CvSU Carmona

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/361601133
Organizational Justice and Perceived Organizational Support Towards the Work

Engagement of Local Government Unit Employees in Carmona, Cavite.
Thesis · June 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20225.74086
CITATIONS READS
0 409
3 authors, including:
Mhelbert Paredes
Cavite State University
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Organization Justice and Perceived Organizational Support Towards the Work Engagement of Local Government Unit Employees in Carmona, Cavite View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Mhelbert Paredes on 29 June 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT TOWARDS WORK ENGAGEMENT OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT EMPLOYEES
IN CARMONA, CAVITE
Undergraduate Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Department of Management
Cavite State University – Carmona Campus
Carmona, Cavite
In partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Bachelor of Science in Business Management
JENIELYN S. BARTE
MHELBERT A. PAREDES
SOPHIA LAURENCE M. PURI
January 2022
i
Republic of the Philippines
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
Carmona Campus
Market Road, Carmona, Cavite
 (046) 487-6328/[email protected]
www.cvsu.edu.ph
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
Author: JENIELYN S. BARTE, MHELBERT A. PAREDES and

Title: ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL

IN CARMONA, CAVITE
APPROVED:
CRISTINA M. SIGNO ______ MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA ______

Adviser Date Technical Critic Date
GRETCHEN MACARANAS ______ MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA ______

Department Research Coordinator Date Department Head Date
CARLO EMIL B. MAÑABO ______ CRISTINA M. SIGNO ______

Campus Research Coordinator Date Campus Administrator Date
ii
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
The researcher, Jenielyn S. Barte, is the youngest daughter of Mrs. Helen Sus and
Mr. Jorge Barte. She was born on October 18, 1998, in Pasay General Hospital. She has an
older brother named Jeffrey S. Barte, a college student from the University. She completed
her primary education at Dela Paz Main Elementary School in 2012. She also completed
Junior High School at Santa Catalina College, San Antonio Biñan Laguna, in 2016,
receiving awards and recognition. In 2018, she finished her Senior High School at the
University of Perpetual Help System Laguna - JONELTA with honors.
In August 2018, she took a Bachelor of Science in Business Management Major in
Human Resource Management at Cavite State University- Carmona Campus.
During her high school days, the researcher was a SPES beneficiary and worked for
the community. On the other hand, she also experienced working in a carinderia during
her free time from school and sometimes doing house cleaning as a part-time job.
One of her goals in life is to become a successful business practitioner and, at the same
time, a professional teacher. She had a lot of dreams to be achieved for her family and
herself.
iii
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
The researcher, Mhelbert A. Paredes, was born on the 17th of December 1997 in
San Fernando, La Union, and was raised in the city of the South, Sta. Rosa Laguna. The
parents of the humble researcher are Gilbert A. Paredes and Carmela A. Paredes. His father
is self-employed and working as a tricycle driver in Bayumbong, Nueva Vizcaya, while
his mother is currently employed as a nanny in the foreign country of Ukraine. The
researcher has a younger sibling named Mhelecyne A. Paredes and is presently studying at
St. Ignatius Technical Institute of Business and Arts.
He is taking up a bachelor’s degree in Business Management major in Human
Resource Management at Cavite State University- Carmona Campus. He also took a
vocational course, Associate in Information Technology in St. Ignatius Technical Institute
of Business and Arts.
The researcher has a particular room for reading, and he likes the categories that
could hook his heart and intellectual capacity. He loves reading interesting facts and light
novels. He is fond of singing A-pop and selected OPM songs and several J-pop songs. In
terms of fondness for colors, his favorite is blue, and his favorite artists are Sam Smith and
James Arthur. The said researcher’s dream is to become a successful businessman in the
future, but he focused on becoming a certified human resource practitioner. Although the
path he is taking right now is not what he has chosen and anticipated, it paved the way for
him to gain experiences and equipped knowledge to achieve his future dreams. He believed
that consistency and persistence are needed to attain what a person is trying to pursue.
iv
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA
The researcher, Sophia Laurence M. Puri was born in 2000, on the month of
December and the 14th day of the month in Philippine General Hospital located in Taft,
Manila. She has one brother named Mark Joshua Montilla Puri, working as a Call Center
Agent at Sutherland Carmona. Her parents are Romeo B. Puri and Nilda M. Puri. Her father
was working as a Maintenance in St. Mary Academy and it was already 9 years from now
since her mother died because of lupus.
Currently, they are all living in Block 1 Lot 10, Barangay Milagrosa, Carmona
Townhomes, Carmona Cavite. This place helps her to grow and to be matured.
She finished her elementary days in Mabuhay Elementary School located in
Mabuhay Carmona, Cavite. She also finished her Junior High School at Carmona National
High School where she received a loyalty award and a special award for being a choir
member in four years. AMA Computer College Biñan Campus is the place where she
graduated from a Senior High School and became a scriptwriter of a film produced by her
organization, cineAMA. She is studying at Cavite State University-Carmona Campus and
currently taking up a Bachelor of Science in Business Management Major in Human
Resource Management.
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The researchers would want to express their heartfelt gratitude and genuine
appreciation to the following individuals for their significant contributions to the
completion of this study.
First and foremost, thanks to Almighty God for providing them with the insight,
strength, direction, and dedication they needed to complete this research;
Dr. Cristina M. Signo, thesis adviser, and campus administrator, for the study's
supervision, advice, and comments, there as well as the support, encouragement, and
measures to guarantee the safety of all those included in the research study;
Ms. Maria Andrea C. Francia, technical critic and chair of the Department of
Management, for evaluating and offering ideas for the study's enhancement;
Mr. Carlo Emil B. Mañabo, Mr. Ron Erik C. Frontuna, Ms. Jocelyn B. Siochi, and
Ms. Gretchen Macaranas for their comprehensive and supportive comments and
recommendations to make the study more engaging;
Mr. Robert Jan R. Bayan, statistician, whose statistical knowledge has been
incredibly beneficial in the analysis and interpretation of the data acquired;
Mr. Greg Gener, human resource manager of Carmona, Cavite, for his availability
and cooperation in acquiring the number of individuals, as well as his unwavering support
in reaching out to the target participants;
Mr. Carlo Emil B. Mañabo, campus research coordinator, for his assistance and
recommendations on how to improve the study.
vi
Lastly, to the participants of the study, for being cooperative and spending their
time in responding to the survey questionnaire provided, which, in turn, aided in the
achievement of the study's objectives; and
especially to their family, loved ones, and friends, who also act as an inspiration
while conducting this study, for their steadfast moral, spiritual, and financial support,
guidance, and drive.
JENIELYN S. BARTE
MHELBERT A. PAREDES
vii
ABSTRACT
BARTE, JENIELYN S., PAREDES, MHELBERT A., PURI, SOPHIA LAURENCE

M. Organizational Justice and Perceived Organizational Support Towards the Work
Engagement of Local Government Unit Employees in Carmona, Cavite.
Undergraduate Thesis. Bachelor of Science in Business Management major in Human
Resource Management. Cavite State University – Carmona Campus, Carmona, Cavite,
January 2022. Adviser: Dr. Cristina M. Signo.
The study was sought to determine the level of organizational justice, perceived
organizational support, and work engagement of local government unit employees in
Carmona, Cavite, and the relationship between the said variables.
The study used a descriptive–correlational research design. Participants were 250
local government unit employees working in all local government units in Carmona who
worked for more than six (6) months to more than seven (7) years at the aforesaid offices
in Carmona, Cavite. A modified questionnaire was used to gather the data. Purposive,
proportionate, snowball and convenient sampling techniques were used. Pearson
correlation and weighted mean were employed as a statistical instrument to analyze, and
interpret the data.
The study revealed that the level of organizational justice in terms of distributive
and interactional justice is viewed as highly fair by participants, whereas procedural justice
was perceived as fair. As per perceived organizational support, it was evaluated as high.
Subsequently, participants' work engagement suggested that they were highly engaged.
The result also showed that organizational justice has a significant relationship with
perceived organizational support and work engagement. Likewise, perceived
organizational support has a significant relationship with work engagement.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA …………………………………………………...... iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT ……………………………………………………… vi
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………..... viii
LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………….. xi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES …………………………………………….... xii
LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………….... xiii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………... 1
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………..... 3
Objectives of the Study ……………………………………………….... 4
Hypotheses of the Study ……………………………………………….. 5
Conceptual Framework of the Study ………………………………....... 6
Significance of the Study ………………………………………………. 7
Time and Place of the Study ………………………………………........ 8
Scope and Limitations of the Study ………………….……………........ 8
Operational Definitions of Terms …………………….…………........... 9
REVIEW ON RELATED LITERATURE …………………………………... 11
METHODOLOGY ……………………………………………………………. 55
Research Design ……………………………………………...……....... 55
Sources of Data ……………………………………………………….... 55
ix
Participants of the Study ………………………………………………… 56
Sampling Technique …………………………………………………...... 59
Data Gathering Procedure ……………………………………………..... 59
Research Instrument …………………………………………………...... 60
Statistical Treatment …………………………………………….…......... 62
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………….. 66
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ………………. 86
REFERENCES …………………………………………………………….…... 91
APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………......... 111
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Distribution of the participants in the local government offices in Carmona,

Cavite………………………………………………....... 57
2 Descriptive interpretation for the level of organizational justice in terms of

distributive justice of the participants………………………….. 63

interactional justice of the participants………………………… 63

procedural justice of the participants…………………………... 64
5 Descriptive interpretation for the level of perceived organizational support

of the participants…………………………...……………. 64
6 Descriptive interpretation for the work engagement of the participants…. 65
7 Descriptive interpretation for the Pearson r correlation………………....... 65
8 Level of organizational justice of the participants……………………....... 66
9 Level of perceived organizational support of the participants……………. 70
10 Level of the work engagement of the participants……………………....... 71
11 Relationship between level of organizational justice and level of perceived

organizational support of the participants……………… 73
12 Relationship between level of organizational justice and level of work

engagement of the participants………….………………………… 79
13 Relationship between level of perceived organizational support and level

of work engagement of the participants…………………………... 84
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix Page
Table
1 Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of distributive

justice…………………………………………………………. 106
2 Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of procedural

justice………………………………………………………... 106
3 Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of interactional

justice…………………………………………… 107
4 Descriptive statistics for perceived organizational support………… 108
5 Descriptive statistics for work engagement ………………………….. 108
6 Pearson-R Correlation test between organizational justice and

perceived organizational support……………………………... 109
7 Pearson-R Correlation test between organizational justice and work

engagement…………………….……………………………... 110
8 Pearson-R Correlation test between work engagement and perceived

organizational support………….……………………………... 110
xii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
1 The total number of employees in the offices of the Local Government

of Carmona……………………………………………………….. 111
2 Permission Letter to acquire the number of employees in

Municipality of Carmona…………………………………………. 113
3 Permission Letter to Brian P. Niehoff and Robert H. Hoorman,2021..... 114
4 Permission Letter to Mert Gürlek, 2019……………………………… 115
5 Google Forms Survey Instrument……………………………………… 116
6 Statistical result using Cronbach’s Alpha……………………………… 119
7 Original Survey Questionnaires………………………………………... 120
8 Consent letter for the participants ……………………………………... 123
9 Research Instrument …………………………………………………… 125
xiii
1

IN CARMONA, CAVITE
Jenielyn S. Barte
Mhelbert A. Paredes
Sophia Laurence M. Puri
An undergraduate thesis manuscript submitted to the faculty of the Department of

Management, Cavite State University – Carmona Campus, Carmona, Cavite in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Business
Management major in Human Resource Development Management with Contribution No.
TBMH-2022-01-005. Prepared under the supervision of Dr. Cristina M. Signo.
INTRODUCTION
Employees' actions and practices in the workplace are heavily influenced by their
views of justice. When employees believe that the company is equal, they are more likely
to have good attitudes and partake in activities that support the organization. In addition,
justice is just as critical in the office as it is everywhere else. Employees who believe that
they are not being handled equally will experience reduced morale, a loss of confidence,
and dysfunctional interactions, which can contribute to immoral behavior or disruptive
activities. Also, employees are more likely to have pessimistic views and engage in
workplace behavior that is harmful to the company as they experience unfairness. An
office that seeks fairness will leave staff searching for more jobs which, at best, will result
in an uninspired workforce.
2
Employees who are treated fairly can feel more the importance of their welfare. In
connection, desirable work opportunities and fair treatment have a significant influence on
perceived organizational support. Perceived organizational support as stated by
Eisenberger, Malone & Presson (2016) in their study is explained as the employees’
perception that their well-being and contributions to the company are appreciated. In recent
researches, perceived organizational support is one of the most chosen topics to
characterize the social exchange relationships that take place between an employer and
employee. It represents the assessment of employees on the quality of exchange
relationship between the organization and employees. Employees with greater perceived
organizational support may become more engaged to help the organization in the
achievement of its goals. When an employee thinks that their contributions are valued and
perceived, they will probably repay the organization by trying to meet its related
obligations by becoming more engaged.
Furthermore, work engagement is viewed to be influenced by organizational justice
and perceived organizational support. As defined, work engagement is a concept that
reflects a positive way of thinking that relates to the commitment of involvement to one's
organization, enthusiasm, and energy. Engaged workers show better in-role task
performance and better financial results because of their strong dedication and focus on
their work activities. Also, (Redmond et al., 2018), mentioned that work engagement is
very dependent on the organization and is considered to have great significance for both
employers, and employees were seen to be more engaged in their work when they feel that
they were highly supported by the organization.

3
The researchers had chosen Carmona, Cavite because it is considered as a first-
class Municipality according to Memorandum Circular No.97-3(24) by the Department of
Finance. It is also ranked as 3rd Most Competitive Municipality in Overall Municipalities
(COA, 2018). It received an award as the top four Most Competitive Municipality in terms
of government efficiency and effectiveness where it means that Carmona has the capability,
legitimacy, and authority for creating good service for the public.
Studies available online had focused on employees working in private companies
however, there are only limited studies relating the said variables to local government unit
employees. Additionally, there are few studies relating organizational justice and perceived
organizational support in the employees’ work engagement. The study could serve as an
additional reference for both local and foreign research online. Hence, this study aimed to
know if organizational justice has a relationship with perceived organizational support and
if organizational justice has a relationship with work engagement. Moreover, if perceived
organizational support has a relationship to the work engagement of the local government
unit employees.
Statement of the Problem
This research was conducted to determine the relationship of organizational justice
to the perceived organizational support, organizational justice to the work engagement, and
perceived organizational support to the work engagement of local government unit
employees in Carmona, Cavite.
The research was intended to find the answers to the following questions:
1.1. What is the level of organizational justice as perceived by the participants in
terms of:
4
1.1.distributive justice;
1.2.procedural justice; and
1.3.interactional justice?
2. What is the level organizational support as perceived of the participants?
3. What is the level of work engagement of the participants?
4. What is the significant relationship between organizational justice and
perceived organizational support of the participants in terms of:
4.1 distributive justice and perceived organizational support;
4.2 procedural justice and perceived organizational support; and
4.3 interactional justice and perceived organizational support.?
5. What is the significant relationship between organizational justice and work
engagement in terms of:
5.1 distributive justice and work engagement;
5.2 procedural justice and work engagement; and
5.3 interactional justice and work engagement?
6. What is the significant relationship between perceived organizational support
of the participants and their work engagement?
Objectives of the study
The research sought to identify the relation of organizational justice to the
perceived organizational support, organizational justice to the work engagement, and
perceived organizational support to the work engagement of local government unit
employees in Carmona, Cavite.
Specifically, the study intended to identify;

5
1. the level of organizational justice as perceived by the participants in terms of:
1.1. distributive justice;
1.2. procedural justice; and
1.3. interactional justice.
2. the level of organizational support as perceived by the participants.
3. the level of work engagement of the participants.
4. the significant relationship between organizational justice and perceived
organizational support of the participants in terms of:
4.1. distributive justice and perceived organizational support;
4.2. procedural justice and perceived organizational support; and
4.3. interactional justice and perceived organizational support.
5.the significant relationship between organizational justice and work engagement
of the participants in terms of:
5.1. distributive justice and work engagement;
5.2. procedural justice and work engagement; and
5.3. interactional justice and work engagement.
6. the significant relationship between perceived organizational support and work
engagement.
Hypotheses of the study
This study came up with hypotheses that aimed to be answered at the end of the
research. The null hypotheses are as follows:
Ho1. There is no significant relationship between organizational justice and perceived
organizational support in terms of:

6
Ho1.1 distributive justice and perceived organizational support;
Ho1.2 procedural justice and perceived organizational support; and
Ho1.3 interactional justice and perceived organizational support.
Ho2. There is no significant relationship between organizational justice and work
engagement in terms of:
Ho2.1 distributive justice and work engagement;
Ho2.2 procedural justice and work engagement; and
Ho2.3 interactional justice and work engagement.
Ho3. There is no significant relationship between perceived organizational support and
work engagement.
Conceptual Framework
The independent variables included organizational justice in terms of distributive
justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, and perceived organizational support.
Work engagement serves as the dependent variable of the study. As organizational justice
and perceived organizational support place a great impact on the employees, these variables
are used to determine their relation to the work engagement. (Fig. 1)

7
ORGANIZATIONAL
JUSTICE
Distributive Justice
Procedural Justice
Interactional Justice WORK
ENGAGEMENT
PERCEIVED
ORGANIZATIONAL
SUPPORT
Figure 1. Organizational justice and perceived organizational support towards

work engagement of local government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite.
Significance of the Study
The results of this study would be beneficial to the following stakeholders.
Local Government Units. The result of the study would help the mentioned
benefactors to be aware and to pay attention to the development of government employees’
work engagement by understanding their organizational justice and perceived
organizational support. If employees are engaged and execute their work well, the
government institutions will also perform well.
HR Managers. The study would help the said benefactors to outline a policy that
would develop the work engagement of the employees by allocating fair and just treatment
to foster the critical value of integrity and trust inside the organization.
Government Employees. It would give them enough knowledge about
organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and work engagement. It would
help them to thrive and flourish in the organization they belong to.
8
Researchers. The study would assist the researchers in fully comprehending the
essence of organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and work engagement
in a business, and would provide them enough knowledge to apply in their future careers
as human resource practitioners or other related careers.
Future researchers. This study may serve as resource material for researchers who
want to pursue a similar concept of study. Also, this would help the researchers in the
development and improvisations of future researchers' papers.
Time and Place of the Study
This research was conducted from June to November 2021, to local government
unit employees in all local government offices in Carmona, Cavite.
Scope and Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study focused on organizational justice and perceived
organizational support towards the work engagement of the local government unit
employees in Carmona, Cavite. This study is conducted to determine the level of
organizational justice as perceived by the participants in terms of distributive justice,
procedural justice, and interactional justice to the level of work engagement. In addition, it
determined the relationship between the level of organizational justice as perceived by
participants in terms of distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice to
the level of perceived organizational support. Furthermore, this study would determine the
relationship between the level of perceived organizational support and work engagement.
The participants of the study were limited only to two hundred fifty (250) local
government unit employees who are working in local government units in Carmona, Cavite
(Appendix 1) regardless of their demographic profile such as sex, age, income,

9
employment status, and marital status in the mentioned setting. They were chosen to
participate in the study because government employees have been observed to be under
extreme pressure while working. Moreover, most government employees are identified as
having skills shortages, being disengaged, a lack of trust, and a salary that is not
competitive, all of which are critical workforce issues that may affect employee
performance and work engagement (Risher,2019).
Definition of Terms
The terms were defined to provide clarity so that the readers have a better
understanding of the words used in this study.
Correlation. It refers to a statistical measure that expresses the extent to which two
variables are linearly related. It was ranged from no correlation, very weak
positive/negative correlation, weak positive/negative correlation, moderate
positive/negative correlation, strong positive/negative correlation, very strong
positive/negative correlation, and perfect positive/ negative correlation
Local government unit employees. It refers to the public employees employed by
the government for providing administrative services to the citizens.
Organizational Justice. It refers to the perception of employees as to fairness in
the office or workplace. This can either be distributive, interactional, or procedural justice.
Distributive Justice. It refers to the employees’ evaluations of the fairness of the allocation
of desirable outcomes across people that were ranged from very fair, fair, slightly fair, and
not fair.
Interactional justice. It refers to how an employee is treated when decisions
are made that were ranged from very fair, fair, slightly fair, and not fair.
10
Procedural justice. It refers to the fairness of the decision-making or
process that leads to these outcomes that were ranged from very fair, fair, slightly
fair, and not fair.
Perceived Organizational Support. It refers to the extent to which the employees
believe that the organization values their contributions that were ranged from very high,
high, low, and very low.
Work Engagement. It is the positive behavior at work that results in a positive
outcome. It is also a state of mind wherein employees are energetic to give off their best
and commit themselves to their organization’s goals and values. It was ranged from highly
engaged, engaged, slightly engaged, and not engaged.

