© Emmanuel Sefa Aboagye University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh UNIVERSITY OF GHANA A STUDY OF THE DIMENSIONS OF ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE WHICH BEST PREDICT EMPLOYEE TRUST AND PRODUCTIVITY IN GHANAIAN HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONS BY EMMANUEL SEFA ABOAGYE 10443758 A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ORGANISATION AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA BUSINESS SCHOOL, UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF AN MPHIL IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OPTION) DEGREE JUNE 2015 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh i DECLARATION I do hereby declare that this work is the result of my own research and has not been presented by anyone for any academic award in this or any other university. All references used in the work have been fully acknowledged. I bear sole responsibility for any shortcomings. …………………………………….. …..……………………… EMMANUEL SEFA ABOAGYE DATE (10443758) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that this thesis was supervised in accordance with procedures laid down by the University. ……………………………… …………………………………. (Supervisor) Date Prof. Bill B. Puplampu University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit whose grace, love and protection led me through it all. Also, I dedicate this work to my loving family (Mr. and Mrs. Aboagye) and my beloved Margienita Aggrey Haizel whose investment, support and encouragement saw me through in completion of this thesis. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am indebted to my supervisor, Prof. Bill B. Puplampu for his timeless dedication during the supervision of this work. The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without his direction and monitoring, his patience is greatly appreciated. Special appreciation goes to the HR department of Valley View University and Central University College, the Academic Registrar of Ghana Technology University College and Wisconsin University College and to the of Coordinators for Business studies of Maranatha University College for their time, contribution and support especially during the data gathering phase of the work. I am as well grateful to my family and my beloved Margienita Aggrey Haizel for their kind financial support during the thesis write-up. I cannot forget friends like Opoku Agyemang, Margaretta Owusu for their financial support. May God bless you all. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh v TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ i CERTIFICATION ........................................................................................................................ ii DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. v LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... xii ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................ xiii CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background of the study ........................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background of Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions .......................................................... 4 1.3 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................................. 9 1.5 Research questions .................................................................................................................... 9 1.6 Research Hypotheses .............................................................................................................. 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vi 1.7 Significance of the study ......................................................................................................... 11 1.8 Scope of the study ................................................................................................................... 12 1.9 Organisation of the study ........................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 14 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14 2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 14 2.1Theoretical Review .................................................................................................................. 14 2.1.1 Organisational Justice .......................................................................................................... 14 2.1.1.1 The dimensions of Organisational Justice ........................................................................ 18 2.1.1.1.1 Distributive Justice......................................................................................................... 19 2.1.1.1.2 Procedural Justice .......................................................................................................... 23 2.1.1.1.3 Interactional Justice ....................................................................................................... 28 2.1.1.1.3.1 Interpersonal Justice.................................................................................................... 29 2.1.1.1.3.2 Informational Justice ................................................................................................... 30 2.1.2 Employee Trust .................................................................................................................... 32 2.1.2.1 Dimensions of Employee Trust ........................................................................................ 35 2.1.2.1.1 Cognition-based trust ..................................................................................................... 36 2.1.2.1.2 Affect-based trust ........................................................................................................... 37 2.1.3 Employee Productivity......................................................................................................... 38 2.1.3.1 Academic Staff Productivity ............................................................................................. 40 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh vii 2.1.3.1.1 Education and teaching productivity ............................................................................. 45 2.1.3.1.2 Research ......................................................................................................................... 46 2.1.3.1.3 Community or public services ........................................................................................ 48 2.1.3.2 Hersey and Goldsmith Model ........................................................................................... 48 2.1.3.3 Operational definition of academic staff productivity ...................................................... 50 2.1.4 Higher education institutions ............................................................................................... 50 2.1.5 A review of African Literature ............................................................................................ 53 2.2 Empirical Review.................................................................................................................... 61 2.2.1 Organisational Justice and Employee Trust ......................................................................... 61 2.2.2 Organisational Justice and Employee Productivity ............................................................. 64 2.3 Conceptual Framework ........................................................................................................... 67 CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 70 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................... 70 3.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 70 3.1 Research Paradigm or Philosophy .......................................................................................... 70 3.2 Research Design...................................................................................................................... 73 3.3 Source of Data......................................................................................................................... 74 3.4 Study Population ..................................................................................................................... 75 3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................ 75 3.6 Sampling Technique and Sample Size .................................................................................... 77 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh viii 3.7 Research Instrument................................................................................................................ 78 3.8 Pilot Study / Validity and Reliability ...................................................................................... 80 3.9 Data Preparation...................................................................................................................... 82 3.10 Data Analysis Procedure ....................................................................................................... 82 3.11 Ethical Consideration ............................................................................................................ 85 3.12 Profile of Sample (Higher education institutions) ................................................................ 85 3.12.1 Central University College ................................................................................................ 85 3.12.2 Ghana Technology University College .............................................................................. 86 3.12.3 Maranathan University College ......................................................................................... 87 3.12.4 Valley View University ..................................................................................................... 89 3.12.5 Wisconsin International University College ...................................................................... 90 CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 92 PRESENTATION OF RESULTS, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS .................... 92 4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 92 4.1 Bio-data ................................................................................................................................... 92 4.1.1 Gender .................................................................................................................................. 92 4.1.2 Age ....................................................................................................................................... 93 4.1.3 Tenure with Institution ......................................................................................................... 94 4.4.4 Status (Position) ................................................................................................................... 95 4.2 Descriptive statistics ............................................................................................................... 96 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ix 4.3 Testing Research Hypothesis / Data screening and testing of Multiple Regression Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 99 4.3.1 Assumptions of normality .................................................................................................... 99 4.3.2 Assumptions of Linearity ................................................................................................... 101 4.3.3 Assumptions of Multicollinearity ...................................................................................... 102 4.3.4 Assumptions of Outliers .................................................................................................... 106 4.4 Regression Analysis .............................................................................................................. 107 4.4.1 Testing of Hypothesis one ................................................................................................. 107 4.4.2 Testing of Hypothesis two ................................................................................................. 112 CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 118 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................. 118 5.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 118 5.1 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics ......................................................................... 118 5.2 Research objective one ......................................................................................................... 119 5.3 Research objective two ......................................................................................................... 123 5.4 Conceptual Framework after Analysis.................................................................................. 126 CHAPTER SIX ......................................................................................................................... 128 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............... 128 6.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 128 6.1 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 128 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh x 6.2 Preliminary Findings ............................................................................................................. 129 6.3 Summary of Key Findings .................................................................................................... 130 6.4 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 131 6.5 Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 133 6.6 Limitations of the study ........................................................................................................ 134 6.7 Further Research ................................................................................................................... 135 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 137 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................... 172 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xi LIST OF TABLES Page Table 3.1: Analysis of population and sample size........................................................... 77 Table 3.2: Reliability Statistics ......................................................................................... 81 Table 3.3: Normality of data ............................................................................................. 84 Table 4.1: Gender.............................................................................................................. 93 Table 4.2: Age ................................................................................................................... 94 Table 4.3: Tenure with Institution .................................................................................... 95 Table 4.4: Status (Position) of academic staff .................................................................. 96 Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for all the variables ........................................................ 98 Table 4.6: Correlations Matrix (Pearson Correlation) .................................................... 103 Table 4.7: Collinearity Statistics ..................................................................................... 104 Table 4.8: Correlations Matrix (Pearson Correlation) .................................................... 105 Table 4.9: Collinearity Statistics ..................................................................................... 106 Table 4.10: Model Summary .......................................................................................... 108 Table 4.11: ANOVA ....................................................................................................... 109 Table 4.12: Coefficients .................................................................................................. 109 Table 4.13: Model Summary .......................................................................................... 113 Table 4.14: ANOVA ....................................................................................................... 114 Table 4.15: Coefficients .................................................................................................. 114 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework before analysis .......................................................... 69 Figure 4.1: Histogram showing normal distribution for employee trust ........................ 100 Figure 4.2: Histogram showing normal distribution for employee productivity ............ 100 Figure 4.3: Normal P-P Plot for employee trust ............................................................. 101 Figure 4.4: Normal P-P Plot for employee productivity ................................................. 102 Figure 5.1: Conceptual framework after analysis ........................................................... 127 Figure 4.5: Scatterplot for employee trust ...................................................................... 176 Figure 4.6: Scatterplot for employee productivity .......................................................... 178 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh xiii ABSTRACT This study aims to examine the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee trust; and the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee productivity. The study used quantitative approach and data were gathered from 211 respondents through the use of questionnaire. Convenience sampling techniques was used to select both the five Ghanaian higher education institutions and the respondents for the study. The data gathered was analysed using Statistical Packages for Social Science (SPSS). A multiple regression was therefore used to test the hypotheses of the study. The findings of the study indicated that both procedural justice and informational justice significantly and positively predict employee trust and productivity whereas both distributive justice and interpersonal justice have an insignificant positive relationship with employee trust and productivity. Furthermore, the study findings revealed that the best predictor of employee trust and productivity is informational justice. It was suggested that in order for employees’ (academic staff) to have confidence (trust) in their leaders/supervisors’/institution and constantly improve their productivity there is the need for all the dimensions of organisational justice to be mutually pursued by organisations because the neglect of one can lead to mistrust and might affect the optimal level of productivity. It is therefore recommended that institutions should constantly embrace justice in all aspect of their business practices as it impact on the activities academic staff perform. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 1 CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.0 Introduction This chapter introduced the background of the study. A brief problem statement is provided followed by the research objectives, questions, hypotheses, significance of the study and scope of the study. In addition, the chapter also included a section that outlined the organisation of the chapters involved in this study. 1.1 Background of the study The development and success of every organisation and the society at large depends on an important organisational behaviour variable known as organisational justice. In order for employee trust, loyalty, productivity and satisfaction to be achieved and drive the accomplishment of the vision of organisations fairness policies should be applied by organisations (Akanbi & Ofoegbu, 2013). Thus, organisational justice dimensions (i.e. procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational fairness) should be applied in organisations policies, practices and systems. Employees tend to show trust in their organisation or supervisor and as well become productive when they perceive that they have been treated fairly by their organisation (Colquitt, 2001). Studies in the field of organisational behavior have gradually made known the significance and the role of fairness on the continual existence of corporate entities (Greenberg, 1990). Recent studies conducted on organisational justice has been University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2 encouraging but with diverse views on the concept. This increasing literature shows clearly that the concept of fairness is significant to everybody in their daily life and most importantly in the corporate entities (Ambrose, 2002). Greenberg (1990) has suggested that organisational justice clearly predict many organisational outcome variables such as trust, commitment, job satisfaction, intention to leave, job involvement, productivity and organisational citizenship behaviour (Moorman, 1991, p. 845; Nadi & Moshfeghi, 2009, p. 80). According to Karriker & Williams (2009) it is believed that in organisations people who have received fair treatment and yet finds an aspect of inequality between his or her inputs and the equity standards of the organisation in comparison to others outcomes will vary their role for the purpose of reducing the differences. The attempt to reduce the differences affects the level of productivity of the organisation at large. On the other hand such individuals treated fairly will be committed to extra role and act patriotic to the organisation. Organisational justice has therefore been referred as employee’s views or perception of fairness and equal treatment of work related outcomes (Jex, 1991). It can therefore be said that the success of every organisation in the achievement of its objectives relies on management commitment in pursuing fairness at the workplace. There is therefore the need for management and executive heads to be committed and uphold justice in organisations (Liao & Rupp, 2005; Suliman, 2007). In this day and age productivity is one of the most important indicators of economic growth and development and a concern for stakeholders of organisations worldwide. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3 National development program is based on productivity improvement in many countries (Bordbar et al., 2007). Employee’s productivity is therefore affected by the level of perceived fairness in the organisation. Productivity is about the effective and efficient use of all resources. Vuorinen et al. (1998) defined productivity as to the relationship that exists between inputs and output. Productivity of human capital in every organisation is predicted my many organisational behaviour outcome variables such as justice, satisfaction and trust (Taheri & Soltaniz, 2013). Studies has shown that fairness to employees by organisations usually results in higher productivity whereas those that feel unfairness are more likely to quit the organisation or otherwise lower the level of productivity and commitment (Doulati & Pour, 2013). The concept of justice is socially embedded which involves most facets of life. Justice regularly goes along side with the outcomes of every effort that individuals put forth on the job. According to Elovation et al. (2003) it has been identified by sociologist that organisational justice is important factor that contributes to the effectiveness of organisational processes. According to Al-Abrrow et al. (2013), Employee trust is another variable that is a significant element for long-lasting social relationship. Trust is shown as a necessary element for improvement in organisational commitment and productivity and employee safety feeling and support and recognition of individual aims (Yilmaz & Atalay, 2000). Trust has been defined by Robinson (1996, p. 576) as a person’s “expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that another’s future actions will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to ones interests”. Understanding how different dimensions of organisational justice predict employee trust and productivity University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4 help managers take more appropriate measures to develop perceived justice in the organisations, hence the improvement of employee trust and productivity. Even though there are relatively a number of researches that has examined the relationship between organisational justice and trust and productivity respectively, there is little studies conducted on organisational justice and its consequence on both employee trust and productivity simultaneously and as well as limited studies done in West Africa specifically Ghana. However, the purpose of the study was to examine the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee trust and productivity in the Ghanaian higher education institutions. 1.2 Background of Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions In this current era education has become an important investment toward the achievement of individual’s future developments and sustaining economic activities specifically higher education. Higher education in this era is a necessity and not a luxury in the accomplishment of higher standard of living in respect to social and economic development (Peril & Promise, 2000). How higher education in Ghana all started can be traced back to the year 1935 to 1938, during the era of colonial rule which the British established castle schools. The first primary, girls’ and secondary school established outside the premises of the castle was in Cape Coast by the Methodist Missionary Society (Graham, 1971). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5 Afterwards, the government of the colonial masters set up Achimota School which was later turned into teacher training college and subsequently turned into training institution which was named as the University College of London until a land was found for the University College at Legon. Later the University College became a full university in 1948 as the University of Ghana. This was made possible by the recommendation of the Asquith Commission on Higher Education in the then British colonies. The Asquith Commission, which was set up in 1943 to investigate on higher education recommended the establishment of university colleges in alliance with University of London. Subsequently commissions such as The Elliot Commission published a majority report which recommended the establishment of two University Colleges in the Gold Coast (Ghana) and Nigeria, and a minority report which held that only one University College for the whole of British West Africa was feasible. The University College of the Gold Coast was founded by Ordinance on August 11, 1948 with the purpose of providing for and promoting university education, learning and research. During the 1960/1961 academic year, the College Council made an appeal to the government of Ghana for legislation to constitute the University College into a University with the power to award its own degrees. This request made the government to set up a commission to investigate into the request made by the college council. On the recommendations of that Commission, the University of Ghana was set up by an Act of Parliament on October 1, 1961 (Act 79). The then President of the Republic of Ghana, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, became the first Chancellor of the University, with Nana Kobina Nketsia IV, BLitt DPhil (Oxon), Omanhene of Essikado, as the (Interim) vice-chancellor. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6 Currently, the university has three campuses namely; Legon Campus, Korle Bu Campus and the Accra City Campus which is made up of four colleges with a number of schools, faculties, departments, centers, institutes and others units. Later the Kumasi Institute of Technology was turned into Kwame Nkrumah Institute of Science and Technology and further turned into Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology at the turn of Independence in 1961. The University College of Education was established at Cape Coast, which has evolved into the University of Cape Coast in 1971. Currently, there are sixty-four (64) public tertiary institutions under the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) including: nine (9) Universities, ten (10) Polytechnics, thirty eight (38) Colleges of Education, two (2) Specialized Institutions, three (3) Regulatory Bodies and three (3) other subvented organisations. In addition, there are about (94) accredited private tertiary institutions as at December 2013. Currently the situation is changing and there is more recognition of the important role higher education plays. The higher education sector in Africa has attracted attention from stakeholders, often due to this recognition of the important role of higher education in Africa’s transformation (Bloom et al., 2005). World Bank (2007) stated that higher education plays an important role in poverty reduction. The achievement of sustainable development and knowledge based economy is grounded on higher education (World Bank, 2003). The increasing attention of higher education in developing countries as an important driver of economic growth and development has made tertiary education more important than ever. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 7 1.3 Statement of the problem Studies conducted in the field of organisational justice have researched on number of relationship that exists with other variables. Among few of these variables are job satisfaction (Goris et al., 2000; Greenberg, 1995; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Leung et al., 1996; Robinson, 2004; Tim 1995; Tremblay et al., 1998), commitment (Greenberg, 1995; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Robinson, 2004), organisational citizenship behaviour (Greenberg, 1995), outcomes or performance (Boswell & Boudreau, 2000; Crossman & Abou-Zaki, 2003; Goris et al., 2000; Greenberg, 1995; Robinson, 2004; Tim 1995), trust (Banerjee & Banerjee, 2013; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2002; Laschinger & Finegan, 2005; Lewicki, Wiethoff & Tomlinson, 2005), productivity (Doulati & Pour, 2013; Goncalo & Kim, 2010; Rostamzadeh et al., 2013;) and as well as employee motivation (Robinson, 2004). In spite of the numerous studies conducted on organisational justice as against these variables, the findings of Suliman (2007) suggests investigations in the field of organisational justice in different geographical parts in order to reach more general conclusions. Suliman believes that the perception of justice by employees is affected by culture and the search to investigate in different geographical parts is for the purpose of making a cross-cultural contrast. The concept of organisational justice is not something new but organisational justice studies in schools and in the education sector management is very few in number (Hoy & Tarter, 2004). Again, most of the studies conducted have been done within the North American cultural context. It is of importance to be quick to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 8 respond to the impact of national culture on organisational behaviour due to the globalization and internationalization of businesses (Aycan et al., 2000). Although there is an increase in the organisational justice and trust literatures, both combinations are still lacking and not fully elaborated (Lewicki, Wiethoff & Tomlinson, 2005). In an attempt by Frazier et al. (2010) to deal with the gap of the studies conducted by Lewicki et al. (2005) could not fully study all the dimensions of justice, that is distributive justice was left out in their studies. This current study attempts to address this issue. It was further stated for further studies to be conducted in different setting to improve generalization. Again, according to Nadi and Moshfeghi (2009) it has been shown that there is confusion about the relationship between organisational justice and organisational trust and still not long-established whether justice result on trust or vice versa. On the other hand, Deutsch (1985) explained that though there is the view that justice facilitates productivity which there is limited support for such perceptions. Goncalo and Kim (2010) suggested that, it worth conducting more studies on justice-productivity relationship by considering contextual factors. In respect to the literature reviewed, even though there are quite a number of researches that has examined the relationship between organisational justice and trust; and organisational justice and productivity, there are little studies conducted on organisational justice and its influence on both employee trust and productivity University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 9 simultaneously, as well as limited studies done in Africa specifically Ghana. Therefore, the researcher aimed to examine the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee trust and productivity in Ghanaian higher education institutions. 1.4 Objectives of the study To achieve the purpose of the study the researcher outlined the following related objectives: 1. To examine the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee trust in Ghanaian higher education institutions 2. To examine the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee productivity in Ghanaian higher education institutions 1.5 Research questions On the basis of the background of study and problem statement, the research questions were stated as follows: 1. Which of the organisational justice dimensions best predict employee trust in Ghanaian higher education institutions? 