the Relationship between Procedural Justice,
Organizational Commitment, OCB, and Job Satisfaction. Journal of Wellbeing Management and Applied
Psychology, 3(3), 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.13106/jwmap.2020.Vol3.no3.1
Nabi, M. N., Ahmed, A. A. T., & Rahman, M. S. (2017). The empirical study on human resource management
practices with special reference to job satisfaction and employee turnover at Investment Corporation of
Bangladesh. Human Resource Management Research, 7(1), 54-64. http://DOI:
10.5923/j.hrmr.20170701.07
Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction,
and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International journal of hospitality
management, 29(1), 33-41.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2009.05.001
Nadiri, H., & Tanova, C. (2010). An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction,
and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International journal of hospitality
management, 29(1), 33-41.
Ng, E. S., Rajendran, D., & Waheduzzaman, W. (2023). Promoting workplace inclusion and self-efficacy
among skilled migrant workers in Australia. International Journal of Manpower, 44(2), 267-282.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-01-2022-0044
Ng, Y. N., & Salamzadeh, Y. (2020). The impact of ethical leadership on the intention to stay among the
generation-Y workforce of MNCs in Penang, Malaysia: Mediating role of employee rewards. International
Journal of Business Science & Applied Management (IJBSAM), 15(2), 16-37.
http://hdl.handle.net/10419/261645
Nham, T. C., Nguyen-Viet, B., & Dang, H. P. (2023). The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership
and Innovative Behaviour: The Mediating Role of Innovative Climate and Person-Organization Fit. Int.
Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 18(2), 80-94.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
44
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. H. (1993). Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship between Methods of
Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Academy of Management journal, 36(3), 527-556.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256591
Okan, E., & Bayraktar, C. A. (2022). Analysis of the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction in the Airline Industry. In Industrial Engineering in the Internet-of-Things World: Selected
Papers from the Virtual Global Joint Conference on Industrial Engineering and Its Application Areas,
GJCIE 2020, August 14–15, 2020 (pp. 361-376). Springer International Publishing.
Osei, H. V., Arthur, J., Aseibu, F., & Osei-Kwame, D. (2023). Health workers’ career satisfaction and intention
to leave: The moderated moderation of burnout and gender. International Journal of Healthcare
Management, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2023.2217566
Ozel, A., & Bayraktar, C. A. (2018). Effect of organizational justice on job satisfaction. In Industrial
Engineering in the Industry 4.0 Era: Selected papers from the Global Joint Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Its Application Areas, GJCIE 2017, July 20–21, Vienna, Austria (pp. 205-218). Springer
International Publishing.
Palaiologos, A., Papazekos, P., & Panayotopoulou, L. (2011). Organizational justice and employee satisfaction
in performance appraisal. Journal of European Industrial Training, 35(8), 826-840.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090591111168348
Pathardikar, A. D., Mishra, P. K., & Sahu, S. (2023). Procedural justice influencing affective commitment:
mediating role of organizational trust and job satisfaction. Journal of Asia Business Studies, 17(2), 371-
384. https://doi.org/10.1108/JABS-08-2021-0356
Permatasari N.T. & Sriathi A.A. (2021). The Role of Job Satisfaction Mediates the Effect of Job Stress on
Employee Turnover Intention. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 5(4), 224-
233.
Pogge, T. (2002). Human rights and human responsibilities. In A. Kuper (Ed.), Global responsibilities: Who
must deliver on human rights? (pp. 151–195). New York, NY: Routledge.
Qureshi, H., Frank, J., Lambert, E. G., Klahm, C., & Smith, B. (2017). Organizational justice’s relationship with
job satisfaction and organizational commitment among Indian police. The Police Journal, 90, 3–23.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032258X16662684
Rahman, M. S., & Taniya, R. K. (2017). Effect of employee relationship management (ERM) on employee
performance: A study on private commercial banks in Bangladesh. Human resource management
research, 7(2), 90-96. DOI: 10.5923/j.hrmr.20170702.03
Rahman, M. S., Hasan, M. J., Khan, M. S. H., & Jahan, I. (2023). Antecedents and effect of creative accounting
practices on organizational outcomes: Evidence from Bangladesh. Heliyon, 9(2).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13759
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of social justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap
Renee Barnett, B., & Bradley, L. (2007). The impact of organisational support for career development on career
satisfaction. Career development international, 12(7), 617-636.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13620430710834396
Saboor, A., Rehman, M., & Rehman, S. (2018). Organizational Justice and Employee Contextual Performance:
The Moderating Effect of Organizational Respect. Pakistan Business Review, 19(4), 995-1011.
Sangadji, E. M., & Narmaditya, B. S. (2021). The Impact of Organizational Justice, SelfEfficacy and Teachers
Performance: The Mediating Role of Internal Motivation. Pedagogy Studies/Pedagogika, 141(1).
http://dx.doi.org/10.15823/p.2021.141.4
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Hair, J. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling.
In Handbook of market research (pp. 587-632). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05542-8_15-2
Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Smith, D., Reams, R., & Hair Jr, J. F. (2014). Partial least squares structural
equation modeling (PLS-SEM): A useful tool for family business researchers. Journal of family business
strategy, 5(1), 105-115.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2014.01.002
Saunders, M., P. Lewis, & A. Thornhill. (2019). Research methods for business students, Pearson education.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived Teacher Self‐Efficacy as a Predictor of Job Stress and Burnout:
Mediation Analyses. Applied psychology, 57, 152-171.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Md. Sahedur Rahman
45
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M.