11
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
This chapter reviewed the related literature which supports and give credence to the
details of this research. The researchers anchored this comprehensive study to different
viewpoints and perspectives to present a thorough treatment of the problem. Concepts,
findings, theories, and notions, from scholarly research and articles related to variables
used, provide an extensive background of the study and justify the researchers’ objective
in undertaking it.
Organizational Justice
Organizational justice is simply defined by Terzi et al. (2017) as employees’
perception of justice in the organization. It is the moral responsibility of an organization
and essential to secure and ensure the growth of the firm and its employees (Lotfi & Pour,
2013). When there is injustice in the organization, the employee morale decreases resulting
in their performance’s ineffectiveness and high turnover rate; therefore, it might affect the
employees’ engagement to the organization. Employees will show negative emotions and
behaviors when they feel and perceive unfair practices in distributing outputs in the
workplace. Positive actions at work are necessary to work effectively and efficiently (Tolga
Atikbay & Yıldırım Öner, 2020).
Moreover, organizational justice is a method used for decision-making concerned
in distributing organizational sources and the set of rules and norms that regulate the
relationship between people. The notion of organizational justice is often described as a
variable with three sub-topics: distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional
justice (Yean & Yusof, 2016). Distributive justice is the insight that pertains to whether
employees' contributions such as accountability, services, opportunities, awards, statuses

12
are balanced to their performance. Procedural justice speaks to the concept of equal
processes, and how the nature of people's experiences, not just the end product of those
experiences, has a significant effect on their understanding of justice. On the other side,
interactional justice, the third sub-variable is the perception formed referring to
interpersonal treatments towards the employees during the organizational activities.
Previous research about the role of organizational justice is rapidly increasing. Still,
the absence of organizational justice has been found to impact employees’ productivity and
well-being negatively. Some other researchers find that having a perceived organizational
justice positively correlates with high pay satisfaction, job satisfaction, and work
engagement (Sia et al., 2016). Organizations must be concerned about having fair treatment
on the distribution of outcomes, policies and responsibilities, the decision-making
processes, and fairness in rewarding employees. If not, they will react negatively and may
impact their attachment toward their job.
The issue of fairness has been an eternal subject of the organization. Past studies
reveal that employees who believed that they were treated fairly in the organization would
have positive attitudes and better work results. If there is a high level of organizational
justice in the workplace, employees will fully trust their employers by paying attention to
their contribution to the company. Having trust in the organization strengthens the sense of
belongingness between the two parties, thus, organizational justice is considered as the
institutional basis that guarantees the expectation of employees to the organization (Dai &
Qin, 2016).
Organizational justice is also considered to be a universal predictor of employee
and organizational outcomes (Pan et al., 2018). If employees perceive that there are fairness
13
and honesty in the organization, employees will show characteristics that are essential for
organizational development (Demirkiran et al., 2016), enjoy greater job satisfaction, and
can be the source of organizational and competitive success. Moreover, the organization
can control the possible challenges and threats from employees, as a result acquiring the
benefits of being a good employer, sustaining productivity, profits, and morale of
employees (Walia & Chetty, 2020). Employees who perceived justice are more likely to
be satisfied with their jobs and are less inclined to leave their employers.
In contrast, if organizational justice does not exist in the company or might not
work properly, the organization, in turn, will not be able to establish values of integrity and
trust and lead to increased absenteeism, exert less effort, fear among members of the
organization, misbehavior, and doubt, and even more finally leave the organization (Sia et
al., 2016). This will ultimately have an undesirable effect and negative feelings on
employees which lead to negative consequences such as poor collaboration and employee-
customer interactions (Krause, 2019). Perceived organizational injustice reduces workers'
motivation to complete their tasks. Therefore, organizational justice should be prioritized
in the development and implementation of human resource management policies and
strategies.
Distributive Justice. (Der Voet, 2019) defines distributive justice as a critical
element of understanding employees and was experienced when an allocation appears
consistent with implicit norms. However, various norms are associated with perceiving
distributive justice, some researchers view it using equality rule as well as an equity rule.
There is a significant difference between the word’s equity and equality, but these two
words are very crucial when it comes to the workplace of employees. Equity in the
14
organization refers to "the quality of being fair and impartial", while workplace equality
means giving employees the same treatment as in their privileges and laws (Kelly, 2020).
When all employees feel encouraged and empowered to show their unique ideas to the
organization, they are perceived to be valued and equally treated. On the other hand, equity
is experienced when all diverse employees have equal opportunities and support to grow
and succeed (Der Voet, 2019). The conditions of distributive equity are experienced when
an employee's outcome is balanced with their input in an exchange relationship where there
are proportional distributions in the contributions, rights, and merit. Equality justice
pertains to a comparative standard that requires two or more people to receive the same
outcomes. Similarly, (Starmans et al., 2017), used distributive equality in their study and
referred it to a perceived justice using absolute egalitarian rule, and the word distributive
equity defines justice as a "desert-based" standard that requires a balanced input-outcome
ratio in an exchange relationship.
Distributive justice is one of the scopes of organizational justice on how employees
perceived that distribution of desirable outcomes is comparable to their inputs. The
person’s commitment, loyalty, length of time with the organization, and the degree of
education, training, and talents that they give to the company are referred to as inputs while
outcomes are the anticipated benefits that someone can derive from a circumstance such as
compensation (Nagle, n.d). The compensations in the organization can be in different forms
such as monetary including salary, bonuses, and allowances, or non-monetary such as the
incentives and promotional opportunities received by the employees. The assessment of
having distributive justice in the organization is seen by comparing the compensation
received by the employee to their co-worker who is doing the same work. If it comes out
15
that the employee does not receive an equal ratio, there is an injustice. Equal
compensations lead to equity which turns to a sense of achievement.
Distributive justice represents the perception of employees in the fairness of
outcomes they received in the organization (Riza, 2019) where employees compare their
remuneration to one another (Ohana & Meyer, 2016) to determine whether their inputs are
proportionate to their output. It is considered an important source of motivation because a
recent study showed that employees put extra effort into their work specifically when they
are rewarded fairly for their performance.
Similarly, according to (Bao & Van, 2021), distributive justice in an organization
is cultivated when employees enact a comparison of what they contribute to the
organization constituting their effort, punctuality, dedication, and performance, and what
they receive in return such as salary, recognition and internal promotion in the organization.
People in organizational settings are supposed to experience equitable and fulfilled feelings
if the distributions are equal. However, if the levels of distributive justice are imbalanced,
employees may feel injustices and attempt to modify the situation to achieve a sustainable
level. Employee dissatisfaction and negative feelings would result from a perception of
having a lack of organizational justice, which would have some harmful effects (Pan et al.,
2018).
In addition, distributive justice has significant effects on pay equity and employee
involvement at work. Work engagement leads to desirable characteristics for the
organization such as helping colleagues, promoting a positive environment, and protecting
the resource of the organization. The distributive justice perception leads employees to be
more involved in work. Indeed, justice leads workforces to commit themselves to the
16
organization which specifically refers to punctuality, attendance, regularity, productivity
and efficiency at work, dedication, enthusiasm, and desire for work advancement.
Moreover, Ouyi (2019) defines distributive justice with three assessments
comprising the internal equity which pertains to the comparison with the employees within
the organization, individual equity which is the comparison with oneself own
characteristics, and outside equity which is the comparison with others outside the
organization.
Interactional Justice. The term "interactional justice" was first coined by Bies and
Moag as stated in the study of (Yangin & Elma, 2017), explaining that interactional justice
is based on interpersonal communication within the workplace. They identify interactional
justice in four fundamental elements including respect where individuals should be treated
with respect; truthfulness and the treatment should be free of deception, next is suitability
where the supervisor’s comments and questions must be appropriate, and lastly,
justification where the treatment should be secure.
It is also considered as the organizational justice social dimension. It requires
employers to treat the employees with full respect, give time to listening to them with
dedication, and exhibit sensitive conditions in the organization. When employers become
more kind to each employee without preconceived judgment and appear to give worth in
their communication, employees assimilate that the organization is fair. Additionally,
interactional justice is viewed as an interpersonal value of procedural justice where it might
cause reaction counter to decision outcomes.
(Dai & Xie, 2016) mentioned in her article that interactional justice is a quality of
interpersonal behavior towards another and a part of the decision-making process received
17
by employees. Interactional justice addresses the relational metrics involved in the sharing
of information and is broken down into informational and interpersonal justice (Krishnan
et al., 2018). Indeed, interactional justice has two components including the interpersonal
aspect which references in which employees are treated with courtesy, dignity, and respect;
and the informational aspect which concerns the extent to which relevant information is
shared with employees. Informational justice has been seen to have a correlation with
procedural justice for the reason that without interactional justice, informational justice
will not make sense (Castillo & Fernandez, 2017).
For instance, (Bradley & Beverley Anne Sparks, 2016), explained interactional
justice as the conduct of both employees and employers. Interactional justice not only
determines how managers treat their subordinates but also relates to how co-workers and
colleagues interact with each other (Akram et al., 2020). Moreover, other researchers refer
to interaction justice to the feelings of employees about how they were treated in the
process of executing procedures in the workplace. Employees feel passionate and have
higher morale when they are treated with fairness by their employers. This kind of justice
has been related to building a healthy and positive professional and personal association
(Fernández-Salinero et al., 2019)
Interactional justice also relates to the capacity of being closely affiliated between
individuals and organizations (Bojan, 2016). It is necessary to consider how people in the
workplace make decisions and understand its possible effect on those who received the
decisions because individuals perceived attitudes and behaviors as indicators of an
organization's fairness. Aside from the outcomes and procedures of organizational justice,
researchers found out that interpersonal treatment received by employees has an enormous
18
effect on employees' perception with regards to organizational justice (Akoh & Amah,
2016).
Interactional justice is as essential as distributive and procedural justice inside the
workplace. It refers to the employees’ treatment with dignity, appreciation, and clear
illustration of the conclusion that has been made (Eidukaite, 2016). It is the degree to which
employees are being treated with respect, kindness, and dignity in interpersonal
encounters. The employee expects that colleagues, bosses, and customers
will be treated with dignity. When the contrary occurs, they become upset. Even when
faced with unfavorable consequences, such as a pay cut, being treated with dignity and
respect acts as a buffer and relieves the stress.
Procedural Justice. As mentioned in the study of (Bennett et al., 2018), procedural
justice is also known as procedural fairness of the process which is usually used by those
in positions of authority to move to a specific decision. Eidukaite (2016) explained
procedural justice as the perceived impartiality of the procedures that have been used in
determining the outcomes, as well as the process of how decisions were made. In
employment law, procedural fairness means that an employee needs to receive a fair and
reasonable opportunity to engage in matters that can affect their security on employment.
It is sometimes called natural justice in the organization (Fairwork Centre, 2021).
Based on Research Career (2020), procedural justice generally pertains to perceived
fairness used to make decisions. It often involves the allocation of resources including
raises or promotions in the organization. Researchers such as (Tyler, 2017) examined the
process control which relates to the opportunity to voice one's opinion or freedom of speech
and control to the decision. The study shows that employees were willing to give up
19
decision control if they were still allowed to voice their ideas about the process used to
negotiate decisions. In the workplace, the idea of process control has been derived by
employees as fair when these procedures are precise, accurate, ethical, unbiased, used
consistently, and consider others' opinions. It has a significant effect on employees' self-
esteem, perceived organizational support, satisfaction, trust, and employees’ work
engagement. In contrast, a low level of procedural justice in an organization leads to
withdrawal, turnover, discrimination-claiming behavior, and organizational punitive
behaviors such as employee theft.
Procedural justice in the 1980s was formally introduced by Gerald Greenberg and
Robert Folger and also discussed in the book of Allan Lind and Tom Tyler which is the
social psychology of procedural justice. Many organizational practices such as
compensation and performance evaluations are implicitly recognized as procedural
concerns (Bobocel & Gosse, 2018) predicted that procedural justice has a stronger effect
than distributive justice when it comes to employees’ evaluation of their trust in their
employer and the organization. In contrast, employees' commitment to the organization
and its authorities reveals that it should be more predicted by their perceptions of
procedural justice (Scrase, 2020)
(Holland-Blumoff, 2017) defines procedural justice as the idea of individuals in a
decision-making process that is fair. It has shown that in a wide variety of settings, the
employee's impression of the process by which judgment was made, influences their
satisfaction with the decision of the process independently apart from the perception of
other types of organizational justice. Four factors guide the individual's perception about
procedural justice; comprising voice which pertains to the opportunity of employees to

20
share a point of view; courtesy and respect where an employee feels treated with dignity
by an authority figure; trust where they believed that intentions of decision-maker are
impartial; and neutrality where decision-maker was unbiased. Employees who felt
supported by the organization could increase trust and become more engaged in their work
if the fair process is present in the work environment (Nix et al., 2017).
Synonymously, Nagle (n.d) explains procedural justice as the degree to which fair
decision-making procedures are used to conclude. People are not only concerned with
equality when it comes to receiving rewards; they also want fairness in decision-making
procedures. Employees care about the procedural justice of several organizational
decisions, including layoffs, employee selection, employee monitoring, performance
assessments, and compensation decisions. They tend to hold the management accountable
if the processes used to evaluate their outcomes are unfair. They are concerned about
procedural justice for three reasons. First, they frequently believe that fairness is a purpose
in itself and that it is the right thing to do. Second, fair procedures ensure that future rewards
will be delivered. If the procedures are fair, employees are more inclined to assume that
everything will be fine in the future. Third, fairness conveys to employees that the firm
values them and cares about their well-being.
Organizational justice of local government unit employees
Understanding the reactions of local government unit employees about fair or unfair
treatment in the organization is necessary. Researchers interpret organizational justice as
an individual-level phenomenon. It is also conceptualized as organizational-level that
represents employees’ perceptions on how the organization and supervisors treat their
employees. The aggregate-level feature of organizational justice shows when employees

21
interact, share experiences, and can engage in a dual sense on how to assess the occurrence
of justice-triggering acts. Organizational justice has few related studies that attribute to the
said dimensions such as distributive, interactional, and procedural justice and its effect on
public organizations (Moon, 2017)
Distributive justice of local government unit employees. Government sectors
including municipalities are characterized as having a rigid rule framework, established job
standards and responsibilities, formal means of communication, clear division of labor and
hierarchical supervision, civil service systems, inflexible incentives system, severe
reporting requirements, restrictions, and constraints. Certain studies show that employees
in government organizations are more rule-oriented and inefficient (Kurland & Egan, n.d).
Public employees receive fewer rewards than private employees, so they perceive lower
levels of distributive justice. The impression of inequality also arises from the fact that pay
does not correspond to the responsibilities assigned to them. It is related to the study of
(Mengstie, 2020) which reveals that personnel in public organizations have low
perceptions of distributive justice. It indicates that the desired outcomes they received, such
as fair compensation, rewards, and division of responsibility, were not reasonable in
comparison to their inputs. Most employees from the public organization stated that the
resources they invest are not proportional to the results they receive. A public employee
who participated in the study claimed that their outcomes (income and other benefits) are
extremely poor when compared to their educational level, efforts, abilities, and time
invested and were all in agreement that they did not get what they deserved.
Furthermore, distributive justice is relevant to the evaluation of both equity-related
issues concerning the social, environmental, economic, and intergenerational

22
characteristics of sustainability, as well as the promotion of progressive and just
arrangements in government institutions such as municipalities. When equality and
frustration among municipal workers have been sparked, the good relationship between the
organization and its employees may be ruined, which could influence their performance to
the public and their engagement to their job, so the firm must be aware when there is a call
for distributive justice and equal opportunities. To improve distributive justice in an
organization, municipalities must work to strengthen their relationships with their
employees while also establishing fairness in the distribution of outcomes commensurate
with their efforts (Peredo & Hernán, 2020).
Interactional justice of local government unit employees. The successful
utilization of interactional justice, the fairness of interactions, and interpersonal
connections in organizations will increase employees' commitment, not only to their jobs
but also to their supervisors and other organizational commitment areas. According to
Akoh and Amah (2016), interactional justice has a positive and significant relationship to
identification and internalization with the supervisor or the organization in the public
sector, which implies that public employees had a close association with the organization
and were satisfied to be subordinated when interactional justice was obtained reasonably.
If interactional unfairness is established, the outcome will be different. Instead, employees
will be emotionally and psychologically separated from the firm. It also signifies that good
communication about work procedures and organizational objectives will benefit
employees who value harmony.
The quality of treatment that employees receive in the workplace determines their
subsequent attitude. In other words, employees develop behavior based on their perception
23
of the type of actions they will encounter in the organization. A healthy workplace
environment is dependent on a competent superior-subordinate relationship. Gender,
varied age groups, education qualifications, and years of service experience of public sector
employees are also found to did not affect the application of interactional justice
(Nidhi&Kumari, 2016).
On the contrary, (Mengstie, 2020) stated in her previous study that public
employees did not receive clear and adequate information from supervisors and were not
treated respectfully unlike private organizations where employees are treated with respect.
Therefore, private employees were performing better than those in public in practicing
interactional justice. Baba and Ghazali (2017) observed that, of the three types of
organizational justice, only interactional justice has no effect on the motivation of public
sector employees at work, while the other two, distributive and procedural justice, have a
significant association and influence on public employees, thus, the presence of
interactional justice does not affect work engagement, productivity, and their job
satisfaction.
Procedural justice of local government unit employees. The government, as the
primary mover and engine of the economy, is responsible for ensuring the equitable
allocation of the country's resources for the growth of its population and, eventually, the
growth of the economy. According to the study of Kurland and Egan (n.d.), local
government unit employees had a poorer view of procedural justice. One probable
explanation for employees' low procedural justice impression is that modern public
organizations are regimes of little bureaucracy and substantially less fair, particularly in
terms of policies and procedures. The procedures and methods of decision-making in

24
public organizations were not also transparent, consistent, and free of bias. Furthermore,
public employees believed that they had no voice in the organization's processes (Mengstie,
2020). Perceived procedural fairness also alleviates the effect of a negative outcome. This
notion of procedural justice becomes more essential as the bad consequence becomes more
severe. It has a strong influence on organizational decisions and behaviors (Lind & Tyler,
2021)
Moreover, the precise and fair execution of personnel procedures affects the
essential work-related attitudes and behaviors such as organizational commitment,
satisfaction on the job, intrinsic motivation, turnover intention, and individual or
organizational performance of a government employee. Procedural justice is essential since
it serves as an aid to solving problems between employees’ trust to the organization.
Evidence from past studies shows that employees can experience discontentment even if
there are pleasing results but the result is based on unjust procedures. In addition,
government employees particularly local government unit employees find it important and
become more open to accepting unfavorable outcomes such as lower salary raises, denied
training opportunities, or promotions if it is administered on fair justice and procedures.
(Samina Quratulain et al., 2017)
Managing employees properly specifically those who work in the public sector is,
therefore, of utmost importance to the organization. Each employee who enters the
corporate world is accompanied by a social exchange relationship and expects to satisfy
their needs whether it’s intrinsic or extrinsic. It is the organization that initiated the process
of social exchange where it discusses how the company shows value to the contributions
of employees and also offers care for their well-being and interests. If achieved, employees
25
are likely to return it with positive work attitudes and less turnover. As mentioned by
(Dzansi et al., 2016) in his study, positive work attitudes depend on how employees
perceive the organization is engaged with them.
Paying attention to all three types of organizational justice perceptions would
benefit the employers. Focusing on organizational justice is not only the ethical thing to
do; it also leads to outcomes that businesses care about. Unfairness has a direct negative
impact on the mental health and well-being of employees, and it causes distress. High
levels of justice foster higher levels of employee commitment to organizations, which are
associated with increased organizational effectiveness, higher levels of organizational
citizenship, and relatively high levels of customer satisfaction. Low levels of justice, on
the other hand, lead to vengeance and support for collective bargaining (Nagle, n.d.).
Perceived Organizational Support
According to the study of Burns (2016) and Eisenberger et al. (2016), perceived
organizational support (POS) is a belief where employees sense that the organization
values their contributions to the company as well as caring for their welfare. The idea of
perceived organizational support is to focus on the benefit and impact of having a good
employee-employer relationship. For instance, studies have found that employees with
high perceived organizational support suffer less stress at work and are more inclined to
stay in the organization. In addition, an employee with high perceived organizational
support will most likely develop a high level of job performance and will greatly contribute
to achieving organizational goals if they will see that their actions are gratifying to the
organization.
26
Perceived organizational support provides a simple avenue for employees to grasp
the judgment of appreciation done by the company. The belief of employees where the
organization appreciated workers positively was extremely opposed to being contemptuous
of the organization. Employees value the perceived organizational support because it meets
their needs for approval, respect, relationship, and comfort in times of trouble. Hence,
most of the studies showed that when perceived organizational support is high, employees
are more likely to be satisfied with their jobs and feel unified with the organization thus,
becoming more loyal and committed to their work.
Caesens et al. (2019) proved that perceived organizational support is a conviction
concerning the organization's management of employees’ well-being and contributions.
Past research showed positive assumptions to perceived organizational support in terms of
acceleration positive attitudes and awareness of employees toward work and company but
it seems that the effect of perceived organizational support has received limited
consideration (Kurtosis et al., 2017). It is also interrelated to plenty of certain attitudes and
behaviors including affective commitment and work engagement of employees (Caesens
et al., 2016). When there is a high perceived organizational support experience in the
company, it creates a sense of unity and tranquility. Employees who perceived high support
tend to be more engaged and open to the conversation concerning work-related tasks with
their coworkers.
Likewise, perceived organizational support is considered to have a mediating
association with supervisor support and different orientations in the organization such as
reduced cynicism, organizational commitment, and withdrawal behavior. It is related to
perceived organizational support to which the supervisor is viewed as the representative