2. Which of the organisational justice dimensions best predict employee productivity in Ghanaian higher education institutions? University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 10 1.6 Research Hypotheses H1: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee trust. H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Procedural justice and employee trust. H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee trust. H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee trust. H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee trust. H2: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee productivity. H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee productivity. H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity. H2c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 11 H2d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee productivity. 1.7 Significance of the study This study gives a significant contribution to research, practice and policy. With regard to practice, this study provided insight to management of higher education institutions and corporate entities in Ghana and beyond, the need to uphold justice in their various institutions to commit employees to trust their supervisors and the organisation at large, hence to improve productivity to aid their business survive. The findings as well add up to human resource management knowledge as it provided some practical suggestions to managers. The study goes beyond current studies on organisational justice influence on employee trust and productivity by examining the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee trust and productivity. The research outcome has thereby increased the existing store of knowledge on the subject and gives future research direction. Finally, the study suggested guidelines to policy makers like board of directors, shareholders, and government the impact that fairness has on employee trust and productivity. This is useful as it provides important insight to policy makers the benefit that justice plays on development of the education sector in the country. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 12 1.8 Scope of the study The study focused on organisational justice dimensions in higher education institutions and how it predicts employee trust and productivity. Furthermore, the unit of analysis is some selected private universities within the Greater Accra Region. The study focused on only academic staff of the selected private universities. 1.9 Organisation of the study The research was organized under six major chapters. The first chapter is comprised of the background of study, research problem, objectives of the study, research questions, hypotheses, significance of the study, scope of the study and the chapter outline/organisation of research. Chapter two discusses the review of relevant literature. It contains literature on organisational justice, employee trust and employee productivity. It as well provided empirical relationship between the organisational justice and employee trust; and organisational justice and employee productivity. Final, this chapter also provided a conceptual framework. The third chapter contains the methodological approaches which highlights on study area, source and study population, sampling techniques and sample size, data collection instrument and method, data processing and mode of analysis and ethical considerations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13 Chapter four entails data analysis, presentation of data, interpretation of analysis and the research findings. Chapter five discusses the findings of the study and fully relates to the results of the study to existing literature reviewed. The final chapter which is chapter six comprises of the conclusions, recommendations, limitation of the study and suggestions for future research. The references and appendices follow this chapter. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 14 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 2.0 Introduction This chapter reviewed literature on the concept of organisational justice, employee trust, and employee productivity. The review also indicated records on existing studies conducted on the concepts indicating the various relationships: organisational justice and employee trust; and organisational justice and employee productivity. 2.1Theoretical Review 2.1.1 Organisational Justice The study of justice or fairness has been a topic of philosophical interest that can be traced back to Plato and Socrates. Though justice has been man’s objective since ancient times, discussion of its nature, as a basic question in political philosophy, still continues (Ezzat, 2003). It can be said that Justice really matters. This is in the sense that even the 21st century people understand something of justice which is mostly recognized in statements like “That’s not fair!” (Wilson, 1993). Rawls (1971:3) designates justice to be “the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought” and lies at the root of every aspect of human life. It is therefore clear that justice is of fundamental importance to human beings (Folger, 1998). Justice is an ethical and legal principle (Calislar, 1983; Demirtas & Gunes, 2002; Pehlivan-Aydın, 2002). Throughout human race the term justice has been acknowledged as one of the individual and social virtues which have been studied due to its importance University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 15 in social life. The term “getting what you deserve” and “equality” are included in the definition and underlines the concept of justice. The concept justice is of importance for both organisations and societies at large. The principles of justice in a society help people identify their mutual and social responsibilities and rights and define who and why their society will reward (Stevens & Wood, 1995). The term justice generally includes treating the equal equally. It must be noted that the concept of justice is a significant issue to the nation Ghana. The coat of arms design in the year 1957 shows a motto “freedom and justice”. This shows that justice matters to the people of Ghana. At the organisational level the concept justice is employees’ beliefs and perception about a fair treatment in their workplace (Yazycyoolu & Topaloolu, 2009). In other words organisational justice is rules and social norms depending on distribution of acquisitions, processes used in making decisions about distribution and interpersonal exercises (Folger & Cronpanzano, 1998). Also, justice means giving employees their rights to the extent they contribute to their organisations and punishments to the extent they act contrary to rules (Basaran, 1985). The term organisational justice was coined by French (1964) to describe individuals’ perceptions of fairness in organisations (Karriker & Williams, 2009). Organisational justice is the term used to describe the role of fairness as it directly relates to the workplace. Specifically, organisational justice is concerned with the ways in which employees determine if they have been treated fairly in their jobs and the ways in which those determinations influence other work related variables (Moorman, 1991). Campbell and Finch (2004) described the concept of organisational justice as employees’ perception of how an organisation treats them with fairness. In the words of Greenberg University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 16 (1990), organisational justice refers to employees perceptions about the extent to which they are treated fairly by their organisation and how these perceptions affect organisational behaviour outcomes variables (Yilmaz & Tasdan, 2009). In the understanding of the organisational justice concept a highly leveraged approach was recommended by Moorman (1991). Moorman observed that organisational justice is involved with how employees determine their feel of being treated fairly on the job and the manner in which such determination affect work related outcomes. The term organisational justice is not new in the administrative literature (Beugre, 1998; Cobb et al., 1995; Cohen and Greenberg, 1982; Greenberg, 1990, 1996; Greenberg and Lind, 2000), but it is a neglected concept in educational administration. Hoy and Tarter (2004) have argued that issues concerning justice and fairness in schools should not be taken lightly or for granted. Anyone who doubts the validity of this statement simply needs to visit a school and to question teachers about how fairly they are treated on the job; then stand back and listen to the lively discussion that ensues. Organisational justice literature has showed diverse theories to explain the concept. Among such diverse theories are equity theories (Adams, 1965; Konovsky & Pugh, 1994; Organ & Moorman, 1993), social exchange theory (Homans, 1961), relative deprivation theory (Martin, 1981), justice motive theory (Lerner, 1977) and the justice judgment model (Leventhal, 1976). These theories are all fundamental to the understanding of organisational justice and very significance in the workplace. Among all these diverse theories to explain the concept justice, most studies done at the organisational level rely University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17 upon Adams (1965) study of equity theory, Homans (1961) study of exchange relationship theory. According to DeConinck (2010) and Liljegren and Ekberg (2010) there are three diverse models namely a two factor model, a three factor model and a four factor model that has been developed by scholars to explain the perceptions associated with organisational justice. The two factor model was proposed by Greenberg (1990) composed of distributive and procedural justice which gain support from studies conducted by Sweeney and McFarlin (1993). The two factor model was challenged by studies that suggested an additional factor called interactional justice. Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001) stated that there is high debate and controversy over the distinction between interactional and procedural justice but Bies and Moag (1986) pointed out that interactional justice is not a sub-component of procedural justice because it represents the social exchange component of the interaction and the quality of treatment that employees receive from those in authority. Subsequently, a four factor model of organisational justice was developed by Colquitt (2001) including procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice arguing that it fit the data significantly better than a two or three factor model. Colquitt’s construct validation study also showed that each of the four components have predictive validity for different key organisational outcomes (e.g., commitment and rule compliance). Another model of organisational justice that has been developed apart from the three models (a two factor model, a three factor model and a four factor model) is the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 18 multi-foci construct model. This model was proposed by Byrne (1999) to describe organisational justice as where employees see justice as coming from a source such as the organisation itself or their supervisors. This scholar argued out that instead of placing much focus on justice as a two or three or four factor component model, employees personify the organisation and they distinguish between whether they feel the organisation or supervisor have treated them fairly (interactional), use fair procedures (procedural), or allocate rewards or assignments fairly (distributive justice). A number of researchers have used this model exploring the possibility that justice is more than just three or four factors (e.g., Karriker & Williams, 2009). The indicator of organisational justice is fair distribution of resources and gains, decision making in procedures in consultation with employees and fair treatment in employee relations. In this context, distributive justice, interactional justice (interpersonal and informational) and procedural justice are covered as the main components of organisational justice in the conducted studies (Cakmak, 2005; Puskulluoolu, 1999; Tan, 2006; Toremen & Tan, 2010). In the general sense, the related studies have attached importance to “how” decisions are perceived by employees as well as “how” decisions are made, manager-employee relationships and communication establishing manners (Atalay, 2007; Cakmak, 2005). 2.1.1.1 The dimensions of Organisational Justice There is no disagreement about the importance of justice constructs to individuals and the impact they have on individual behavior despite the disagreement about which justice University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 19 constructs are conceptually distinct from others. Research has supported that employees perceived fairness of outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment and information disseminations are each linked with organisational behaviors and attitudes. Individual perceived unfair treatment by their organisations result to lower commitment, increased intention to quit, theft and decreased support for co-workers (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2001; Konovsky, 2000). Colquitt (2001) provides four dimensions of organisational justice which are distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice. According to Loi et al. (2009) both distributive justice and procedural justice is a structural form of justice which means that they are stable over time whereas that of interpersonal and informational justice are social forms of justice, meaning that they are more variable or likely to change more often and dependent on the day to day interactions and events that occurs within the organisation. These four dimensions of organisational justice are discussed as follows. 2.1.1.1.1 Distributive Justice In the studies conducted by Sezen (2001) distributive justice was described as the kind of justice that looks at the distribution of organisational gains to deserving staff. Toremen and Tan (2010) defined distributive justice as employee perceptions about fair distribution of organisational resources and benefits. The origins of distributive justice may be traced to Adams’s (1965) equity theory which claims that people compare the ratios of their own perceived work outcomes to their own perceived work inputs with the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 20 corresponding ratios of co-workers. In assessing distributive justice, individuals evaluate their work inputs (e.g., skills and motivation) relative to the outcomes received from the organisation (e.g., pay and promotions). Research has shown that perceptions of distributive justice are linked to a number of employee related outcomes such as: pay satisfaction (Folger and Konovsky 1989; McFarlin and Sweeney 1992); satisfaction with leaders (Tyler and Caine 1981); and employee turnover intentions (Foley et al. 2002). According to Noruzy et al. (2011) distributive justice focuses on the employee’s belief and feelings of satisfaction with their work outcomes such as pay and job assignments. Distributive justice refers to the perceived fairness of the outcomes that an individual receives from organisation. Outcomes may be distributed on the basis of equality, need or contribution and individuals determine the fairness of distribution through comparison with others (Alsalem & Alhaiani, 2007). McShane, Glinow & Sharma (2008) further argued in their studies that distributive justice is influenced by distribution rules which consist of equality, need and equity. According to Folger and Cropanzano (1998, p. 21) distributive justice is “the individuals’ perception on whether the gains they earned are distributed fairly. Individuals make judgments on the appropriateness of justice distribution by comparing their outcomes to their previous outcomes or to the outcomes of others” (Chan, 2000; Tyler, 1994). Distributive justice aims to identify and regulate the principles of distribution of rights, benefits and responsibilities to persons (Buchanan, 1992, p. 654). From the viewpoint of Niehoff and Moorman (1993), distributive justice is the extent to which rewards are University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 21 allocated in an equitable way. It relates to the justice of results (Jawahar, 2002) and is related to employees’ perceptions of justice while sharing organisational sources, expenses, promotions, or shares (Roch & Shanock, 2006). Distributive justice is arguments on status, seniority, production, effort, needs, and the determination of payment. It is suggested by Koopmann (2002) there are three rules of distribution including justice, equity and needs which seen as the dimensions of distributive justice (Koopmann, 2002). In the field of education, perception of distributive inequality among academic staff is disturbing and result to negative feelings of anger in individuals. Inequality could be seen from staff promotions, high grade delegations and other awarding systems. This inequality causes feeling of guilt and dissatisfaction in employees. Employees who receive unexpected increment in their salary or benefits or unexpectedly been entrusted to boards and commissions. Those who have received unexpected pay rise or who have unexpectedly been delegate to boards and commissions, in distribution of activities and in service trainings on demand may work longer hours to get rid of such a feeling of guilt and have a feeling of equality or make extra efforts exceeding job definition (Gilliand, 1993; Töremen & Tan, 2010). In the workplace, employees generally consider distribution of work related rewards and resources to be fair when they are consistent with expected norms of allocation such as equity, equality and need (Colquitt, 2001). Forsyth (2006) has defined five types of distributive norm which include: 1. Equity: This term of used for distributive norm explains that employees’ outcomes should be based on their inputs. The inputs of employees consist of the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 22 skills, time, money and energy that are invested by individuals in performance of their duty. Employees who therefore invest much input are required to receive more outcomes than those who invest less. Individuals that invest high level of input are therefore to receive more outcomes than others who invest little. 2. Equality: This term explains that despite the inputs that employees invest, members within a group are entitled to receive equal share of the rewards/costs. This term supports that an employee who contributes 30% of the group’s resources should receive as much as the one who contributes 70% . 3. Power: This aspect of distributive norm speaks to that fact that those who have much authority, status or control over the group should receive more than those in less position, with less authority, status or control over the group. 4. Need: Those in greatest needs should be provided with resources needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be given more resources than those who already possess them, regardless of their input. 5. Responsibility: This norm under the distributive justice is based on resource sharing. In other words, individual group members who have the most resource available to them should share their resources with those who have less. Distributive justice is often considered important because an unfair distribution of outcomes and resources could have dismal consequences. Unfair distribution could therefore result to distrust, disputes, disrespect and other social problems among employees and their managers (Suliman, 2007). A look at the educational institutions, the introduction of distributive justice is critical and significant. This is in the sense that University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 23 employees productivity are likely to increase when they are rewarded accordingly but when employees outcomes expectations are not met, a decrease in productivity, organisational dissatisfaction and distrust may occur. It is therefore reasonable for educational institutions to distribute awards, remunerations, benefits, job assignment and delegations fairly among employees or academic staffs as it may affect staff performance positively. Cohen-Charash & Spector (2001) affirms that distributive justice does affect performance when efficiency and productivity are involved. An improvement in the perception of justice therefore increases performance (Karriker & Williams, 2009). On the other hand, an unfair treatment may lead to job negligence, organisational incompatibility and staff resistance to decisions and applications. Such behaviors depend on the degree to which an organisation is perceived to be distributively fair or just (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Karriker & Williams, 2009). 2.1.1.1.2 Procedural Justice In the studies of conducting legal research on dispute resolution processes, Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the role of procedural justice as the amount of process control provided to people affected by the procedures and their outcomes. Though the concept of procedural justice originates from legal research, it has become one of the most researched topics in organisational psychology and human resource management (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano & Greenberg, 1997), and is receiving increased attention among strategy researchers (Kim and Mauborgne, 1998; Luo, 2007). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 24 Justice theory has been applied to large-scale change (Daly and Geyer, 1994), layoff decisions (Brockner and Greenberg, 1990), global strategy making (Korsgaard et al, 2002; Kim and Mauborgne, 1991), new product development (Li, Bingham, and Umphress, 2007), and management of international joint ventures (Johnson, Korsgaard, and Sapienza, 2002; Luo, 2005, 2008). This line of research builds on the idea that procedural justice not only affects employee outcome satisfaction, but also higher-order attitudes of trust (Folger and Konovsky, 1989) and commitment (Brockner et al., 1987). These higher-order attitudes can be critical for the success of implementing strategies that require the mobilization of workforces (Daly and Geyer, 1994; Kim and Mauborgne, 1991). Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the concept of procedural justice, which addresses the processes through which outcome distributions are made. Procedural justice has been widely recognized as an important matter in every organisational setting (Mossholder et al., 1998; Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996). When employee feel that their views and concerns are heard in the decision making process, they are most often likely to support rather that to deny the decision or cope with the decisions, their leaders and the organisation as a whole (Brockner, 2006). Brockner & Siegel (1996) suggested procedural justice as positive individual perception on the processes and procedures involved in determining outcomes associated with higher levels of trust in the organisation and its managers. Conversely studies have established the negative ramifications of non-observance of procedural justice. Indeed, the words of Lin & Tyler (1988) are insightful in this context: “organisations that ignore procedural justice University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 25 concerns run the risk of engendering negative organisational attitudes, dissatisfaction with organisational outcomes of decisions, non-compliance with rules and procedures, and in some instances low performance”. In the words of McShane et al. (2008, p. 177) “procedural justice is influenced by both structural rules and social rules. Structural rules represent the policies and practices that decision makers should follow; the most frequently identified is giving employees a voice in the decision process”. The structural rules also consist of important variables such as bias-free, knowledgeable, consistent, listens to all and apprealable. “Social rules refers to standards of interpersonal conduct between employees and decision makers; they are best observed by showing respect and providing acountability for decisions”. Several views explain why fairness of processes and procedures has such powerful effects on individuals. It has been emphasized by Thibaut and Walker (1975) that procedural justice matters because process control functions as a guard to individual personal interest. By controlling the process is by having a voice through which individuals can protect their interests. Thibaut and Walker demonstrated that when individuals received unfavorable outcomes, they were more satisfied with the outcomes if they believed the procedures that produced them were fair. Lind and Tyler (1988) has also argued out that group perception of fairness of processes matters because people want to be treated with respect and dignity and as valued members of enduring groups. In a strategic decision-making context, Kim and Mauborgne (1998) stress how procedural justice promotes intellectual and emotional recognition. They argue that fair processes provide a sense of respect for intellectual value and emotional well-being of organisation University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 26 members, which make them more willing to take on new challenges and cooperate with others in ways that enhance firm-level value creation. Procedural justice refers to participants' perceptions about the fairness of the rules and procedures that regulate a process (Nabatchi et al., 2007). Among the traditional principles of procedural justice are impartiality, voice or opportunity to be heard, and grounds for decisions (Bayles, 1990). Procedural justice is also referred to as the degree of fairness during the process of making decisions or creating procedures. Thus, procedural justice, as defined in organisational justice literature examines the perception of fairness about the process, procedures, and decisions that affect the outcomes (Byrne & Cropanzano, 2001). Procedural justice entails employee perception of motives, methods, mechanism and processes used in determining outcomes (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998) or more precisely fairness of the procedure involved in making decisions (Folger & Greenberg, 1985). It is the extent to which those affected by allocation decisions perceive them to have been made according to fair methods and guidelines (Greenberg, 1990). In other words, procedural justice implies the perceived fairness of the means and procedures used in making decisions that concerns the allocation of resources, working conditions and punishment decisions (Colquitt et al., 2005; Greenberg, 1990). The aspect of individual perception of unbiased or objectiveness and involvement in decision making process cannot be overlooked under this concept (Moon & Kamdar, 2008, 85). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 27 Research conducted and published by Leventhal (1980) and Leventhal, Karuza and Fry (1980) have outlined six major components or elements of procedural justice. Among such elements are: ground rules for determining potential rewards and behaviors to attain them; defining the decision structure, such as order, timing, and methods of arriving at the final decision; selection of agents, or who makes the allocation decision and the persons involved; safeguards to ensure against abuse of power for the following of rules; information gathering and obtaining procedures; procedures for appealing unsatisfactory decisions; and change mechanisms to alter processes when outcomes are unfair. These components he summarized as; consistency, bias suppression, accuracy, correctablity, representativeness and ethicality which are believed to be associated with fair procedures. Leventhal et al. (1980) predicted that gathered information regarding the six procedural justice components is used to evaluate the fairness of the procedure itself. For instance, the guideline of accuracy necessitates that decisions arrived at must be based on accurate and valid information. Bias suppression prevents personal self-interest and the lack of all views receiving equal consideration. Consistency requires that procedures must be the same across individuals and over time. Ethicality calls for procedures to be based on prevailing moral and ethical standards and seeks to avoid deceptions, bribery, and invasion of privacy. Correct ability allows for decisions to be modified or reversed. Ensuring that important sub-groups of the populations affected are involved requires representativeness. Tyler (1987) put forward that individuals use one or more of the procedural guidelines to evaluate if procedures are fair, and often finds guidelines complimenting versus competing against one another. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 28 It is therefore of importance to involve staff of educational institutions in decision making process by asking their views and taking suggestions. With this kind of organisational attitude employee feel that their institutions have them at heart and encourage staff of schools to work with more energy and commitment. 2.1.1.1.3 Interactional Justice The third dimension is interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986) which concerns the fairness of the interpersonal treatment individuals are given during the implementation of procedures. Cropanzano, Prehar and Chen (2002, p. 329) simply refer to interactional justice as “usually operationalized as one-to-one transactions between individuals”. According to Bies (1986) interactional justice focuses on employees' perceptions of the interpersonal behaviour exercised during the representation of decisions and procedures. Interactional justice is related to the quality of relationships between individuals within organisations (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). Although some scholars view interactional justice as a single construct, others have proposed two dimensions of interactional justice (Bies, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988). The two dimensions of interactional justice proposed are interpersonal and informational justice. These two dimensions of interactional justice are related to each other. However, research recommends that both concepts should be looked at differently since it has differential consequence on justice perceptions (Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 29 2.1.1.1.3.1 Interpersonal Justice In the early 1990’s the scope of justice research expanded as scholars began to research the social side of justice. Bies and Moag (1986) introduced the third concept of justice which entails interpersonal treatment that employees receive from organisational decision makers. As with distributive justice and procedural justice, there is substantial empirical support for the effect of fair interpersonal treatment on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors (Brockner & Greenberg, 1990; Greenberg, 1990, 1993). Interpersonal justice “reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes” (Colquitt, 2001, p. 427). Interpersonal sensitivity also known as interpersonal justice is also emphasized in interactional justice theory. Bies (1987) maintained that interpersonal communication is one of the behaviors of decision makers that are associated with fair and unfair interpersonal treatment. Attitudes of treating people with dignity, respect, and sincerity are effective communication for alleviating people’s feelings of perceived injustice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Bies, Shapiro, & Cummings, 1988; Folger & Bies, 1989; Shapiro, Sheppard, & Cheraskin, 1992; Tyler & Bies, 1990). Shapiro et al. (1992) showed that regular communication and courtship could contribute to understanding and predictability in knowledge-based trust. Lind (2001, p. 65) noted that “people use overall impressions of fair treatment as a surrogate for interpersonal trust”. Interpersonal justice addresses the fairness of person oriented treatment such as the respect with which one has been treated (Bies, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988). From the view University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 30 point of Frazier et al. (2010) interpersonal justice looks at the character and attitude of the communication that affects individuals. It is concerned with how individuals in charge of “allocating resources and rewards in the workplace behave towards the recipients” (Chou, 2009, p. 72). Greenberg, 1990 pointed out that, apologies is a tactic for enhancing interpersonal justice because they involve expressions of remorse and apologies help harm doers distances themselves from the negative effects of their actions which is an effective means of reducing expressions of anger. 