Johnston, Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs (pp. 35-37).
Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach (5th ed.).
Haddington: John Wiley & Sons.
Sheikh, S., & Siddiqui, D. A. (2023). How strengths of Character affect Satisfaction with Life, and Social
Support by inculcating resilience: The Mediatory Role of Life Orientation (Optimism and Pessimism),
Positive Affect, and Self Efficacy. Positive Affect, and Self Efficacy (April 28, 2023).
https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4432146
Shen, J., Leslie, J. M., Spybrook, J. K., & Ma, X. (2012). Are Principal Background and School Processes
Related to Teacher Job Satisfaction? A Multilevel Study Using Schools and Staffing Survey 2003-
04. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 200-230. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211419949
Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J. H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019).
Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European journal of
marketing, 53(11), 2322-2347.
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
Shuvro, R. A., Saha, S., & Alam, J. (2020). Measuring the Level of Job Satisfaction of the Employees of
Grameen Bank : An Empirical Study. Canadian Journal of Business and Information Studies, 2(1), 1-11.
http://dx.doi.org/10.34104/cjbis.020.01011
Siddiqi, A. F. I., & Khan, M. T. (2023). Impact of Organizational Justice on Employee Satisfaction Among
Punjab Police: An Empirical Investigation in the Post Model Town Incident Time. Journal of Police and
Criminal Psychology, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-023-09580-8
Singh, S. K., & Singh, A. P. (2019). Interplay of Organizational Justice, Psychological Empowerment,
Organizational Citizenship Behavior, and Job Satisfaction in the Context of Circular Economy.
Management Decision, 57(4), 937–952.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MD-09-2018-0966
Stamenkovic, S., Njegovan, B. R., & Vukadinovic, M. S. (2018). Intra-national diversity: Perception of
organizational justice and ethical climate in organizations in Serbia. Cross Cultural & Strategic
Management, 25(3), 425-442. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCSM-05-2017-0061
Stetz, T. A., Stetz, M. C., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). The importance of self-efficacy in the moderating effects of
social support on stressor–strain relationships. Work & Stress, 20(1), 49-59.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370600624039
Taylor, A. B., MacKinnon, D. P., & Tein, J. Y. (2008). Tests of the three-path mediated effect. Organizational
research methods, 11(2), 241-269.
Tyler, T. R. (2012). Justice theory. Handbook of theories of social psychology, 2, 344-361.
Tyler, T. R., & Allan Lind, E. (2001). Procedural justice. Handbook of justice research in law, 65-92.
Vatankhah, S., Bastani, P., Bimoon Nejad, A., & Hamidi, H. (2013). Justice Diamond Model and Its
Relationship with Self-Efficiency. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences, 20(108). http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-
1-2574-en.html
Wahab, A., Mahmood, R., & Ahmad, S. (2015). How Do Self-Efficacy and Learning Orientation Affect
Performance of University Leaders? Journal for Studies in Management and Planning (JSMaP), 1(5), 501-
514. https://repo.uum.edu.my/id/eprint/17397
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. The Academy of
Management Review, 14(3), 361–384.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1989.4279067
Wood, S., Braeken, J., & Niven, K. (2013). Discrimination and well-being in organizations: Testing the
differential power and organizational justice theories of workplace aggression. Journal of business
ethics, 115, 617-634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1404-5
Wray, E., Sharma, U., & Subban, P. (2022). Factors influencing teacher self-efficacy for inclusive education: A
systematic literature review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 117, 103800.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103800
Wu, M., & Li, D. (2007). The Influence of Organizational Justice on Job Satisfaction of Employees in
Government. ICMSEM: Proceedings of 2007 International Conference on Management Science and
Engineering Management, 26, 121–127.
Int. Journal of Business Science and Applied Management / Business-and-Management.org
46
Yahaya, G. S., Innocent, I. O., & Tomi, S. H. (2020). Effect of Self -Efficacy and Distributive Justice on
Employees’ Performance in Federal Capital Territory Area Councils, Abuja. International Journal of Small
and Medium Enterprises, 3(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.46281/ijsmes.v3i1.544
Yorulmaz, M., & Özbağ, G. K. (2020). The Moderating Role of Sea Service Period on the Relationship between
Perceived Organizational Justice and Job Satisfaction : Evidence from Seafarers. Journal of ETA Maritime
Science, 8(3), 134–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.5505/jems.2020.35693
You, S., Kim, A. Y., & Lim, S. A. (2017). Job Satisfaction among Secondary Teachers in Korea: Effects of
Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and School Culture. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
45(2), 284-297.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587311
Zacharias, T. (2023). Distributive, Procedural and Interactional Justice on Employee Job Satisfaction. Baltic
Journal of Law & Politics, 16(3), 2526-2532. DOI:10.2478/bjlp-2023-00000192
Zahednezhad, H., Hoseini, M. A., Ebadi, A., Farokhnezhad Afshar, P., & Ghanei Gheshlagh, R. (2021).
Investigating the relationship between organizational justice, job satisfaction, and Intention to leave the
nursing profession: A cross‐sectional study. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 77(4), 1741-1750.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14717
Zainalipour, H., Fini, A. A. S., & Mirkamali, S. M. (2010). A study of relationship between organizational
justice and job satisfaction among teachers in Bandar Abbas middle school. Procedia-Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 5, 1986-1990.
Zhou, M., Govindan, K., & Xie, X. (2020). How fairness perceptions, embeddedness, and knowledge sharing
drive green innovation in sustainable supply chains: An equity theory and network perspective to achieve
sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 260, 120950.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120950