27
acting on behalf of the organization. They posited that employees feel obligated to
reciprocate if they feel the support of the company. It also helps to fulfill the needs of
employees comprising the needs for self-esteem, relationship, leads to membership in the
organization and becoming part of one's social identity which provide one's well-being.
Perceived organizational support helps determine the preparedness of the organization to
reward efforts made by employees (Jin &Mcdonald, 2016).
Perceived Organizational Support of local government unit employees
The Perceived Organizational Support of local government unit employees which
act as a critical mechanism for the involvement and performance of employees at work
revealed that the greater the support the organization has, the higher work engagement,
opportunities and growth perceived. Government employees with a heightened sense of
organizational support can quickly diminish if the employees do not trust their employers.
It is necessary that employers communicate to their members to establish a realistic set of
expectations on actions and provide the resources needed and that are attainable. Public
sector employers who desire to persuade employees’ involvement at work should look
beyond merely giving incentives, instead, the organization should promote support on
employees that has a potential effect on building a quality leader, employee satisfaction,
and committed employees. Lack of perceived organizational support has been cited as a
more critical factor than low status or lower salary in employee dissatisfaction (Jin
&Mcdonald, 2016).
Furthermore, municipal workers make up the bulk of public-sector employees
worldwide, but there is little reliable research about them (Panvanelli, 2018). Most of the
government employees are identified by having skills shortages, being disengaged, lack of
28
trust and the salary is not competitive. These terms are serious workforce problems that
may affect the performance of employees. Some studies revealed that when government
employees have effective leaders and received support from the organization, they become
more committed to their job and create a good quality of service to people (Risher, 2019).
Government employees are often misunderstood by the people because of some
issues including public sector failures, misuse of public money, employees that are not
motivated or properly trained, and poor performance and quality service. Kunicova (2018),
mentioned ways to improve public sectors' performance by giving the employees needed
organizational support. One of these is creating government wide-policy, rewards systems,
engaging in technological literacy and development. Through coordination and support,
performance can be boosted.
In connection to this time of COVID-19 pandemic, there is a threatening disruption
of public service delivery however, public workers in some countries have been able to
quickly adapt and re-adjust to minimize negative impact to communities with the help and
support of their respective governments. Government employees should equitably,
responsively, and humanely deliver services to people in any circumstances and as a
consequence, government credibility and trust among people are enhanced. Therefore, to
sustain government employees’ commitment and good performance towards work, the
government organization should pay attention to developing the employee’s abilities to
public service, give protection and incentives for their productivity, provide the tools and
equipment required to effectively do their tasks, collaborate and share to develop learnings
that stand for better chances of improvements in finding solutions in work of government
employees in general. In short, government organizations must have effective

29
organizational support for their employees to engage them at work and provide better
performance for people (Kauzya & Niland, 2020), governments are opted to provide goods
and services that are performed directly by public employees that are why public sectors
job are created (Caponi, 2017).
Organizational Justice and Perceived Organizational Support
Organizational justice is one of the strongest antecedents of perceived organizational
support (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), because workers perceived equal organizational
treatment as an indicator that their company cares about them. (Babic et al., 2015). Allowing
workers to have a say in decision-making practices shows that the company cares for and values
its employees. Just practices also mean that the company respects its workers' interests, which is
beneficial to perceived organizational support (Moideenkutty et al., 2001). Employees consider
the fairness of the organization's results when determining whether or not their organization trusts
them. Equal procedures (i.e. procedural justice) and fair pay (i.e. distributive justice) were found to
be closely linked to perceived organizational support by (Fasolo, 1995) and (Loi et al., 2006).
Employees draw inferences about their organization's ability to compensate or assist them as a
result of distributive justice. As a consequence of these inferences, employees believe their
company values their efforts. (Cheung, 2013) discovered that interpersonal and informational
justices were also positively linked to perceived organizational support in her research. Receiving
adequate information about outcomes and being handled with integrity and fairness in the
administration of outcomes both generate a strong sense that the company values one's contribution
and cares about one's well-being. (Babic et. al, 2015)
According to (Babic et al., 2015), the relationship between organizational justice and its
results is frequently understood in terms of social exchange. Among theories that apply social
30
exchange processes to the employment relationship, the organizational support theory considers
employees' positive reactions to positive valuations by the organization. Based on the framework
of their study, workplace justice increases the perceived organizational support of employees.
Moreover, rendering to their findings, employees regard workplace fairness as proof that
the company cares for their well-being and values their efforts hence, the employees who
feel supported by their organization recognize themselves to have more resources to
manage work by knowing that help is available and improving perceived competency.
Their research demonstrates that perceived organizational support fully mediates the
aspects of organizational justice.
Many important organizational attitudes and behaviors can be directly linked to employees'
perceptions of justice, which is why organizational justice has received so much attention in the
literature. Previous research has found that employee perceptions of justice have an impact on a
wide range of employee attitudes, including perceived organizational support, organizational
commitment, leader-member exchange, and job and pay satisfaction. Each form of justice has its
special relationship with some organizational attitudes; in this analysis, the researchers would look
for a connection between the three types of organizational justice, such as distributive, procedural,
and interactional justice, and perceived organizational support. Moreover, according to the study
entitled “Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework: Clarifying Organizational
Justice Distinctions”, procedural justice tends to be most closely related to perceived
organizational support. It is also shown that the different forms of organizational justice are linked
to social exchange relationships with the organization (procedural justice) or with the supervisor
(interactional justice), but not with distributive justice (Roch & Shanock, 2006).
31
For the last few years, organizational justice and the support practices in the organization
have received a lot of scrutiny from researchers. According to many reports, organizational justice
has a positive impact on perceived organizational (Cem Şen et al., 2021). It has been suggested
that the presence of organizational justice in the workplace influences public expectations of how
important it is that employees believe that they are valued by the organization. If they are treated
fairly, it may increase their sense that the company cares for their well-being at work, which will
increase their ability to devote themselves to work. Thus, being treated fairly by the organization
will indicate that the organization values and cares about them.
Justice in the organization implies that the organization recognizes the interests of its
employees, which contributes favorably to perceived organizational support. Employees consider
the fairness outcomes earned from the employer when deciding if the organization supports them.
(Loi et al., 2006) mentioned that perceived organizational support was closely linked to both equal
practices such as procedural justice and distributive justice. Employees draw inferences about their
organization's ability to compensate or assist them as a result of distributive justice. As a
consequence of those conclusions, employees believe that their company supports their efforts.
Employees' perceptions of justice are likely to foster a sense of support from the
organization. When they consider that their organization is acting fairly, they interpret such
actions as signals that the organization cares about and values them. There is a lot of
evidence that justice improves perceived organizational support. Given that justice
signifies a general perception of the organization's fair treatment, overall justice may
influence the perceived organizational support (Arnéguy et al., 2018). When employees
have a higher level of perceived organizational support, it implies that they are more likely
32
to view their organization's actions and practices as fair and equitable when the
organization also strives to promote and support their welfare.
Distributive organizational justice and perceived organizational support.
Distributive justice is thought to be a major indicator of perceived organizational support.
It contends that employees who perceive those outcomes are equally distributed are more
likely to participate in extra-role actions, because it has become a significant indicator of
work success and effectiveness, and people with a high degree of distributive justice are
willing to make extra efforts to find ways to contribute to their organizations. Employees
who perceive high levels of outcomes fairness are more inclined to manage perceived
organizational support because they feel obligated to the organization for fair treatment in
outcome distribution. In this case, the given justice comes into play in determining
individuals' perceived organizational support. Consequently, as a way of repaying this debt,
which is the perceived support from the organization, they are likely to reciprocate by going
above and beyond on their organization's best interests (Fu & Lihua, 2012).
Procedural organizational justice and perceived organizational support.
Employees are viewed as assets. As a result, attempts from the Human Resource
Department to understand and analyze the factors that influence employee performance are
a basic requirement to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. Procedural justice is also a
significant predictor and antecedent of perceived organizational support, based on (Fu &
Lihua, 2012) investigation. Procedural justice is regarded as a critical resource in social
exchange in the business context. It influences employees' judgment in the company, which
means that positive and discretionary treatment of the organization improves perceived
organizational support. Procedural justices indicate the organization's respect for

33
employees' rights, which contributes positively to perceived organizational support
because it can be viewed as one aspect of such treatment that refers to the level of
organizational support.
There are two types of HR practices that are critical to the development of higher
perceived organizational support: (1) discretionary procedures that demonstrate
organizational affection but are not mandated by company policy or employment contract,
and (2) HR practices that represent corporate recognition of the employee's contribution.
This proposition implies that those HR policies that represent various ways in which the
organization cares about its employees and values their contributions may be especially
essential for the development of high perceived organizational support. Further to that, if
companies use HR policies to demonstrate support for employees to motivate positive
employee attitudes and behaviors, motivational theories become critical in guiding this
effort.
The concept of procedural justice refers to the fairness in the procedures that resolve
disputes and allocate resources. Perceived organizational support serves as a moderator in
linking perceptions of procedural justice mentioned in the study of Krishnan and Mary
(2012), in which they illustrated perceived organizational support as a general perception
concerning the extent to which the organization values employees' general contributions
and cares for their safety.
Likewise, Rhoades and Eisenberger's study reveals that procedural justice is
concerned with the fairness of the methods for determining the distribution of resources
among employees. Repeated instances of justice in resource allocation decisions should
have a powerful cumulative impact on perceived organizational support by signifying a

34
concern for employees' welfare. Conversely, structural determinants include rigorous rules
and policies governing decisions that affect employees, such as providing adequate notice
before decisions are enacted, receiving accurate information, and exercising one's right to
speak up (i.e., employee input in the decision process). They investigated the relationship
between the overall category of procedural justice and perceived organizational support in
the following meta-analysis. Many studies only reported a composite measure of
procedural justice that included more than one component.
Interactional organizational justice and perceived organizational support. (Fu
& Lihua, 2012)found that interactional justice is an effective predictor of perceived
organizational support in their study “Organizational justice and perceived organizational
support.” Cheung (2013) recently suggested that interactional justice could be a good
predictor of perceived organizational support. Cheung (2013) discovered that interactional
justice is also positively linked to perceived organizational support. Being treated with integrity and
respect in the administration of outcomes, as well as having adequate knowledge about these,
creates a good sense that the company values one's effort and contributions, also cares about the
employees’ well-being.
Furthermore, some researchers reach the same conclusion. The final line of their
research focuses on some special cases of the relationship between organizational justice
and perceived organizational justice. Most studies, for example, have not included
distributive justice in models that analyze perceived support, and some studies have
discovered that interactional justice either has a significant relationship with perceived
organizational justice or is not included in frameworks. Interactional justice demonstrates
how much authority treats employees with dignity and respect when explaining and
35
carrying out procedures (Babic et al., 2015). A supportive organization may recognize
employees who have earned credit for making contributions to the organization, and such
appreciation fosters their sense of organizational involvement. Employees may feel the
organization's support in this scenario since interactive justice may make employees feel
that the organization values their contributions and well-being, which draws their attention
to developing and maintaining an emotionally satisfying relationship with that kind of
organization. The quality of interpersonal treatment in resource allocation is one of the
social aspects of procedural justice, also known as interactional justice. Social aspects
include treating employees with respect and dignity and informing them about how
outcomes are determined.
If the organization's expectations of interactional fairness are poor, it may want to
implement management training programs that focus on how managers should participate in good
interpersonal handling of workers. (Roch&Shanock, 2014).
Work Engagement
In today's dynamic workforce, organizations face various problems such as
retaining skilled employees and engaging employees in their work. Challenges experienced
by the company could be in the external or internal aspects. The company needs to remain
competitive and by attaining this, the organization should pay attention to its human
resources. Further research reveals that work engagement emerged as one of the most
critical factors needed in creating a competitive advantage. Therefore, when employees are
engaged in their work, there is an urge to strive and exert more effort. Work engagement
is an influential tool that helps to measure the level of employees’ outcomes which leads
to organizational success (Memon et al., 2018). However, the relationship between work
36
engagement and the output of employees may be based on personal and situational
components (Yongxing et al., 2017).
The concept of Kahn's work engagement during 1990 is multidimensional where
he understood it as the employees’ absorption to work physically, emotionally, and
cognitively, thus involving the whole self of employees. On the other hand, some of the
researchers do not pursue studying the 3 dimensions stated under work engagement (Abun
et al., 2021). Similarly, in the study of Kuok & Taormina (2017), work engagement is
defined as cognitive work engagement, emotional work engagement, and physical work
engagement. Cognitive work engagement is grounded in the context of effectiveness where
employees need to work with awareness to be more effective contributors to the company
thus, having a positive conception about one's work to improve employees’ effectiveness
on tasks and organizational objectives. Emotional work engagement explained that
employees have feelings about their job and organization, and this can make them more
satisfied. Employees are seen to be more involved and actively willing to finish their tasks.
Physical work engagement pertains to employees who strive and spend extra time and
effort on their work in the workplace. Moreover, Abun et al. (2017) defined work
engagement as the emotional state of employees comprising motivation, passion,
inspiration, and staying committed to their work.
The ultimate goal to acquire human resources as a competitive advantage is to help
them to be fully engaged in their work (Sitorus, 2017). Some researchers argue that
employees who have a high level of work engagement can enhance and maintain their
performance despite having useless conditions.

37
Memon et al. (2018) state work engagement as opposed to burnout. It is mentioned
that engagement and tiredness are both positive and negative opinions. It is also defined
through vitality, involvement, and competence which are the direct substitute of the three
burnout measurements comprising pessimism, fatigue, and absence of achievement. In
addition, work engagement is also considered as an inspiring, satisfying business viewpoint
that is characterized by vigor, devotion, and adaptation. The idea of work engagement
when it comes to research has existed a long time ago. It was studied many years way back
then and that brings different concepts and characteristics of work engagement.
As adopted from the study of Bakker, work engagement is considered the opposite
of job stress. Contrary to those employees who experience burnout, employees with work
engagement have a sense of energetic and effective association with work-related activities
(Schaufeli et al., 2008).
Concerning work engagement, an article written by (Ryba, 2020), states that
employees who are new to the company are typically very enthusiastic when they first start.
Employee engagement, however, can drop dramatically after the first year. The “tenure
curve” is the term for this pattern. Since skilled and talented workers are extremely
desirable, this phenomenon is important. According to (MacArthur, 2019), it is critical to
understand that, depending on their tenure, employee needs may change faster than
expected. This is why it is vital to know their current employment stage. Peakon's study
also revealed interesting insights about how employee requirements change based on their
job tenure. The first three months of an employee's new job are filled with excitement about
new experiences and learning how to navigate their new environment. They have a more
positive outlook on what is possible. Three months to one year of employment is

38
considered the development phase. Employees prefer more freedom of expression at this
point. Opposing to this, past studies reveal that employees are most engaged during their
first two years on the job. This is an important time to ensure that they can help shape
things and have a genuine impact on the job based on the role they have chosen to take on
within the company.
After six months on the job, there is an interesting shift in the employees' mindset.
Perhaps this is how long it takes to move from a "trainee mentality" to a "this is what the
job is all about" sentiment. As shown in the study of Gallup, employees are most likely to
be engaged during their first six months on the job. This means that employees’
engagement at work falls from 52 percent to around 33 percent after six months. More than
half of those who voluntarily quit their job did so within the first twelve months, which is
an unsurprising result of these slowly rising engagement rates. Even more, telling is why
people leave their jobs after only a few months. One in every four people who leave an
organization within the first year says it's because there are not clear guidelines about job
responsibilities. Another 17% said they did not feel connected to their coworkers, while
12% said they didn't get enough credit for their efforts (Green, 2015)
New hires specifically those who are employed less than a year are typically one of
the most engaged employees. In a short period, these employees go through a lot of
development and adjustment. They must adapt to a new culture, quickly learn
organizational procedures, and adapt to new technologies, all while exploring personal and
professional relationships within the organization. Despite being overwhelmed with new
expectations, rules, and relationships, new hire engagement is commonly out of this world.
These higher levels of engagement are most likely related to the excitement and freshness
39
of a new workplace. The new hires are in a transition phase where they are surrounded by
limitless possibilities, receiving a lot of attention, and learning a lot about their new
workplace and coworkers. Moreover, employees in the 1-2-year range are likely to believe
that they should continue to receive the same learning opportunities and attention as they
did in their first year. Employees are left feeling abandoned when that "contract" is broken.
They begin to question if their jobs are really that great or if the organization truly cares
about them. In addition, employees who have been with the company for 10 years or more
recognize that they are not just employees; they are the organization. They have stayed
with the organization through ups and downs, strategy changes, and competitive landscape
redefinitions. (Ryba, 2020).
Moreover, in the period of two to five years, most of the employees have achieved
some level of mastery by this point. Many aspire to take on broader leadership
responsibilities. The common misconception is that mastery of one's current job prepares
one for advancement to the next level. Five to ten years’ tenure is the time when employees
embark on a broad journey. They either grow and expand alongside the company or fade
away. This is why an ongoing conversation about how they want to grow and evolve is
essential. This is usually more than just a raise in pay or a promotion. Many people at this
stage are considering changing careers. After ten years and beyond of service, employees
reach a significant milestone in their employment, and their long-term commitment and
loyalty to their organization are reflected in their language. They frequently express their
pride in the company for which they have chosen to work and wish to share their wealth of
in-depth knowledge gained from seeing the company from a variety of perspectives
(MacArthur, 2019).
40
Work Engagement of local government unit employees
Employees experience extreme pressure working in government offices. They are
expected to perform their best especially when it comes to the improvement of their
engagement. If government employees are engaged and execute their work well, the
government institutions will also perform well. Employees who have high work
engagement find special sense and pride in what they do, also have subtle associations to
work, to their organizations, to the mission, and to their co-workers. When employees
believe that the organization values them, they go above the minimum and perform their
best effort. Engagement of employees matters in the government that drives outcomes that
matters to the public sector too. The public sector is managed by the government thus, the
government department sets the budget for the public sectors including their salary and
benefits.
Moreover, work engagement is considered the opposite of job burnout and serves
as a mediating role among employee outcomes and job characteristics (Borst, 2018). In
contrast, work engagement usually received less attention in public sectors than other
businesses (Akingbola & Van den Berg, 2019) even though they received benefits just like
in the private sectors, CPS HR Institute for Public Sector Engagement showed that only
38% of public sector employees are engaged at work than the private sector with 44% of
engaged employees (Bakota, 2019). Additionally, a study about work engagement among
public sector employees is still considered as "under research (Mette Strange Noesgaard &
Jesper Rosenberg Hansen, 2017).
The work environment in the public sector is normally characterized by low
autonomy, unclear performance outcomes of employees, bureaucracy, and a high level of

41
organizational politics. This established challenges in strengthening work engagement
(Nguyen et al., 2020). Public sector employees are less likely to experience layoffs and
cutbacks than the private sector, thus it means that they have job security but it does not
mean that misbehavior in the organization will keep employees employed (Jimenez, 2019).
Engagement is usually associated with retention. Jin and Mcdonald (2016),
discussed that it remains a challenge for the public sector leaders to keep their employees
engaged and loyal to their work and organizational mission but there are fewer studies
relating to the essence of decreased engagement of employees in the government sector,
most of it is written but comes from private sectors.
Despite having few kinds of research about work engagement of public sector
employees, Radnor et al. (2016) reveal in their study that public sector workers have
embraced engagement as a motivational tool that helps them improve their work and public
service outcomes.
Organizational Justice and Work Engagement
Organizational justice and work engagement which is also called organizational
commitment are some of the most demanding researched relations in the management
literature (Jameel et al., 2020). The reciprocity rule predicts that workers may repay good
or fair treatment with the organization or its managers by engaging themselves with the
organization. Organizational justice and work engagement are often called the social
exchange relationship indicators where the interest in identifying the background of
engagement is considered as a precious research effort, especially since engaged
employees offer modern organizations practical advantages. Organizational justice is the
predictor of work engagement. The commitment or engagement of employees was usually

42
regarded from a personal view, in which the employee demonstrates the organization's
identity, participation, and trustworthiness thus, it concedes that organizational justice is a
predicate of organization commitment (Jameel et al., 2020).
Correspondingly, organizational justice is a central focus in organizational research
since it is regarded to be a universal predictor of employee and organizational outcomes.
Employees are more prone to have an unclear perspective of their role in organizations
during the economic crisis or to conclude that hard labor is more stressful since they would
not receive beneficial advantages. These thoughts may have an unfavorable impact on
organizational affective results, such as decreased engagement. Organizational justice
derives from equity theory, which refers to an employee's perspective of his or her
organization's behaviors, decisions, and actions, as well as how these affect the employee's
attitudes and behaviors at work. A previous study has found that a lack of organizational
justice increases employee stress, intragroup disagreements, and work group misconduct.
It has been proposed as one of the primary reasons for employees' lowered commitment to
an organization, as well as their decision to leave the profession (Pekurinen,2017)
Justice is defined as an action or choice that is morally correct based on ethics,
religion, fairness, equity, or the rule of law (Pekurinen et al., 2017). It is a major source of
concern for both businesses and employees (Swalhi et al., 2017). Employees' perceptions
of fairness within an organization are referred to as organizational justice (Asadullah et al.,
2017).
In addition to that, positive correlations exist between organizational justice sub-
dimensions and work engagement. Thus, it can be argued that increasing perceptions of
organizational justice statistically increase the level of commitment of employees to work.