2.1.1.1.3.2 Informational Justice Organisational justice development has brought to light that fair procedures does not only involve process control but does include the provision of information to justify the processes (Bies and Shapiro, 1988). For the purpose of this study and reference to literature this can be referred as informational justice. It is referred as such due to the fact that its justification demands a provision of enough information and explanations by decision maker such as providing a detailed account of final decisions made. This concept is thereby linked to trust establishment because of the efforts to explain changes that might have occurred in decisions or agreements made previously (Colquitt et al., 2001). Informational justice therefore focuses on the extent to which people in organisations receives explanations on information conveyed regarding why procedures were used or why certain decisions were made which has received notable studies by scholars such as Colquitt et al. (2001) and Greenberg (1993). Greenberg (1993) further asserted that University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 explanations on information help those affected by decisions made to understand the reasons for such decisions as it is medium of changing the reaction and receptivity of employees to procedures. It therefore speaks to the fairness of information provided during the procedures and outcome distributions related to issues such as the accuracy of the information, specificity, timeliness and truthfulness with which the information was provided (Colquitt et al., 2001). According to Frazier et al. (2010) informational justice looks at the explanations given to individuals about why certain decisions were made. It deals with the quality of communication in respect to decision making that directly affect individuals. It goes to the extent of dealing with the factors of communication that exist between employees and employers as management of organisations are responsible for involving employees in any communication and seeking their opinions relating to project and the work itself. In the words of Bies (2001) and Bies and Moag (1986) it was pointed out that informational justice is emerged by adequate and honest communication. Informational justice is a type of justice which focuses on explanations provided to people that conveys information about why procedures were used in a certain manner and why outcomes were distributed in a particular way (Greenberg, 1990, 1993). The widespread of explanation made available to employees the higher the perceived level of informational justice is higher (Sam Fricchione, 2006), this therefore depicts the level of transparency in the procedures adopted to arrive at a particular decision or outcomes. This perspective therefore reveals that providing specific details on decisions or outcomes is a means to reduce or minimize employees negative emotions and attitudes from an informational justice perspective, revealing specific details about critical University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 32 decisions is likely to reduce the negative influence of individual emotions, attitudes and as well limit rumours that easily spread within organisations (Cit-era and Rentsch, 1993; Greenwood, Hinings, and Brown, 1994; Steensma and Van Milligen, 2003). 2.1.2 Employee Trust Practitioners often perceive trust as one of the most important factor for their business (Bergh, Thorgen, & Vincent, 2012; Gounaris, 2005). Research has revealed that the trust of employees is linked to their working attitudes and behaviors (Aryee, Budhwar, & Chen, 2002; Dirks et al., 2002; Farndale, Hope-Hailey, & Kelliher, 2011). Jung & Avolio (2000) suggested that, in organisations employees trust can be build when management demonstrates individual concern and respect for its employees. Trust has the tendency to have a stronger influence on the relationships that exists between managers and employees (Zolin et al., 2003). This is because in a workplace, without some foundation of trust, social relationship is difficult to be developed (Zeffane, Ibrahim & El Mehairi, 2006). Trust in the organisation is built from the employee’s belief that since current organisational decisions is fair, future organisational decisions will be fair (Banerjee & Banerjee, 2013). Over the years, many scholars have studied trust from different perspectives like anthropology, economics, psychology, management, ethics, sociology, and political science (Bhattacharya et al., 1998), and have put forward different definitions suiting their respective disciplines. In the words of Mayer et al. (1995) trust is referred as an individual’s willingness to be vulnerable to the actions of another party even when the University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 33 other party cannot be monitored or controlled. Gambetta (2000) defines trust from the social exchange theory perspective as a particular level of the subjective probability with which an agent assesses that another agent or group of agents will perform a particular action both before he can monitor such action (or independently of his capacity ever to be able to monitor it) and in a context in which it affects his own action. Also, Morrison & Firmstone (2000) in the early 21st century defined Trust from the Sociology perspective as a rational decision making process involving certain amount of risk. From Robinson (1996) viewpoint, trust is described as a person’s expectations, assumptions, or beliefs about the likelihood that another’s future actions will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to ones interests. Banerjee and Banerjee (2013) argued that in a social context, trust has several connotations. Definitions of trust typically refer to a situation characterized by the following aspects: One party (trustor) is willing to rely on the actions of another party (trustee); the situation is directed to the future. In addition, the trustor (voluntarily or forcedly) abandons control over the actions performed by the trustee. As a consequence, the trustor is uncertain about the outcome of the other's actions; he can only develop and evaluate expectations. This belief of the employees that the organisation would not take advantage of their vulnerability also forms the key component of the definition of organisational trust as proposed by Tan and Tan (2000). Sitkin and Roth (1993) suggest that the definitions of trust can be divided into four basic categories: trust as an individual attribute, trust as behaviour, trust as a situational feature, and trust as an institutional arrangement (Laka-Mathebula, 2004, p. 22). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 34 Other scholars has view trust as synonymous with trustworthiness by describing trust in the context of personal characteristics that inspire positive expectations on the part of other individuals (Butler & Cantrell, 1984; McKnight et al., 1998). Although this multidisciplinary viewpoint has produced an extent that toughens the literature on trust concept (Bigley & Pearce, 1998; Rousseau, Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998), it has as well resulted into confusion about the meaning and conceptualization of the trust concept. However, by reviewing studies about trust some scholars has clarify the confusion relating to its meaning and the common points among the definitions of organisational trust are belief in management, assurance about the thoughts of colleagues, honesty and positive expectations (Yilmaz & Ataly, 2009, p. 343). Trust is the belief or confidence in a person or organisation’s integrity, fairness, and reliability (Dizgah et al., 2012). Trust can be defined as the willingness to be vulnerable to another on the basis of one’s belief in another party’s goodwill (Mayer, Davis & Schoorman, 1995). On the other hand Rousseau et al., (1998) cross-discipline review defined trust as a psychological state comprising the intentions to accept vulnerability based on positive expectations of the actions of the trustee. Similarly, definitions drawn out of the confusion have two primary components. One component is the intention to accept vulnerability, which is rooted in several earlier conceptualizations of trust (Boon & Holmes, 1991; Deutsch, 1958; Govier, 1994; Zand, 1972). The other component is positive expectations, also present in several earlier conceptualizations of trust (Barber, 1983; Boon & Holmes, 1991; Cook & Wall, 1980; Golembiewski & McConkie, 1975; Read, 1962; Roberts & O’Reilly, 1974). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 35 Organisational trust scholars have believed for some time that organisational trust has a number of important benefits for organisations and their members (Salamon & Robinson, 2008; Six, 2007; Wilmot & Galford, 2007; Zeidner, 2008). The relationship between trust and organisational justice perceptions is based on reciprocity. Trust in the organisation is built from the employee’s belief that since current organisational decisions are fair, future organisational decisions will be fair. The continuance of employee trust in the organisation and the organisation continuing to meet the employee’s expectations of fairness creates the reciprocal relationship between trust and organisational justice (DeConick, 2010). 2.1.2.1 Dimensions of Employee Trust Researchers in the field of trust have argued out that trust is build-up in a matter of time. It is therefore said that it can easily be lost than to build (Kramer, 1999). The concept of trust in its early stage was a one way dimension till Moorman, Zaltman and Deshpande (1992) identified two dimension of trust namely cognition-based and affect-based trust. According to (Costa, 2003, p. 608) trust is not made up of only a “psychological state based on perceptions and on perceived motives and intentions of others, but also a manifestation of behaviour towards these others” thereby making it a multidimensional construct. Erdem and Ozen (2003) cited in their studies that Cognitive and affective structures of trust can be related to each other, as may happen when a relationship starts from perceived cognitive trust, but can be transformed through experience into affective trust (McAllister, 1995, p. 30). The distinction between cognition-based and affect-based trust has received considerable empirical support (Fryxell, Dooley & Vryza, 2002; Holste University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 36 & Fields, 2005; Levin & Cross, 2004; Lewicki & Bunker, 1996; McAllister, 1995; Ng & Chua, 2006; Webber & Klimoski, 2004; Wilson, Straus, & McEvily, 2006). 2.1.2.1.1 Cognition-based trust Cognition-based trust is based on individuals knowledge and understanding of an authority’s “track record”. This dimension of trust considers the action that calls for someone to trust a person. According to (Laka-Mathebula, 2004, p. 79) three factors or dimensions are effective on a person’s trust to a partner trustworthy including ability or competence, integrity or character, and benevolence. Ability is “that group of skills, competencies and characteristics that enable a party to have influence within some specific domain”; Benevolence explains “the extent to which the trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from an egocentric profit motive”; and Integrity is “the perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that the trustor finds acceptable” (Mayer et al., 1995, p. 717; 718; 719). Erdem and Ozen (2003, p. 132) expressed cognitive trust as a rational motive that an individual sees to trust another party. “When trust has a cognitive basis, individuals look for a rational reason to trust other party. For instance, trust is based on cognition when the person hopes that the other side will fulfill his/her role properly. Similarly, the consistency between the other party’s behaviour and his/her words might provide a basis for cognitive trust”. According to Moorman et al. (1992) cognitive dimension of trust is the believe that an individual have in their partner’s credibility, reliability and benevolence. The researchers further explained that credibility is based upon a focal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 37 partner’s intention and ability to keep promises and deals with partner characteristics such as task specific competencies, reliability in the delivery of goods and services and predictability in terms of job related behaviours whereas benevolence is based on the qualities, intentions, and characteristics attributed to the focal partner that demonstrate a genuine concern and care for the partner through sacrifices that exceed a purely egocentric profit motive (Rampel, Holmes & Zanna, 1985). From the perspective of (McAllister, 1995) cognition-based trust refers to trust "from the head," a judgment based on evidence of another's competence and reliability. It is an instrumental inference that one makes from information about the other's behavior under specific circumstances. The overall conclusion from a cognitive approach is that a series of observations and interactions enable individuals to update trust-related information and develop trust in others (Blau, 1986; Mayer et al., 1995; Williams, 2001). 2.1.2.1.2 Affect-based trust Affect-based trust is based on the emotions or feelings that individuals have for people in authority, control or in a superior position rather than rational assessment of their trustworthiness. This type of trust of trust mostly serves as complement to cognition based trust. The feelings and the emotional attachment that individual have towards another signifies that it has more to do with the trustor rather than the trustee. In other words, the feelings of trust towards one in authority is not based on the “track record” of the one in authority but it emanates from the trustor. Affect-based trust mostly deals with emotional investment and endurance over situations (Lewicki & Bunker, 1996). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 38 McAllister (1995) claims that trust is affective when the intensiveness of the interaction that exist among the trustor and the trustee is highly intensified as they continuously make mutual emotional investment to their relationship of trust. The dimension of trust is mostly expressed best through the demonstration of concern and benevolence. McAllister (1995, p. 26) therefore defined affect-based trust as “trust from the heart, a bond that arises from one's own emotions and sense of the other's feelings and motives”. With affect-based trust, individuals express care and concern for the well-being of their partners and believe in the intrinsic virtue of such relationships (Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985). 2.1.3 Employee Productivity Productivity is one significant and prominent variable principal to both economic and production activities in every country and organisations at large (Singh et al., 2000; Tangen, 2005). In the quest for organisation to achieve productivity, training programs should be developed to help introduce managers into the principles and application of organisational justice. Managers should be encouraged and motivated to apply concept of organisational justice in their daily interactions with their subordinates (Doulati & Pour, 2013). Before developing a conceptual or an operational definition of productivity in higher education institutions for academic staff (faculty), the researcher pointed out several meanings and definitions of the productivity concept itself. According to Vuorinen et al. (1998) productivity refers to the relationship that exists between output and inputs. In the words of other Economists productivity has been University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 39 defined as "the ratio of output to input in an organisation" (Corrallo, Gilmore, & To, 1988, p. 12; Price & Mueller, 1986, p. 26). The determination of productivity can be known once the outputs of goods and services are known and linked to the inputs used to produce them. Since costs are usually linked to inputs, the concept of productivity answers the question "Are you getting what you pay for?" (Corrallo et al., 1988, p. 12). In literature other definitions of productivity has been found, among such definitions are the one Sadlak (1978, p. 216) defines as "the ratio between performance and costs," while Wallhaus (1975, p. 1) uses "the value of outputs relative to the value of inputs." At the organisational level productivity can reflect on its profitability and ability to continually exist (Griffin, 2011). Gaissey (1993) as well defines productivity as the utilization of resources in producing goods (product) or services. Understanding of the concept of human resources productivity can be referred as the effective and efficient use of human capital for the purpose of achieving organisational objectives (Jajri & Ismail, 2010). Fry and Matherly (2008) has defined productivity to mean the efficiency in producing results, benefits, or profits. In respect to employee productivity quiet a number of studies have been done. Some models have been developed over time including CREST model (Hajj Karimi & Pyrayesh, 2006) and Human Resource productivity model (Zahedi & Najjari, 2008). Hersey and Goldsmith productivity model (1980) has been used over time due to its universality and attention to recognition of components which are effective in providing human resources productivity (Wilkes et al., 2011). On the other hand, defining what University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 40 productivity means in the area of Higher education institutions has received some form of difficulty, confusion and inattention to research (Holzer & Lane, 1977). 2.1.3.1 Academic Staff Productivity Academic staffs play a very strategic role to the advancement of every university. The presence of academic staffs determines the quality of education and skilled graduates produced thereof. The performance of every university therefore depends much on the productivity level of its academic staffs. Where the productivity of the academic staffs is high, the general performance of the university would certainly be good, and vice versa. However the difficulty that has been associated with the academic staffs of higher education institutions is that there is lack of agreement about what academic staff productivity really means (Townsend & Rosser, 2007). According to Jaya (2013) educational productivity is determined by many factors such as: ability of government funding, absorption of the corporate entities or world of work, socio-cultural environment and many other factors. Scholars have argued and point out that productivity in the sector of education is different from other sector’s productivity that can be calculated. It is therefore uneasy to measure the level of productivity in the education sector, most especially the quality aspect of it (Hopkins & Massy, 1981; Jaya, 2013). As stated in the world of education, work productivity especially that of academic staffs do not have to relate to the ratio of output and input as that of organisations in the production or manufacturing sector. This is because of the difficulty in the determination of clear definitions of inputs and outputs of higher education institutions. Moores (2002, University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 41 p. 20) argued that “a major difficulty therefore with measuring the productivity of higher education is that higher education has multiple goals such as excellence in teaching and research, equity and diversity that are pursued at the same time. A further difficulty is that higher education is a service industry with multiple outputs, some of which are difficult to measure. This is in contrast to the product sector of the economy where the outputs are easier to measure. Outputs of higher education which can be measured directly include the number of awards conferred or the number of research publications. Outputs that cannot be measured directly include the value added to students in terms of knowledge and competencies conferred through university teaching and other externalities such as the contribution of university research to society”. Despite the difficulty in defining productivity in the field of education, existing research on higher education in regard to the determination of academic staff productivity has used faculty workload. This has been viewed in terms of student to faculty ratios and student credit hours to represent measures of output whereas the time spent represent measures of input (Stecklein, 1974). However, academic staff productivity encompass the performance or carrying out of the main task of educational institution as a driving force responsible for the nation’s human capital development and knowledge base economy. Productivity of academic staff as educators in a broader sense is not limited to the providing of lecturing materials but reaching ethics and aesthetics of the future behavior of students’ life challenges in the community. It is also not only in terms of quantity but University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 42 rather creating or producing reliable individuals to fit national educational goals which essentially are the embodiment of the hopes and demands of their parents, society and the government at large extent (Jaya, 2013). Other scholars have also argued that defining productivity as number of classes or courses taught, number of credit hours and number of students taught is really defining teaching workload, which some equate with academic staff productivity (Palmer, 1998). Some scholars have put forward that whether examining what is labeled as research or teaching productivity, those who count time spent in work activities and products generated through these activities (e. g. articles published) are not truly measuring productivity. Meyer (1998) argues that workload and productivity are not the same. Rather, “workload traditionally captures how time is spent, while productivity is a measure of what is produced with that time”. When productivity is defined as what is produced during the time academic staff spends on their work, the concept includes such things as credit hours generated or articles published. But Middaugh (2001), one of the key figures in the development of the Delaware Study, is adamant that emphasizing outcomes like scholarly publications and presentations and emphasizing number of hours worked, particularly in the classroom, reflect misguided views of academic staff productivity. This scholar maintains that the institutional or academic emphasis on number of published articles in a given time period has little meaning for the general public and legislators, who do not understand the nature of peer review and the meaning to academicians of an academic member’s number of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 43 publications. To him, academic staff productivity is more appropriately defined in terms of outcomes such as pass rates in certification exams and job placement of graduates. However, he concedes that understanding what faculty does, that is, how they spend their time, is the first step in defining faculty productivity. Another argument made on productivity of higher education institutions is that, discussion on action in relation to efficiency has to be linked with the utilization of resources, both human and material (Sadlak, 1978). From the definition of productivity that has been established at the foundation of this study clearly shows that efficiency is an aspect of productivity. In other words productivity is equated or referred as efficiency. This aspect of equating efficiency to productivity emphasizes the important factor to be taken into consideration when discussing productivity in higher education. This is because of the fact that the demand for higher education across nations continue to rise whereas that of the demand for graduates for employment or job placement does not rise at the same rate. UNESCO European Centre for Higher Education (CEPES) defined efficiency as follows (Final Report, 1975, Point 7): The notion of efficiency applied to education entails the concern to judge the adaptation of the education system to its objectives. This adaptation may be assessed at least at two levels: 1. External efficiency: society more often than not assigns a number of overriding cultural, social and economic objectives to the education system. External efficiency is concerned with the success of the educational system in meeting University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 44 these objectives. In many countries this task is made difficult by the fact that the objectives are not always clear or well-matched with each other. The external efficiency is made up of the quantitative and the qualitative aspect. The quantitative aspect relates to the number of people entering or leaving the educational system to the economic and social objectives and needs of the country whiles the qualitative aspect is related to the quality of education received to the qualitative needs of both present and future needs of society. 2. Internal efficiency: to the educational system and its individual institutions the broad aims of society are taken as given. They have more specific targets established within this framework. The internal efficiency of an educational system or an institution is a measure of its success in meeting these operational targets with the resources made available to it. In the study carried out by OECD (1967) on the development of education in Argentina postulates that internal efficiency mostly refers to what happens inside the educational system which concerns the optional use of teachers and buildings, with dropout, repeating and promotion, and with what might be called the "productivity" of the educational system. The role of academic staff in essence is very complex. This fact is supported by the opinion of Tampubolon (2001) that academic staff role is multidimensional and graded according to level of education. Multidimensional role, namely as: educators or parents; educators or lecturers; leader or manager; manufacturer or waitress; mentor or facilitator; University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 motivator or stimulator; and researchers or speakers. This role of the lecturer has been grouped under three main dimensions in the work of Jaya (2013) and Hemmings and Kay (2009) as education or teaching, research and community or public services. 2.1.3.1.1 Education and teaching productivity Hemmings and Kay (2009, p. 247) identified the following items as elements of education and teaching productivity of academic staffs. These are “assigning grades, providing feedback, assessing students’ skills, responding to student feedback, coordinating subjects, marking assignments, designing subject assessment, setting exams, preparing assignments, consulting with colleagues about coursework, supervising the teaching in a subject, developing subjects, consulting with students, preparing tutorials, delivering tutorials, facilitating student discussion in class, delivering lectures, revising teaching strategies, keeping up to date and revising lecture material, preparing handouts and selecting reading materials”. Massy and Wilger (1992) explains that factors that affect the quality of classroom teaching, time spent developing classroom material and presentation methods, grading exams and papers, and meeting to discuss work with students is important. This is because they are all time consuming activities, especially when done well, and compete with the demands of research and professional activities. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 46 2.1.3.1.2 Research The major criterion for ranking “world class universities” is not so much the volume of teaching, community services or population size of students but research productivity. This is as a result of the fact that knowledge accumulation places a developed economy or a nation at the top by their control of social and human capital formation, improved standard of living and economic development (Sabo, 2005). The importance of research in every university environment cannot be undermined. In the words of Popoola (2008) research output is one of the critical factors used in determining academic staff productivity. Academic staffs’ status, respect and recognition both locally and internationally are to a certain extent determined by published works in a referred journal. Research publication is very significant factor that which staff promotions (ranging from Research Assistant or Assistant Lecturer to Professor Emeritus) are entirely based on and as well provides current information for growth, progress, development and an improved society. Yusuf (2005) stated that the notion “publish or perish” is quite popular in the university setting. According to him, this phrase underlines the importance attached to research in any university. In fact, it is the major index of an academic staff’s quality and the determinant of advancement. According to Peretomode and Chukwuma (2012) the most important factor for promoting academic staffs is their level of productivity which is defined in terms of research publications in a referred national and international journals and textbooks. This statement has been acknowledged by Cetto (1998) that one of the indexes for measuring research output is the number and quality of published works. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 47 Creamer (1998) points out that through examination, research or scholarly productivity is typically measured by counting the number and type of publications over a specific time period. Fox (1992) affirms that the logic for this approach is that publication is usually “an indicator” of research. Similar logic would seem to underlie other measures of research productivity which include peer recognition, citation indices or score, curriculum vitae, weighted indices or summaries, grant awards, and fewer coauthors and higher authorship position in publications (Black & Holden, 1998; Doellefeld, 1996; Roberts et al., 2006) . Most academic staff particularly in universities believes that grant funding and scholarship are most important determinants of academic staffs’ perception of being successful or productive within their institutions and not just increasing their number of publication. In respect to research productivity, items identified by Hemmings and Kay (2009, p. 246) included “delivering conference papers, attending conferences, preparing conference papers, delivering research findings at staff seminars, writing for an academic audience, presenting invited research papers in other institutions, submitting papers for publication, writing journal articles, resubmitting papers for publication, supervising students’ research projects, supervising postgraduate students, collecting data, analyzing research results, preparing a research budget, working with research assistants, leading research projects, conducting pilot studies, applying for research grants, collaborating with colleagues about research, adhering to research ethics requirements, designing research, writing textbooks, writing research-based books, reviewing books, reviewing journal University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 48 articles, applying for study leave, examining theses, keeping up to date with research literature, reviewing literature for a research project and generating research ideas”. 2.1.3.1.3 Community or public services According to Hemmings and Kay (2009, p. 248) items or elements that make up public services productivity includes “responding to the media, answering public enquiries, liaising with external agencies, regarding courses, consulting professionally, advising prospective students, entertaining visitors on campus, liaising with external agencies about research, participating in courses/programs outside the university, organizing conferences/symposia, participating and school/faculty committees, participating in university-wide committees, chairing academic meetings and participating in professional associations”. 2.1.3.2 Hersey and Goldsmith Model In the 1980 Hersey and Goldsmith developed a model to help management of organisations to determine the causes of productivity problems. This model was to aid in determining strategies to help solve problems associated with productivity (Sabokru et al., 2010). Their model which is abbreviated as “ACHIEVE” identifies seven variables that influence employee’s productivity and performance (Beaundreau, 2009). These seven variables are: Ability (A); Clarity (C); Help (H); Incentive (I); Evaluation (E); Validity (V); and Environment (E). The seven dimension of employee productivity is explained as follows: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 49 1. Ability (A): This is the ability and power to perform a successful job/work. In other words, it is the knowledge and skills required by a person to perform a task successfully which include experience and merits related to the task to be performed. 2. Clarity (C): This is the clarity or unambiguous of tasks and how to perform them. 3. Help (H): This refers to the support that is given by the organisation to its employees. This support include accessibility of products and the quality, budget, sufficient human resources, equipment and facilities and any kind of help by organisation. 4. Incentive (I): This entails the willingness and inner enthusiasm and propensity to do assignments without any reluctance. 5. Evaluation (E): It is the assessment and the mechanism to understand the quality of performed actions. 6. Validity (V): It is the justification and acceptance of HR related decisions. 7. Environment (E): This is the adaptability with environment and other effective environmental factors. According to Bordbar (2009) competition, changes in market conditions, government regulations are key components of the environment. The management of these factors prescribed by Hersey and Goldsmith leads to a favorable increase in productivity and a means to solving of productivity problems. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 2.1.3.3 Operational definition of academic staff productivity Based on the arguments made from the concept of productivity in higher education and productivity in general the researcher defines productivity for the purpose of this study in the context of academic staff in higher education as ‘the perceived effectiveness and efficiency in delivering teaching, researching and public service activities and the product produced thereof such as pass rates in certification exams and article publication in referred journal’. 2.1.4 Higher education institutions The widespread recognition of higher education as a major driver of economic competitiveness has made tertiary education more important than ever in both industrial and developing countries (Bawakyillenuo et al., 2013). Higher education has been recognized as a fundamental instrument for the construction of a knowledge economy and the development of human capitals all over the world (World Bank, 1999). The World Bank (2003; 2004) has clearly indicated that the importance of a knowledge based economy for sustainable development grounded on higher education. Higher education has therefore become essential to the development agenda of nations and the world at large. The quality of knowledge which is generated in higher education institutions is very significant to national growth and development. Quality education is a means to broaden the intellects of individual and help transform the nation either economically, socially or politically. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 51 The world at large is capable of achieving sustainable development by continuously improving its human capital skills and talents through training in higher education institutions. According to Ehiametalor (1988) from the global viewpoint, human capital training done in higher education level has been recognized as a major and an important tool used for achieving national growth and development. This statement is supported in the words of Kors (2008) that human capital is a medium through which growth can be sustain in a nation. Also, such human capital training occurred at this level of institutions is a source of educational provisions which enables citizens of a country to acquire knowledge, skills and techniques which are creates human productivity, creativity, efficiency, competence, initiative, innovation and inventiveness. In the words of Peretomode and Chukwuma (2007) higher education is the facilitator, the bed rock, the power house and the driving force for the strong socio-economic, political, cultural, healthier and industrial development of a nation as higher education institutions are key mechanisms increasingly recognized as wealth and human capital producing industries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2008) has clearly made known to literature by identifying four major means through which tertiary education contributes to both social and economic development. This included: the formation of human capital (teaching), the building of knowledge bases (research and knowledge development), the dissemination and use of knowledge (interaction with knowledge users) and the maintenance of knowledge (inter-generational storage and transmission of knowledge). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 52 Higher education has been defined by many scholars from different perspective but with similar meanings. In the perspective of Nigeria, that is according to Federal Ministry of Education (2004, p. 30) higher education also referred to as “post secondary or tertiary education is the education given after secondary education in colleges of education, monotechnics, polytechnics and universities and those institutions offering correspondence courses”. Bernett (1997) argued that defining higher education in terms of the functions, structures and levels can therefore be seen as an institution with exceptional uniqueness and different from others institutions in terms of research and titles (status) of its executives. The uniqueness of its executive’s titles could be seen as Provost, Rector and Vice chancellor. In the context of India Tilak and Varghese (1991) have also defined higher education as types of formal education institutions known as universities or institutions with the recognition to provide and specialized in one major area rather than being a multi-faculty; institution with the recognition of national importance of providing technological knowledge human capital; institutions for research purposes; and colleges or institutions of higher learning education which offers first degree and/or post-graduate programmes or diploma and certificate programmes. Despite the numerous types of higher education institutions there are most common characteristics driving their purpose of existence which Ferris (1991) puts across that higher education institutions provides a wide range of activities or services to their clients which includes teaching (instruction), researching and public service. These three major activities or services provided by higher education institutions is made up of other sub activities such as communicating views through verbal and non-verbal, submission of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 53 pertinent information and proposals, researching and reporting on higher education trends, yearly meetings or conferences for the purposes of discussing major issues of higher education, securing governmental funds for higher education activities and monitoring of legislative on enactment of laws. Higher education institutions therefore contribute to the development of various organisations either governmental, non- governmental or private owned institutions and the country at large (Murray, 1976). Though there is limited studies on higher education relating to justice, trust and productivity of academic staff but quite a number of studies have been conducted by looking at different variables such as: financing (Chattopadhyay, 2007; Lieras 2005; Psacharopoulos and Patrinos, 2004; Tilak and Varghese, 1991), Contracting (Ferris, 1991), Lobbying (Murray, 1976), Productivity (Holzer and Lane, 1977; Massy and Wilger, 1992; Sadlak, 1978), Quality (Asiyai, 2013). 2.1.5 A review of African Literature In recent years, the higher education sector in Africa has attracted attention from stakeholders both internal and external. This is often due to recognition of the role of higher education in Africa’s transformation (Bloom et al., 2005). In Africa, higher education especially university education have always play an important role in the national development. According to Cloete et al. (2011) the notion of a developed university is underlined by its role in meeting the human resource needs of every economy. Despite the role that higher education plays in national development there has been a long-held notion that higher education contributes little but Bloom et al. (2005) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 54 has challenged the long-held notion that higher education contributes little to social and economic development. Therefore, an increase in the total education stock in Africa within a year could raise productivity, output and GDP in Sub-Sahara Africa by 0.63 percent. The findings corroborated other findings that higher education enhances economic development in poor developing countries through technological catch-up. The fact that Africa’s higher education plays important role in socio-economic development its numerous challenges such as funding, access, quality concerns, institutional capacities, weak research base and governance cannot be override or undermined. Despite, the numerous challenges several remarkable and innovative changes such as the growing impact of internationalization, policies and planning have taken place in higher education globally (Altbach, Reisberg & Rumbley, 2010) which have directly impacted Africa’s higher education. This development has gone a long way to transform higher education institutions in Ghana. The major undergone transformation is due to the higher demand for higher learning education over the past ten years. In Ghana higher education institutions is described as those institutions that begins after senior high school which is mostly carried out at the university level or college and usually award degree, diploma and certificate. Higher education institutions include university education institutions, training college institutions, nursing training college institutions, polytechnics institutions and professional institutions which are made up of both private and public institutions with the exception of polytechnics which is a public institution. Universities and colleges are University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 55 accredited by the National accreditation Board Ghana under the Ministry of Education. As a result of the emphasize organisations or corporate bodies place on employment purpose it has lead to increase in expansion of higher education institutions which in every year there is over 100,000 enrollment of students. This expansion has not only led to increase in students’ intake but as well increase the number of both academic and non- academic staff. Bawakyillenuo et al. (2013) has articulated that, the National Council for Tertiary Education (NCTE) has expressed an interest in enhancing the relevance of tertiary education in the country, as it planned to rank tertiary institutions based on the relevance of their programmes to national development and income generation. In its strategic plan for 2010 – 2014 the NCTE further seeks to formulate broad policy framework on applied research in priority areas for national development in tertiary education institutions. Also, the Association of Ghana Industries (AGI) clamors for suitably qualified graduates to increase industrial productivity. In the 2010 Ghana Industrial Policy, the Ministry of Trade and Industry (MOTI) did acknowledge the problem of inadequate skills-relevant human resource base confronting all the sectors of industrial development in Ghana. MOTI therefore recommended the urgent need to support tertiary institutions to train the nation’s labour force in skills needed to promote sustainable industrial productivity and growth. A critical look at the Nigeria’s higher education, the Federal Ministry of Education (2004) section 8 (59) has outlined it aims as: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 56  Contribution to national development through high level manpower training.  Development and inculcation of proper values for the survival of the individual and the society.  Development of the intellectual capabilities of the individual to understand and appreciate their local and external environment.  Acquisition of both physical and intellectual skills which will enable the individual to be self-reliant and useful member of the society.  Promotion and encouragement of scholarship and community services.  For national unity and the promotion of national and international understanding and interaction. Section 8 (60) of the federal ministry of education also state that higher education in Nigeria should vigorously pursue these goals through:  Teaching  Research and development  Knowledge generation and dissemination and international cooperation  Dedicated services to the communities through extra-mural and consultancy services. All these stated goals are closely related to quality education because as John Dewey rightly pointed out, every experience of man counts as education. Nigeria has a teaming population of about 154 million people. A growing population necessitates some growth in higher education to accommodate the increasing demand. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 57 Amid all these, research has become a major issue, especially in Africa where academic research activity remains weak especially due to quality challenges, weak institutional capacities and inadequate funding, among others. Research outputs and knowledge production are vital for Africa’s sustainable socio-economic development. This further presents the potential to support the pursuit of well-trained and skilled expertise in African universities and other core sectors in terms of Africa’s growth and development. This presents an urgent need for African universities to invest in research, innovation and in the development of the new generation of scholars, including improved quality of teaching, community service and research (Lowi et al., 2014). Fraser (2005) has noted that African scholars are confronted with new forms of political injustice, to which she refers as “political misrepresentation”. People are wrongly being denied of cultural, economic and educational social justice and flow of knowledge participation as cited in the work of Britz & Perils (2012). At cited in Brown (2006) since most types of social injustice are a combination of economic and cultural injustices, Fraser’s new comprehensive and interdisciplinary critical social theory with emancipatory intent has much to offer educational leaders to be committed to equity. As a professor of philosophy and politics, Fraser’s (Fraser and Honneth, 2003) general thesis is that justice today requires an integration of both redistributive policies and a politics of recognition of difference, as neither alone is sufficient. She theorizes the inextricable relation among three fundamental dimensions of justice and argues that a politics of redistribution and recognition must be joined to a politics of representation, oriented to decision-making processes and governance structures. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 58 Until recently, the focus on equity in international educational debates has been on mechanisms for achieving some degree of horizontal equity (the equal treatment of equals). However, in Africa countries, such as South Africa, where there are substantial differences in educational status between different groups in society, there is a need to view horizontal equity as a precondition (i.e. a means, not an end) for tackling vertical equity (the unequal, but equitable, treatment of unequals) (Crampton and Whitney, 1996). Within a social justice framework of redistribution and recognition, Brown (2006) has pointed out that South Africa’s “new” policies aimed at creating a non-racial democratic society addressed cultural issues but failed to address class inequities. Because issues of recognition are intricately related to issues of redistribution, a call for justice in the form of vertical equity is warranted. The notions of “educational fairness” (i.e. addressing inequalities that are unacceptable) and “communitarian claims” (i.e. duty owed by society or the community to an individual) are useful starting points. Inequities relate to differences in educational opportunities that are not only considered unfair and unjust, but that are unnecessary and avoidable. Thus, a call for policy development based on vertical equity principles involves the identification of inequalities between groups that are likely to be considered unacceptable, unnecessary, or avoidable. Using the concept of “communitarian claim,” the objective is to identify to whom it is most likely that society owes a duty, or who is most likely to have been harmed in that their claim has not be satisfied in proportion to its strength (Broome, 1989). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 59 Justice requires that a politics of redistribution and recognition be joined to a politics of representation, oriented to decision-making processes and governance structures. Such work has yet to be initiated in South Africa. Key educational policy makers and leaders at national and provincial levels need to be engaged with the public, their definitions and conceptual understandings of equity need to be clarified, and their commitment to the adoption of vertical equity and procedural justice principles in decision making need to be solidified (Brown, 2006). Most studies exploring the links between organisational justice and employee trust and productivity have been conducted in the Western countries which raise questions about the generalizability to other societies other than those of the Western world. In view of this, some studies have been conducted in other settings such as Africa although but very scanty references to support. In spite of this De Meyer et al. (2013) pointed out in their study conducted in a service industry (Airline and hospital) that consumers have perceptions regarding what is perceived to be fair from their service providers and as such negative service experiences, irrespective of the industry or service setting in which such incidents occur triggers negative emotions and behaviors. These scholars based their perceived justice into three main dimensions which they asserted that their finding in African context confirms the identified dimensions in other studies conducted in other cultures. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 60 Mishler and Rose (2001) have argued that trust links ordinary citizens to political and legal institutions, thereby enhancing the legitimacy of these institutions. It follows that a widespread perception of police untrustworthiness can undermine the police’s exclusive claims to legitimate power to deal with lawbreaking behavior. Yet due to historical factors such as Ghana’s colonial heritage and police brutality, particularly during prolonged periods of military rule and subsequent poor police performance, both procedurally and substantively (including widespread corruption), many Ghanaians remain highly distrustful of the police; hence the widespread reports of vigilante violence in Ghana (Adinkrah 2005; Amoakohene 2002; Karikari 2002). Tankebe (2009) has argued out that concerning police performance and procedural justice if police managers can convey a message of effectiveness in attempted corruption reforms, this should persuade members of the public that an instance of police misbehavior that causes much resentment and injustice is being seriously attended to by the relevant authorities. Also, studies by Akanbi and Ofoegbu (2013) in the context of Africa specifically Nigeria Nestle PLC examined the role of organisational justice on organisational commitment. According to these scholars organisational justice refers to “the state in which people sense loyalty with their respective organisation aligned themselves with organisational goals and value it (p. 211). This study has proved that organisational justice as measured by procedural justice and distributive justice have a significant relationship with organisational commitment. Hence, distributive and procedural justice could have their University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 61 role in making employees committed in their organizations which support the notion that a happy employee is a productive employee. Therefore, it is indeed essential to examine the perceptions of academic staff of higher education institutions in relation to justice, trust and productivity as they spend time to train the country labour force. 2.2 Empirical Review 2.2.1 Organisational Justice and Employee Trust The feel by employees on fair policy and practices used by organisation tend to show stronger support for the policy with higher levels of trust in their leaders (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993). On the other hand, when employees feel unfairness in the process of allocating resources, it tends to lead lower trust towards supervisors and the organisation at large. (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Dailey & Kirk, 1992). Organisational justice, which includes distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice, has been found to be related to employees trust in organisation (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; Cropanzano & Folger, 1991; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Researchers have shown that distributive justice does not significantly impact on trust (Konovsky & Pugh, 1994). However, Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp (1995) found that both procedural justice and distributive justice have a significant relationship but procedural justice appears to be a best predictor of trust. According to Tyler and Lind (1990) procedural justice and distributive justice influence trust, but the studies by University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 62 Konovsky and Pugh (1994) and Kumar, Scheer and Steenkamp (1995) shows a stronger relationship. Current studies suggest that organisational justice and trust are two variables related to each other (Hoy & Tarter, 2004). Further studies has also shown that, the trust of teachers towards the organisation is important indicator of justice at workplace (Lewicki, Wiethoff, & Tomlinson, 2005) and support by stakeholders of their expectations and contribution (Hassan, 2002; Petersen, 2008). A latest studies conducted by Eres, Gulcan & Celik (2014) on primary teachers’ perceptions of Justice and Trust in School Principal revealed that distributive, procedural and interactional justice is significantly related to trust. Some other studies conducted in the 21st Century such as Choi (2011) explored how perceived organisational justice is related to employees’ work related attitudes including job satisfaction, trust toward their supervisors and management, and intention to leave their agency. This study focused on three dimension of organisational justice including distributive, procedural and interpersonal. The result of this study showed that the dimensions of organisational justice positively relate to trust in supervisor and management. The study noted that distributive justice is strongly associated with trust. Also, a study conducted in the Education Sector of Ardakan and Meybod cities in Yazd province by Al-Abrrow (2013) examined the relationship between organisational trust and organisational justice components (distributive, procedural and interactional) and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 63 their role in job involvement found out that organisational justice influences organisational trust. The findings of the study also suggest that interactional justice that is embedded in communication related to trust in supervisor, and distributive and procedural justice which is more relevant to the organisation has a stronger relationship with trust in organisation. Types of organisational justice also have ability to predict the types of trust. The finding by Al-Abrrow (2013) is similar with the results of Farndale et al (2010), Ngodo (2008), Ruder (2003) and Wong et al. (2004). This study adopted a random sampling method with a sample size of 350 on the basis of Krejcie & Morgan (1970) table. Another current study conducted by Kernan and Hanges (2002) reveals that procedural, interpersonal and informational justices are predictors of trust. It was further stated that procedural justice best predict employee trust than interpersonal and informational justice does. The researchers argued further that there are many reasons why interpersonal and informational justice does have a less influence on trust than procedural justice. In the words of Bies & Moag’s (1986) agent-system model, informational and interpersonal justice are more likely to influence agent-referenced outcomes such as trust in management. In addition to the above studies some authors such as Banerjee and Banerjee (2013), Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001), Colquitt et al. (2002), Laschinger and Finegan (2005) and Lewicki, et al. (2005) have examined the nexus between organisational justice and employee trust and has concluded that justice is significantly related to employee University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 64 trust. Research has found that procedural justice is the strongest predictor of organisational trust (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Hubbell & Chory-Assad, 2005). A positive relationship between an employee and supervisor can lead to trust in the organisation (Karriker & Williams, 2009). Based on these discussions, hypotheses have been developed for testing among academic staffs of Ghanaian higher education institutions (private universities): H1: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee trust. H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Procedural justice and employee trust. H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee trust. H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee trust. H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee trust. 2.2.2 Organisational Justice and Employee Productivity According to Rostamzadeh et al. (2013) the key to balancing the salary with human resources productivity is not the amount one earns but the individual’s perception of organisational justice and fairness. Similarly, employees would like the organisation to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 65 observe justice in implementing job-related policies in practice. Thus, when people think that organisational policies are based on justice, they may show higher productivity. Therefore, justice is the key to the survival and sustenance of growth and development in the employees and organisation, which may eventually affect their productivity (Hoseinzadeh, 2006). Robins (2001) contends that people would like the payment and promotion systems to be fair and unambiguous. Considering the type of the job and personal skills, productivity and satisfaction would result when the payment is fair. Thus, people will not then seek to gain more money at any cost. Many people may voluntarily accept to earn less money but to work in favorable environments or an environment where there is less discrimination. Understanding how different dimensions of organisational justice affect organisational commitment and its domains may help managers take more appropriate measures to develop perceived justice in the organisations, hence the improvement of productivity. Quit a number of research has shown that organisational justice is a predictor of employee productivity of an organisation (Aryee et al., 2004; Boswell & Boudreau, 2000; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Petersen, 2008; Robinson, 2004; Smith, Thomas & Tyler, 2006). In the studies of Rostanzadeh et al. (2013) conducted in West Azerbaijan province of the Offices of Sports and Youth it was found out that there is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice and employee productivity. Their studies further revealed that it was only procedural justice that that could not predict employee productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 66 Sadeghi et al. (2013) conducted a study to examine the impact of organisational justice on productivity of employees at all 8 boroughs of Qom Municipality, Central Municipality and Planning and Development Directorate. A total of 220 participants were selected using a ranked random sampling method. The result of the study shows a significant positive relationship between organisational justice (distributive, procedural and interactional justice) and productivity. This finding has further supported the existence of the positive relationship between organisational justice and employee job performance (Barati et al., 2009). Furthermore, Doulati and Pour (2013) conducted a study on the relationship between components of organisational justice and human resource productivity using a sample size of 300 employees in the University Of Nowshahr University Of Marine Sciences. Likely to the findings of other studies, the relationship between the dimensions of organisational justice and employee productivity were positively related. Earlier studies conducted by Ahmadi, Ziaei and Sheikhi (2011) on the relationship between organisational justice and human resource productivity in public organisations of Kurdistan province a sample size of 300 participants were used. This study used the four dimensions of organisational justice. Their studies revealed that there is a significant relationship between organisational justice variable (distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational) and employee productivity in public organisations. The study further revealed that procedural justice best predict employee productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 67 In addition, Colquitt (2001) and Materson et al. (2000) are few scholars whose studies on organisational justice have identified significant effects of interpersonal and informational justice on performance. Based on these discussions, hypotheses have been developed for testing among academic staffs of Ghanaian higher education institutions (private universities): H2: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee productivity. H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee productivity. H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity. H2c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity. H2d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee productivity. 2.3 Conceptual Framework Figure 2.1 is a framework conceptualizing the component of organisational justice, employee (academic staffs) trust and productivity based on the preceding review of the literature, research objective, research hypothesis and the research questions of this study. The independent variable under study is organisational justice, whereas both employee trust and productivity is the dependent variable. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 68 The framework developed for this study shows that organisational justice dimensions including distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice will predict (influence) both employee trust and productivity in Ghanaian higher education institutions. The model further explains that procedural justice dimension of organisational justice will best or strongly predict (influence) both employee trust and productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 69 Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework before analysis Procedural justice Distributive justice Distributive justice Interpersonal justice Distributive justice Distributive justice Informational justice O rg an isatio n al ju stice Employee trust Employee Productivity Cognitive- based trust Affect- based trust Research Community service Teaching University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 70 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 3.0 Introduction The aim of this chapter discussed the methods adopted in this study to examine the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee trust and productivity in the Ghanaian higher education institutions. It therefore showed the research paradigm, research design, source of data, study population, sample and sampling procedure, sampling technique and sample size, research instruments, pilot study, data preparation, data analysis procedure and ethical consideration. 