43
It has also been found that the most significant effect on the level of work engagement is
the creation of procedural justice, which is then followed by distributive and interactional
justice.
In all types of businesses, a high degree of work engagement is a desirable trait.
The main reason for this is the positive relationship between work engagement and several
organizational output variables, such as work engagement and employee performance.
Rising organizational justice attitude (particularly procedural justice) among healthcare
employees has a positive impact on their work engagement. As previously mentioned,
procedural justice refers to how distribution decisions are made and shows the degree of
fairness in the system, process, procedure, and policies used to make such decisions. Based
on the study conducted by Özer et al. (2017), distributive and interactional justice
dimensions have a positive impact on work engagement as well. However, a closer
examination of this connection reveals that employees’ perceptions of distributive justice,
which primarily focuses on outputs such as salaries, promotions, bonuses, punishment,
social benefits, and performance appraisal, as well as employees’ assessments of the equal
distribution by contrasting the rights they receive with those in the same company and
different businesses, is at a low level.
Distributive Organizational Justice and Work Engagement. Özer et al. (2017)
mentioned that distributive justice is a perfect match between righteousness and fairness
with the resources of outputs in the workplace. It was explained by John Stacey Adams in
his Theory of Equity that when an employee feels to be treated well, they are more likely
to exert full effort and perform positive behavior towards their work. Their morale
increases and have a full energy in executing their job and duties. One of the examples
44
stated was when an employee sees another employee doing the same job yet getting paid
more, the employee has a sense of unfairness when it comes to the distribution of pay.
Therefore, their response may become less productive because they lost their motivation
to positively iimplements their best performance. Moreover, the sense of fairness always
involves a comparison. If an employee perceives that their output is unequal to that of
another employee, they will either lower or increase their inputs to achieve an equal
balance. Individuals’ low morale usually means less work engagement and motivation.
These are considered harmful to employees’ productivity; thus, employers need to be more
aware of the perceived injustice of their teams to keep the level of their work engagement
(Shkoler & Kimura, 2020).
In line with this, distributive justice is one of the organizational factors that affect
the work engagement of employees since it is related to the outcome fairness in the
organization (Cenkci&Otken, 2019). Justice evokes employees’ commitment to the
relationship, leading them to involve reciprocally in certain facets of work engagement
such as dedication or motivation at work (Lyu, 2016).
External influences, such as interpersonal, intergroup, and organizational factors,
influence employee engagement. (Heyns & Rothmann, 2018) Since distributive justice is
linked to organizational result equity, it is one of the organizational factors influencing
employee engagement. Employee contribution to the relationship is evoked by justice,
which leads to mutual participation in some areas of work engagement, such as loyalty or
involvement in work (Lyu, 2016). On the other hand, the findings are viewed as unequal,
this can harm positive organizational outcomes such as work engagement; low fairness
expectations can cause workers to leave their jobs. Fairness and justice are among the job
45
conditions in the Maslach burnout model. According to the discussion above, lack of
perceived fairness can fuel burnout, while positive views of it can boost job engagement.
Based on the discussion above, employees' perceptions of distributive justice intersect with
various forms of employee protest tactics, influencing job participation. (Cenkci&Otken,
2019)
Interactional Organizational Justice and Work Engagement. One of the
antecedents of work engagement is the perception of employees on organizational justice.
Interactional justice was defined as the third type of justice that focuses on whether the
individuals in the decision-making position are fair in their manner (He et al., 2017).
Interactional Justice arises when an employer's behavior is evaluated justly by employees
during the interaction. Unfair association of employers to employees leads to unfavorable
attitudes. When interactional justice arises, turnover intention reduces while strengthening
its counter-productive behavior such as the work engagement (Vural Cagliyan et al., 2017),
organizational trust (Muhammad Fiaz et al., 2018) and, organizational citizenship behavior
(Collins & Mossholder, 2017).
In addition, Kerse and Naktiyok (2018) stated in their study that the relationship
between interactional justice and work engagement can be explained in terms of social
exchange theory. It means that if managers are fair, respectfully and politely communicate
to their members, the employee will feel obliged to show positive attitudes and behavior
towards the organization, thus, the level of work engagement accumulated. The findings
of their research study also obtained that perception of interactional justice is a necessary
precursor for ensuring work engagement. Considering the results, they recommended that
employers should regard the personal needs and show dignity and respect to connect the
46
employees with them and to the organization. Also, consider their complaints or
suggestions and make necessary corrections.
In addition, Morin et al. (2020) found that interactional justice is important for
employee well-being, such as life satisfaction. Furthermore, high interactional justice leads
to the formation of desirable work outcomes such as employee work engagement. Low
interactional justice perceptions among employees, on the other hand, are related to
negative outcomes such as burnout and anxiety (Gillet et al., 2017).
Procedural Organizational Justice and Work Engagement. The workplace
procedural justice is considered an important motivator for employees' work performance
and behavior. Kim and Park (2017) suggested on the findings of their study that the serious
efforts of an organization to be fair during the decision-making process positively influence
employees' work engagement. Engaged employees are more likely to share work-related
and put significant effort into positive work performance for the organization. The
perception of employees about procedural justice is connected to organizational outcomes
such as job satisfaction, work engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior.
Moreover, some researchers show that procedural justice has a strong and positive impact
on employees’ engagement at work, directly or indirectly. The feeling of being treated
fairly can make the employees more engaged in work since fair organizational procedures
enhance trust and confidence among employees that turn to reciprocate by displaying
positive behavior and attitudes to the job. Individuals involved themselves in the
organization when they believed that the company care and provide fair treatment.
Fair processes tend to promote feelings of commitment to one's organization,
legitimize leaders' authority, and aid in ensuring voluntary compliance with the standards.
47
This is true in a variety of settings, including the workplace, political organizations, and
legal settings (Cast et al., 2020). The relationship of employees towards the
organization is reciprocal. If employees have a better perception of organizational justice
and they feel that they are treated justly, they pay the organization by increasing their level
of engagement (Saks, 2016).
On contrary, the study of Ghosh, et al. (2014), only distributive and interactional
justice are seen to correlate with work engagement hence, their study infers that distribution
of pay or rewards, organizational policies and procedures and, interpersonal treatment by
employers have an individual impact on the engagement of employees to their work. It also
reveals a unique finding where distributive justice and interactional justice take supremacy
over procedural justice in determining work engagement.
Furthermore, the study of (Kim & Park, 2017), illustrates the relationship between
work engagement and procedural justice by using the framework of social exchange theory.
It indicates that a person for whom another party has provided service is anticipated to
show gratitude when there is an opportunity. Failure to show appreciation is likely giving
the impression of being ungrateful. Work engagement is found to be correlated to
procedural justice because fair procedures and distribution of rewards give a symbolic
sense to employees that they were appreciated, which in return employee demonstrates
positive work attitudes by committing themselves to the organization.
(Jawad & Raja, 2012), found that justice leads towards a high level of work
engagement. This indicates that when government employees are satisfied, motivated, and
committed, they will contribute effectively and efficiently to the overall accomplishment
of the organization’s priorities and public service in society. Organizational justice in the
48
context of municipalities, there is no doubt that employees’ perception of the organization's
practices is connected to employees’ motivation to work hard and deliver the required
services to the people (Dzansi et. al, 2016).
Perceived Organizational Support and Work Engagement
Perceived organizational support was explained as a kind of assistance that is very
essential to employees’ execution of jobs. In contrast, work engagement is a multi-
dimensional aspect that depicts the positive, encouraging, and work-related state of mind
which encompasses three (3) elements: Vigor (Physical Element), Dedication (Emotional
Element), and Absorption (Cognitive Element). Vigor occurs when employees perceive
mental resilience and energy at work to a greater extent. The dedication includes pride,
inspiration, challenge, enthusiasm, involvement, and importance at work. Absorption
means that employees have a high level of attention to their job, thus they are immensely
committed to their work (Imran et al., 2020)
The previous studies mentioned that when employees have perceived
organizational support (POS), it reinforces their emotional and cognitive assessment of
their organization and work. Employees with greater perceived organizational support may
become more engaged in their work and may help out the organization in the achievement
of its goal and objectives. This implies that when an employee thinks that their organization
appreciates their contributions, and believes that their well-being was more of concern
about them, they are likely to reciprocate by trying to meet the organizational-related
responsibility by becoming more engaged at their work.
Moreover, perceived organizational support positively impacts employee work
engagement as it reinforces the intrinsic interest among them for their duties and tasks. The
49
insight of an organization motivates the intrinsic interest of employees in their duties in
various ways. First, perceived organizational support (POS) persuades the state of mind of
their employees where the organization provides emotional or material support when
needed. Second, perceived organizational support encountered the socio-emotional needs
of employees such as sensitivity, self-esteem, a strong sense of justice, and security at
work. Third, perceived organizational support may convey high admiration for good
performance to employees by giving rewards. Fourth, it could increase the intrinsic
involvement of employees in their tasks by improving their self-efficacy. Perceived
organizational support is an essential driver of work engagement. Recent research proved
that work engagement was enriched by perceived organizational support. It shows that
employees tended to be more committed to their work in a highly supportive organization.
Concerning that, Sitorus (2018) mentioned that perceived organizational support
has a positive and significant effect on work engagement. This means that the stronger the
organization's support perceived by the employees, the higher the level of work
engagement. Perceived organizational support is employees' beliefs about the extent to
which organizations value their contributions and care about their well-being. Employee
perceptions of organizational support have a positive and important impact on job
satisfaction. This suggests that the higher the degree of job commitment, the more the
organization's support is viewed by the employees. Employees' perceptions of how much
their organizations appreciate their efforts and care for their well-being are referred to as
perceived organizational support. This interpretation reflects the expectation that the
company wants to compensate its workers, recognizes their contributions to the
achievement of corporate goals, and is concerned about their well-being.

50
According to Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), the relationship established between
employees and organizations is reciprocal. In this situation, companies that provide better
working environments for their workers can profit from their employees' positive attitudes.
Employees who experience a good organization's encouragement will feel obligated to
assist the corporation in achieving its objectives.
Moreover, an organization can build employee perceptions about the company's
treatment by rewarding employee contributions and paying attention to their welfare.
Employees are also obligated to respond to the care they have received by cultivating a
positive attitude toward their job, which then calls for work engagement. Other research
backs up the notion that perceived organizational support has a huge effect on job
participation.
Employees will try to display the spirit, determination, and appreciation of work
when they believe their wellbeing is appreciated and their efforts are valued by the
organization (Biswas &Bhatnagar, 2013. According to (Rubel & Kee, 2013), perceived
organizational support has a positive and important impact on work engagement.
Employees can become more committed to their job position as a result of perceived
organizational support in this case. Employees are motivated to accomplish organizational
objectives by demonstrating high levels of work engagement under these circumstances.
Internal contact has a positive and important effect on job attachment, according to other
studies. This means that the higher the level of work engagement of employees in an
organization, the more effective internal communication takes place. In this case, the
effectiveness of good internal communication would promote organizational supportive
conduct, which is described as a positive attitude toward the organization's strategic goals.
51
Several studies have emphasized the relationship between organizational justice,
perceived organizational support, and work engagement. The organizational support theory
(Eisenberger et al., 2016) is used to explain the relationships and effects of the three
variables. This theory explains how organizational justice and perceived organizational
support yield positive outcomes like work engagement for employees and the organization.
It states that the employees form a general understanding of how much the company values
their efforts and cares for their well-being to meet socio-emotional needs and with that
existence of organizational justice and perceived organizational support will make the
employees feel the sense of responsibility to help the organization achieve its goals and
increase their performance by engaging themselves at work.
In this study, organizational justice is the employee assessment of the ethical and
moral condition of administrative behaviors within their organization, thus, employees
depending on their justice perceptions, are expected to behave in different ways which
include their engagement at work. In other words, highly engaged employees feel that they
are being treated fairly in terms of what they received, organization processes and
interpersonal treatment will most likely operate at higher levels of work productivity.
On the other hand, perceived organizational support gives employees the
perception that they are being valued and cared for by the organization, thus, employees
with high perceived organizational support are more satisfied with their jobs, feel that they
are connected with the organization, are more obliged to see the organizational goals as
their own, are more loyal and committed and become more engaged in their work to help
out the organization in the achievement of its goals (Eisenberger et al., 2016).
52
Local government unit employees
Public sector employees are also considered government employees that are
employed at all levels of the government, state, and local levels. They represent a wide
variety of government employees comprising law enforcement officers, teachers,
firefighters, teachers, local government unit employees, school employees, and more.
Local government units are made up of different departments that manage various needs
of the community. Most of the local governments may have as many as fifty departments
which means that a lot of opportunities are offered in the community. Each department has
specific responsibilities (Eisenstein, 2019). Local government units are sub-divided into
provinces or highly urbanized cities and further sub-divided into municipalities and
barangays.
Moreover, government employees are trained in their duties and responsibilities
regularly and that is considered a critical element expected from every employee. Each
employee was expected to keep their integrity, honesty, and impartiality and was required
to maintain the truthful performance of their work (Lutzenberger, 2019). Failure in
following such duties and responsibilities that may intrude to functions of the organization,
employees will be corrected or removed. Furthermore, the researchers focus on local
government unit employees working at the Municipality of Carmona, Cavite encompasses
all departments.
Local government offices in Carmona Cavite
Ford (2017) mentioned that larger municipal organizations employ more staff, have
more complex structures, and arguably face a more diverse array of management
challenges than smaller municipalities. Both the practical and academic side of public
53
administration should pay more attention to smaller cities and towns because municipal
offices hold attributes that make them ideal subjects for informing public administration
theory and practice.
As mentioned in the study of Emil (2019) employees in the municipal of Carmona
were highly engaged. It showed that they were very lively and very energetic at work.
Additionally, as stated by Jimenez (2019) when an employee is working in the municipal
offices and contributes to the city’s success, they will have a sense of pride and
responsibility to the work they do. Public sector employees are less subject to the ups and
downs of the marketplace when it comes to layoffs and employee cutbacks. However, for
those who work in the office of an elected official that security could vary based on whether
he or she is reelected. Local self-government has a significant position in the whole public
administration system, as it is not only responsible for providing and managing a
substantial share of public services, but also for the economic and social development of
the local communities and areas. (Maj-Waśniowska & Jedynak, 2020)
Synthesis of Review Related Literature
Most of the related studies had explored the relationship between work engagement
and organizational justice in terms of distributive justice, interactional justice, and
procedural justice to which they illustrate organizational justice as a predictor of work
engagement (Mahmood, 2020). When employees perceived excellent organizational
justice in the workplace, their morale increases, and have full of energy to fulfill their duties
(Özer et al., 2017). Moreover, previous studies in regards to the correlation between
perceived organizational support and work engagement show that when employees have
an outstanding perceived organizational support (POS) it is apprehended those employees

54
are more committed at work which increases the ability of the organization to accomplish
its goal and objective. Employees reciprocate a supportive organization by engaging
themselves in their job.
The absence of organizational justice has been found to negatively impact the
employees’ productivity and well-being. On the other hand, perceived organizational
support focuses on the potential value of considering the importance of the employee-
employer relationship from employees’ perspective, thus if employees believe that
organizational support exists in the workplace, they are more likely to develop a sense of
appreciation assessing the treatment and recognition they received. Conversely, work
engagement emerged as one of the most critical factors needed in creating a competitive
advantage. The more the employees are engaged in their work the more they will be
competitive, strive and exert more effort to fulfill their tasks and responsibilities that will
help the organization to be more successful.
Thus, the study aims to know if organizational justice and perceived organizational
support have a relationship and yield a positive relationship to the work engagement of
local government unit employees who are working in the municipal offices of Carmona,
Cavite.
55
METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, the researchers discussed the different techniques and instruments
used to obtain the various data. This chapter includes the research design, participants of
the study, sampling techniques, instrument for data collection, validation of the
questionnaire and the instrument, and the method of data gathering.
Research Design
In this study, the descriptive – correlational was the research design that the
researchers had chosen to determine the significant relationship of organizational justice
and perceived organizational support towards the work engagement of the local
government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite. A descriptive approach was used to
describe the level of organizational justice in terms of distributive justice, procedural
justice, and interactional justice; the level of perceived organizational support; and the level
of work engagement of the participants.
Furthermore, a correlational approach was utilized to determine the relationship of
organizational justice to the perceived organizational support, and organizational justice to
the work engagement, as well as the relationship of perceived organizational support to the
work engagement of the participants.
Sources of Data
The researchers used primary and secondary data for this study. The primary data
was collected from the answers of the participants in local government units in Carmona,
Cavite, through the use of modified survey questionnaires which were given online and
employed using Google forms.

56
The secondary sources of data were obtained from online books, online research
papers including journals, theses, and dissertations, and reviews from different
organizations that are related to the study that would beneficial to provide a systematic
flow of information throughout the discussion.
Participants of the Study
In identifying the sample population, the researchers used the Krejcie and Morgan
(1970) formula to determine the sample size, because the population is finite or known.
The formula is:
𝑋 2 𝑁𝑃 (1 − 𝑃)
𝑑 2 (𝑁 − 1) + 𝑋 2 𝑃 (1 − 𝑃)
Wherein,
S = required sample size
X = Z value (e.g. 1.96 for 95% confidence level)
N = total number of participants
P = population proportion (expressed in decimal; assume to be 0.5 for 50%)
d = degree of accuracy (5%), expressed as proportion (0.05); the margin of error
Therefore,
1.962(709)(0.50)(1−0.50)
S=
0.052 (709−1)+1.962 (0.50)(1−0.50)
680.9236
S= 2.7304
S = 249.38 or 250
Wherein,
S = required sample size
X = 1.96
57
N = 250
P = 0.50
d = 0.0025
From the indicated formula above, the computed sample size of the study is 250.
Table 1 shows the distribution of the participants in the local government units in Carmona,
Cavite. The participants of the study were limited only to the local government unit
employees who are working in local government offices in Carmona, Cavite (Appendix 1)
regardless of their demographic profile such as sex, age, income, employment status, and
marital status in the mentioned setting.
Table 1. Distribution of the participants in the local government units in Carmona, Cavite
TOTAL SAMPLE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES PERCENTAGE
POPULATION SIZE
IN CARMONA, CAVITE` (%)
(709) (n= 250)
Accounting Office 7 2 1
Agriculture’s Office 21 7 3
Assessor’s Office 13 5 2
Budget Office 5 2 1
Carmona Community Center 3 1 0
Carmona Public Market 25 9 4
CARTMO/ MRFRB 48 17 7
Civil Security Unit 63 22 9
District 12 4 2
Eco-center 34 12 5
Engineering Office 29 10 4
General Services 29 10 4
Housing 4 1 0
Human Resource Management Office 6 2 1
Information Technology Unit 15 5 2
Legal 5 2 1
58
Table 1. Continued.
TOTAL SAMPLE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES PERCENTAGE
POPULATION SIZE
IN CARMONA, CAVITE` (%)
(709) (n= 250)
Local Economic and Investment
4 1 0
Promotion Office
Mayor’s Office 42 15 6
Municipal Civil Registry 12 4 2
Municipal Disaster Risk Reduction
12 4 2
MGT Office
Municipal Environment and Natural
9 3 1
Resources Office
Municipal Health Office 59 21 8
Municipal Planning and Development
9 3 1
Office
Municipal Social Welfare Development
22 8 3
Office
Municipal Tourism Culture and Arts
13 5 2
Office
Municipal Treasury 28 10 4
Office of the Building Official 10 4 2
Pagamutan Bayan ng Carmona 66 23 9
Persons with Disability Affairs Office 39 14 6
Public Employment Service Office 6 2 1
Sangguniang Bayan Office / Office of
18 6 2
the Vice Mayor
Audit 2 1 0
Bureau of Fire Protection 7 2 1
Bureau of Internal Revenue 1 1 0
Bureau of Jail Management and
1 1 0
Penology
Commission of Election 2 1 0
Department of Interior and Local
4 1 0
Government
Municipal Cooperative Development
2 1 0
Council
Municipal Trial Court 2 1 0
Philippine National Police 6 2 1
Post Office 2 1 0
Others (National Agency) 12 4 2
TOTAL 709 250 100
59
Sampling Technique
Purposive, proportionate, snowball, and convenient sampling techniques were used
for this study. The purposive sampling technique was used since the target population is
only local government unit employees who are working in local government units in
Carmona, Cavite. Proportionate sampling was used to get the desired sample size and to
give a proportionate distribution of participants in the local government units in Carmona,
Cavite. Snowball sampling had been utilized since researchers asked the participants for
assistance in identifying other potential subjects. Convenience sampling was used for the
selection of the participants of the study since the distribution of the questionnaires was
based on the availability of the local government unit employees and the researchers, at
their most convenient time.
Data Gathering
In conducting the study, the researchers followed some procedures to gather the
data needed. The researchers studied and collected all the necessary information related to
the study they chose. They examined the related literature that was related to the study
being conducted. After assessing the literature that had been obtained, they proceeded on
preparing a modified questionnaire that was used as an instrument in collecting data
covering all the variables such as organizational justice, perceived organizational support,
and work engagement.
Next, a letter of permission was presented to the municipality of Carmona, Cavite
specifically the Office of Mayor for the approval to conduct the study (Appendix 2).
Moreover, the researchers sent a letter of permission through email to the authors of the
questionnaires that were used (Appendix 3& 4). After the approval of the Municipality of
60
Carmona, Cavite in acquiring the number of participants, the researchers conducted an
online survey via Google forms that were disseminated through the help and referral of
local government unit employees who distributed the survey form through social media
platforms such as Facebook, Messenger, or through email in Carmona, Cavite. The survey
questionnaires that were utilized are accompanied by a consent letter for the participants
(Appendix 8).
The researchers provided the Google link form, with gatekeeper questions like “Are
you an employee in one of the municipal offices in Carmona, Cavite, “If yes, please specify
in which municipal office you belong” and “How long have you been working in one of the
municipal offices in Carmona, Cavite” (Appendix 5) for easy distribution and collection of
data. After giving the questionnaires to the participants, the researchers waited to complete
all the data that they need for their study. After collecting all the necessary information,
they tally, analyze, tabulate, and interpret the information that was gathered.
Research Instrument
For this research, a questionnaire was used to answer the objectives of the study. In
the formulation and construction of the questionnaire, the researchers used a 4-point Likert-
scale survey and modified questionnaires that were derived from different studies of
different authors. The research instrument was made up of three (3) parts. (Appendix 9).
The first part was about organizational justice, moreover, it was about the
distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice of the participants. An
adopted and modified survey questionnaire by (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) (Appendix 7)
was used. A four (4) point Likert scale was used to interpret the level of agreement of the
participants.
61
4 – Strongly Agree
3 – Agree
2 – Slightly Agree
1 – Disagree
The second part of the survey questionnaire was about the participants’ perceived
organizational support. It is also an adopted and modified survey questionnaire and
excerpted from the work of Eisenberger et al., 1986, 2002 (Appendix 7). A four (4) point
Likert scale was also used to interpret the level of agreement of participants
3 – Agree
1 – Disagree
The last part of the survey questionnaire was about the participants’ work
engagement. It was also an adopted and modified survey questionnaire and excerpted from
the work of Ahbun, 2019 (Appendix 7). The researchers also used a four (4) point Likert
scale to interpret the level of agreement of participants.
3 – Agree
1 – Disagree
The survey questionnaire underwent pilot testing and was given to 30 employees
through Google forms in the city government offices of Biñan City, Laguna. It was chosen
by the researchers because the characteristics were the same as local government unit
62
employees in the study. Using Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS) Cronbach's
Alpha, a value of 0.986 (Appendix 6) was obtained from the results of the data collected
which interpreted that the questionnaire was valid and reliable that allowed the researchers
to start the data gathering.
Statistical Treatment of Data
To answer the objectives of the study, the following statistical treatments were used
in the study:
Weighted mean and standard deviation were used to determine the level of
organizational justice, perceived organizational support, and the work engagement of the
participants. It was used to acquire objectives 1, 2, and 3.
Pearson r correlation was used to determine the relationship between organizational
justice and work engagement; perceived organizational support and work engagement.
Additionally, it was used to determine the degree and strength of the relationship of the
variables. Moreover, it was used to obtain objectives, 4, 5, and 6.
The answers were collected from the participants and were calculated using the
statistical tools mentioned. The descriptive interpretation for the level of organizational
justice in terms of distributive justice is presented in table 2. The descriptive interpretation
for the level of organizational justice in terms of interactional justice is presented in table
3. The descriptive interpretation for the level of organizational justice in terms of
procedural justice is presented in table 4. The descriptive interpretation for the level of
perceived organizational support of participants is shown in table 5. The descriptive
interpretation for the level of work engagement is presented in table 6. Lastly, the
descriptive interpretation for the Pearson- r correlation is presented in table7.

63
Table 2. Descriptive interpretation for the level of organizational justice in terms of

distributive justice of the participants
NUMERICAL VERBAL DESCRIPTIVE
RANGE INTERPRETATION INTERPRETATION
3.26 – 4.00 Very Fair The employees believe that the
allocation of desirable outcomes across
people is extremely fair.
2.51 – 3.25 Fair The employees believe that the
people is fair.
1.76 – 2.50 Slightly Fair The employees believe that the
people is somehow fair.
1.00 – 1.75 Not Fair The employees believe that the
people is not fair.

interactional justice of the participants
3.26 - 4.00 Very Fair The employees believe that they are
treated extremely fairly when decisions
are made in the organization.
2.51 – 3.25 Fair The employees believe that they are
treated fairly when decisions are made
in the organization.
1.76 – 2.50 Slightly Fair The employees believe that they are
treated somehow fairly when decisions
are made in the organization.
1.00 – 1.75 Not Fair The employees believe that they are
treated not fairly when decisions are
made in the organization.
64

procedural justice of the participants
3.26 - 4.00 Very Fair The employees believe that the decision-
making or process that leads to these
outcomes is extremely fair.
2.51 - 3.25 Fair The employees believe that the decision-
outcomes is fair.
1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Fair The employees believe that the decision-
outcomes is somehow fair.
1.00 - 1.75 Not Fair The employees believe that the decision-
outcomes is not fair.
Table 5. Descriptive interpretation for the level of perceived organizational support of the
participants
3.26 - 4.00 Very High The employees perceived that the
organization highly values their
contributions.
2.51 - 3.25 High The employees perceived that the
organization values their contributions.
1.76 - 2.50 Low The employees perceived that the
organization slightly values their
contributions.
1.00 - 1.75 Very Low The employees perceived that the
organization does not value their
contributions.
65
Table 6. Descriptive interpretation for the work engagement of the participants

3.26 - 4.00 Highly Engaged The employees have a very positive
behavior at work that results in a very
positive outcome. They are very
energetic to give off their best and very
committed to
their organization’s goals and values.
2.51 - 3.25 Engaged The employees have positive behavior
at work that results in a positive
outcome. They are energetic to give off
their best and committed to their
organization’s goals and values.
1.76 - 2.50 Slightly Engaged The employees have a slight positive

behavior at work that results in a slightly
positive outcome. They are slightly
energetic to give off their best and
slightly committed to their
organization’s goals and values.
1.00 - 1.75 Not Engaged The employees have negative behavior
at work that results in a negative
outcome. They are not energetic to give
off their best and are not committed to
their organization’s goals and values.
Table 7. Descriptive interpretation for the Pearson- R correlation

PEARSON-R VALUE INTERPRETATION
±1 Perfect positive/negative correlation
± 0.80 to ± 0.99 Very Strong Positive/Negative Correlation
± 0.60 to ± 0.79 Strong Positive/Negative Correlation
± 0.40 to ± 0.59 Moderate Positive/Negative Correlation
± 0.20 to ± 0.39 Weak Positive/Negative Correlation
± 0.01 to ± 0.29 Very Weak Positive/Negative Correlation
0 No Correlation
66
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This section gives a deeper understanding of the researchers' findings. This also
addresses the objectives of the study, which include: the level of organizational justice of
local government unit employees in terms of distributive, procedural, and interactional
justice; the level of perceived organizational support; the level of work engagement; the
significant relationship between the level of organizational justice and level of perceived
organizational support; the significant relationship between organizational justice and
work engagement; and the significant relationship between the level of perceived
organizational support and level of work engagement. Tables and other statistical tools
were given to provide a more visual representation of the data collected throughout the
investigation.
Level of Organizational Justice of the Participants
Table 8 shows the participants' level of organizational justice in terms of
distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. It revealed that distributive justice
received a weighted mean of 3.53 and a standard deviation of 0.63, indicating that it is very
fair. Furthermore, procedural justice received a weighted mean of 3.17 and a standard
deviation of 0.73, which is considered fair. Also, interactional justice received a weighted
mean of 3.59 and a standard deviation of 0.54, indicating that it is also very fair.
Table 8. Level of organizational justice of the participants

WEIGHTED STANDARD
VARIABLES INTERPRETATION
MEAN DEVIATION
Distributive Justice 3.53 0.63 Very Fair
Procedural Justice 3.17 0.73 Fair
Interactional Justice 3.59 0.54 Very Fair
67
Distributive Justice. The result showed that local government unit employees
believe that the allocation of desirable outcomes across people is extremely fair. It suggests
that local government unit employees perceived that their schedule is fair. Moreover, local
government unit employees feel that their workloads and responsibilities are quite fair
(Appendix Table 1).
The result is the same with (Bao & Van, 2021), where the assessment of having
distributive justice is seen by aligning the compensation received by the employee to their
coworker who is performing the same duties. It denotes those employees have equitable
and fulfilled feelings when they compare what they contribute to the organization, such as
their responsibilities, effort, time, knowledge, and commitment, to what they receive in
return (Castillo & Fernandez, 2017).
It stands in contrast to (Mengstie, 2020) study, which found that public employees
perceive less distributive justice than private employees. It demonstrates that the desired
outcomes they receive such as division of labor are not proportional to their inputs. It was
also stated that the majority of government employees claimed that they did not receive
what they deserved.
Therefore, the researchers believe that local government unit employees are
compensated, rewarded, and assigned workloads fairly and that municipalities could play
a role in strengthening relationships with their employees while also establishing justice in
the distribution of outcomes directly related to their efforts. The perception of having
distributive justice also leads local government unit employees to be more involved at
work. If the levels of distributive justice are imbalanced, employees may feel injustices
and attempt to modify the situation to achieve a sustainable level.

68
Procedural Justice. The results indicated that the supervisor collects accurate and
complete information in making job decisions. Moreover, the supervisor clarifies
decisions, provides additional information when requested by employees, and ensures that
all employee concerns are heard before making job decisions. (Appendix Table 2).
It was supported by (Chang & Zhang, 2021), who looked into process control,
which refers to the ability to express oneself or freedom of speech, as well as control over
the decision. It revealed that employees were willing to give up decision control if they
employee could still express their opinions about the decision-making process. However,
the findings of Kurland and Egan (2016) show one probable reason for employees' negative
perceptions of procedural justice showing that modern public organizations are regimes
with little bureaucracy and are significantly less fair, particularly in terms of policies and
procedures. The procedures and methods of decision-making in public organizations were
not also transparent, consistent, and free of bias. Furthermore, public employees believed
that they had no voice in the organization's processes (Mengstie, 2020).
Therefore, local government unit employees believe that there is a fair decision-
making process inside the organization and that the results fit their expectations;
nonetheless, this is insufficient and remains lower than the other sub-components. This is
most likely due to some management decisions, which indicate that some rules and
processes are not in favor of the employees. Thus, this should be prioritized since it
encourages positive attitudes and behaviors in organizations. perceived procedural justice
alleviates the effect of a negative outcome. Local government unit employees consider
procedural justice an essential concept that has a significant impact on organizational
decisions and behaviors since employees have been derived as fair if procedures are
69
precise, accurate, ethical, unbiased, used consistently, and openly consider the employee
opinions.
Interactional Justice. It presented that when decisions are made about their job,
the manager treats them with kindness and consideration. Moreover, managers treat them
with respect and dignity and show concern for their rights as an employee (Appendix Table
3).
The result was supported by Akoh and Amah (2016) stated that in the public sector,
interactional justice has a positive and significant relationship to identification and
internalization with the company, proving that public employees had a close association
with the organization and were satisfied to be subordinated when interactional justice was
obtained reasonably. Conversely, if interactional injustice is established, the outcome will
be different. Instead, employees will be emotionally and psychologically estranged from
the company. It also implies that good communication about work procedures and
organizational goals will benefit employees who value harmony. Additionally, (Mengstie,
2020) stated in her previous study that public employees did not receive clear and adequate
information from supervisors and were not treated with the utmost respect, in contrast to
private organizations where employees are treated respectfully. As a result, private
employees surpassed public employees when it came to practicing interactional justice.
It is necessary to consider how people in the workplace make decisions and
understand the possible effect on those who received the decisions because individuals
perceived attitudes and behaviors as indicators of an organization's fairness. Therefore,
researchers believe that local government unit employees are considered and treated with
complete respect, taking the time to communicate to them with dedication before making
70
important decisions and exhibiting sensitive conditions in the organization and has been
related to creating a healthy and positive professional and personal connection.
Level of Perceived Organizational Support of the Participants
Table 9 shows the level of perceived organizational support of the participants. It
presented that the organizational support as perceived by the local government unit
employees in Carmona, Cavite obtained a weighted mean of 3.17 and a standard deviation
of 0.17 indicating that the participants’ perceived organizational support is high. As a
result, the employees perceived that the organization values their contributions.
Table 9. The level of perceived organizational support of the participants

VARIABLE WEIGHTED STANDARD INTERPRETATION
MEAN DEVIATION
Perceived
3.17 0.17 High
Organizational Support
The study revealed that perceived organizational support is high, which means that
the employees perceived that the organization values their contribution. Most local
government unit employees feel the support when the organization strongly considers their
goals and values. Additionally, local government unit employees perceived that the
organization cares about their well-being and believed that help is available from the
organization when a problem arises. (Appendix Table 4).
This was supported by the study of Eisenberger (2016), who mentioned that
employees feel more closely connected with the organization when there is effective
leadership, favorable HR practices, desirable job conditions, and fair treatment inside the
organization. Also, Shanock & Eisenberger (2016) stated that subordinates who feel
71
encouraged by their bosses have higher perceived organizational support and engage in
more voluntary behaviors that benefit the company. In addition, Jin & Mcdonald (2016)
stated that if employees feel the support of the company, they feel bound to return the favor.
It also assists in meeting the needs of employees, such as self-esteem, relationships, and
membership in the organization, as well as being a part of one's social identity, all of which
contribute to one's well-being.
This implies that employees feel supported when the organization makes a
concerted effort to make them feel like they belong and are valued. When employees
perceive strong organizational support, it fosters a sense of unity and a pleasant working
environment. They become more engaged and open to discussions about work-related tasks
with their coworkers. Government employees with a heightened sense of organizational
support can quickly diminish if the employees do not trust their employers. Employers
must communicate to their members to establish a realistic set of expectations on actions
and provide the resources needed that are attainable.
Level of Work Engagement of the Participants
Table 10 shows the level of work engagement of the participants. It displayed that
the work engagement of local government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite acquired a
weighted mean of 3.69 and a standard deviation of 0.49 which implies that the participants
are highly engaged.
Table 10. The level of work engagement of the participants

VARIABLE WEIGHTED STANDARD INTERPRETATION
MEAN DEVIATION
Work Engagement 3.69 0.49 Highly Engaged
72
The result represents that local government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite
have a very positive behavior at work that results in a very positive outcome. They are very
energetic to give off their best and very committed to their organization’s goals and values.
The result shows that most of the participants strive hard so that they can complete their
job and they try their hardest to perform well. Moreover, they devote a lot of energy and
they exert full effort to their job (Appendix Table 5).
The result was supported by the study of (Memon et al., 2018) when employees are
involved in their job, there is a motivation to strive and expend greater effort. It was claimed
that employees with a high degree of job engagement may improve and sustain their
performance even in the face of ineffective working conditions. In addition, (Robertson -
Smith & Markwick, 2009) mentioned that employees who are highly engaged at work have
a distinct feeling of pride in what they do, and they have subtle associations with work,
their organizations, the purpose, and their coworkers. Moreover, when workers think that
their organization appreciates them, they go above and beyond the call of duty and give
their all. Lastly, even though there has been little research on public sector employee work
engagement, Radnor et al. 2016 show in their study that public sector workers have
embraced engagement as a motivating strategy that helps them enhance their work and
public service results.
The researchers believe that local government unit employees are deeply involved
in the responsibilities assigned to them. It means that participants are devoted and
motivated to do well, and make every effort to finish their obligations. Additionally,
employees are also eager and exhibit a keen interest in job-related tasks. Local government
73
unit employees have embraced engagement as a motivational tool that helps them improve
their work and public service outcomes.
Relationship between the level of organizational justice and level of perceived

organizational support
Table 11 shows the significant relationship between the level of organizational
justice in terms of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice and the perceived
organizational support of the participants with a p-value of 0.000 on all the variables and a
Pearson-r-value of 0.506, 0.284, and 0.453 respectively. It revealed that all of the
components of organizational justice have a significant relation to the level of perceived
organizational support.
Table 11. Relationship between the level of organizational justice and level of perceived
organizational support of the participants
ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE INTER- PEARSON-
P- PRETATION CORRELATION
AND PERCEIVED R
VALUE STRENGTH
ORGANIZATIONAL SUPPORT VALUE
Distributive justice and 0.000 Significant 0.506 Moderate Positive
perceived organizational support Correlation
Procedural justice and perceived 0.000 Significant 0.284 Weak Positive
organizational support Correlation
Interactional justice and 0.000 Significant 0.453 Moderate Positive
perceived organizational support Correlation
α= significance level of 0.05
Distributive justice and perceived organizational support. The result showed
that there is a significant and positive moderate relationship between distributive justice
and perceived organizational support. Thus, Ho1.1 is rejected. It points toward that
distributive justice is relatively significant to the perceived organizational support of local
government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite. It can be observed in Table 11, through
74
computation using Pearson-R Correlation statistics, that when paired with the level of
organizational justice in terms of distributive justice, the perceived organizational support
garnered a coefficient of 0.506, which is interpreted to have a moderate, positive
relationship with the other factor. It implies that, while both variables indicated above tend
to rise in response to one another, the relationship is moderate. The possibility that the
fairer the distributive justice is, the higher the organizational support will be, may happen.
This was supported by the study of (Babic et al., 2015), where employees consider
organizational justice as proof that the company cares about their well-being and values
their efforts; hence, employees who feel supported by their organization recognize that they
have more resources to manage work by knowing that help is available and improving
perceived competency. The studies reveal that perceived organizational support completely
enhances the aspects of organizational justice. Employees who perceive a high level of
fairness in distribution are more likely to maintain perceived organizational support
because they feel obligated to the organization to receive fair treatment in outcome
distribution. In this case, the perceived organizational support of individuals is influenced
by the given justice. As a result, to repay the debt, which is the perceived organization
support, they are likely to reciprocate by going above and beyond in their organization's
best interests (Fu & Lihua, 2012).
And as per the findings, efficient allocation of outcomes leads to an effective view
among employees that the organization supports and values their time and effort. It
signifies that if there is enhanced distributive justice inside the organization, primarily a
fair allocation of duties and benefits amongst varied employees, local government unit
employees will view that emotional and material resources or support are accessible when
75
needed. It ensures that employees will work efficiently to fulfill their roles. When this
distribution of outcomes and other intrinsic and extrinsic rewards is appropriately assigned,
local government unit employees think that organizational support exists. Researchers
believed that making it fairer will lead to higher perceived organizational support of the
employees.
Procedural justice and perceived organizational support. The result showed
that there is a significant relationship between procedural justice and perceived
organizational support. It points toward that procedural justice is relatively significant to
the perceived organizational support of local government unit employees in Carmona,
Cavite. Thus, Ho1.2 is rejected. Looking at the same table, through computation using
Pearson-R Correlation statistics, when paired with the level of organizational justice in
terms of procedural justice, the perceived organizational support garnered a coefficient of
0.284, which is interpreted to have a weak, positive relationship with the other factor. It
suggests that, while both of the aforementioned variables tend to rise in response to one
another, the relationship is weak.
This was supported by the study of (Fu & Lihua, 2012), wherein procedural justice
is seen as a vital resource in social interaction in the corporate sector. It impacts employees'
judgment in the corporation, which implies that favorable and discretionary treatment of
the organization enhances perceived organizational support. It specifies the organization's
respect for employees' rights, which contributes favorably to perceived organizational
support since it can be considered as one component of such treatment that relates to the
amount of organizational support. In addition, (Samina Quratulain et al., 2017) mentioned
that if managers make choices fairly (which is known as procedural justice), employees
76
will be happier and organizational outcomes will be beneficial. Managers should be fair,
according to both research and common sense, but a recent study reveals that being fair
may not be enough. Fairness may not always appear to result in good employee conduct.
This was supported by the study of (Mansour, 2014), wherein it was mentioned that there
is no correlation between perceived organizational support and procedural justice.
Employees do not perceive allocation decisions as an indication that the organization cares
about them, and their contribution will not lead to a perception of employee goodwill
because it is primarily directed at supervisors; similarly, perceived organizational support
will not affect the perception of procedural justice because this perception is based on
individuals such as supervisors and managers rather than the entire organization.
The researchers conclude that this outcome is due to employees' belief that fairness
does not always appear to result in better employee behavior, particularly in decision-
making allocation. They may have also assumed that organizational support would have
no effect on their perceived fairness in decision making because it does not reflect on the
organization, and thus may be based on managers and supervisors. This indicates that local
government employers concentrate on generating fair procedural judgment that will be
shared among employees. It denotes that the potential negative consequences of fairness
will be mitigated if supervisors support their employees especially on voicing out their
opinions about the decision made or the decision that is about to be made. Procedural
justices indicate the organization's respect for employees' rights, which contributes
positively to perceived organizational support because it can be viewed as one aspect of
such treatment that refers to the level of organizational support.

77
Interactional justice and perceived organizational support. The result showed
that there is a significant relationship between interactional justice and perceived
organizational support. It infers that interactional justice is relatively significant to the
perceived organizational support of local government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite.
Thus, Ho1.3 is rejected. Looking at the same table, through computation using Pearson-R
Correlation statistics, when paired with the level of organizational justice in terms of
interactional justice, the perceived organizational support garnered a coefficient of 0.453,
which is interpreted to have a moderate, positive relationship with the other factor. It means
that, while both of the previously listed variables tend to rise in response to one another,
the relationship is moderate. The possibility that the fairer the interactional justice is, the
higher the organizational support will be, may happen.
According to the study of (Yangin & Elma, 2017), when discussing and carrying
out processes, interactional justice reveals how much authority treats employees with
decency and respect. Employees who have earned credit for their contributions to the
organization may be recognized by a supportive organization, and such recognition
strengthens their feeling of organizational commitment. With that, Cheung (2013),
discovered that interpersonal justice was also positively connected to perceived
organizational support. Being treated with integrity and respect in the administration of
outcomes, as well as having adequate knowledge, creates a good sense that the company values
one's effort and contributions also care about the employees’ well-being. Similarly, Mansour
(2014) pointed out that interactional justice is related to perceived organizational support.
Employees believe that their supervisor's behavior toward them reflects the organization's support
and concern for their interests and goodwill since supervisor is linked to higher management and
78
decision-makers, they believe that if subordinates are treated well, the organization is good where
the supervisor's behavior can reflect the organization's culture.
The findings suggest that when companies offer reasons for choices and treat employees
with decency, respect, and sensitivity, employees believe they are being treated fairly. Employees
will perceive their managers as helpful if these executives treat and respect the employees over
whom they have authority. Furthermore, effective communication from supervisors and managers
to employees would help employees perceive management as supportive and efficient
communicators. Likewise, employees who have gained recognition for their services to the
company may be recognized by a supporting organization, which improves their sense of
organizational obligation. The researchers concluded that employees will remark that their
supervisor's behavior toward them reflects the organization's support and concern for their interests
and goodwill. Supervisors are linked to higher management and decision-makers, they believe that
if subordinates are treated well, the organization is good, and the supervisor's behavior can reflect
the organization's culture.
Relationship between the Level of Organizational Justice and Level of Work

Engagement
Table 12 shows the significant relationship between the level of organizational
justice in terms of distributive, procedural, and interactional and the level of work
engagement with a p-value of 0.000 on all the variables and a Pearson r-value of 0.477,
0.325, and 0.471 respectively. The result revealed that all of the components of
organizational justice have a significant relation to the level of work engagement.

79
Table 12. Relationship between the level of organizational justice and level of work
engagement of the participants
ORGANIZATIONAL PEARSON-
INTER- CORRELATION
JUSTICE AND WORK P-VALUE R
PRETATION STRENGTH
ENGAGEMENT VALUE
Distributive justice and 0.000 Significant 0.477 Moderate Positive
work engagement Correlation
Procedural justice and work 0.000 Significant 0.325 Weak Positive
engagement Correlation
Interactional justice and 0.000 Significant 0.471 Moderate Positive
work engagement Correlation
Distributive justice and work engagement. The result presented showed that
there is a significant relationship between distributive justice and work engagement. It
implies that distributive justice is relatively significant to the work engagement of local
government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite. Thus, Ho2.1 is rejected. It can be observed
in the table, through computation using Pearson-R Correlation statistics, that when paired
with the level of organizational justice in terms of distributive justice, the work engagement
garnered a coefficient of 0.477, which is interpreted to have a moderate, positive
relationship with the other factor. It implies that, while both variables aforesaid tend to rise
in response to one another, the relationship is moderate.
It is supported by the study conducted by Özer et al. (2017), who mentioned that
distributive justice is a perfect match between righteousness and fairness with the resources
of outputs in the workplace. Moreover, the theory of equity explained by John Stacey
Adams that when an employee feels to be treated well, they are more likely to exert full
effort and perform positive behavior towards their work. Besides, the sense of fairness
always involves a comparison. If an employee perceives that their output is unequal to that
80
of another employee, they will either lower or increase their inputs to achieve an equal
balance. Employers need to be more aware of the perceived injustice of their teams to keep
the level of their work engagement (Shkoler & Kimura, 2020).
The outcome infers that the organization must ensure that the allocation of these
outputs must be fairly distributed to avoid the decrease in engagement of the employees. It
can thus be argued that rising distributive justice perception statistically increases
employees’ work engagement levels. As per the findings, there will be trust, an increase in
membership behavior, and an improvement in employee performance as a result of
adopting distributive justice, and so this perception may be developed and tied to the
workplace. When employees have a strong sense of distributive justice in their workplace.
Employees in businesses often feel obligated to be fair in their responsibilities by
contributing more via better work engagement.
Procedural justice and work engagement. The result revealed that there’s a
significant relationship between procedural justice and work engagement. It indicates that
procedural justice is relatively significant to the work engagement of local government unit
employees in Carmona, Cavite. Thus, Ho2.2 is rejected. It can be observed in the table,
through computation using Pearson-R Correlation statistics, that when paired with the level
of organizational justice in terms of procedural justice, the work engagement garnered a
coefficient of 0.325, which is interpreted to have a weak, positive relationship with the
other factor. It implies that, while both variables said tend to rise in response to one another,
the relationship is weak.
According to the findings of their study, Kim and Park (2017) proposed that an
organization's sincere attempts to be fair during the decision-making process positively

81
affect employees' work engagement. Employees who are engaged are more likely to share
job-related information and make major contributions to the organization's favorable work
performance. Employee perceptions of procedural justice are associated with
organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction, work engagement, and organizational
citizenship activity. Employees who believe they are being treated fairly are more likely to
be interested in their work since fair organizational practices foster trust and confidence
among employees, who then reciprocate by demonstrating good behavior and attitudes
toward their jobs. Additionally, (Kim & Park, 2017) use the framework of social exchange
theory to highlight the link between employee engagement and procedural fairness. It
denotes that a person for whom another party has assisted is expected to express gratitude
when the opportunity comes up. Failure to express gratitude gives the image of being
ungrateful. Work engagement has been identified to be associated with procedural fairness
because fair processes and reward distribution provide employees a symbolic sense that
they are valued, which in turn leads to employees demonstrating favorable work attitudes
by devoting themselves to the business. Also, Firdaus et al., (2019) state that reduced
justice might worsen burnout, whereas a strong view of fairness can boost involvement.
Procedural justice can influence work engagement, where work engagement is defined as
the empowerment of members of an organization on employee work from the position of,
engagement, individuals empower, and reveal themselves physically, intellectually, and
emotionally while performing.
The result implied that as a result of adequate procedural fairness, employee
engagement will be increased. Employees accept different parts of procedural fairness
when they have the opportunity to influence decisions, express their opinions, or obtain
82
correct information that is used in decision-making. Low judgments of procedural fairness,
on the other hand, are most frequently the result of employees withdrawing and
disengaging themselves from employee job duties. It also means that the employee's view
of procedural justice is connected to the hierarchical level at which the outcomes of
organizational decisions are made. The management or manager's representative
distributes decisions following processes and communicates them equally to employees.
Employees will have favorable sentiments and excitement in a workplace where they
believe there is fairness in decision-making, resulting in strong work engagement.
Interactional justice and work engagement. The result presented displayed that
there is a significant relationship between interactional justice and work engagement. It
points toward that interactional justice is relatively significant to the work engagement of
local government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite. Thus, Ho2.3 is rejected. It can be
observed in the table, through computation using Pearson-R Correlation statistics, that
when paired with the level of organizational justice in terms of interactional justice, the
work engagement garnered a coefficient of 0.471, which is interpreted to have a moderate,
positive relationship with the other factor. It implies that, while both variables aforesaid
tend to rise in response to one another, the relationship is moderate.
Interactional Justice arises when an employer's behavior is evaluated justly by
employees during the interaction. Unfair association of employers to employees leads to
unfavorable attitudes. When there is interactional fairness, turnover intention decreases but
counter-productive behaviors such as work engagement (Vural Cagliyan et al., 2017),
organizational trust (Muhammad Fiaz et al., 2018), and organizational citizenship behavior
increase (Collins & Mossholder, 2016). Likewise, (Gökhan Kerse & Atılhan NAKTİYOK,
83
2020), asserted in their study that the link between interactional justice and work
engagement can be explained using social exchange theory.
It indicates that if managers are fair and communicate with their employees
courteously and pleasantly, the employee will feel obligated to display good attitudes and
behavior toward the firm, increasing the degree of work engagement. Local government
employers consider workers' personal needs and treat them with decency and respect to
connect employees with them and the organization. Consider their concerns or ideas, and
make any needed adjustments. Also, when engaging with their supervisors, employees
desire fairness. If managers or management' representatives communicate fairly with
employees, they will have pleasant and fulfilled attitudes at work, which will lead to
increased job engagement. The presence of interactional justice may foster a fair
connection between managers and employees, giving employees a sense of respect and
acknowledgment, as well as a sense of belonging to the business. These pleasant sensations
can motivate individuals to become more interested in their work, resulting in higher job
engagement.
Relationship between the Level of Perceived Organizational Support and Level of

Work Engagement
Table 13 shows the significant relationship between the level of perceived
organizational support and the level of work engagement with a p-value of 0.000 on all the
variables and a Pearson r-value of 0.381.

84
Table 13. Relationship between the level of perceived organizational support and level of
work engagement of the participants
PERCEIVED
ORGANIZATIONAL INTERPRETATION PEARSON-R CORRELATION
P-VALUE
SUPPORT AND WORK VALUE STRENGTH
ENGAGEMENT
Perceived
organizational Weak Positive
0.000 Significant
support and work 0.381 Correlation
engagement
The result showed that there is a significant relationship between perceived
organizational support and work engagement. It reveals that perceived organizational
support is relatively important to local government unit employees' work engagement in
Carmona, Cavite. Thus, Ho3 is rejected. It can be observed in the table, through
computation using Pearson-R Correlation statistics, that when paired with the level of
perceived organizational support, the work engagement garnered a coefficient of 0.381,
which is interpreted to have a weak, positive relationship with the other factor. It implies
that, while both variables aforesaid tend to rise in response to one another, the relationship
is weak.
This was supported by the study of Sitorus (2018) who mentioned that perceived
organizational support has a positive and significant effect on work engagement. This
means that the stronger the organization's support perceived by the employees, the higher
the level of work engagement. In addition, (Rubel & Kee, 2013) stated that perceived
organizational support has a positive and important impact on work engagement.
Employees can become more committed to their job position as a result of perceived
organizational support in this case. Employees are motivated to accomplish organizational
objectives by demonstrating high levels of work engagement under these circumstances.

85
Internal contact has a positive and important effect on job attachment, according to other
studies. This means that the higher the level of work engagement of employees in an
organization, the more effective internal communication takes place. In this case, the
effectiveness of good internal communication would promote organizational supportive
conduct, which is described as a positive attitude toward the organization's strategic goals.
Perceived organizational support gives employees the perception that they are being valued
and cared for by the organization, thus, employees with high perceived organizational
support are more satisfied with their jobs, feel that they are connected with the
organization, are more obliged to see the organizational goals as their own, are more loyal
and committed and become more engaged in their work to help out the organization in the
achievement of its goals (Eisenberger et al., 2016).
The result presents that when employees feel the support of the organization, they
will be more engaged in their work which will cause them to be more productive and
motivated in doing their tasks. Furthermore, perceived organizational support reflects the
organization's general expectations of its members as well as acknowledgment of personal
value and contribution to it. Similarly, if employees perceive organizational support, they
will believe that the organization will fulfill its exchange obligations in the future and that
they are obligated to repay the organization, so they will work hard to obtain material and
spiritual rewards, thereby realizing social exchange.

86
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
This study aimed to determine the relationship between organizational justice and
perceived organizational support; organizational justice and work engagement; and
perceived organizational support and work engagement of public employees working in
Carmona, Cavite. To achieve the study's objectives, descriptive-correlational was used.
The survey included 250 local government unit employees who had been in the
civil service for more than 6 months to more than 7 years. The number of participants was
proportionately allocated based on the number of employees in the aforementioned target
setting. The survey questionnaire with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.986 was used to collect data,
which was then analyzed using the SPSS tool and was adapted from the studies of Neihoof
and Moorman (1993), Eisenberger et al., (1986,2002), and Ahbun (1993). (2019). The
survey was carried out from June 2021 to October 2021.
The study also included purposive, proportional, convenience, and snowball
sampling strategies. Weighted mean was utilized to determine the level of organizational
justice, perceived organizational support, and work engagement, as well as to answer
objectives 1, 2, and 3. Pearson correlation was employed, on the other hand, to assess the
association between organizational justice and work engagement; perceived organizational
support and work engagement. It was also used to assess the degree to which two variables
coincided with one another, allowing it to be utilized to attain objectives 4, 5, and 6.
The study found that for organizational justice, distributive and interactional justice
were viewed as highly fair by participants, whereas procedural justice was perceived as
87
fair. In terms of perceived organizational support, it was evaluated as high. Also, the
participants' work engagement suggested that they were highly engaged.
Moreover, the result also showed that organizational justice in terms of distributive,
procedural, and interactional justice have significant positive relationships towards
perceived organizational support and work engagement. It revealed that distributive and
interactional justice have a moderate positive correlation to the said variables while
procedural justice has a weak positive correlation. Additionally, perceived organizational
support has a significant positive relationship to work engagement. Correspondingly, it
showed that perceived organizational support has a weak positive correlation to work
engagement.
Conclusion
The following conclusions were made based on the results of the study.
The level of organizational justice in terms of distributive and interactional justice
was very fair, while procedural justice was fair. The employees believed that the allocation
of desirable outcomes across people is extremely fair and they believed that they are treated
extremely fair when decisions are made in the organization. Also, employees believe that
the decision-making or process that leads to these outcomes is fair.
The level of perceived organizational support is high. It implies that employees
perceived that the organization values their contributions. It means that the organization
they perceived is good at valuing the contributions of the employees.
The participants of the study are highly engaged, which means that they have a very
positive behavior at work that results in a very positive outcome. They are very energetic
to give off their best and very committed to their organization’s goals and values.
88
Furthermore, there is a moderate positive significant relationship between
organizational justice in terms of distributive, and interactional justice and perceived
organizational support which means as the components of organizational justice become
higher, the perceived organizational support becomes higher as well. On the other hand,
there is a weak positive significant relationship between organizational justice in terms of
procedural justice and perceived organizational support. This explained that employees are
more likely to view their organization's actions and practices as fair and equitable when the
organization also strives to promote and support their welfare.
Also, there is a moderate positive significant relationship between organizational
justice in terms of distributive, and interactional justice and work engagement, which
means as the components of organizational justice becomes higher, the work engagement
becomes higher as well. On the other hand, there is a weak positive significant relationship
between organizational justice in terms of procedural justice and work engagement.
Increasing perceptions of organizational justice statistically increase the level of
commitment of employees to work.
Lastly, there is a weak positive significant relationship between perceived
organizational support and work engagement, which means that as perceived
organizational support gets higher, work engagement gets higher, however, weak.
Employees with greater perceived organizational support may become more engaged in
their work and may help out the organization in the achievement of its goal and objectives.
It implies that when an employee thinks that their organization appreciates their
contributions, and believes that their well-being was more of concern about them, they are
89
likely to reciprocate by trying to meet the organizational-related responsibility by
becoming more engaged at their work.
Recommendation
Based on the result of this study, the following recommendations were made:
First, it is suggested that local government units improve and promote
organizational justice and perceived organizational support because this could lead to a
higher level of work engagement among employees. Employees can build an effective and
efficient local administration by focusing on fairness, in terms of distribution of tasks,
benefits, decision-making, and treatment after the decision is made. The study found that
employees considered organizational justice and perceived organizational support, but it is
important to note that local government units, which are expected to be fair by nature, have
different practices than others. As such, what produces excellent results may not apply to
others. It must first be applied within the organization. Then again, it is fundamental to
learn from the experiences of others and to share information to develop new and more
innovative solutions.
It is recommended for HR managers to focus on and facilitate programs or policies
regarding organizational justice and organizational support to encourage employees and
make them feel that they are important to the organization. Employees are the most
valuable part of any successful organization, and HR managers must remember this. The
happier and satisfied the employees are at work, the more efficient the business flow will
be.
For government employees, it is suggested that employees should be aware of
things that keep them motivated and engaged through their jobs. Employees are responsible
90
for behaving in a manner that is beneficial to the organization that manages them and, at
the very least, should not do any possible damage to their company's reputation.
Further, the researchers should use this study to fully comprehend the essence of
the variables and apply the learnings to their future careers as HR or other related careers
after learning the results of the study where local government unit employees have high
organizational justice in terms of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice; high
perceived organizational support and were highly engaged towards their work.
Lastly, future researchers should consider focusing on another dependent variable,
such as work performance or work attitudes. Future researchers can also conduct surveys
from both public and private companies and compare the results to obtain a better
understanding of the problem. Subsequently, if the study is to be pursued, the researchers
advise including the sub-variables under work engagement, encompassing vigor,
absorption, and dedication.

91
REFERENCES
Abun, D., Ranay, F. B., Magallanes, T., Encarnacion, M. J., & Alkalde, F. (2021, February
6). Employee Treatment and Work Engagement: The Philippines Context.
Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3780567
Akingbola, K., & van den Berg, H. A. (2016). Antecedents, Consequences, and Context of
Employee Engagement in Nonprofit Organizations. Review of Public Personnel
Administration, 39(1), 46–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x16684910
Akram, T., Lei, S., Haider, M. J., & Hussain, S. T. (2020). The impact of organizational
justice on employee innovative work behavior: Mediating role of knowledge
sharing. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 5(2), 117–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2019.10.001
Akoh, A., & Amah, E. (2016, December). Interactional Justice and Employees’
Commitment to Supervisor in Nigerian Health Sector. Research Leap.
https://researchleap.com/interactional-justice-employees-commitment-supervisor-
nigerian-health-sector/
Ali Rıza, Terzi, A. P. (2017). An Analysis of Organizational Justice and Organizational

Identification Relation Based on Teachers' Perceptions. Retrieved from Universal
Journal of Educational Research: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134448.pdf
Arnéguy, E., Ohana, M., & Stinglhamber, F. (2018). Organizational Justice and Readiness
for Change: A Concomitant Examination of the Mediating Role of Perceived
Organizational Support and Identification. Frontiers in Psychology, 9.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01172
Asadullah, M. A., Akram, A., Imran, H., & Arain, G. A. (2017). When and which
employees feel obliged: A personality perspective of how organizational
identification develops. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo Y de Las
Organizaciones, 33(2), 125–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2017.02.002
Baba, A., &Ghazali, S. (2017, September). Influence Of Organizational Justice n

Motivation of Public Sector Employees in Nigeria: An Empirical Investigation.
Ijmrr.Com. From: http://ijmrr.com/admin/upload
_data/journal_Isha%20baba%20%205sep17mr.pdf
Babic, A., Stinglhamber, F., & Hansez, I. (2015). Organizational Justice and Perceived
Organizational Support: Impact on Negative Work-Home Interference and Well-
being Outcomes. Psychologica Belgica, 55(3), 134–158.
https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.bk
92
Babic, Stinglhamber, & Hansez. (2015). Organizational justice and perceived

organizational support: Impact on negative work-home interference and well-being
outcomes. APA Psycnet. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-01976-002
Bakota, E. (2019, September 12). Are Government Employees Less Engaged Than Those
in Other Sectors? GovLoop. https://www.govloop.com/community/blog/are-
government-employees-less-engaged-than-those-in-other-sectors/
Bao, N., & Van. (2021). Exploring the Effects of Perceived Justice and Motivation on
Student Satisfaction Regarding Entrance Exams for Higher Education: The Case
of Vietnam in 2020. https://archives.kdischool.ac.kr/bitstream/11125/42217
/1/Exploring%20the%20effects%20of%20perceived%20justice%20and%20motiv
ation%20on%20student%20satisfaction%20regarding%20entrance%20exams%2
0for%20higher%20education.pdf
Bennett, S., Hine, L., & Maze, L. (2018). Procedural Justice. Obo.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-
9780195396607-0241.xml
Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator Analysis of Employee Engagement: Role of
Perceived Organizational Support, P-O Fit, Organizational Commitment and Job
Satisfaction. Vikalpa: The Journal for Decision Makers, 38(1), 27–40.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0256090920130103
Bobocel, D. R., & Gosse, L. (2018). Procedural Justice: A Historical Review and Critical
Analysis. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Procedural-Justice-%3A-A-
Historical-Review-and-Bobocel-Gosse/92d2d0a7b1134b5526d7e52fc7a15bb3e60
Bojan, L. (2016). Interactional Justice and Employees’ Commitment to Supervisor in

Nigerian Health Sector. Retrieved from Research Leap: https://researchleap.com
/interactional-justice-employees-commitment-supervisor-nigerian-health
sector/amp/
Bradley, G., & Beverley Anne Sparks. (2016, February 17). Explanations: If, when, and
how they aid service recovery. ResearchGate; Emerald.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235304581_Explanations_If_when_and
_how_they_aid_service_recovery
Burns (2016) and Eisenberger, & Stinglhamber, Vandenberghe, Sucharski, & Rhoades.
(2016). Perceived Organizational Suppor ganizational Support and P t and
Perceived Super ed Supervisor Support as Antecedents of Work ngagement.
https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/. Retrieved April 5, 2022, from https://
scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8225&context=etd_theses
Caesens et al. (2019). Perceived Organizational Support and Workplace Conflict: The
Mediating Role of Failure-Related Trust. Frontiers. Geraadpleegd op 5 april 2022,
van https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02704/full
93
Caponi, V. (2017). The effects of public sector employment on the economy. IZA World of
Labor. https://doi.org/10.15185/izawol.332
Cast, S., Burgess, H., &Maiese, M. (2020, July). Procedural Justice. The Beyond
Intractability Knowledge Base Project, from https://www.beyondintractability.
org/essay/procedural_justice
Castillo, C., & Fernandez, V. (2017). Relationships between the dimensions of

organizational justice and students’ satisfaction in university contexts. Intangible
Capital, 13(2), 282. https://doi.org/10.3926/ic.774
Cem Şen, Ibrahim Sani Mert, & A. Mohammed Abubakar. (2021, May 5). The Nexus
among Perceived Organizational Support, Organizational Justice and Cynicism.
ResearchGate; Emerald. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351346730
_The_Nexus_among_Perceived_Organizational_Support_Organizational_Justice
_and_Cynicism
Cenkci, A. T., & AyseOtken. (2021). Linking Employee Dissent to Work Engagement:
Distributive Justice as a Moderator. Journal of Behavioral and Applied
Management, 19(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.21818/jbam.19.1.1
Chang, L., & Zhang, W. (2021). Procedural Justice in Online Deliberation: Theoretical
Explanations and Empirical Findings. Regular Issue, 17(1).
https://doi.org/10.16997/10.16997/jdd.968
Chetty, A. W. (2020, March 30). Understanding the importance of organizational justice.

Retrieved from Project Guru: https://www.projectguru.in/understanding-the-
importance-of-organisational-justice/
Cheung. (2013). The mediating role of perceived organizational support in the effects of
interpersonal and informational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors.
Emerald Insight. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LODJ-11-
2011-0114/full/html
Cheung. (2013). The mediating role of perceived organizational support in the effects of
interpersonal and informational justice on organizational citizenship behaviors
Emerald Insight. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 34(6), 551–
572. https://doi.org/10.1108\/lodj
Collins, B. J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2016). Fairness Means More to Some Than Others.
Journal of Management, 43(2), 293–318.
Dai, K., & Qin, X. (2016). Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Engagement:
Based on the Research of Organizational Identification and Organizational Justice.
Open Journal of Social Sciences, 04(12), 46–57.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.412005
94
Dai, L., & Xie, H. (2016). Review and Prospect on Interactional Justice. Open Journal of
Social Sciences, 04(01), 55–61. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2016.41007
Demirkiran, M., Taskaya, S., & Dinc, M. (2016). A Study on the Relationship between
Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Hospitals.
http://www.ijbmer.com/docs/volumes/vol7issue2/ijbmer2016070203.pdf
Der Voet, J. V. (2019a, September 27). Distributive Justice and Resistance to Change in
Cutback Management: Evidence from a Survey Experiment and a Longitudinal
Field Study. International Public Management Journal.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10967494.2019.1676347
Duties & Responsibilities of Government Employees. (2019). Retrieved May 3, 2021, from
Career Trend website: https://careertrend.com/about-5467824-duties-
responsibilities-government-employees.html
Dzansi, D. Y., Chipunza, C., & Dzansi, Lineo W. (2016). Impact of municipal employees’
perceptions of fairness in human resources management practices on motivation:
evidence from a South African Province. Cut.ac.za.
https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/11462/1818
Effects of human resources management practices and organizational justice perceptions

on organizational cynicism: A research on municipalities in a developing country.
(2020). Retrieved from ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication
/338912050_ Effects_of_human_resources_management_practices_and_
organizational_justice_perceptions_on_organizational_cynicism_A_research_on_
municipalities_in_a_developing_country
Eidukaite, D. (2016, July 13). Why fairness is important: the role of organizational justice
in job satisfaction. Retrieved from https://uis.brage.unit.no/uis-xmlui/bitstream
/handle/ 11250/2413785/Eidukaite_Dovaine.pdf? sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Eisenberger, R., Malone, G. P., & Presson, W. D. (2016). Optimizing Perceived

Organizational Support to Enhance Employee Engagement SHRM-SIOP Science of
HR Series. https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-forecasting/special-reports-
and-expert-views/Documents/SHRM-
SIOP%20Perceived%20Organizational%20Support.pdf
Elma, D. Y. (2017). The Relationship among Interactional Justice, Manager Trust and
Teachers' Organizational Silence Behavior. Retrieved from Universal Journal of
Educational Research: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1134445.pdf
Emil, C. (2019). Organizational culture and work engagement of municipal employees in

the 5th district of cavite. Luz Y Saber, 13(1), 1–1. Retrieved from
https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=15184
95
Equity Theory in the Workplace | BrightHR | undefined. (2020, June 4). Retrieved April
14, 2021, from Brighthr.com website: https://www.brighthr.com/articles/culture-
and-performance/equity-theory/
Fair Workcentre. (2021). What is Procedural Fairness? Retrieved from

https://www.fairworkcentre.com.au/newsblog/Employer-Tips/What-is-
Procedural-Fairness-/
Fasolo, P. M. (1995). Procedural justice and perceived organizational support:

Hypothesized effects on job performance In: Cropanzano, R. and Kacmar, K. M.
eds. Organizational politics, justice, and support: Managing social climate at
work. Westport, CT.
Fasolo. (1995). Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment,

and Innovation. Journal of applied psychology.
http://classweb.uh.edu/eisenberger/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/04/20
_Perceived_Organizational_Support_and_Employee_Diligence.pdf
Fernández-Salinero, S., Navarro Abal, Y., & Topa, G. (2019). On the Relationship between
Perceived Conflict and Interactional Justice Influenced by Job Satisfaction and
Group Identity. Sustainability, 11(24), 7195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11247195
Ford, M. (2017, August). The Importance of Studying Small Municipalities - PA TIMES

Online. PA TIMES Online. https://patimes.org/importance-studying-small-
municipalities/
Fu, Y., & Lihua, Z. (2012). Organizational justice and perceived organizational support:
The moderating role of conscientiousness in China. Nankai Business Review
International, 3(2), 145–166.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/eme/nbripp/v3y2012i2p145-166.html
Gabriele Giorgi, D. D. (2016, December 27). Perceived Organizational Support for
Enhancing Welfare at Work: A Regression Tree Model. Retrieved from Frontiers
in Psychology: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5186753
/#:~:text=Indeed%2C%20employees%20who%20perceive%20that,et%20al.%2C
%202016
GaëtaneCaesens, F. S. (2019, January 09). Perceived Organizational Support and

Workplace Conflict: The Mediating Role of Failure-Related Trust. Retrieved from
Frontiers in Psychology: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389
/fpsyg.2018.02704/full
Ghosh, P., Rai, A., & Sinha, A. (2014). Organizational justice and employee engagement:
- ProQuest. Www.proquest.com. https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-
journals/organizational-justice-employee-engagement/docview/1536123430/se-2
96
Gillet, N., Fouquereau, E., Huyghebaert, T., &Vanderberghe, C. (2017, April 1).
Transformational leadership, work-family conflict and enrichment, and
commitment. Cairn.Info. https://www.cairn.info/revue-le-travail-humain-2016-4-
page-339.htm
Gökhan Kerse, & Atılhan NAKTİYOK. (2020, February 10). The Effect of Interactional
Justice on Work Engagement through Conscientiousness for Work. ResearchGate;
Istanbul University. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339158010_
The_Effect_of_Interactional_Justice_on_Work_Engagement_through_Conscienti
ousness_for_Work
Green, S. (2015, November 27). Engaging Employees Beyond the First Six
Months|Engaging Employees Beyond the First Six Months. US | Glassdoor for
Employers. https://www.glassdoor.com/employers/blog/engaging-employees-
beyond-the-first-six-onths/#:~:text=Gallup%20research%20has%20found%20that
GuoYongxing, H. D. (2017, July). Work engagement and job performance: The

moderating role of perceived organizational support. Retrieved from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318704829_Work_engagement_and_jo
b_performance_The_moderating_role_of_perceived_organizational_support
HarifAmali Rivai, D. Y. (2019). Distributive Justice. Job Satisfaction and Organizational

Commitment as Antecedents of Employee Performance: A Study in Indonesia
National Health Insurance Workers. Atlantis Press. Retrieved from Atlantis Press.
Heyns, M., & Rothmann, S. (2018). Volitional Trust, Autonomy Satisfaction, and
Engagement at Work. Psychological Reports, 121(1), 112–134.
Holland-Blumoff, R. (2017). Fairness Beyond the Adversary System: Procedural Justice

Norms for Legal Negotiation, 85 Fordham L. In Rev (p. 2081).
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5357&context=flr
How to Treat Employees Fairly in the Workplace. (2012). Retrieved from Work -
Chron.com: https://work.chron.com/treat-employees-fairly-workplace-3070.html
Imran, M. Y., Elahi, N. S., Abid, G., Ashfaq, F., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Impact of Perceived
Organizational Support on Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving
and Flourishing. JOItmC, 6(3), 1–18.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/joitmc/v6y2020i3p82-d413064.html
Jameel, A. S., Mahmood, Y. N., & J. Jwmaa, Swran. (2020). Organizational Justice and
Organizational Commitment Among Secondary School Teachers. Ssrn.com.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3525350
Jawad, M., & Raja, S. (2012). Role of Organizational justice in organizational commitment
97
with moderating effect of employee work attitudes. ResearchGate; unknown.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314570915_Role_of_Organizational_ju
stice_in_organizational_commitment_with_moderating_effect_of_employee_wor
k_attitudes
Jin, M., & Mcdonald, B. (2016). Understanding Employee Engagement in the Public
Sector: The Role of Immediate Supervisor, Perceived Organizational Support, and
Learning Opportunities. Sage Journal.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0275074016643817
Joni Dawud, H. A. (2018, December). Distributive and Procedural Justice, Perceived

Organizational. Retrieved from International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences: https://hrmars.com/papers_submitted
/5189/Distributive_and_ Procedural_Justice,_Perceived Organizational_
Support,_and_Its_Effect_on_Organizational_Commitment_in_Public_Organizati
on.pdf
Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management. (2021). Journal of Behavioral and

Applied Management. Retrieved April 14, 2021, from Scholasticahq.com website:
https://jbam.scholasticahq.com/
Kauzya & Niland. (2020). Leadership In Pandemic Crisis: Public Services in The New Era
As Challenges For Leaders. Republik Indonesia. Geraadpleegd op 10 mei 2022,
van https://www.djkn.kemenkeu.go.id/kpknl-dumai/baca-artikel/14418/
Leadership-In-Pandemic-Crisis-Public-Services-In-The-New-Era-As-Challenges-
For-Leaders.html
Kelly, P. J. (2020). Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: The Civil Law and the
Foundations of Bentham’s Economic Thought. Utilitas, 1(1), 62–81.
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0953820800000066
Khawaja, H. A., & Soomro, M. A. (2021). Work Engagement During Pandemic: Is

Organizational Trust Still Relevant? Annals of Contemporary Developments in
Management & HR, 3(2), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.33166/acdmhr.2021.02.001
Kim, W., & Park, J. (2017). Examining Structural Relationships between Work
Engagement, Organizational Procedural Justice, Knowledge Sharing, and
Innovative Work Behavior for Sustainable Organizations. Sustainability, 9(2), 205.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9020205
Krause, L. (2019). The Effects of Poor Communication in The Workplace.

Thealternativeboard.com. https://www.thealternativeboard.com/blog/the-effects-
of-poor-communication-in-the-workplace
Krishnan, R., Ahmad, & Haron, H. (2018, April 7). The Effect of Employeesâ€ ™
Perceived Fairness of Performance Appraisal Systems on Employeesâ™...
98
ResearchGate; unknown. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/

325121275_The_Effect_of_Employeesa_Perceived_Fairness_of_Performance_A
ppraisal_Systems_on_Employeesa_Organizational_Commitment
Kunicova. (2018, Sept 5). The five drivers for improving public sector performance:
Lessons from the new World Bank Global Report. World Bank Blog. Retrieved
November 10, 2021, from https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/five-drivers-
improving-public-sector-performance-lessons-new-world-bank-global-report
Kuok, A. C. H., & Taormina, R. J. (2017). Work engagement: Evolution of the concept
and a new inventory. Psychological Thought, 10(2), 262–287.
https://doi.org/10.5964/psyct. v10i2.236
Kurland, N., & Egan, T. (n.d.). Public v. Private Perceptions of Formalization, Outcomes,
and Justice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Retrieved
August 24, 2021, from https://watermark.silverchair.com/
Kurtosis, J., Eisenberger, R., Ford, M., Buffardi, L., Stewart, K., & Adis, C. (2017).
Perceived Organizational Support: A Meta-Analytic Evaluation of Organizational
Support Theory. Journal of Management. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/
10.1177/0149206315575554
Liangtie, a. D. (2016). Review and Prospect on Interactional Justice. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/291385591_Review_and_Prospect_on_I
nteractional_Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (2021). It’s Just How I Feel: Lessons in Procedural Justice.
Sport Law. https://sportlaw.ca/its-just-how-i-feel-lessons-in-procedural-justice/
Local and Regional Governments in Europe. (2016). Structures and Competences.

Brussels: Council of European Municipalities and Regions. CCRE.
https://www.ccre.org/img/uploads/piecesjointe/filename/CEMR_structures_and_c
ompetences_2016_EN.pdf
Loi, R., Hang-Yue, N., & Foley, S. (2006). Linking employees’ justice perceptions to
organizational commitment and intention to leave: The mediating role of perceived
organizational support. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 79(1), 101–120. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317905x39657
Lotfi, M. H., & Pour, M. S. (2013). The Relationship between Organizational Justice and
Job Satisfaction among the Employees of Tehran Payame Noor
University. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 93, 2073–2079.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.10.168
Lutzenburger, T. (2019). Duties & Responsibilities of Government Employees. Career

Trend. https://careertrend.com/about-5467824-duties-responsibilities-government-
99
employees.html
Lyu, X. (2016). Effect of organizational justice on work engagement with psychological

safety as a mediator: Evidence from China. Social Behavior and Personality: An
International Journal, 44(8), 1359–1370. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2016.44.8.
1359
MacArthur, H. V. (2019, September 25). Why Tenure Matters For Employee Engagement.
Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/hvmacarthur/2019/09/25/why-tenure-
matters-for-employee-engagement/?sh=52d57ea32731
Maj-Waśniowska, K., & Jedynak, T. (2020). The Issues and Challenges of Local
Government Units in the Era of Population Ageing. Administrative Sciences, 10(2),
36. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci10020036
Mansour, M. (2014). Organization Justice, Support and Trust: Evidence from Saudi
Companies. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 22–25.
https://doi.org/10.7763/joebm. 2014.v2.92
MDPI - Publisher of Open Access Journals. (2021). Retrieved April 14, 2021, from
Mdpi.com website: https://www.mdpi.com/
Memon, S. B., Soomro, S. B., & Kumar, S. (2018, June 6). Assessing the Work
Engagement, Work Practices and Work Performance in Banks. Ssrn.com.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3744789
Mengstie, M. M. (2020). Perceived organizational justice and turnover intention among

hospital healthcare workers. BMC Psychology, 8(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-020-0387-8
Mette Strange Noesgaard, & Jesper Rosenberg Hansen. (2017, April 11). Work
Engagement in the Public Service Context: The Dual Perceptions of Job
Characteristics. ResearchGate; Taylor & Francis (Routledge).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316189012_Work_Engagement_in_the_
Public_Service_Context_The_Dual_Perceptions_of_Job_Characteristics
Moideenkutty, Blau, Kumar, & Nalakath. (2001). Perceived Organisational Support as a

Mediator of the Relationship of Perceived Situational Factors to Affective
Organisational Commitment. Applied Psychology. https://iaap-
journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1464-0597.00076
Moon, K.-K. (2017, April 3). Fairness at the Organizational Level: Examining the Effect
of Organizational Justice Climate on Collective... ResearchGate; SAGE
Publications. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315787485_Fairness
_at_the_Organizational_Level_Examining_the_Effect_of_Organizational_Justice
_Climate_on_Collective_Turnover_Rates_and_Organizational_Performance
100
Morin, A., Fouqueraeu, E., Chevalier, S., Coillot, H., Gillet, N., &Huyghebaert, T. (2020,
May 15). On the Value of Considering Specific Facets of Interactional Justice
Perceptions. Front. Psychology. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/
10.3389/fpsyg .2020.00812/full
Muhammad Fiaz, Ikram, A., Su, Q., & Ali, N. (2018). How to Save the Saviors?
Relationship between Organizational Justice and Citizenship Behavior.
ResearchGate; Johns Hopkins University Press.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322179763_How_to_Save_the_Saviors
_Relationship_between_Organizational_Justice_and_Citizenship_Behavior
Muhammad Yasir Imran, N. S. (2020). Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on

Work Engagement: Mediating Mechanism of Thriving and Flourishing. Journal of
Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. Retrieved from Journal of
Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity:
https://www.mdpi.com/2199-8531/6/3/82
Nagle, K. (n.d.). Module 5: Theories of Motivation. Lumen Candela. Retrieved August 17,
2021, from https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-orgbehavior/chapter/5-3-
process-based-theories/
Nguyen, D. (2019, July). Social support as a buffer for work negative acts of professional
public sector employees in Vietnam. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/334506716_Social_support_as_buffer_for_work_negative_acts_of_pr
ofessional_public_sector_employees_in_Vietnam
Nidhi, N., &Kumari, K. (2016, January). Interactional Justice: A key to Organization

Citizenship Behavior. Research Gate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
327136316_ Interactional_Justice_A_key_to_Organization_Citizenship_Behavior
Niehoff, B. P., & Moorman, R. (1993, June). Justice as a Mediator of the Relationship
Between Methods of Monitoring and Organizational Citizenship... ResearchGate;
Academy of Management. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228079190
_Justice_as_a_Mediator_of_the_Relationship_Between_Methods_of_Monitoring
_and_Organizational_Citizenship_Behavior
Nix, J., Pickett, J., Wolfe, S., & Campbell, B. (2017). Demeanor, Race, and Police
Perceptions of Procedural Justice: Demeanor, Race, and Police Perceptions of
Procedural Justice: Evidence from Two Randomized Experiments Evidence from
Two Randomized Experiments. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/
cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1066&context=criminaljusticefacpub
Ohana, M., & Meyer, M. (2016). “Distributive justice and affective commitment in
nonprofit organizations: Which referent matters?” Emerald Publishing.
https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ER-10-2015-
0197/full/html
101
Ouyi, B. (2019). Impact of Distributive Justice on the Involvement at Work. Retrieved

from International Journal of Applied Psychology: http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.
j.ijap.20190901.05.html
Özer, Ö., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., & Saygili, M. (2017). Effect of Organizational Justice on Work
Engagement in Healthcare Sector of Turkey. Journal of Health Management,
19(1), 73–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972063416682562
Pan, X., Chen, M., Hao, Z., & Bi, W. (2018). The Effects of Organizational Justice on
Positive Organizational Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Sample Survey and a
Situational Experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.
Panvanelli. (2018). The effects of public sector employment on the economy. IZA WORLD
OF LABOR. Retrieved 2021, from https://wol.iza.org/articles/effects-of-public-
sector-employment-on-economy/long
Paredo, D. (2021, May). Development inequity: Advancing distributive justice by

localizing SDG indicators for municipalities in Chile. MIT. EDU.
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/127583/1193555589-
MIT.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Park, W. K. (2017). Examining Structural Relationships between Work. MDPI.
Pekurinen, V., Valmaki, M., Virtanen, M., Salo, P., Kivimaki, M., &Vahtera, J. (2017,
May). Organizational Justice and Collaboration Among Nurses as Correlates of
Violent Assaults by Patients in Psychiatric Care. Ps.Psychiatryonline.Org.
https://ps.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ps.201600171
Peredo, C., & Hernán, D. (2020). Development inequity: advancing distributive justice by
localizing SDG indicators for municipalities in Chile. Mit.edu.
https://doi.org/https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/127583
PsycNet, A. (2021). Apa.org. Retrieved from ps://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2020-54978-003
Qin, K. D. (2016, January). Perceived Organizational Support and Employee Engagement:

Based on the Research of Organizational Identification and Organizational Justice.
Retrieved from Research Gate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication
/311809041_Perceived _Organizational_Support_and_Employee_Engagement_
Based_on_the_Research_of_Organizational_Identification_and_Organizational_J
ustice
Radnor, Z., & Boaden, R. (2016). Editorial: Lean in Public Services—Panacea or Paradox?
Public Money & Management, 28(1), 3–7.
https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/pubmmg/v28y2008i1p3-7.html
Redmond, J., Sharafizard, J., & Morris, R. (2018). Leadership/management factors impact
102
on employee engagement and discretionary effort | Emerald Insight. International

Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 23(1), 43–64.
https://doi.org/10.1108\/IJOTB
Research, C. (2015). Procedural Justice in Career Development. Retrieved from

http://career.iresearchnet.com/career-development/procedural-justice/
Rhoades, & Eisenberger. (2022). Perceived organizational support: A review of the

literature. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2002-
15406-008
Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002, September). Perceived Organizational Support: A

Review of the Literature. ResearchGate; American Psychological Association.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11202120_Perceived_Organizational_S
upport_A_Review_of_the_Literature
Risher. (2019). Employee Engagement and Commitment. SHRM. ORG. Geraadpleegd op

december 2021, van https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/trends-and-
forecasting/special-reports-and-expert-views/documents/employee-engagement-
commitment.pdf
Riza, A. (2019). Pengaruh Servant Leadership terhadap Komitmen pada Perubahan:

Keadilan Organisasi sebagai Mediasi. Prosiding Simposium Nasional Magister
(SINMAG), 2(2). https://ejurnal.bunghatta.ac.id/index.php/sinmag/
article/view/15804
Robertson - Smith, & Markwick. (2009). Employee Engagement A Review of Current

Thinking. Brighton, UK Institute for Employment Studies. - References - Scientific
Research Publishing. Scirp.org. https://www.scirp.org/%28S%28351jmbntvnsjt1
aadkposzje %29%29/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=2910487
Robin Bauwens, A. D. (2019, September). Challenged by Great Expectations? Examining

Cross-Level Moderations and Curvilinear Influences in the Public Sector Job
Demands-Resources Model. Retrieved from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net /publication/336141887_Challenged_by_Great_
Expectations_Examining_CrossLevel_Moderations_and_Curvilinear_Influences_
in_the_Public_Sector_Job_Demands-Resources_Model
Roch, & Shanock. (2014). When Supervisors Feel Supported: Relationships With
Subordinates’ Perceived Supervisor Support, Perceived Organizational Support,
and Performance. Research gate. http://classweb.uh.edu/eisenberger/wp-
content/uploads/sites/21/2015/04/Shanock_2014.pdf
Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational Justice in an Exchange Framework:

Clarifying Organizational Justice Distinctions. Journal of Management, 32(2),
299–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305280115
103
Rubel, M., & Kee, D. (2013). Perceived Support and Employee Performance: The
Mediating Role of Employee Engagement. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/
Perceived-Support-and-Employee-Performance%3A-The-of-Rubel-
Kee/6f4f498ed571ba65ca5fdc3f12242ffa1701b994
Ryba, K. (2020, July 16). Keeping Tenured Employees Engaged: How Tenure Impacts
Engagement. Www.quantumworkplace.com. https://www.quantumworkplace.
com/future-of-work/keeping-tenured-employees-engaged
Saks, A. (2016). (PDF) Antecedents and Consequences of Employee Engagement.

ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275714108_Antecedents
_and_Consequences_of_Employee_Engagement
Samina Quratulain, Abdul Karim Khan, & Sabharwal, M. (2017, July 5). Procedural
Fairness, Public Service Motives, and Employee Work Outcomes: Evidence From
Pakistani Public... ResearchGate; SAGE Publications.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318354256_Procedural_Fairness_Public
_Service_Motives_and_Employee_Work_Outcomes_Evidence_From_Pakistani_
Public_Service_Organizations
SaminaQurat-ul-ain, A. K. (2017, August). Procedural Fairness, Public Service Motives

and Employee Work Outcomes. Retrieved from ResearchGate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320791514_Procedural_Fairness_Public
_Service_Motives_and_Employee_Work_Outcomes
Samuel Fernández-Salinero, Y. N. (2019). On the Relationship between Perceived Conflict

and Interactional Justice Influenced by Job Satisfaction and Group Identity.
Sustainability.
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). UWES UTRECHT WORK ENGAGEMENT SCALE
Preliminary Manual. https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/
Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W., & van Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, Burnout, and
Work Engagement: Three of a Kind or Three Different Kinds of Employee Well-
being? Applied Psychology, 57(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-
0597.2007.00285.x
ScholarworksScholarworks, K. C. (2019). Veterans Affairs Emploans Affairs Employees’

Perceptions of Financial Incentivceptions of Financial Incentives, Retrieved from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8936&context=diss
ertations
Scrase, S. (2020). Re-Thinking Procedural Justice Theory Through Stop and Search:
Shame, Anger, and Police Legitimacy. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice,
15(2), 1476–1490. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa039
104
Sharma, H., &Yadav, R. (2018). The Relationship Between Organizational Justice and
Work Engagement: Trust as a Mediator. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of
Management, 11(3), 50. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2018/v11i3/122078
Shkoler, O., & Kimura, T. (2020). How Does Work Motivation Impact Employees’
Investment at Work and Their Job Engagement? A Moderated-Moderation
Perspective Through an International Lens. Frontiers in Psychology, 11.
Sia, L., Adelaine, T., & Tan, G. (2016). The Influence of Organizational Justice on Job
Satisfaction in a Hotel Setting. https://dlsuber.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/2Sia-
072516.pdf
Sitorus, F. (2017). The Influence of Perceived Organizational Support and Internal

Communication toward. Retrieved from Atlantis Press:
file:///C:/Users/girly/Downloads/25892097.pdf
Sitorus, F. (2018, December 1). The Influence of Perceived Organizational Support and
Internal Communication toward Work Engagement. Www.atlantis-Press.com;
Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/icosop-17.2018.44
Starmans, C., Sheskin, M., & Bloom, P. (2017). Why people prefer unequal societies.
Nature Human Behaviour, 1(4). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0082
Swalhi, A., Zgoulli, S., & Hofaidhllaoui, M. (2017). APA PsycNet. Psycnet.apa.org.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2017-41114-006
The five drivers for improving public sector performance: Lessons from the new World
Bank Global Report. (2018, October 24). Retrieved May 3, 2021, from World Bank
Blogs website: https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/five-drivers-improving-
public-sector-performance-lessons-new-world-bank-global-report
The Importance of Studying Small Municipalities - PA TIMES Online. (2017, August).

Retrieved May 29, 2021, from PA TIMES Online website:
https://patimes.org/importance-studying-small-municipalities/
The role of public service and public servants during the COVID-19 pandemic. (2020, June
11). Retrieved May 3, 2021, from Economic Analysis & Policy Division | Dept of
Economic & Social Affairs | United Nations website: https://www.un.org
/development/desa/dpad/publication/un-desa-policy-brief-79-the-role-of-public-
service-and-public-servants-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
Tolga Atikbay, & Yıldırım Öner. (2020). Effects of human resources management
practices and organizational justice perceptions on organizational...
ResearchGate; Growing Science. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
338912050_Effects_of_human_resources_management_practices_and_organizati
105
onal_justice_perceptions_on_organizational_cynicism_A_research_on_municipal
ities_in_a_developing_country
Tyler, T. (2017). Procedural Justice and Policing: A Rush to Judgment?

https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci
Vural Cagliyan, Attar, M., & El, M. (2017). The Relationship Between Organizational
Justice Perception and Organizational Commıtment: A Study on
Doğuş... ResearchGate; unknown. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
332208167_The_Relationship_Between_Organizational_Justice_Perception_And
_Organizational_Commitment_A_Study_On_Dogus_Otomotiv_Authorized_Deal
ers_In_Konya
W. Dzansi, L., Chipunza, C., & Y. Dzansi, D. (2016). Impact of municipal employees’
perceptions of fairness in human resources management practices on motivation:
evidence from a South African Province. Problems and Perspectives in
Management, 14(1), 138–149. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.14(1-1).2016.01
Walia, A., & Chetty, P. (2020, March 30). Understanding the importance of organisational
justice. Knowledge Tank. https://www.projectguru.in/understanding-the-
importance-of-organisational-justice/
Xiaofu Pan, M. C. (2018, January 10). The Effects of Organizational Justice on Positive
Organizational Behavior: Evidence from a Large-Sample Survey and a Situational
Experiment. Retrieved from Frontiers in Psychology: https://www.frontiersin.
org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02315/full#:~:text=A%20number%20of%20studi
es%20suggested,as%20well%20as%20work%20performance.
Yangin, D., & Elma, C. (2017). The Relationship among Interactional Justice, Manager
Trust and Teachers’ Organizational Silence Behavior. Universal Journal of
Educational Research, 5(3), 325–333. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1134445
Yean, T. F., & Yusof, A. A. (2016). Organizational Justice: A Conceptual Discussion.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 219, 798–803.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.082
Yongxing, G., Hongfei, D., Baoguo, X., & Lei, M. (2017). Work engagement and job
performance: the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Anales de
Psicología, 33(3), 708. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.33.3.238571
106
APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix Table 1. Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of distributive

justice
STD.
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
1. My work schedule is fair. 3.69 0.51 Very Fair
2. I think my pay is fair. 3.42 0.77 Very Fair
3. I consider my workload to be quite 3.51 0.64 Very Fair
fair.
4. Overall, the rewards I receive are 3.46 0.66 Very Fair
quite fair.
5. I feel that my job responsibilities 3.56 0.57 Very Fair
are quite fair.
MEAN 3.53 0.63 Very Fair
Appendix Table 2. Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of procedural

justice
STD.
PROCEDURAL JUSTICE MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
1. Job decisions are made by my 1.76 1.02 Slightly Fair
supervisor in a biased manner.
2. My supervisor makes sure that all
employee concerns are heard before 3.54 0.61 Very Fair
job decisions are made.
3. To make job decisions, my
supervisor collects accurate and 3.60 0.55 Very Fair
complete information.
4. My supervisor clarifies decisions
and provides additional information 3.58 0.54 Very Fair
when requested by employees.
5. All job-related decisions are applied
consistently to all affected 3.54 0.58 Very Fair
employees.
6. Employees are allowed to challenge
or appeal job decisions, made by 2.98 1.06 Fair
their supervisors.
MEAN 3.17 0.73 Fair
107
Appendix Table 3. Descriptive statistics for organizational justice in terms of

interactional justice
STD.
INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
1. When decisions are made about
my job, the manager treats me
with kindness and 3.66 0.52 Very Fair
consideration.
my job, the manager treats me 3.63 0.53 Very Fair
with respect and dignity.
my job, the manager is sensitive
3.42 0.63 Very Fair
to my personal needs.

my job, the manager deals with 3.62 0.52 Very Fair
me in a truthful manner.
my job, the manager shows
concern for my rights as an 3.63 0.53 Very Fair
employee.
6. Concerning decisions made
about my job, the manager
discusses with me the 3.59 0.53 Very Fair
implications of the decisions.
7. The manager offers adequate
justification for decisions made 3.56 0.54 Very Fair
about my job.
8. When making decisions about

my job, the manager offers
explanations that make sense to 3.56 0.54 Very Fair
me.
9. My manager explains very
clearly any decisions made 3.61 0.54 Very Fair
about my job.
MEAN 3.59 0.54 Very Fair
108
Appendix Table 4. Descriptive statistics for perceived organizational support

PERCEIVED
STD.
ORGANIZATIONAL MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
SUPPORT
1. The organization strongly
considers my goals and values. 3.55 0.55 Very High
2. Help is available from the
organization when I have a 3.54 0.56 Very High
problem.
3. The organization really cares
about my well-being. 3.53 0.60 Very High
4. The organization would forgive
an honest mistake on my part. 3.46 0.61 Very High
5. The organization is willing to
help me when I need a special 3.50 0.62 Very High
favor.
6. If given the opportunity, the
organization would take 1.80 1.01 Low
advantage of me.
7. The organization shows very
2.51 1.20 High
little concern for me.
8. The organization cares about
3.46 0.63 High
my opinions.
MEAN 3.17 0.72 High
Appendix Table 5. Descriptive statistics for work engagement

STD.
WORK ENGAGEMENT MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
1. I work with intensity on my job. 3.65 0.57 Highly Engaged
2. I exert my full effort to my job. 3.73 0.46 Highly Engaged
3. I devote a lot of energy to my job. 3.74 0.48 Highly Engaged
4. I try my hardest to perform well on my 3.76 0.43 Highly Engaged
job.
5. I strive as hard as I can to complete my 3.78 0.42 Highly Engaged
job.
6. I exert a lot of energy on job. 3.68 0.51 Highly Engaged
7. I am enthusiastic in my job. 3.68 0.52 Highly Engaged
8. I feel energetic at my job. 3.61 0.53 Highly Engaged
9. I am interested in my job. 3.69 0.50 Highly Engaged
109
Table 5. Continued
STD.
WORK ENGAGEMENT MEAN INTERPRETATION
DEVIATION
10. I am proud of my job. 3.72 0.46 Highly Engaged
11. I feel positive about my job. 3.69 0.50 Highly Engaged
12. I am excited about my job. 3.60 0.55 Highly Engaged
13. At work, my mind is focused on my job. 3.67 0.50 Highly Engaged
14. At work, I pay a lot of attention on my 3.68 0.51 Highly Engaged
job.
15. At work, I focus a great deal of 3.69 0.48 Highly Engaged
attention on my job.
16. At work, I am absorbed by my job. 3.66 0.50 Highly Engaged
17. At work, I concentrate on my job. 3.68 0.48 Highly Engaged
18. At work, I devote a lot of attention to 3.66 0.50 Highly Engaged
my job.
MEAN 3.69 0.49 Highly Engaged
Appendix Table 6. Pearson-R Correlation test between organizational justice and

perceived organizational support
Correlations POS
Distributive Justice Pearson Correlation .506**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 250
Procedural Justice Pearson Correlation .284**
N 250
Interactional Justice Pearson Correlation .453**
N 250
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
110
Appendix Table 7. Pearson-R Correlation test between organizational justice and

work engagement
Correlations WE
Distributive Justice Pearson Correlation .477**
N 250
Procedural Justice Pearson Correlation .325**
N 250
**
Interactional Justice Pearson Correlation .471
N 250
Appendix Table 8. Pearson-R Correlation test between work engagement and perceived
organizational support
Correlations POS
Work Engagement Pearson Correlation .381**
N 250
111
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
The total number of employees in the offices of the Local Government of Carmona.
112
113
Appendix 2
Permission Letter to acquire the number of employees in the Municipality of Carmona.

114
Appendix 3
Permission Letter to Brian P. Niehoff and Robert H. Moorman, 2021

115
Appendix 4
Permission Letter to Mert Gürlek, 2019

116
Appendix 5
Google Form Survey Instrument

117
118
Google Form link:https://forms.gle/5aLXvHRWdpgLBbBr7

119
Appendix 6
Statistical Results
Result of Pilot Testing using SPSS Cronbach Alpha

120
Appendix 7
Original Questionnaires
121
Organizational Justice from the study of Neihoof and Moorman (1993)

Perceived Organizational Support from the study of Eisenberger et al., (1986,2002)
122
Work Engagement from study of Ahbun (2019)

123
Appendix 8
Consent letter for the participants

124
125
Appendix 9
Research Instrument

SUPPORT TOWARDS WORK ENGAGEMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES IN CARMONA, CAVITE
Dear Participants,
Greetings!
We, Jenielyn S. Barte, Mhelbert A. Paredes and Sophia Laurence M. Puri, fourth year
students of Cavite State University, Carmona Campus are conducting a research entitled
"Organizational Justice and Organizational Support towards Work Engagement of Local
government unit employees in Carmona, Cavite” as a course requirement on Bachelor of
Science in Business Management major in Human Resource Management.
In this regard, we are respectfully asking for your precious time and efforts to answer
all the questions in the questionnaire that are important and helpful for the completion of
the study. Rest assured that all the data gathered from you will be kept at the highest level
of confidentiality.
Your positive response will be valuable for the success of the study and will be highly
appreciated. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
Survey Questionnaire No._________

Date: _________
Instruction. Please answer the following questions by ticking (✔) the appropriate boxes.
1. Are you an employee in one of local government offices in Carmona, Cavite?
□ Yes □ No
2. If yes, please specify in which municipal office you belong:
 Accounting Office  Eco-center

 Agriculture’s Office  Engineering Office
 Assessor’s Office  General Services
 Budget Office  Housing
 Carmona Community Center  Human Resource Management
 Carmona Public Market Office
 CARTMO/ MRFRB  Information Technology Unit
 Civil Security Unit  Legal
 District  Local Economic and Investment
Promotion Office
126
 Mayor’s Office  Eco-center

 Municipal Civil Registry  Engineering Office
 Municipal Disaster Risk  General Services
Reduction MGT Office  Housing
 Municipal Environment and  Human Resource Management
Natural Resources Office Office
 Municipal Health Office  Information Technology Unit
 Municipal Planning and  Legal
Development Office  Local Economic and Investment
 Municipal Social Welfare Promotion Office
Development Office  Mayor’s Office
 Municipal Tourism Culture and  Municipal Civil Registry
Arts Office  Municipal Disaster Risk
 Municipal Treasury Reduction MGT Office
 Office of the Building Official  Municipal Environment and
 Pagamutan Bayan ng Carmona Natural Resources Office
 Persons with Disability Affairs  Municipal Health Office
Office  Municipal Planning and
 Public Employment Service Development Office
Office  Municipal Social Welfare
 Sangguniang Bayan Office / Development Office
Office of the Vice Mayor  Municipal Tourism Culture and
 Audit Arts Office
 Bureau of Fire Protection  Municipal Treasury
 Commission of Election  Office of the Building Official
 Department of Interior and Local  Pagamutan Bayan ng Carmona
Government  Persons with Disability Affairs
 Municipal Cooperative Dev’t Office
Council  Public Employment Service
 Municipal Trial Court Office
 Philippine National Police  Sangguniang Bayan Office /
 Post Office Office of the Vice Mayor
 Others (National Agency)  Audit
 Accounting Office  Bureau of Fire Protection
 Agriculture’s Office  Commission of Election
 Assessor’s Office  Department of Interior and Local
 Budget Office Government
 Carmona Community Center  Municipal Cooperative Dev’t
 Carmona Public Market Council
 CARTMO/ MRFRB  Municipal Trial Court
 Civil Security Unit  Philippine National Police
 District  Post Office
 Others (National Agency)
127
3. How long have you been working in local government offices in Carmona, Cavite?
 6 months to 11 months  4 years to 6 years
 1 year to 3 years  7 years and above
Part I. Organizational Justice
Instruction. For each statement below please check the box to indicate the degree of your
agreement on the following statement.
4 3 2 1
Distributive Justice Strongly Agree Slightly Disagre
Agree Agree e
1. My work schedule is fair.
2. I think that my pay is fair.
3. I consider my work load to be quite fair.
4. Overall the rewards I receive are quite fair.
5. I feel that my job responsibilities are quite
fair.
Procedural Justice
6. Job decisions are made by my supervisor in a
biased manner.
7. My supervisor makes sure that all employee
concerns are heard before job decisions are
made.
8. To make job decisions, my supervisor
collects accurate and complete information.
9. My supervisor clarifies decisions and
provides additional information when requested
by employees.
10. All job-related decisions are applied
consistently to all affected employees.
11. Employees are allowed to challenge or
appeal job decisions, made by their supervisors.
Interactional Justice
12. When decisions are made about my job, the
manager treats me with kindness and
consideration.
manager treats me with respect and dignity.
manager is sensitive to my personal needs.
manager deals with me in a truthful manner.
128

manager shows concern for my rights as an
employee.
17. Concerning decisions made about my job,
the manager discusses with me the implications
of the decisions.
18. The manager offers adequate justification
for decisions made about my job.
19. When making decisions about my job, the
manager offers explanations that make sense to
me.
20. My manager explains very clearly any
decisions made about my job.
Part II. Perceived Organizational Support

4 3 2 1
Perceived Organizational Support Strongly Agree Slightly Disagre
Agree Agree e
1. The organization strongly considers my goals
and values.
2. Help is available from the organization when
I have a problem.
3. The organization really cares about my well-
being.
4. The organization would forgive an honest
mistake on my part.
5. The organization is willing to help me when
I need a special favor.
6. If given the opportunity, the organization
would take advantage of me.
7. The organization shows very little concern
for me.
8. The organization cares about my opinions.
129
Part III. Work Engagement

4 3 2 1
Work Engagement Strongly Agree Slightly Disagre
Agree Agree e
1. I work with intensity on my job.
2. I exert my full effort to my job.
3. I devote a lot of energy to my job.
4. I try my hardest to perform well on my job.
5. I strive as hard as I can to complete my job.
6. I exert a lot of energy on job.
7. I am enthusiastic in my job.
8. I feel energetic at my job.
9. I am interested in my job.
10. I am proud of my job.
11. I feel positive about my job.
12. I am excited about my job.
13. At work, my mind is focused on my job,
14. At work, I pay a lot of attention on my job.
15. At work, I focus a great deal of attention on
my job.
16. At work, I am absorbed by my job.
17. At work, I concentrate on my job.
18. At work, I devote a lot of attention to my
job.
The research instrument is modified from the study of Niehoff & Moorman (1993),
Eisenberger et al. (1986, 2002) and Ahbun, (2019).
THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING! STAY SAFE.

“Conscience is the chamber of justice” -Origen
View publication stats

CvSU Carmona

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CvSU Carmona

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Organizational Justice and Perceived Organizational Support Towards the Work

Thesis · June 2022

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Author: JENIELYN S. BARTE, MHELBERT A. PAREDES and

Title: ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL

CRISTINA M. SIGNO ______ MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA ______

GRETCHEN MACARANAS ______ MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA ______

CARLO EMIL B. MAÑABO ______ CRISTINA M. SIGNO ______

University of Perpetual Help System Laguna - JONELTA with honors.

In August 2018, she took a Bachelor of Science in Business Management Major in

Human Resource Management at Cavite State University- Carmona Campus.

is self-employed and working as a tricycle driver in Bayumbong, Nueva Vizcaya, while

St. Ignatius Technical Institute of Business and Arts.

He is taking up a bachelor’s degree in Business Management major in Human

Resource Management at Cavite State University- Carmona Campus. He also took a

vocational course, Associate in Information Technology in St. Ignatius Technical Institute

of Business and Arts.

since her mother died because of lupus.

She finished her elementary days in Mabuhay Elementary School located in

organization, cineAMA. She is studying at Cavite State University-Carmona Campus and

currently taking up a Bachelor of Science in Business Management Major in Human

appreciation to the following individuals for their significant contributions to the

completion of this study.

strength, direction, and dedication they needed to complete this research;

recommendations to make the study more engaging;

incredibly beneficial in the analysis and interpretation of the data acquired;

in reaching out to the target participants;

recommendations on how to improve the study.

achievement of the study's objectives; and

guidance, and drive.

SOPHIA LAURENCE M. PURI

BARTE, JENIELYN S., PAREDES, MHELBERT A., PURI, SOPHIA LAURENCE

organizational support, and work engagement of local government unit employees in

Carmona, Cavite, and the relationship between the said variables.

The study used a descriptive–correlational research design. Participants were 250

proportionate, snowball and convenient sampling techniques were used. Pearson

interpret the data.

perceived organizational support and work engagement. Likewise, perceived

organizational support has a significant relationship with work engagement.

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA …………………………………………………...... iii

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………..... viii

LIST OF TABLES …………………………………………………………….. xi

LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES …………………………………………….... xii

LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………….... xiii

Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………..... 3

Objectives of the Study ……………………………………………….... 4

Hypotheses of the Study ……………………………………………….. 5

Conceptual Framework of the Study ………………………………....... 6

Significance of the Study ………………………………………………. 7

Time and Place of the Study ………………………………………........ 8

Scope and Limitations of the Study ………………….……………........ 8

Operational Definitions of Terms …………………….…………........... 9

REVIEW ON RELATED LITERATURE …………………………………... 11

Research Design ……………………………………………...……....... 55

Sources of Data ……………………………………………………….... 55

Sampling Technique …………………………………………………...... 59

Data Gathering Procedure ……………………………………………..... 59

Research Instrument …………………………………………………...... 60

Statistical Treatment …………………………………………….…......... 62

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………….. 66

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION ………………. 86

APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………......... 111

1 Distribution of the participants in the local government offices in Carmona,

CRISTINA M. SIGNO MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA

GRETCHEN MACARANAS MARIA ANDREA C. FRANCIA

CARLO EMIL B. MAÑABO CRISTINA M. SIGNO