3.1 Research Paradigm or Philosophy Sobh and Perry (2005) have put across that mostly quantitative and qualitative methods are the two main approaches that many researchers use to conduct research (Sobh & Perry, 2005). Creswell (2007) has pointed out that illustrating the importance of research methodology is an effective way or plan to conduct research and to improve the validity and credibility of research studies. Mostly, researchers that adopt quantitative approach generally use figures and large sample size to test concepts, models and theories whereas researchers that employ qualitative approach make use of words and meanings in smaller samples size to put up theories (Easterby-Smith et al., 1991). According to Hyde (2000) despite the fact that some scholars have argued that the use of one type of methodology is appropriate does not render the use of both quantitative and qualitative method (mixed method) adopted by some other scholars in a research study unacceptable. However, the most important thing that researchers consider is not related to the type of methodological University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 71 approach used in research but the acknowledgement of the research paradigms (Sobh & Perry, 2005). A research paradigm is an approach of viewing the world standards and rules which guide the way researchers conduct themselves in action and belief. This has engrossed Taylor, Kermode and Roberts (2007, p. 5) to define a paradigm as “a broad view or perspective of something”. Furthermore, Weaver and Olson’s (2006, p. 460) definition of paradigm was stated as “paradigms are patterns of beliefs and practices that regulate inquiry within a discipline by providing lenses, frames and processes through which investigation is accomplished”. This definition clearly state how research study could be affected and guided by a certain paradigm. A paradigm therefore is a collection which mostly consists of researcher's ontology, epistemology, methodology and axiology that underlines the philosophical assumptions (Moore, 2007). These Philosophical assumptions are supported by four different paradigms namely positivism, realism, constructivism and critical theory. According to Guba and Lincoln (1994, p. 105) a research paradigm is generally a conceptual framework that defines the scope of work for a researcher. It is mostly described as the “basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator”. Therefore, the researcher structure of inquiry and methodological choice adopted for this study is positivism paradigm. This paradigm is a guide to explore the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employees trust and productivity. This paradigm is therefore discussed earlier to any discussion about the specific methodologies utilized in this study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 72 According to Orlikowski and Baroudi (1991) the most common paradigm used in most business school research studies is positivism. Sobh & Perry (2005) has also asserted that positivism paradigm is the most popular paradigm among all the types of paradigm and served as a guide to earlier research studies which was popularly known as quantitative paradigm. Weaver and Oslon (2006) have further argued and supported the fact that quantitative methodology originates its philosophical foundation from the positivism paradigm. Limpanitgul (2009) put forward that the main aim of every positivistic researcher is to generalize the findings of a research study to a larger population. Mertens (2005) believes that positivism paradigm is based on the rationalistic and empiricist philosophy that can be traced to the deductive approach. According to Limpanitgul (2009) the positivistic deductive approach suggests that the researcher must develop a theory and empirically test through observations. A new theory can only be generated when through observations the theory tested is rejected because it false. However, some scholars have clearly stated that positivism started from philosophy recognized as logical which is based on rigid rules of logic and measurement with truth, absolute principles and prediction of what is likely to happen in the future (Halcomb and Andrew, 2005; Cole, 2006; Weaver and Olson, 2006). The positivism paradigm is based on the assumption that there is one objective reality and the consequence of every valid research study is established only by the extent of evidence that can be corresponded to the phenomena that study results stand for (Hope and Waterman, 2003). The positivists believe that the data collection has to be conducted within a social environment which includes people’s responses (May 1997). The positivist therefore uses methods such as University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 73 observations, experiments and survey method which involves analyzing data with statistical tools for the purpose of generating the findings as well as to test for hypotheses (Schiffman and Kanuk 1997). 3.2 Research Design Kerlinger (1986) defines research design as a plan and structure that allows a researcher to investigate into a research problems and questions for the purpose of discovering available solutions or answers. Also Burns and Grove (2003, p. 195) define a research design as “a blueprint for conducting a study with maximum control over factors that may interfere with the validity of the findings”. A recent definition of research design by Gratton & Jones (2009) explained that a research design is a structure that guides the execution of the research method and analysis of the subsequent data whilst maximizing the reliability and validity of the findings. In this study the researcher employed a cross-sectional survey and a quantitative method to collect data to achieve its purpose of examining the dimensions of organisational justice that best predict employee trust and productivity in the Ghanaian higher education institutions. A cross-sectional survey produces a ‘snapshot’ of a population at a particular point in time (Cohen, Manion & Morrison, 2005). Thus, the researcher was able to collect data at the same time making the study quite less expensive in time and cost. The definition by Aliaga and Gunderson (2000) states that quantitative research has to do with explanations given to a phenomena by collecting numerical data that are analysed using mathematically based methods. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 74 The research was an exploratory in nature. According to Polit et al. (2001, p. 19) exploratory studies are undertaken when a new area is being investigated or when little is known about an area of interest. It is used to investigate the full nature of the phenomenon and other factors related to it. Data was collected in the form of administered questionnaires. A multiple regression analysis was used for the study with the aid of Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). 3.3 Source of Data Lacey (2010) believes that data collection should be objective, systematic and repeatable while Robson (2007) states that a researcher should use the simplest approach to collect data in order to get answers to research question at the same time not collecting data more than necessary. This study, data were collected from both primary and secondary source. Sekaran (2006) defined primary data as data that are collected for research from the actual site that the events took place. Primary data was collected through structured and closed-ended questionnaire. A questionnaire is a method of data collection that asks participants to give written or verbal replies to a written set of questions (Parahoo, 2006). It is a quick, convenient and inexpensive method of collecting standardized information (Jones & Rattray, 2010). A questionnaire can be used to collect information on attitudes, knowledge and experience of staff (Parahoo, 2006). On the other hand, secondary data was collected from books and journals relating to the topic understudy. For the purpose of this study the researcher defines secondary data as any other data that exclude firsthand information collected from study site. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 75 3.4 Study Population A study population encompasses all elements that make up the unit of analysis (Terre- Blanche et al., 2006). According to Kumekpor (2002), the population of a study may be considered as the number of all units of the phenomenon to be investigated that exists in the area of investigation. In the words of Creswell (2003) population is defined as a finite number of units, such as individuals or the actual population that is studied and surveyed. According to Rubin and Babbie (2001), target population is referred to as the theoretically specified aggregation of study elements which encompasses all subjects of interest. For the purpose of this study, the target population consists of employees specifically Academic staff of higher education institutions within five (5) selected private universities in Ghana specifically Accra. The five selected private universities included Central University College, Ghana Technology University College, Maranathan University College, Valley View University and Wisconsin International University College. The total population was estimated at 505 academic staff. Greater Accra region was selected because there are a greater number of higher education institutions within this region from which the researcher can have accessible information to inform this study. 3.5 Sample and Sampling Procedure Creswell (2003) believed that a researcher should work with a sample of subjects, in order to generalize from the sample to the population. Polit et al. (2001:234) define a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 76 sample as “a proportion of a population” whiles Polit and Beck (2010) has emphasized that sampling is the process by which researchers select a proportion of the target population, as the study population, to represent the entire unit. It is more practical and economical to work with samples rather than with large target populations. A sample is the segment of the population that is selected for investigation (Bryman & Bell, 2003). Also, Sekaran (2003) defined sampling as the selection of an adequate number of elements from the population, so that a study of the sample and an understanding of its characteristics would make it possible to generalize such characteristics to the population elements. Sampling lower cost and data collection is faster than measuring the entire population. In the view of Cohen, Manion and Morrison (2004), in the situation where the population size is too large, the researcher collects information from a smaller group or subset of the population in such a way that knowledge gained is representative of the total population under study. However, Sproull (2003) argued that if the sample is not representative of the population, selection bias is a possibility. Two major sampling techniques like probability (eg. Simple random sampling stratified sampling, systematic and cluster sampling) and non-probability (eg. quota sampling, convenience and purposive sampling) are available to researchers. With probability sampling, the researcher can specify for each sampling unit of the population the probability that it will be included in the sample, while non-probability sampling does not specify the probability of each unit's inclusion in the sample (Frankfort Nachmias and Nachmias 1992). The researcher adopted a convenience sampling method to select the five private universities for this study. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 77 Afterwards, the researcher as well relied on the convenience sampling to select the respondents from the five private universities. The purpose of using the convenience sampling technique was because of the readiness of the respondents available at the time of collecting the data. Table 3.1: Analysis of population and sample size Institution Total academic staff Central University College 203 Ghana Technology University College 90 Maranathan University College 45 Valley View University 88 Wisconsin International University College 79 Total Population 505 Sample size selected 217 Source: Field data (2015) 3.6 Sampling Technique and Sample Size In quantitative research the size of the sample should be calculated at the design stage (Proctor et al. 2010). According to Polit & Beck (2010) quantitative researchers should select the largest sample possible so that it is representative of the target population. Out University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 78 of the estimated population of 505 permanent academic staff of the five (5) selected private universities in Ghana a representative of 217 was drawn for the study. This number was obtained by using Krejcie & Morgan (1970) table for determining sample size. Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table for determining sample size was used because it has been proven to be acceptable by a similar study conducted in education sector by Al- Abrrow (2013). Structured questionnaires were sent to 220 academic staff in the various universities, 211 were retrieved from the respondents. In all, the response rate for this study was 95.9%. Babbie (1989) argues that for a survey, a response rate of at least 50% is adequate, 60% is good, 70% is very good, whilst 90% raises no question for analysis and reporting. 3.7 Research Instrument According to Parahoo (1997, p. 52) a research instrument is “a tool used to collect data. An instrument is a tool designed to measure knowledge attitude and skills”. The main instrument used for collecting the primary data for this study was questionnaire. The purpose of the use of the questionnaire was to elicit information from academic staffs of some selected private education institutions (universities). According to Sekaran (2000) questionnaire is an efficient data collection instrument if only the researcher knows exactly what is required and how to measure the interested variables. Questionnaires are also convenient because the respondent can complete them on-site at work or in the comfort of his/her home (McClelland, 1994). The questionnaire was basically closed- ended structure type and is made up of four main sections: University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 79 Section A: Personal information Personal information of employees was determined by questionnaire developed by the researcher. This survey obtained a single response to the variables of area gender, age, marital status, the number of years employees have worked in the organisation and the current status (position) of employees. Demographic characteristics of employees were determined by a questionnaire developed by the researcher. This survey obtained a single response to the variables such as gender, age, current status (position) and number of years employees have worked in the organisation. Section B: Organisational Justice Scale Colquitt’s (2001) ten item was adapted to measure perceived fairness of employees. This scale is made up of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice. Procedural justice was made up of three (3) items, distributive justice was made up of two (2) items, interpersonal justice was made up of two (2) items and informational justice was made up of three (3) items. Participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each item on a five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Section C: Employee Trust Scale Schoorman and Ballinger (2006) four items was adapted to measure the perception of employees on their trust towards their supervisor and organisation. A five point Likert University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 80 scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “Neutral”, 4 = “agree” and 5 = “strongly agree” was used. Section D: Productivity Scale Nyhan (2000) four items was as well adapted to measure the perceived productivity of employees. A five point Likert scale ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree”, 2 = “disagree”, 3 = “Neutral”, 4 = “agree” and 5 = “strongly agree” was used. These items were designed to capture respondents’ perception on the extent to which they agree or disagree. 3.8 Pilot Study / Validity and Reliability Prior to this study, the researcher carried out a pilot study on 20 academic staff from Maranatha University College located at Sowutoum in the Greater Accra Region. Pilot study according to Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) is essentially undertaken not only to check the reliability of the items but also to enable the researcher make the needed corrections if necessary. According to Pallant (2005), it is important to use scales that are valid and reliable, especially scales that are internally consistent. Researchers propose the use of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient to test the consistency of scales (Gliem & Gliem, 2003; Sekaran, 2000). For evaluating the validity of the questionnaires, we will use construct validity. Construct validity determines the extent to which a scale measures a variable of interest (Moon & Kim, 2001). Sekaran (2000) posited that the only way one can determine the reliability of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 81 a measure is to test for both consistency and stability. He referred to consistency as how well the items measuring a variable or concept hang together as a set. The selection of 20 employee for the pre-testing was acceptable because Saunders et al. (2007) confirms that for most student questionnaires, a minimum of ten (10) for the pilot study is sufficient to include any variations in the population. The confidence level was 0.95 and the alpha level was set at 0.05. There reliability test was computed using SPSS version 20. Hence, the results for the cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients obtained during the pilot study are listed in Table 3.2 below. Table 3.2: Reliability Statistics Variable(s) Number of items Cronbach’s alpha Organisational justice 10 0.855 Trust 4 0.837 Productivity 4 0.711 Source: Field data (2015) Sekaran (2003) posits that reliabilities in the range of .70 are acceptable, those above .80 are considered as good, but those with less than .60 are considered poor. Thus, from Table 3.2, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of 0.855 and 0.837 for organisational justice and trust show a good reliability of the variables of measurement. Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.711 for productivity respectively indicates an acceptable reliability of the variables of measurement. Hence, the instrument used to measure organisational University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 82 justice dimensions (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice), employee trust and employee productivity were reliable for the study. 3.9 Data Preparation The data collection was personally collected by the researcher from the respondents. Prior to the statistical analysis of the data collected, data cleaning and handling of missing values were done. Also, each questionnaire assigned to the respondents was verified for completeness and consistency of response during data collection and on that basis incomplete questionnaire was excluded. 211 questionnaires were therefore used for the further analysis. Collected data from respondents were therefore edited, coded and converted into actual value of interest. 3.10 Data Analysis Procedure According to Emory and Cooper (1991), the raw data that a researcher obtains from a study becomes useless unless such raw data is transformed into information for decision making purposes. Thus, the data received from employees was edited to detect and correct potential errors and omissions that took place for the purpose of ensuring consistency across respondents. For the analysis of the data, all computations were made by utilizing Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) software package version 20. Prior to analyzing data related to a specific research question, preliminary data analysis was conducted. The data was also evaluated to identify if statistical assumptions are met. For example, the assumption of multicollinearity was examined to identify if the interrelatedness of the independent variables exists (Munro, 2001). Statistical tests were University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 83 also carried out to check for normality, outliers and linearity of the data. An alpha level and confidence level was set at 5% and 95% respectively for statistic tests. The methods of data analysis included descriptive statistics and multiple regression analysis. According to Pallant (2001) descriptive statistics expresses the characteristics of any study’s sample through the provision of summary statistics such as mean, median or standard deviation for continuous variables, or frequencies on how many people gave each response for categorical variables. According to Wyllys (1978) the methods of descriptive statistics entails determining numerical values for the different types of characteristics, creating a summary of the values and depicting them on tables. As mentioned above, the inferential statistical technique that was used in this study was multiple regression. Both Hypotheses one and two was tested using standard multiple regression, which established how much of the variance in the dependent variable is explained by the independent variables as well as the unique contribution made by each predictor to the dependent variable (Pallant, 2011). The normality of data collected was tested in order to establish whether to use parametric or non-parametric statistical test for the study. Table 3.3 contains the skewness and kurtosis for the study variables. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 84 Table 3.3: Normality of data Variable(s) Kurtosis Skewness Procedural Justice -1.00 -0.40 Distributive Justice -0.57 -0.21 Interpersonal Justice 0.57 -0.83 Informational Justice -0.25 -0.57 Trust 0.16 -0.69 Productivity 1.56 -1.19 Source: Field data (2015) In the preliminary testing for normality, statistical method such as skewness and kurtosis were used. Tabachnick and Fidell (1996) asserted that the normality of data is attained when kurtosis and skewness are between +2 and -2. Cameron (2004) has further argued that skewness and kurtosis should both fall in the range of +2 to -2 for a data to be described normally distributed. Tabachnick and Fidell (2013) have further argued that for a data to be normally distributed it must fall within the range of +.1.5 to -1.5. Regarding skewness and kurtosis an excellent and acceptable values were observed for this study. From Table 3.3 the kurtosis index of the variables listed varied between the range of - 0.57 and 1.56 with distributive justice the lowest and productivity the highest respectively while the skewness index varied between -1.19 and -0.21 with distributive justice the highest and productivity the lowest respectively. This clearly indicates that the data is within normal distribution. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 85 3.11 Ethical Consideration Bless and Higson-Smith (2000) generally accepts the ethical rights of a participant to be: the right to privacy and voluntary participation; anonymity and confidentiality. The nature of the study was explained to the respondents and the researcher further assured the respondents of confidentiality regarding information provided. Respondents were provided with detailed instructions as to how the questionnaires were to be completed and returned. The rationale behind providing clear instructions and assuring confidentiality of information was based on the fact that it significantly reduces the likelihood of obtaining biased responses (Sekaran, 2003). This assertion made by Sekaran (2003) therefore confirms the statement made by Babbie and Mouton (2001) that confidentiality of information can be achieved when specifics of respondents such as names and addresses does not to appear on the questionnaire. On the other hand the researcher had an acceptance from the institutions HR offices and Academic Affairs Directorates before the study was conducted. 3.12 Profile of Sample (Higher education institutions) 3.12.1 Central University College Central University College is an educational Initiative of the International Central Gospel Church (ICGC). It has its origins in a short-term Pastoral training institute, which was started in October 1988 by ICGC. It was later incorporated, in June 1991 under the name, Central Bible College. In 1993, the name was changed again to Central Christian College. The College later upgraded its programmes to the baccalaureate level and in line with University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 86 national aspirations, expanded its programmes to include an integrated and practice oriented business school named Central Business School. To reflect its new status as a liberal arts tertiary institution, the university was re- christened Central University College in 1998. The National Accreditation Board has since accredited it as a tertiary Institution. It is co-educational with equal access for male and female enrolment. Central University College has six (6) faculties/schools, namely the School of Theology and Missions (STM), Central Business School (CBS), the School of Applied Sciences (SAS), School of Research & Graduate Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences (FASS) and Faculty of Law. It is currently the biggest private university in Ghana. 3.12.2 Ghana Technology University College The College has its roots in Ghana Telecom’s flagship Training Centre, which was one of a kind in West Africa. It was first used as a Royal Air Force (RAF) Training School during the Second World War and subsequently handed to Cable and Wireless to train Telecommunications Technicians for British West African Countries (i.e., Ghana, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia). The Training Centre progressed rapidly through deregulation and privatization to become the main source of teaching and certification in Telecommunications Engineering for Ghana Telecom employees as well as other institutions in Ghana and West Africa. In 2005, Ghana Telecom’s management upgraded the infrastructure and equipment to University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 87 modern standards in preparation for converting the training centre into a university for telecommunication and multimedia engineering & information technology. The university provides bachelor's degrees and graduate programs, particularly in Telecommunications Engineering and Information and Communications Technologies. It also offers certificate programs, with courses that provide credit for the bachelor's degree, and other professional development seminars and workshops. The school maintains partnership with Kwame Nkrumah University of Science & Technology (KNUST), Ghana; AFRALTI, Kenya; The Open University, United Kingdom; DePaul University, USA; Aalborg University, Denmark; St. Mary's College of Maryland, USA; Antioch University, USA; University of California, Santa Barbara, California; Information Communication Technology (ICU), South Korea; University of Hertfordshire, United Kingdom; Wildau Institute of Technology, Germany. 3.12.3 Maranathan University College Maranatha University College (MUC) began life as Maranatha Bible College (MBC) in 1972 through the vision of two men. Its creation was dreamed up by Mr. William Ofori Atta, a Christian lawyer and Statesman, and Rev. John Bergen, a veteran member of the Sudan Interior Mission (SIM now Serving In Missions, Ghana, a Missionary Organisation). While a political prisoner in the 1960s, Mr. Ofori Atta gave his life to Christ following his reading of “African Challenge” magazine (an SIM publication). Shortly after accepting Christ, Mr. Ofori Atta developed a burning desire to create an University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 88 institution where Ghanaian young people could be trained in the Word of God, for the service of God, regardless of their situation in life. After his release from prison, Mr. Ofori Atta approached Rev. Bergen then in charge of African Challenge Bookshop about his dream, and in 1972 Maranatha Bible College was born as a joint venture of a group of leading Ghanaian believers and the SIM. These same business and professional people were constituted into MBC first council, and it has operated as an autonomous Ghanaian entity ever since. One of Maranatha’s earliest and most significant ministries since its creation has been the training of leaders for the Town Fellowship groups that sprung up during those periods. The specific purpose-centred training concept which was well accepted by the churches then is alive, well embraced and playing key spiritual roles in many religious communities in Ghana today. MBC students and alumni are a major part of the reason. The core ideology of MBC has remained the preparation of men for the service of Christ and His Church by training believers who are leaders and those with leadership potential from all churches to function more effectively in their roles in their various ministries and professions. Due to work and other commitments, most believers, in the past and now, have been unable to get the training they need from Bible Colleges on full-time basis. Since its inception, MBC continued to remain an institution where top quality theological education through evening classes to part-time students could be obtained at highly competitive fees. Maranatha Bible College broadened its curriculum to include liberal arts education and other disciplines in 2006 with accreditation from the National University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 89 Accreditation Board of the Ministry of Education Ghana, and began to confer degrees under affiliation programme with the University of Cape Coast, our mentoring institution. The vision of the founding fathers of Maranatha Bible College now Maranatha University College was to bring into being, an institution of excellence that would champion innovative tertiary education with evangelical Christian conviction. The evangelical Christian consciousness was to be characterized by Integrity, Scholarship and Competence. The three virtues have been the hallmarks of training Maranatha University College offers since its establishment and our alumni the world over are our proof. 3.12.4 Valley View University Valley View University was established in 1979 by the West African Union Mission of Seventh-day Adventists. In 1997 it was absorbed into the Adventist University system operated by the West Central Africa Division (WAD) now West Central African Division of Seventh-day Adventist with headquarters in Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. The Ghana Union Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, (organized in 2000), serves as the local manager of the University. The University was initially called the Adventist Missionary College (AMC) and was located at Bekwai-Ashanti. It was transferred to Adenta near Accra in 1983 where it operated in rented facilities until it was relocated to its present site near Oyibi (kilometre 31 on the Accra-Dodowa Road) in 1989. It was renamed Valley View College. The Adventist Accrediting Association (AAA) has, since 1983, been evaluating and reviewing the accreditation status of the institution. In 1995, the University was affiliated University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 90 to Griggs University in Silver Springs, Maryland, USA. This allowed the University to offer four years’ bachelor’s degrees in Theology and Religious Studies. Then in 1997, the National Accreditation Board (NAB) of the Ministry of Education in Ghana granted Valley View College national accreditation thus permitting her to award her own degrees. Thus, Valley View University became the first private institution in Ghana to be granted national accreditation. The University serves students from all over the world. It admits qualified students regardless of their religious background, provided such students accept the Christian principles and lifestyle which forms the basis for the University’s operations. 3.12.5 Wisconsin International University College The establishment of the University College was initiated and facilitated by Dr. John Buuck, President of Wisconsin International University (WIU) in the United States of America and Rev. Dr. Paul K. Fynn of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Ghana in 1998. It received its Interim Accreditation in January 2000 under the name University College of Wisconsin International University - Ghana (UCWIU-Gh). It was thus one of the first private universities to receive accreditation. It began its operations in August 2000 under Rev. David Asante Dartey as the Director and Togbe Kwao Anipati IV as Dean of Academic Studies with nine International MBA students, the first MBA programme to be run by a Private University in Ghana. Established as a Limited Liability Company, Wisconsin International University College, Ghana (WIUC-Gh) has been accredited by the National Accreditation Board (NAB) and is affiliated to the University of Ghana, Legon and the university of Cape Coast and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 91 recently to Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST). It is located at Agbogba Junction near Kwabenya in the Greater Accra Region of Ghana. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 92 CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION OF RESULTS, ANALYSES AND INTERPRETATIONS 4.0 Introduction This chapter presents, analyzes and interprets the results of the study based on the empirical studies conducted to test the hypotheses. The analysis of results are based on the study objectives and linked to existing relevant literature for the study. 4.1 Bio-data The various bio-data of respondents such as gender, age, tenure of service and current status are presented below. These bio-data of the respondents for this study are presented in frequencies and percentages. 4.1.1 Gender The first question on the bio-data was the gender of the respondent. From Table 4.1 below out of the total respondents of 211, majority of the respondents in the study were males representing 72% and the remaining were female representing 28%. It can therefore be concluded that there are more male academic staff in the higher education institutions with less of females. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 93 Table 4.1: Gender Frequency Percent (%) Male 151 72 Female 59 28 Total 211 100 Source: Field data (2015) 4.1.2 Age Table 4.2 below summarizes the age of the participants and the frequency distribution thereof. The study revealed that, out of 211 respondents, majority of them were between the ages of 41 to 48 representing 38.4% while between the ages of 34 to 40 represent 24.6%. The 26 to 33 years category recorded 21.3% while that of 49 and above year’s category recorded 10.9%. The last on the item of age ranging from 18 to 25 years recorded 4.8%. It can therefore be concluded that there is a moderate of youth and aged group in the higher education institutions. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 94 Table 4.2: Age Frequency Percent (%) 18-25 10 4.8 26-33 45 21.3 34-40 52 24.6 41-48 81 38.4 49+ 23 10.9 Total 211 100 Source: Field data (2015) 4.1.3 Tenure with Institution From Table 4.3, most of the respondents have worked with the institution for 2-5 years constituting 48.3% while 19.9% of the respondents have worked with their respective institutions between 6-10 years. Respondents who have worked less than 2 years represent 16.1% whiles those that have worked within 11-16 years represented 10.9% and that of those who have worked over 16 years constitute 4.7%. From Table 4:3 it appears that few of the academic staff has stayed with the institution for longer period of time. This therefore cannot be solely attributed to the fact that there might be high rate of employee turnover. Also, majority of the respondent appears to have not worked with the institution for quite longer period of time. This can also be attributed to the fact that the institution started with few student intakes and as it keeps expanding its student intake there has been more intakes of academic staff. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 95 Table 4.3: Tenure with Institution Frequency Percent (%) Less than 2 year 34 16.1 2-5 years 101 48.3 6-10 years 42 19.9 11-16 years 23 10.9 over 16 years 10 4.7 Total 211 100 Source: Field data (2015) 4.4.4 Status (Position) From Table 4.4, majority of the respondents were Lecturers’ constituting 65.9% whiles that of Researchers or Assistant Lecturers represented 21.8%. Senior Lecturers constituted 10.9% whiles 1.4% were Associate Professor. It can therefore be concluded that majority of the academic staff are Lecturers. It can also be said that research work needs to be encouraged at various higher education institutions to help increase the number of Professors we have in Ghana. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 96 Table 4.4: Status (Position) of academic staff Frequency Percent (%) Associate Professor 3 1.4 Senior Lecturer 23 10.9 Lecturer 139 65.9 Researcher/Assistant Lecturer 46 21.8 Total 211 100 Source: Field data (2015) 4.2 Descriptive statistics The descriptive statistics of the variables are showed in Table 4.5 revealing the mean, standard deviation, max, min, kurtosis and skewness score of the variables. The average score from the 5-point likert scale with 5 as strongly agree and 1 as strongly disagree for all the variables as computed to show the proportion of the respondents that either strongly agreed or disagreed with the items of the variables. Where the mean for the variable is more than half of the 5 point likert scale (i. e. 2.5) the respondents’ agreed and where the mean for the variable is less than half of the 5 point likert scale (i. e. 2.5) the respondents’ disagreed. From Table 4.5 the mean score of those that emphasize that procedural justice is upheld in their institutions are 3.44 on 5 point likert scale while the standard deviation is 1.11. This result implies that on average, respondents do agree with the fact that procedural University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 97 justice is followed by their respective institutions. In other words, majority of academic staff believed that the procedures followed in arriving at decisions by the institution are consistent. The result further indicated that the level of respondents’ participation in decision making is high and this enhances their ability to perform. Also, in respect to the mean of distributive justice the score was 3.38 while the standard deviation was 0.89. This result indicates that, on average of 5 point likert scale, the respondents (academic staff) agreed they perceive fair distributive justice from their respective institution. In other words, majority of the respondents agreed to the fact that the benefits they receive reflect their effort towards work. Again, most of the respondents further support the fact that interpersonal justice is highly recognized in their respective institution. This is because the mean score of 3.81 is greater than the average score on a 5 point likert scale. This score implies that employees perceive that their supervisors/institution treats them with respect and dignity. On the other hand, informational justice was also agreed by majority of the respondents in the study that it exist and works better in their respective institution. Informational justice had a mean score of 3.61 and standard deviation of 0.97. This implies that there is fair distribution of information in the institution to various academic staff and the institution is honest when communicating issues that are important to their work duties. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 98 Furthermore, the respondents agreed that they have trust in their supervisors/institution which had a mean score of 3.75 with a standard deviation of 0.84. This implies that employees are willing to give their institutions and/or supervisor the benefit of the doubt because they trust them and have confidence in their ability, integrity and benevolence. In relation to academic staff productivity, it had the highest mean score and the lowest standard deviation among all the other variables. It had a mean score of 4.07 while the standard deviation score was 0.74. This implies that majority of the respondents agreed that they are highly productive in achieving their goals in research, teaching and public services. This score further implies that academic staff enjoys their work so much that they are not discouraged when challenges arise. Table 4.5: Descriptive statistics for all the variables Variable(s) Mean SD Max Min kurtosis Skewness Procedural Justice 3.44 1.11 5.00 1.00 -1.00 -0.40 Distributive Justice 3.38 0.89 5.00 1.00 -0.57 -0.21 Interpersonal Justice 3.81 0.90 5.00 1.00 0.57 -0.83 Informational Justice 3.61 0.97 5.00 1.00 -0.25 -0.57 Trust 3.75 0.84 5.00 1.00 0.16 -0.69 Productivity 4.07 0.74 5.00 1.00 1.56 -1.19 Source: Field data (2015) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 99 4.3 Testing Research Hypothesis / Data screening and testing of Multiple Regression Assumptions Prior to major analyses, data gathered were examined using SPSS Version 20 for data entry accuracy. A preliminary analysis was conducted to verify the assumptions of multiple regressions such as assumptions of normality, linearity, multicollinearity and outliers. 4.3.1 Assumptions of normality According Hair et al. (2010) and Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) a research that aims at making inference should screen for normality as it is an important step for most multivariate analysis. It deals with the flow of data for an individual construct and its relationship to normal distribution (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The preliminary test of normality reveals that there was a sign of normality, which was revealed by calculating for skewness and kurtosis for each variable which was within the acceptable range of <+2 and < -2. Normality was obtained through the screening of residuals and normal probability plots. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) believe that homoscedasticity test is associated with the assumptions of normality and where the data appears to be quite normal it is regarded that the variables under examination is homoscedastic and does there is the absence of heteroscedasticity. According to Field (2009) the testing of normality could be done either graphically or quantitatively. Two separate histograms (see Figures 4.1 and 4.2) showing a normal distribution curve were used to graphically check for normal distribution of data University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 100 satisfying the assumption of normality for use of parametric statistics. The fact that, normality is confirmed in this study, it could be concluded that, the assumptions of homoscedasticity, and, the absence of heteroscedasticity are achieved. Figure 4.1: Histogram showing normal distribution for employee trust Figure 4.2: Histogram showing normal distribution for employee productivity University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 101 4.3.2 Assumptions of Linearity The second assumption of multiple regression that was tested was linearity. This assumption was examined by the researcher through the use of scatter plots for the purpose of identifying any non-linear patterns of the variable from the data. According to Hair, Black and Anderson (2010) linearity shows the relationship between dependent and independent variable as it represents the degree to which the change in the dependent variable is associated with the independent variable. An examination of the normal P-P plots (see Figures 4.3 and 4.4) showed that the points lie in a reasonably straight line from bottom left to top right. This therefore showed that the assumption of linearity was not violated. Figure 4.3: Normal P-P Plot for employee trust University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 102 Figure 4.4: Normal P-P Plot for employee productivity 4.3.3 Assumptions of Multicollinearity Scholars have argued that muticollinearity exists when the correlation between independent variables is greater than 0.9 (Hair et al., 2010; Gaur & Gaur, 2009; Pallant, 2010). However, Pallant (2010) recommended that correlation value above 0.7 is a threshold for multicollinearity among independent variables. Assumption of multicollinearity was tested using the correlation matrix and collinearity diagnostics. Also, Hair et al. (2006) believes that an inter-correlation among variables that is greater than 0.9 are considered to be evidence of high multicollinearity. The correlation matrix of the independent variables was examined to find out if there is any indication of high correlations among the variables. From Table 4.6 and Table 4.8 the result showed that none of the independent variables were highly correlated. In other University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 103 words the correlation values are not higher than and above the threshold of 0.7. It can therefore be concluded that the assumption of multicollinearity was also satisfied. Collinearrity diagnostics were again determined by noting tolerance values and variance inflation factor (VIF). According Hair et al. (2010) and Pallant (2010) the acceptable value of Tolerance and variance inflation factor (VIF) is above 0.10 and below 10 respectively. In respect to Table 4.7 and table 4.9 the tolerance values ranged from 0.683 to 0.728 which is within the threshold of 0.10. Also, Table 4.7 and Table 4.9 shows a VIF value ranging from 1.373 to 1.464 which is within the threshold of 10. Table 4.6: Correlations Matrix (Pearson Correlation) 1 2 3 4 5 1 Employee Trust 1 2 Procedural Justice 0.53 1 3 Distributive Justice 0.35 0.47 1 4 Interpersonal Justice 0.40 0.33 0.45 1 5 Informational Justice 0.65 0.44 0.31 0.41 1 N 211 211 211 211 211 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 104 Table 4.7: Collinearity Statistics 95% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics Model 1 Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF (Constant) .679 1.515 Procedural Justice .120 .295 .686 1.457 Distributive Justice -.078 .139 .683 1.464 Interpersonal Justice -.020 .190 .710 1.408 Informational Justice .321 .516 .728 1.373 a. Dependent Variable: Employee Trust University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 105 Table 4.8: Correlations Matrix (Pearson Correlation) 1 2 3 4 5 1 Employee Productivity 1 2 Procedural Justice 0.41 1 3 Distributive Justice 0.24 0.47 1 4 Interpersonal Justice 0.28 0.33 0.45 1 5 Informational Justice 0.45 0.44 0.31 0.41 1 N 211 211 211 211 211 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 106 Table 4.9: Collinearity Statistics 95% Confidence Interval for B Collinearity Statistics Model 2 Lower Bound Upper Bound Tolerance VIF (Constant) 1.946 2.859 Procedural Justice 0.069 .260 .686 1.457 Distributive Justice -0.12 .118 .683 1.464 Interpersonal Justice -0.06 .175 .710 1.408 Informational Justice 0.134 .347 .728 1.373 a. Dependent Variable: Employee Productivity 4.3.4 Assumptions of Outliers According to Kline (2005) outliers are those cases with scores that are very different from the rest. Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) defined outliers as those standardised residual value above 3.3 (or less than -3.3). The assumption was determined by examining scatter plots of the standardized residuals. Tabachnick and Fidell (2001) believe that for any data to be regarded as outliers the residuals of the distribution should be rectangular with most score concentrated in the centre (i.e. along the zero point). From the scatter plots (see Appendix B: Figures 4.5 & 4.6) none of the standardized residual values where above 3.3 (or less than -3.3) which explains the absence of outliers. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 107 4.4 Regression Analysis Regression analysis of organisational justice dimensions, trust and productivity are presented below. 4.4.1 Testing of Hypothesis one A multiple regression was carried out to test the influence of each of the dimensions of organisational justice on employee trust among academic staff. Hypothesis one was tested using a multiple regression. A multiple regression was used because the four dimensions of organisational justice are separate but related factors whose separate and combined relationships with employee trust can be explored. This is so because multiple regression analysis is able to give the overall predictive value of more than one variables as well as the unique contribution of each of the variables in the explanation of the criterion variable. H1: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee trust. H1a: There is a significant positive relationship between Procedural justice and employee trust. H1b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee trust. H1c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee trust. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 108 H1d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee trust. Specify regression model 1 T = β0 + β1PJ + β2DJ + β3IJ + β4INJ + ϵ Where: T represents employee trust PJ represents procedural justice DJ represents distributive justice IJ represents interpersonal justice INJ represents informational justice β0 represents the intercept of trust β1, β2, β3, β4, represents population slope coefficient ϵ represents the random error Table 4.10: Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 1 .715a 0.511 0.501 0.58864 a. Predictors: (Constant), Informational Justice, Distributive Justice, Interpersonal Justice, Procedural Justice b. Dependent Variable: Employee Trust University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 109 Table 4.11: ANOVA Model Sum of Squares Df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 74.497 4 18.624 53.751 .000a Residual 71.377 206 0.346 Total 145.874 210 Table 4.12: Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Model B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 1.097 0.212 5.179 .000 Procedural Justice 0.207 0.044 0.275 4.671 .000 Distributive Justice 0.030 0.055 0.032 0.549 0.583 Interpersonal Justice 0.085 0.053 0.092 1.596 0.112 Informational Justice 0.418 0.049 0.484 8.482 .000 Estimated regression model 1 T = 1.097 + 0.207PJ + 0.030DJ + 0.085IJ + 0.418INJ University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 110 From Table 4.10, the R square of .511 indicates that approximately 51% of the variations in the four dimensions of organisational justice (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice) are explained by employee trust, while the remaining 49% was due to unexplained factors. Table 4.11 shows that the regression model is well fit as the significant level (0.000) is less than alpha value (0.05) and thus F value is 53.751. In other words, the P-value (0.000) for the regression model is highly significant and can be concluded that the four independent variables (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice) together predict the percentage of employee trust towards their supervisors and the organisation at large. Table 4.12 indicates that there was a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee trust (β = .207, p < .05). Also, Table 4.12 indicates no significant relationship between distributive justice and employee trust although the regression coefficient is positive (β = .030, p >.05). Again, the result showed that the regression coefficient for interpersonal justice is positive but the relationship between interpersonal justice and employee trust is not statistically significant (β = .085, p >.05). Finally, the result also depicted that there was a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee trust (β = .418, p <.05). Thus, the result supported two part of the hypothesis (H1a and H1d) that states “there is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee trust”; and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 111 “there is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee trust”. But, the other two part of the hypothesis (H1b and H1c) that states “there is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee trust”; and “there is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee trust” among academic staff was not supported. In respect to H1a and H1d it is significant because the p value obtained was .000 and .000 respectively which is less than the alpha value of .05 and it have a positive relationship because the sign of the coefficient (.207 and .418 respectively) is positive implying that it has a positive effect. It therefore means that as procedural justice and informational justice increase, employee trust increase. In other words, the regression coefficient (β) of .207 for procedural justice means that a unit change in procedural justice will lead to 20.7% change in employee trust and the regression coefficient (β) of .418 for informational justice means that a unit change in informational justice will result to 41.8% change in employee trust. Also, in respect to H1b and H1c it is not significant because the p value obtained was .583 and .112 respectively which is above the alpha value of .05. This means that both distributive justice and interpersonal justice are not making significant unique contribution to the prediction of employees trust. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 112 The beta value for informational justice is the largest (.418), which means that informational justice makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining academic staff trust towards their supervisors and institution at large. 4.4.2 Testing of Hypothesis two A multiple regression was carried out to test the influence of each of the dimensions of organisational justice on employee productivity among academic staff. Hypothesis two was therefore tested using a multiple regression. A multiple regression was used because the four dimensions of organisational justice are separate but related factors whose separate and combined relationships with employee productivity can be explored. This is so because multiple regression analysis is able to give the overall predictive value of more than one variables as well as the unique contribution of each of the variables in the explanation of the criterion variable. H2: There is a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee productivity. H2a: There is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee productivity. H2b: There is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity. H2c: There is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 113 H2d: There is a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee productivity. Specify regression model 2 P = β0 + β1PJ + β2DJ + β3IJ + β4INJ + ϵ Where: P represents employee productivity PJ represents procedural justice DJ represents distributive justice IJ represents interpersonal justice INJ represents informational justice β0 represents the intercept of productivity β1, β2, β3, β4, represents population slope coefficient ϵ represents the random error Table 4.13: Model Summary Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate 2 .511a 0.261 0.241 0.64314 a. Predictors: (Constant), Informational Justice, Distributive Justice, Interpersonal Justice, Procedural Justice b. Dependent Variable: Employee Productivity University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 114 Table 4.14: ANOVA Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 30.113 4 7.528 18.200 .000a Residual 85.208 206 0.414 Total 115.321 210 Table 4.15: Coefficients Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized Coefficients t Sig. Model B Std. Error Beta (Constant) 2.402 .231 10.381 .000 Procedural Justice .165 .048 .245 3.393 .001 Distributive Justice .000 .060 .000 -.002 .998 Interpersonal Justice .060 .058 .073 1.026 .306 Informational Justice .240 .054 .313 4.457 .000 Estimated regression model 2 P = 2.402 + 0.165PJ + 0.000DJ + 0.060IJ + 0.240INJ University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 115 From Table 4.13, the R square of .261 indicated that approximately 26% of the variations in the four dimensions of organisational justice (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice) are explained by employee productivity, while the remaining 74% was due to unexplained factors. Table 4.14 showed that the regression model is well fit as the significant level (0.000) is less than alpha value (0.05) and thus F value is 18.200. Simply put, the P-value (0.000) for the regression model is highly significant, and can be concluded that the four independent variables (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice) together predict the percentage of employee productivity. Table 4.15 indicated that there was a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee productivity (β=.165, p< .05). Also, it further indicated that the regression coefficient of distributive justice is positive (i.e. a weak one) but the relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity is not statistically significant (β = .000, p >.05). Again, the result shows no significant relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity even though the regression coefficient is positive (β = .060, p >.05). Finally, the result also depicted that there was a significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee productivity (β = .240, p <.05). Thus, the result obtained for H2a and H2d which states that “there is significant positive relationship between procedural justice and employee productivity”; and “there is a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 116 significant positive relationship between informational justice and employee productivity” respectively is supported. In respect to H2a and H2d it is significant because the p value obtained was .001 and .000 respectively which is less than the alpha value of .05 and it has positive relationship because the sign of the coefficient (.165 and .240 respectively) is positive implying that it has a positive effect. The regression coefficient (β) of .165 for procedural justice therefore means that a unit change in procedural justice will lead to 16.5% change in employee productivity. Also, the regression coefficient of (β) of .240 for informational justice means that a unit change in informational justice will result to 24% change in employee productivity. On the other hand the result did not support H2b and H2c which states that “there is significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity”; and “there is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity” respectively. In respect to H2b and H2c the results obtained was not significant because the p value obtained was .998 and .306 respectively which is above the alpha value of .05. This means that both distributive justice and interpersonal justice do not make significant unique contribution to the prediction of employee productivity. Therefore, H2b and H2c which states that “there is a significant positive relationship between distributive justice and employee productivity”; and “there is a significant positive relationship between interpersonal justice and employee productivity” respectively is not supported. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 117 The beta value for informational justice is the largest (.240), which means that informational justice makes the strongest unique contribution to explaining academic staff productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 118 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS 5.0 Introduction The previous chapter provided details on the statistical analysis carried out for the study and interpretation of the results. This chapter contains further discussion on the study results in line with the study objectives and within the context of the existing relevant literature. 5.1 Respondents’ Demographic Characteristics The study revealed that respondents were dominated by males. This implies that there are more male academic staffs in the higher education institutions selected for this study. This can therefore be generalized that there are more male academic staff within the higher education institutions in Ghana. With regards to age, the highest percentage of participants was within the age range of 41-48 years. In respect to the number of years that academic staffs have worked with the institution most of the respondents’ have worked with the institution within 2 to 5 years. On the part of the status (position) of academic staff, majority of them were Lecturers. This indicates that the level of research publication done in the private universities is not encouraging as these majorities of respondents needs more publication for promotion purpose on the academic staff ladder. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 119 5.2 Research objective one The first research objective was to examine the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee trust. In view of this objective, it was hypothesized that there is a significant positive relationship between the dimensions of organisational justice and employee trust. In the first place, the study findings revealed that both procedural justice (β = .207, p < .05) and informational justice (β =. 418, p < .05) had a significant positive relationship with employee trust. The implication therefore is that the more academic staff perceived that they are treated fairly with the right information, explanations to information and procedures in decision making, the more academic staff exhibit trust in their supervisors and institution. This means that procedural justice and informational justice is a useful tool in making employees enjoy their work and impacting on their trust towards their supervisors and the organisation at large. In other words, employees exhibited trust towards their supervisors or organisation when the organisation exhibited procedural justice and informational justice by ensuring that there are consistency in procedures and provides explanations to details on a timely manner and to meet individual needs as well. The findings of this study is therefore in agreement with literature which can be explained from the idea of Thibaut and Walker (1975) in the development of the concept of organisational justice that procedural justice matters because process control functions as a guard to individual personal interest. By controlling the process is by having a voice through which individuals can protect their interests which is an aspect of structural rules University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 120 and by exhibiting social rules is by establishing cordial and respectful relationships among decision makers to allow employees to freely open up to share their views on issues. With Thibaut and Walker idea, when individuals received unfavorable outcomes, they were more satisfied with the outcomes once they believed the procedures that produced the outcomes were fair. With this idea in the mind of employees they will react in showing trust in their supervisors or institutions that another future action will be fair. The significant positive relationship that existed between procedural justice and employee trust in this study might be as a result of the fact that the respondents (employees) in this study plays a major role in decision making process and their voice are heard. Also, the findings of this study are in conformity with Colquitt (2001) development of the informational justice dimension of organisational justice. The idea behind this dimension is that fair procedures does not only involve process control but does include the provision of information to justify the processes (Bies and Shapiro, 1988). This concept is thereby related to trust because of the efforts to explain changes that might have occurred in decisions or agreements made previously (Colquitt et al., 2001). The significant positive relationship that existed between informational justice and employee trust might have caused by the presence of justifiable information and the absence of information asymmetry provided by supervisor and the institution. The findings of this study are consistent with previous research (Al-Abrrow, 2013; Choi, 2011; Eres, Gulcan & Celik, 2014; Kernan & Hanges, 2002) which there was a University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 121 significant positive relationship between organisational justice (procedural justice and informational justice) and employee trust. For instance, the study by Al-Abrrow (2013) supports the context and the sample size determination in which this study was conducted that is “education sector” and Krejcie & Morgan (1970) table respectively. Al-Abrrow (2013) in determining the relationship between organisational justice components and trust in his study found out that organisational justice component made up of procedural and interactional specifically communication/informational aspect does influence trust of employees towards their supervisor and organisation. Al-Abrrow study suggested that the types of organisational justice have the ability to predict employee trust. On the other hand, both distributive justice (β = .030, p > .05) and interpersonal justice (β = .085, p > .05) recorded insignificant but positive relationship with employee trust. This result therefore contradicts literature which can be explained that distributive justice focuses on the employee’s belief and feelings of satisfaction with their work outcomes such as pay and job assignments and how organisation distributes and allocates resources (Adam, 1965). The insignificant relationship that existed between distributive justice and employee trust might have been created by weak perception of the participants in the distribution of organisational resources, expenses, promotions, or shares and human needs that are unattainable. Also, the insignificant relationship that existed between interpersonal justice and employee trust does not support literature which states that Interpersonal justice “reflects the degree to which people are treated with politeness, dignity, and respect by authorities University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 122 and third parties involved in executing procedures or determining outcomes” (Colquitt, 2001:427). The insignificant relationship might have caused by weak interpersonal relationship among staff and management and inappropriate treatment of workers. However, the findings of this study contrast the findings of Al-Abrrow (2013), Choi (2011), Eres, Gulcan & Celik (2014) and Kernan & Hanges (2002) that significant relationship exists between organisational justice (distributive justice and interpersonal justice) and employee trust. Upon the analysis, it was also found that although both procedural and informational justice were significant and positive predictors of employee trust, employees tend to be more trustful with their supervisors or organisation when their supervisors or organisation exhibit more informational justice. This is because informational justice had the highest Beta (β) value of 0.418 than procedural justice with a Beta (β) value of 0.207 (see. Table 4.12). This posits that in spite of employees’ appreciation for their supervisors’ track record of having confidence in their ability, competence and integrity they prefer their organisation to be more concern about the flow of information and explanation given to details on timely manner without any asymmetry. Though previous study has found procedural justice and distributive justice as best predictor of employee trust (Cohen- Charash & Spector, 2001; Hubbel & Chery-Assad, 2005; Kumar, Scheer & Steenkamp, 1995; Kernan & Hanges, 2002;) and (Choi, 2011) respectively hence, the findings of this study do not buttress previous research findings. In other words this study revealed that informational justice is the best predictor of employee trust. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 123 5.3 Research objective two The second research objective was to examine the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee productivity. Based on this specific objective of the study, it was hypothesized that there is a significant positive relationship between the dimensions of organisational justice and employee productivity. The study findings revealed that procedural and informational justice had significant positive relationship with employee productivity. The implication therefore is employees (academic staff) exhibit high productivity or are more productive when the institution exhibits more procedural justice and informational justice. This means that when employees perceived that there is consistency in procedures and explanations and details to information are provided on a timely manner to meet their needs they tend to be more productive than otherwise. As the education sector is basically known as knowledge development, the aspect of information and procedures cannot be taken for granted as its fair distribution impacts on employees productivity. Fair procedures and information sharing is a useful tool in making employees enjoy their work and improving their productivity. The findings is consistent with literature as suggested by Lin & Tyler (1988) that the presence of procedural justice result in positive organisational attitudes, satisfaction with organisational outcomes of decisions, compliance with rules and procedures and as well improve productivity of employees. According to Rostamzadeh et al. (2013) the key to balancing the salary with human resources productivity is not the amount one earns but University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 124 the individual’s perception of fairness as the organisation observe justice in implementing job-related policies in practice. Thus, when people think that organisational policies are based on justice, they might show higher productivity. The significant positive relationship that existed between procedural justice and employee productivity might have caused by the presence of employees voice during decision making processes and their ability to challenge or appeal against decisions arrived by the institution. The findings of this study is also in consistent with the view of Frazier et al. (2010) who suggested that informational justice looks at the explanations given to individuals about why certain decisions were made and the quality of communication in respect to decision making that directly affect individuals. The significant positive relationship may have be accounted by the fact that majority of the respondents in this study have high excess to information relating to their work schedule and explanations relating to procedures and process. The findings of this study are consistent with previous research (Ahmadi, Ziaei & Sheikhi, 2011; Doulati & Pour, 2013; Sadeghi et al., 2013) which there was a significant positive relationship between organisational justice (procedural justice and informational justice) and employee productivity. In the study conducted by Doulati and Pour (2013) on the relationship between the components of organisational justice and human resource productivity it was found that there exist a significant positive relationship between organisational justice dimensions and employee productivity. The study adopted a sample size of 300 employees from a university. The study of Doulati and Pour (2013) therefore University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 125 supports the context in which this study was conducted (i.e. Private universities) and the sample size used. Differently, the study revealed that both distributive justice and interpersonal justice had insignificant but positive relationship with employee productivity. However, the findings of this study contrast the findings of Ahmadi, Ziaei & Sheikhi (2011), Doulati & Pour (2013) and Sadeghi et al. (2013) that significant relationship exists between organisational justice (distributive justice and interpersonal justice) and employee productivity. This insignificant relationship might have been caused by weak perception of fair outcomes distribution and less interpersonal relationship between employees and their supervisors or institution. Furthermore, the finding of this study relating to the relationship that exist among the dimensions of organisational justice and employee productivity seem to have contrast view for the assertion that organisational justice dimensions have significant influence on employee productivity. This study has revealed the diverse result by this study might have been as a result of the fact that academic staff appear to believe that the issue of productivity is a personal course and personal benefit since it enhances their academic or job mobility. Upon the analysis, it was also found that although both procedural and informational justice were significant predictors of employee productivity, employees tend to be more productive when their supervisors or organisation exhibit more informational justice. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 126 This is because informational justice had a higher Beta (β) value of 0.240 than procedural justice with a Beta (β) value of 0.165 (see. Table 4.15). This posits that in spite of employees’ appreciation for been productive towards their work they prefer their organisation to be more concern about the quality and flow of information and explanation on details on timely manner without any asymmetry to help achieve higher productivity. Though previous study has found procedural justice as the best predictor of employee productivity (Ahmadi, Ziaei & Sheikhi, 2011) hence, the findings of this study do not buttress previous research findings. Consequently, this study revealed that informational justice is the best predictor of employee productivity. 5.4 Conceptual Framework after Analysis From Figure 5.1 below it is conceptualized that among the four dimensions of organisational justice only informational justice and procedural justice have a significant positive relationship with both employee trust and productivity but informational justice tends to be the best predictor. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 127 Figure 5.1: Conceptual framework after analysis Procedural justice Distributive justice Distributive justice Interpersonal justice Distributive justice Distributive justice Informational justice O rg an isatio n al ju stice Employee trust Employee Productivity Cognitive- based trust Affect- based trust Research Community service Teaching University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 128 CHAPTER SIX SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.0 Introduction This chapter contained summary of the research findings, conclusion, recommendations, limitations of the study and suggestion for further research. 6.1 Summary The exploratory cross-sectional study sought to examine the dimensions of organisational justice (procedural, distributive, informational and interpersonal) which best predict employee trust and productivity among academic staff of higher education institutions. It was clear in literature review the inadequate of research in the area of the four dimensions of organisational justice, trust and productivity of academic staff. This led to the development of eight hypotheses aimed at developing a stronger evidence base in this area than previously existed. The assumption was made that dimensions of organisational justice (procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational) will significantly and positively influence employee trust and productivity. This study used multiple regressions as the main statistical tool for testing the hypotheses. Questionnaire was the main instrument for data collection. It was made up of 18 items grouped into three main sections. Out of the total population of 505 academic staff from the five selected private universities in the Greater Accra Region a representative of 211 was drawn for the study. The data was analysed through SPSS version 20. The University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 129 organisational justice scale measured the independent variable of employee perceived organisational justice (Colquitt, 2001). The overall employee trust scale developed by Schoorman and Ballinger (2006) measured the dependent variable of employees’ trust. Again, the productivity scale developed by Nyhan (2000) was used to measure employee productivity. To measure demographic variables, a demographic questionnaire was administered to the participants asking their gender, age, years in the organisation and status (position). Also, measures of central tendency, frequencies as well as percentages and multiple regression were used in the analysis. An alpha level of confidence was set at .05 for statistical tests. The preliminary and major findings as they are related to the specific objectives and hypotheses of the study have been summarized below. 6.2 Preliminary Findings Pilot study was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the instrument. The three variables (organisational justice, trust and productivity) were tested and the instrument was found valid and reliable as the cronbach’s alpha obtained was above 0.70 which fulfills the rule of thumb by Sekaran (2003). Also, the data collected was tested and was as well found that it was normally distributed. This was observed through the use of skewness and kurtosis. A total of 211 respondents participated in the study. It was observed that 72% of the respondents were male. Thus, majority of the respondents (38.4%) were within the age range of 41-48. Also, the study revealed that most of the respondents (48.3%) have spent 2-5 years with the higher education institution. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 130 Furthermore, it was observed that a large number of the respondents were within the position of Lecturer (64.9%). At the testing of the hypotheses set for this study the assumptions of multiple regression such as normality, linearity, multicollinearity and outliers were tested and verified. 6.3 Summary of Key Findings In this study, the relationship between the dimensions of organisational justice and employee trust in higher education institutions was investigated. The findings revealed that both procedural and informational trust have significant positive relationship with academic staff trust towards their institution or their supervisors. The findings as well revealed that both distributive and interpersonal justice have insignificant relationship with academic staff trust toward their institution and their supervisors. Furthermore, the study investigated the relationship between the dimensions of organisational justice and employee productivity in higher education institutions. The findings also revealed that both procedural and informational justice have significant positive relationship with employee productivity. On the other hand, it was found that both distributive and interpersonal justice have insignificant relationship with academic staff productivity in higher education institutions. More so, the study indicated that informational justice is the best predictor of academic staff trust and productivity than the other three dimensions of organisational justice (procedural, distributive and interpersonal). University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 131 6.4 Conclusion Recent research has placed much attention on the dimensions of organisational justice having limited support for the significant contribution and effect they have in predicting organisational outcomes such as employee trust and productivity. It is with this notion that this study was conducted to investigate the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee trust and productivity among academic staff within some selected higher education institutions by establishing the relationships thereof. There is the need to be cautious prior to the generalization of any study’s results. The researcher is therefore confident of the findings of this study which examined the best predictor of the dimensions of organisational justice on employee trust and productivity. Based on the findings of this study it is noted that the perception of fairness by employees (academic staff) in higher education institutions is highly related to trust and productivity. Employee perceived fairness in organisation affect their productivity which in turn influences the entire success of the organisation. Employees demonstrate trust and become more productive when their supervisors and/or institutions are fair. Therefore, supervisors and/or institutions should treat employees fairly in order for employees to trust them and be more productive. In accordance with this study the dimension of organisational justice that is commonly perceived by employees (academic staff) within the higher education institutions is informational justice. From previous explanations, it can be deduced that perceived organisational justice more especially informational justice by employee can be used to raise the level of employees’ trust and productivity. Academic staffs believe that they are treated fairly when their supervisors and/or University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 132 institutions provide them with accurate information with adequate explanations as to why certain decisions were made. The findings of the study led the researcher to infer that communication is an important aspect that influences academic staffs trust towards their supervisors and/or their institutions at large and their level of productivity. Though the results of the study indicated that the best predictor of employee trust and productivity is informational justice but the researcher is with much confident to suggest that it is not the only dimension of organisational justice to be followed to ensure employee optimum trust and productivity. This is because at the neglect of the other dimension can lead to mistrust and hence lower productivity of employees. In today’s chaotic and turbulent work environments, it is vital that leaders of higher education institutions to adopt the dimensions of organisational justice to maximize their employees’ trust and productivity. In conclusion, this research has represented the first known attempt in the context of Ghana by considering the four dimensions of organisational justice coupled with multifoci justice. The findings of the study serves as a foundation for researchers to explore further in the sense that the results of this study presented from the data clearly indicated a divergent view as compared to most literature reviewed. The outcome is therefore relevant enough as this research study have a direct implication on how institutions and leaders of institutions should set up policies to govern the manner in which employees will be treated fairly and how they interact with employees. This therefore support the position of Doulati and Pour (2013) that fairness to employees by University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 133 organisations usually results in higher productivity whereas those that feel unfairness are more likely to quit the organisation or otherwise lower their level of productivity. On the other hand, the feel by employee to be fairly treated tends to show stronger support for the policy and with higher level of trust in their leaders (Kim & Mauborgne, 1993) whereas a feel of unfairness leads to lower trust towards supervisors and the organisation at large (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Dailey & Kirk, 1992). 6.5 Recommendations Based on the findings, discussions and conclusion of this study, the following recommendations were made: The constantly changing business environment requires organisations to treat employee with fairness to enhance trust and productivity in organisations. Therefore, organisations should adopt the four dimensions of organisational justice in order to consistently and efficiently improve employee trust and productivity in higher education institutions. However, the findings of this study indicated that informational justice influence organisational justice more than the other three dimensions. Organisations and cooperate heads should therefore consider in clearly communicating to meet individual needs, explaining decision making process thoroughly to the understanding of all employees and honest communication within timely manner with no information asymmetry. Thus, this could potentially result in improved organisational productivity and trust in leadership. This means that higher education institutions should offer more attractive communication strategies if they want to increase employee trust and productivity. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 134 Also, leadership of higher education institutions should pay must attention to ability, integrity and benevolence in order to improve and sustain employee trust towards corporate heads and the organisation at large. Additionally, leadership must be much concern about fairness as it impact on academic staff delivery in their teaching, researching and public service activities. 6.6 Limitations of the study This study was limited by the fact that it was a quantitative method. Being a quantitative method, only questionnaires were used and that follow up questions which could have provided further explanation were not used. This made it difficult to determine the true cause of the relationship. Thus, the use of mixed method would have best suited the study for the purpose of triangulation. Also, the study sampled only academic staff as respondents. This limited the responses of other non-academic staffs that also have issues regarding fairness in the organisation. Another limitation was geographic because the research was confined to only academic staff of some four selected private universities with the Greater Accra Region. Hence, the findings of this study may not be generalized to academic staffs in other parts of Ghana because, although sector, the working environment can impact on organisation’s operations. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 135 6.7 Further Research The review of the literature, the findings of this study, and subsequent conclusions led this researcher to make several recommendations for further research on organisational justice dimensions, employee trust and productivity. In furthering the field of organisational justice research, the following recommendations are given: 1. Although this research confirmed the relationship of organisational justice on employees’ trust and productivity, future research should include both questionnaires and interview sessions together as this will provide more comprehensive outcome. 2. Additionally, academic staff productivity that measures teaching, research output and community service were analysed as a single construct. It is therefore recommended that future studies should consider addressing each construct separately to help give an adequate insight of these variables. 3. Further research could use a qualitative approach in order to analyze all issues related to both concepts (organisational justice, employee trust and employee productivity) rather than to measure each of them. 4. Further research could also use another organisational justice questionnaire that would be able to distinguish between different dimensions of organisational justice perceived by employee. 5. Also, culture remains an important variable in determining organisational justice perceived by employees. Further research could also be conducted on the influence of organisational justice dimensions on employee trust and productivity outside Greater Accra Region by looking at other higher education institutions University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 136 such as public universities, polytechnics, colleges of education, nursing training colleges or other sectors. 6. It is of the hope that further studies will either look at the entire employee within higher education institutions. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 137 REFERENCES Adams, J. S. (1965). “Inequity in social exchange”. In Berkowitz, L. (Eds.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 2 (pp. 267-299). Academic Press, New York. Adinkrah, Mensah (2005) ‘‘Vigilante Homicides in Contemporary Ghana,’’ Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 413–427. Ahmadi, F., Ziaei, M. Sheikhi, Z. (2011). Relationship between organisational justice and human resource productivity in public organisations of Kurdistan province. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business 3(5), 728-750. Akanbi, P. A. & Ofoegbu, O. E. (2013). Impact of Perceived Organizational Justice on Organizational Commitment of A Food And Beverage Firm In Nigeria. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(14), 207-218. Al-Abrrow, A. H., Ardakani, S. M., Harooni, A. & Pour, M. H. (2013). The relationship between organisational trust and organisational justice components and their role in job involvement in education. International Journal of Management Academy, 1(1), 25-41. Alexander, S. & Ruderman, M. (1987). The role of procedural and distributive justice in organisational behavior. Social Justice Research, 1, 177-198. Aliaga, M. & Gunderson, B. (2000). Interactive Statistics. Saddle River, 3-15. Alsalem, M. & Alhaiani, A. (2007). Relationship between Organisational Justice and Employees Performance. Aledari, 108, 97-110. Ambrose, M. (2002). Contemporary justice research: A new look at familiar questions. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 89, 803-812. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 138 Amoakohene, Margaret (2002) ‘‘Police-Public Relations in a Democratic Environment,’’ in K. Karikari. (Eds.) The Face and Phases of the Ghana Police. Accra: Media Foundation for West Africa. Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. S. & Chen, Z. X. (2002). Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organisational justice and work outcomes: Test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 23, 267–285. Asiyai, R. I. (2010). The role of information communication in management of secondary education for sustainable development in Delta state, Nigeria. Journal of Sociology and Education in Africa 9 (1), 157-168. Aycan, Z., Kanungo, R. N., Mendonca, M., Yu, K., Deller, J., Stahl, G. & Kurshid, A. (2000). Impact of culture on human resource practices: A 10-country comparison. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49(1), 192-221. Babbie, E. (1989). The practice of social research. CA: Belmont, Wadsworth. Babbie, E., & Mouton, J. (2001). The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University Press. Banerjee, R. & Banerjee, S. (2013). A study of perceived organisational justice, trust and organisational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Business and Management, 12(4), 36-43. Barber, B. (1983). The logic and limits of trust. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organisational commitment and personal need non-fulfillment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39–52. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 139 Basaran, İ. E. (1985). Orgütlerde işgören hizmetlerinin yonetimi. Ankara: Ankara University Egitim Bilimleri Fakultesi Yayınları. Bawakyillenuo, S., Akoto, O. I., Ahiadeke, C., Bortei-Doku, A. E. & Agbe, K. E. (2013). Tertiary Education and Industrial Development in Ghana. Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER), University of Ghana, Legon; Submitted To International Growth Centre (IGC). Bayles, M. D. (1990). Procedural Justice: Allocating to Individuals. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Beaudreau, C. B. (2009), “The dynamo and the computer: an engineering perspective on the modern productivity paradox”. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(1), 7-17. Bergh, P., Thorgen, S. & Vincent, J. (2012). Entrepreneurs learning together: The importance of building trust for learning and exploiting business opportunities. International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, 7(1), 17–37. Bernett R (1997). Higher education: A critical business. Buckinggham: The society for research University press. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. M. & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 459–472. Bies, R. J. & Moag, J. S. (1986), “Interactional justice: communication criteria of fairness”. In Lewicki, J. J., Sheppard, B. H. & Bazerman, M. H. (Eds) Research on Negotiation in Organisations Vol. 1 (pp. 43-55). JAI, Greenwich, CT. Bies, R. J. (1986). Identifying principles of interactional justice: The case of corporate recruiting. In Bies, R. J (Chair), Moving beyond equity theory: New directions in University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 140 research on justice in organisations. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Bies, R. J. (2001). 'Interactional Injustice: The Sacred and the Profane', in J. Greenberg and R. Cropanzano (Eds.) Advances in Organisational Justice (pp. 89-118). Stanford University Press, CA: Stanford),. Bies, R. J., Shapiro, D. L., & Cummings, L. L. (1988). Causal accounts and managing organisational conflict: Is it enough to say it’s not my fault. Communication Research, 15(4), 381-399. Bigley, G. A. & Pearce, J. L. (1998). Straining for shared meaning in organisational science: Problems of trust and distrust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 405–421. Black, M. M. & Holden,W. E. (1998). “The Impact of Gender on Productivity and Satisfaction among Medical School Psychologists.” Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 5, 117-131. Bless, C., & Higson-Smith, C. (2000). Fundamentals of social research methods. An African perspective (3rd Eds.). Cape Town: Juta. Bloom, D., David, C. & Kevin C. (2006). Higher Education and Economic Development in Africa. Washington, DC: Human Development Sector, Africa Region, World Bank. Boon, S. D. & Holmes, J. G. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of risk. In R. A. Hinde & J. Groebel (Eds.) Cooperation and prosocial behavior (pp. 190–211). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 141 Bordbar, G., Mansouri, H. & Jamali, R. (2007). The relationship between organisational culture and human resource productivity. Qurterly Journal of Insurance Research College, 4, 179-207. Bordbar, Gholamreza, et.al, (2009). “Studying the relationship between organisational education and human resources productivity in Yazd City insurance industry”. Insurance Industry Quarterly, 22(4), 179 -207. Boswell, W. & Bourdreau, J. (2000). “Employee satisfaction with performance appraisals and appraisers: the role of perceived appraisal use”. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11, 283-99. Britz, J. J. (2007), “Critical analysis of information poverty from a social justice perspective”, DPhil thesis, Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Brockner J. & Greenberg J. (1990). The impact of layoffs on survivors: an organisational justice perspective. In Applied Social Psychology and Organisational Settings, Carroll JS (ed). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 45-75. Brockner, J. & Siegel, P. (1996), “Understanding the interaction between procedural and distributive justice: the role of trust”. In Kramer, R.M. and Tyler, T. (Eds), Trust in Organisations (pp. 390-413). Sage, Thousand Oaks: CA. Brockner, J. (2006). Why it's so hard to be fair, Harvard Business Review, 1-8. Brockner, J., Hite, T., Davies, D. K. O. & Malley, M. N. (1987). Reward allocation and self-esteem: the role of modeling and equity restoration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(4), 844-850. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 142 Broome, J. (1989), “What’s the good of equality?”, in Hey, J. D. (Ed.) Current Issues in Microeconomics (pp. 89-111). Macmillan, London,. Brown, K. (2006),"“New” educational injustices in the “new” South Africa", Journal of Educational Administration, 44 (5), 509 – 519. Bryman, A. & Bell, E. (2003).Business Research Methods. New York: Oxford University Press Inc. Buchanan, A. (1992), “Justice distributive”. In Lawrence, C. B & Charlotte, B. B. (Eds) Encyclopedia of Ethics. St James Press, Chicago: IL. Burloiu, P. (1975). Planification de l'education en Roumanie. Paris: International Institute of Educational Planning (IIPE). Butler, J. K. & Cantrell, R. S. (1984). A behavioral decision theory approach to modeling dyadic trust in superiors and subordinates. Psychological Reports, 55, 19-28. Byrne, Z. S. & Cropanzano, R. (2001). History of organisational justice: the founders speak. In Cropanzano, R. (Ed.) Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice. Vol. 2 (pp. 3-26). Mahwah, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum Associates. Byrne, Z. S. (1999). How do procedural and interactional justice influence multiple levels of organisational outcomes? Symposium presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial/Organisational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Byrne, Z. S. & Cropanzano, R. (2000). To which source do I attribute this fairness? Differential effects of multi-foci justice on organisational work behaviors. Presented at the annual conference of the Society of Industrial and Organisational Psychology in New Orleans, LA University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 143 Cakmak, K. O. (2005). Performans deðerlendirme sistemlerinde örgütsel adalet algýsý ve bir örnek olaya çalýþmasý [Organisational justice perception in performance assessment systems and a case study]. Unpublished master's thesis. Ýstanbul University Institute of Social Sciences. Cakmak, K. O. (2005). Performans deðerlendirme sistemlerinde örgütsel adalet algýsý ve bir örnek olay çalýþmasý, [Perception of organisational justice in performance evaluation systems and a sample case study]. Unpublished master thesis. Istanbul University Social Sciences Institute, Istanbul. Cameron, Amna C. (2004). Kurtosis. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman & T. F. Liao (Eds.), The Sage encyclopedia of social science research methods. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Campbell, L. & Finch, E. (2004). “Customer satisfaction and organisational justice”, Facilities, 22 (7/8), 178-189. Cetto, A. (1998). Scientific journal publishing in the developing world. Lesotho Coasted, Chennas, India. Chan, M. (2000). “Organisational justice: theories and landmark cases”, The International Journal of Organisational Analysis, 8(1), 68-88. Chattopadhyay, S. (2007). Exploring Alternative Sources of Financing Higher Education. Economic and Political Weekly, 42 (42), 4251-4259. Choi, S. (2011). Organisational Justice and Employee Work Attitudes:The Federal Case.The American Review of Public Administration, 41(2) 185–204. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 144 Chou,R. I. A. (2009). ' Organisational justice and turnover intention: a study of direct care workers in assisted living facilities for older adults in the United States ', Social Development Issues, 31, 69-85. Citera, M. & Rentsch, J. R. (1993). Is there justice in organisational acquisitions? The role of distributive and procedural fairness in corporate acquisitions. In Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management, Cropanzano R (Eds.). Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ; 211-230. Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2004). Research methods in education (5th Ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2005). Research methods in education (6th Ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Cohen-Charash, Y. & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organisations: A meta- analysis. Oranizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 86 (2), 278- 321. Colquitt, J. A, Greenberg, J. & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2005). What is organisational justice: An historical overview. In Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. A (Eds.) Handbook of organisational justice ( pp: 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organisational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386-400. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M., Porter, C., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organisational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 425-445. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 145 Corrallo, S., Gilmore, J. L. & To, D. (1988). The productivity of American higher education: Issues, problems, and approaches to the problem. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Costa, A. C. (2003). ‘Work Team Trust and Effectiveness’, Personnel Review, 32, 605- 622. Crampton, F. E. & Whitney, T. N. (1996). “Principles of a sound state school finance system”, A Monograph of the Education Partners Project, Foundation for State Legislatures, National Conference of State Legislatures, Denver, CO/Washington, DC. Creamer, Elizabeth G. Assessing Faculty Publication Productivity: Issues of Equity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 26(2).Washington,DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University, 1998. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (3rd Edition).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cropanzano, R. & Folger, R. (1991). Procedural justice and worker motivation. In Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. (Eds.) Motivation and Work Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justices are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 146 Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.) Advances in organisation justice (pp. 119– 151). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A. & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organisation Management, 27, 324-351. Crossman, A. & Abou-Zaki, B. (2003). “Job satisfaction and employee performance of Lebanese banking staff”. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(4), 368-376. Dailey, R. C. & Kirk, D. J. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45, 305-317. Daly, J. P. & Geyer, P. D. (1994). The role of fairness in implementing large-scale change: employee evaluations of process and outcome in seven facility relocations. Journal of Organisational Behavior 15(7), 623-638. De Meyer, F. C., Petzer, J. D., Svari, S. & Svensson, G. (2013)."Perceived justice in South African airline and hospital industries: measurement model", International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 5(2),120 – 139. DeConick, J. B. (2010). The effect of organisational justice, perceived organisational support, and perceived supervisor support on marketing employees’ level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63, 1349-1355. Demirtaş, H. & Güneş, H. (2002). Egitim yonetimi ve denetimi sozlugu. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık. Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2,265–279. Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice, a social psychological perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 147 Dirks, K. T. & Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 611- 628. Dizgah, M. R., Chegini, M. G. & Bisokhan, R. (2012). Relationship between job satisfaction and employee job performance in Guilan Public Sector. Journal of Basic Applied Science Research, 2(2), 1735-1741. Doellefeld, Steven F. Faculty Productivity: A Conceptual Analysis and Research Synthesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: University at Albany, State University of New York, 1996. Doulati, H. & Pour, D. M. (2013). The relationship between components of organisational justice and human resources productivity. International Journal of Basic Sciences and Applied Research, 2(2), 150-154. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Lowe, A. (1991), Management Research: An Introduction, Sage, London. Ehiametalor ET (1988) Perspectives on National development: A book of readings. Benin: University of Benin press. Elovation, M., Kivimaki, M., Vahtera, J., Keltikangas-Jarvinen, L. & Virtanen, M. (2003). Sleeping Problems and Health behaviors as Mediators between Organisational Justice and Health. Health Psychology. 22, 287- 293. Emory, C. W., & Cooper, D. R. (1991). Business research methods (4th Ed.). Boston, MA: Irvin. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 148 Erdem, F. & Ozen, J. (2003). Cognitive and affective dimensions of trust in developing team performance. Team Performance Management: An international Journal, 9(5/6), 131-135. Eres, F., Gulcan, G. M. & Çelik, S. (2014). Primary School Teachers’ Perceptions of Justice and Trust in Principals in Ankara. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 4(2), 33-41. Ezzat, P. (2003). “Designing the systems policies, right based government of Alavi”, Unpublished PhD Proposal, Tarbiat Modarres University, Tehran. Farndale E., Hope-Hailey V., & Kelliher C. (2010). “High Commitment Performance Management: The Roles of Justice and Trust”. Personnel Review, 40(1), 5-23. Farndale, Elaine, Hope-Hailey, Veronica & Kelliher, Clare (2011). High commitment performance management: The roles of justice and trust. Personnel Review, 40(1), 5–23. Federal Ministry of Education (2004). National Policy on Education. Lagos: Education research and development council. Ferris, M. J. (1991). Contracting and Higher Education. The Journal of Higher Education, 62, (1), 1-24. Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd Ed.). London: Sage Publication Inc. Foley, S., Kidder, D. L. & Powell, G. N. (2002). The Perceived Glass Ceiling and Justice Perceptions: An Investigation of Hispanic Law Associates. Journal of Management 28 (4): 471-496. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 149 Folger, R. & Cropanzano, R. (1998). Organisational Justice and Human Resource Management. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Folger, R. & Konovsky, M. A. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of Management Journal 32(1), 115-130. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Eds.) Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Folger, R. & Bies, R. J. (1989). Managerial responsibilities and procedural justice. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 79-90. Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Conflict. In Forsyth, D. R. (5th Ed.) Group Dynamics (P. 388 - 389) Belmont: CA, Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Fox, M. F. (1992). “Research, Teaching, and Publication Productivity: Mutuality versus Competition.”m Sociology of Education 65, 293-305. Frankfort-Nachmias, & Nachmias, D. (1992). Research Methods in the Social Sciences (4th Ed). London: Edward Arnold. Fraser, N. & Honneth, A. (2003), Redistribution or Recognition? A Political- Philosophical Exchange, Verso, London. Fraser, N. (2005). “Reframing justice in a globalising world”. New Left Review, 36, November-December, 69-88. Frazier, L. M., Johnson, D. P., Gavin, M., Gooty, J. & Snow, B. D. (2010). Organisational Justice, Trustworthiness, and Trust: A Multifoci Examination. Group & Organisation Management, 35(39), 40-76. French, W. (1964). The personnel management process: Human resources administration. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 150 Fryxell, G. E., Dooley, R. S. & Vryza, M. (2002). After the ink dries: The interaction of trust and control in US-based international joint ventures. Journal of Managerial Studies, 39, 865-886. Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th Ed.). New York: Longman Publishers. Gambetta, D. (2000). Trust: Making and breaking cooperative relation. Department of Sociology, University of Oxford. Ganesan, S. (1994), “Determinats of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationship”. Journal of Marketing,58(2), 1-19. Gaur, A. S., & Gaur, S. S. (2009). Statistical method for practice and research: A guide to data analysis using SPSS (2nd Ed.). New Delhi: Sage Publications. Golembiewski, R. T., & McConkie, M. (1975). The centrality of interpersonal trust in group processes. In C. L. Cooper (Eds.) Theories of group processes (pp. 131– 185). New York: Wiley. Goncalo, A. J. & Kim, H. S. (2010). Distributive justice beliefs and group idea generation: Does a belief in equity facilitate productivity? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3(7), 1-5. Goris, J., Vaught, B. & Pettit, J. (2000). “Effects of communication direction on job performance and satisfaction: a moderated regression analysis”. Journal of Business Communication, 37(4), 348-368. Gounaris, S. P. (2005). Trust and commitment influences on customer retention: Insights from business to business services. Journal of Business Research, 58(2), 126–140. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 151 Govier, T. (1994). Is it a jungle out there? Trust, distrust and the construction of social reality. Dialogue, 33, 237–252. Gratton, C. & Jones, I. (2009). Research Methods for Sports Studies (2nd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Greenberg, J. (1987). “A taxonomy of organisational justice theories”. Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9-22. Greenberg, J. (1990). “Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: the hidden cost of pay cuts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561-568. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organisational Justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399-432. Greenberg, J. (1990a). Organisational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management 16 (2): 399-432. Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54, 81–103. Greenberg, J. (1993). The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organisational justice. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.) Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Fairness in Human Resource Management Hillsdale (pp. 79-103). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Erlbaum. Greenberg, J. (1995). The Quest for Justice on the Job: Essays and Experiments. Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks: CA. Greenwood, R., Hinings, C. R. & Brown, J. (1994). Merging professional service firms. Organisation Science 5(2), 239-257. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 152 Griffin, R. W. (2011). Fundamentals of Management. (6th ed). Canada: South-westerns. Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994), “Competing paradigms in qualitative research”, in N. K. Denzin, and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 105-17).Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hair, Jr. J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J. & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th Ed.). Upper Hajj Karimi, A. & Pyrayesh, R. (2006). Clarifying affecting factors on HR productivity in public organisations by using path analysis technique. Management Culture, 14(4), 57–86. Hemmings, B. & Kay, R. (2009). Lecturer self efficacy: Its related dimensions and the influence of gender and qualifications. Issues in Educational Research, 19 (3), 243-254. Hersey, P. & Goldsmith M. (1980). A Situational Approach to Performance Planning. Training & Development Journal, 34(11), 38-44. Holste, J. S. & Fields, D. (2005). The relationship of affect and cognition-based trust with sharing and use of tacit knowledge. Academy of Management Best Papers Proceedings, B1-B6. Holzer, M. & Lane, S. F. (1977). Productivity in Higher Education. Public Productivity Review, 2 (5), 4-8. Homans, G. S. (1961). Social Behaviour: Its Elementary Forms. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York, NY. Hopkins, D. S. P. & Massy, W. F. (1981). Planning models for colleges and universities. Stan-ford, CA: Stanford University Press. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 153 Hoseinzadeh, A. (2006). Organisational Justice. Tadbir Journal, 190, 18-23. Hoy, K. W. & Tarter, J. C. (2004). Organisational justice in schools: No justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250-259. Hubbell, A. & Chory-Assad, R. (2005). Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organisational trust. Communication Studies, 56, 47-70. Hyde, K. F. (2000), “Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 3 (2), 82-89. Jajri, I. & Ismail, R. (2010). “Impact of labour quality on labour productivity and economic growth”. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4), 486-495. Jawahar, I. M. (2002). A model of organisational justice and workplace aggression. Journal of Management, 28(6), 811-834. Jaya, N. N. (2013). Measuring Productivity of the Kopertis Lecturers at the Private Higher Education Institutions in Mataram. International Journal of Science and Engineering Investigations, 2 (21), 99-104. Jex, S. M. & Beehr T. A. (1991). Emerging theoretical and methodological issues in the study of work-related stress. Research in Personnel and Human Resource Management 9, 311-365. Johnson, J. P., Korsgaard, M. A. & Sapienza, H. J. (2002). Perceived fairness, decision control and commitment in international joint ventures management teams. Strategic Management Journal 23(12), 1141-1160. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 154 Jung, D. I. & Avolio, B. J. (2000). Opening the blackbox: an experimental investigation of the mediating effects of trust and value congruence on transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 21, 949–964. Karikari, K. (2002). ‘‘Introduction,’’ in K. Karikari (Eds.) The face and phases of the Ghana police. Accra: Media Foundation for West Africa. Karriker, H. J. & Williams, L. M. (2009). Organisational Justice and Organisational Citizenship Behavior: A Mediated Multifoci Model. Journal of Management 35(1), 112-135. Kerlinger, F. N. (1986). Foundations of behavioural research (3rd Ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Kernan, C. M. & Hanges, J. P. (2002). Survivor Reactions to Reorganisation: Antecedents and Consequences of Procedural, Interpersonal, and Informational Justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), 916–928. Kim W. C. & Mauborgne, R. A. (1991). Implementing global strategies: the role of procedural justice. Strategic Management Journal, Summer Special Issue, 12, 125-143. Kim, W. C. & Mauborgne, R. A. (1993). Procedural justice, attitudes, and subsidiary top management compliance with multinationals corporate strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 502-526. Konovsky, M. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organisations. Journal of Management, 26, 489–511. Konovsky, M. A. & Pugh, S. D. (1994). “Citizenship behaviour and social exchange”. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 656-670. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 155 Koopmann, R. (2002). The relationship between perceived organisation justice and organisational citizenship behaviors: A review of the literature. Journal of Student Research, Retrivied January 18, 2015 from http://www.uwstout.edu/rs/uwsjsr/table.htm. Kors LA, (2008) On the sadness of higher education. The Wall Street Journal, 2, 1-7. Korsgaard, M. A., Sapienza, H. J. & Schweiger, D. M. (2002). Beaten before begun: the role of procedural justice in planning change. Journal of Management 28(4), 497- 516. Kramer, R. (1999). ‘Trust and Distrust: Emerging Questions, Enduring Questions’. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-591. Krejcie, R. V. & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and psychological measurement, 30, 607-610. Kumekpor, T. K. B. (2002). Research methods and techniques of social research. Accra: SonLife Press & Service. Laka-Mathebula, M. R. (2004). “Modeling the relationship between organisational commitment, leadership style, human resource management practices and organisational trust”. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in organisational behavior, university of Pretoria. Laschinger, H. & Finegan, J. (2005). “Using empowerment to build trust and respect in the workplace: a strategy for addressing the nursing shortage”. Nursing Economics, 23(1), 6-13. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 156 Lerner, M. J. (1977). “The justice motive: some hypotheses as to its origins and forms”, Journal of Personality, 45(1), 1-54. Leung, K., Smith, P., Sun, H. & Wang, Z. (1996). “Job satisfaction in joint venture hotels in China: an organisational justice analysis”, Journal of International Business Studies, 27, 947-962. Leventhal, G. S. (1976). “Fairness in social relationships”. In J. W. Thibaut., J. T. Spence & R. C. Carson (Eds) Contemporary Topics in Social Psychology (pp. 211-239). General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. M. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, and R. H. Willis (Eds.) Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum. Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Eds.) Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag. Levin, D. Z. & Cross, R. (2004). The strength of weak ties you can trust: The mediating role of trust in effective knowledge transfer. Management Science, 5, 1477-1490. Lewicki, R. J. & Bunker, B. B. (1996). Developing and maintaining trust in work relationships. In R. M. Kramer & T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organisations: Frontiers of theory and research: 114-139. Thou sand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lewicki, R. J., Wiethoff, C. & Tomlinson, E. C. (2005). What is the role of trust in organisational justice? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.) Handbook of organisational justice. (pp 247-270). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 157 Li H., Bingham, J. B. & Umphress, E. E. (2007). Fairness from the top: perceived procedural justice and collaborative problem solving in new product development. Organisation Science 18(2), 200-216. Liao, H. & Rupp, D. E. (2005). “The impact of justice climate and justice orientation onwork outcome: a cross-level multifoci framework”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90 (2), 242-256. Lieras, M. P. (2005). Investing in Human Capital: A Capital Markets Approach to Student Learning, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Liljegren, M. & Ekberg, K. (2010). The associations between perceived distributive, procedural, and interactional organisational justice, self-rated health and burnout. Work, 33, 43-51. Limpanitgul, T. (2009). Methodological Considerations in a Quantitative Study Examining the Relationship between Job attitudes and Citizenship Behaviours. Unpublished master’s thesis. Cardiff University, Soreze, France. Lin, E. & Tyler, T. (1988). The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. PlenumPress, New York, NY. Lind, E. A. & Tyler, T. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum. Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organisational relations. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organisational justice (pp. 56-88). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 158 Loi, R., Yang, J. & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Four-factor justice and daily job satisfaction: A multilevel investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 770- 781. Luo, Y. (2005). How important are shared perceptions of procedural justice in cooperative alliances. Academy of Management Journal 48 (4), 695-709. Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm coopera-tion in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal 29 (1), 27-46. Martin, J. (1981). “Relative deprivation: a theory of distributive injustice and organisational illegitimacy”. In J. K. Murnighan (Eds.) Social Psychology in Organisations: Advances in Theory and Research (pp. 296-321). JAI Press, Greenwich: CT. Massy, F. W. & Wilger, K. A. (1992). Productivity in Postsecondary Education: A New Approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 14 (4), 361-376. Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M. & Taylor, M. S. (2000). Integrating justice and social exchange: The differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 738–748. May, T. (1997). Social research: Issues, methods and process (2nd Ed). Trowbridge: Redwood Books. Mayer, R. C. & Gavin, M. B. (2005). Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss? Academy of Management Journal, 48, 874-888. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995), “An integrative model of organisational trust”, Academy of Management Review, 20, 709-734. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 159 McAllister, D. (1995). Affective and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organisations. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 24-59. McFarlin, D. B. and Sweeney, P. D. (1992). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of satisfaction with personal and organisational outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 626-637. McKnight, D. H., Cummings, L. L. & Chervany, N. L. (1998). Initial trust formation in new organisational relationships. Academy of Management Review, 23, 473–490. McShane, S. L., Glinow, M. A. V. & Sharma, R. R. (2008). Organisational Behavior (4th Ed.). New Delhi: Tata: McGraw-Hill. Meyer, K. A. (1998). Faculty Workload Studies: Perspectives, Needs, and Future Directions. ASHEERIC Higher Education Report, 26(1).Washington,DC: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University. Middaugh, Michael F. (2001).Understanding Faculty Productivity: Standards and Benchmarks for Colleges and Universities. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Mirzaie, M. A. (2008). “Organisational trust and its development between employees and management”. Journal of the strategy, 1(2), 39-58. Mishler, William, & Richard Rose (2001) ‘‘Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-Communist Societies,’’Comparative Political Studies, 34, 30–62. Moon, J. W. & Kim, Y. G. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world with web context. Information and management, 38, 217–231. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 160 Moores, K. (2002). Productivity in Higher Education. Business/Higher Education Round Table, 15, 18-22. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G. & Deshpande, R. (1992). "Relationships between Providers and Users of Market Research: The Dynamics of Trust within and Between Organisations". Journal of Marketing Research, 3, 314-329. Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855. Morrisone, D. E. & Firmstone, J. (2000). The social function of trust and implication for e-commerce. International Journal of Advertising, 15 (5), 1–17. Mossholder, K., Benntt, N. & Martin, C. (1998). “A multilevel analysis of procedural justice context”. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 19 (2), 131-141. Munro, E. (2001). Empowering looked after children. Child and Family Social Work, 6 (2), 129-137. Murray, A. M. (1976). Defining the Higher Education Lobby. The Journal of Higher Education, 47 (1), 79-92. Muzumdar, P. (2010). Influence of interactional justice on the turnover behavioral decision in an organisation. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business. 1-11. Nabatchi, T., Bingham, L. B. & Good, D. H. (2007). Organisational Justice and Workplace Mediation: A Six Factor Model. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18 (2), 148-176. Nadi, M. A. & Moshfeghi, N. Z. (2009). “Understanding teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between dimensions of organisational trust to continuous and University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 161 emotional commitment to provide a structural equation model in Education of Isfahan”. Quarterly Journal of Educational Leadership and Administration, 3(4), 155-174. Ng, K. Y. & Chua, R.Y. J. (2006). Do I contribute more when I trust more? Differential effects of cognition and affect-based trust. Management and Organisation Review, 2, 43-66. Ngodo, O. E. (2008). “Procedural Justice and Trust: The Link in the Transformational Leadership – Organisational Outcomes Relationship”. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1): 82-100. Niehoff, B. P. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). “Justice as a mediator of the relationship between methods of monitoring and organisational citizenship behavior”. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 527-556. Noruzy, A., Shatery, K., Rezazadeh, A. & Hatami-Shirkouhi, L. (2011). Investigation the relationship between organisational justice, and organisational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of perceived organisational support. Indian Journal of Science and Technology , 4 (7), 842-847. Nyhan, R. C. (2000). Changing the paradigm: trust and its role in public sector organisations. American Review of Public Administration,. 30 (1). 87-109. OECD (1967). Education, Human Resources and Development in Argentina. Paris: OECD. OECD (1973). Indicators of Performance of Educational Systems. Paris: OECD. OECD. (2008). Tertiary Education for the Knowledge Society. OECD Thematic Review of Tertiary Education: Synthesis Report. April, 2008. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 162 Organ, D. W. & Moorman, R. H. (1993). “Personality and organisational citizenship behaviour”, Journal of Management, 20 (2), 465-478. Orlikowski, W. J. & Baroudi, J. J. (1991). “Studying information technology in organisation: research approaches and assumptions”, Information Systems Research, 2 (1), 1-14. Pallant, J. (2001). SPSS survival guide: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS. McGraw-Hill Education: Open University Press. Pallant, J. (2005). SPSS survival manual: a step-by-step guide to data analysis using SPSS (2nd ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS (4th Ed.). China: Everbest Printing Co. Palmer, James. Enhancing Faculty Productivity: A State Perspective. Education Commission of the States, September 1998. Pehlivan-Aydın, I. (2002). Yonetsel, mesleki ve orgutsel etik. Ankara: Pegema Yayıncılık. Peretomode VF, and Chukwuma RA (2007) Manpower development and lecturers’ productivity in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. Journal of Education Studies, 5-11. Peretomode, F. V. & Chukwuma, A. R. (2012). Manpower development and Lecturers’ productivity in tertiary institutions in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 8 (13), 16-28. Peril & Promise. (2000). Higher Education in Developing Countries. Washington DC, USA: The World Bank. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 163 Polit, D. F. & Beck, C. T. (2010). Essentials of Nursing Research: Appraising Evidence for Nursing Practice (7th Eds.) Wolters Kluwer Health / Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia. Popoola, S. O. (2008). The Use of Information Sources and Services and Its Effect on the Research Output of Social Scientists in Nigerian Universities. Retrieved from http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Research+outputs+from+Nigerian+tertiary+institu tions%3a+an+empirical...-a0197598580. Price, J. L. & Mueller, C. W. (1986). Handbook of organisational measurement. Marshfield, MA: Pitman Proctor, S., Allan, T. & Lacey, A. (2010). Sampling. In K. Gerrish & A. Lacey (Eds.) The Research Process in Nursing (6th Ed).). Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Psacharopoulos, G. & Patrinos, H. A. (2004). 'Human Capital and Rates of Return'. In G. Johnes and J Johnes (Eds), International Handbook on the Economics of Education, Edward-Elgar. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Folger, R. (1998). Fairness as a moral virtue. In M. Schminke (Eds.) Managerial ethics: Moral management of people and processes (pp. 13–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Read, W. H. (1962). Upward communication in industrial hierarchies. Human Relations, 3–16. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G. & Zanna, M. D. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112. Robbins, S. P. (2001). Organisational behavior. (9th Ed.), New Jersey: Prentice Hall. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 164 Roberts, K. H. & O’Reilly, C. A. (1974). Measuring organisational communication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 321–326. Robinson, K. (2004). “The impact of individual differences on the relationship between employee perceptions of organisational justice and organisational outcome variables”, PhD dissertation, Alliant International University, San Diego, CA. Roch, S. G. & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organisational justice in an exchange framework: clarifying organisational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32 (2), 299- 322. Rostamzadeh, N., Mehri, K., Chelcheleh, A. & Gholian, H. (2013). The relationship of organisational justice and commitment with human resources productivity in the offices of Sports and Youth. International Journal of Basic Sciences and Applied Research, 2(3), 227-231. Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S. & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review, 23, 393– 404. Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. (2001). Research Methods for Social Work. New York: Macmillan Publishers Ltd. Ruder G. J. (2003). “The relationship among organisational justice, trust, and role breadth self-efficacy”. Dissertation submitted to the faculty of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Human Development. Sabo, B. (2005). Universities, research and development in Nigeria: Time for a paradigmatic shift, Paper prepared for 11th General Assembly of CODESRIA, on University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 165 Rethinking African Development. Beyond impasse: Towards alternatives, Maputo, Mozambique. Available: http://www.codesria.org/Links/Conferences/general assembly11/paper/bako.pdf. Sabokru, M., Vafaei Yeganeh, M. & Kashani, S. (2010). HR productivity in insurance companies in terms of emotional intelligence and working life style. Insurance Industry Quarterly, 25 (1), 179–201. Sadeghi, R. M., Musavi, M. M. S., Samiie, S. & Behrooz, A. (2013). Developing Human Resource Productivity through Organisational Justice. Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3 (2), 173-190. Sadlak, J. (1978). Efficiency in higher education: Concepts and problems. Higher Education, 7, 213-220. Salamon, S. & Robinson, S. (2008). ‘Trust that blinds: the impact of collective felt trust on organisational performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93 (3), 593–601. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students (4th ed.). London: Prentice Hall. Schiffman, L. G. & Kanuk, L. L. (1997). Consumer Behaviour. London: Prentice Hall. Schoorman, F. D. & Ballinger, G. A. (2006). Leadership, trust and client service in veterinary hospitals. Working paper, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN. Sekaran, U. (2000). Research method for business: A skill-building approach (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Sekaran, U. (2003). Research methods for business (4th Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 166 Sekaran, U. (2006). Research methods for business, a skill building approach. India: Willey. Shapiro, D. L., Sheppard, B. H.,&Cheraskin, L. (1992, October). Business on a handshake. Negotiation Journal, 365-377. Six, F. (2007). ‘Building interpersonal trust within organisations: a relational signaling perspective’. Journal Manage Governance, 11, 285–309. Sobh, R & Perry, C. (2005). Research design and data analysis in realism research. European Journal of Marketing, 40, (11/12), 1194-1209. Stecklein, J. E. (1974). Approaches to measuring workload over the past two decades. In J. D. James (Eds.) Assessing Faculty Effort (pp. 1-16.). San Francisco: Jossey- Bass. Steensma, H. & Van Milligen, F. (2003). Bases of power, procedural justice outcomes of mergers: the push and pull factors of influence tactics. Journal of Collective Negotiations 30 (2), 113-134. Stevens, E., & Wood, G. H. (1995). Justice, ideology, and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Suliman, A. M. T. (2007), “Links between justice, satisfaction and performance in the workplace: a survey in the UEA and Arabic context”. Journal of Management Development, 26 (4), 294-311. Swedish National Audit Bureau. (1974). The Internal Efficiency of a University Department. Stockholm: NHB. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 167 Sweeney, P. D. & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers ‟ evaluations of the “ends and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40. Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1993). Workers’ evaluations of the “ends and the “means”: An examination of four models of distributive and procedural justice. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 55, 23-40. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd Ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th Ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed.). Boston: Allyn Bacon Taheri, F. & Soltaniz, E. (2013).The study of organisational justice effect on job satisfaction and organisational citizenship behavior; (case study: Organisation of Roads and Urban Development of Golestan state). World of Sciences Journal, 1(15), 64-73. Tampubolon, D. P. ( 2001). Perguruan Tinggi Bermutu Paradigma Baru Manajemen Pendidikan Tinggi Menghadapi Tantangan Abad ke-21 (Quality Higher Education Institutions of New Paradigm of Higher Education Management Facing the Challenges Of The 21st Century). Jakarta: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama. Tan, C. (2006). Ýlköðretim okullarýnda gorev yapan ooretmenlerin orgütsel adalet konusundaki algylary (Elazyo Yl Orneoi), [Organisationl justice perception of University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 168 teachers who work in primary schools (Elazyo Province Sample)]. Unpublished master thesis. Fyrat University Social Sciences Institute, Elazyo. Tan, H. H. & Tan, C. S. F. (2000). Towards the differentiation of trust in supervisor and trust in management. Genetic Social and General Psychology Monographs, 126 (2), 241–260. Tang, L. & Sarsfield-Baldwin, L. (1996). “Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment”. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 61 (3), 25-31. Tankebe, J. (2009). Self-Help, Policing, and Procedural Justice: Ghanaian Vigilantism and the Rule of Law. Law & Society Review, 43 (2), 245-270. Terre-Blanche, M., Durrheim, K. & Painter, D. (2006). Research in practice (2nd Ed.). Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press. Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tilak, B. G. J. & Varghese, N. V. (1991). Higher Education in Developing Countries: Financing Higher Education in India. Higher Education, 21 (1), 83-101. Tim, L. (1995). “Fairness as an antecedent to participative budgeting: examining the effects of distributive justice, procedural justice and referent cognitions on satisfaction and performance”. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 7, 122-147. Townsend, K. B. & Rosser, J. V. (2007). Workload Issues and Measures of Faculty Productivity. The NEA Higher Education Journal. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 169 Tremblay, M., Sire, B. & Balkin, D. (1998). The Role of Organisational Justice in Pay and Employee Benefit Satisfaction, and its Effects on Work Attitudes, Scientific Series, CIRANO Publications, Montreal, p. l. Tyler, T. R. & Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributional and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41, 642- 655. Tyler, T. R. (1987). Procedural justice research. Social Justice Research, 1 (1), 41-66. Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Eds.) Applied social psychology and organisational settings (pp. 77-98). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tyler, T. R. (1994). “Psychological models of the justice motive: antecedents of distributive and procedural justice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 850-863. UNESCO - European Centre for Higher Education (CEPES). (1975). Seminar on Internal Efficiency of Higher Education in Europe - Final Report. Bucharest: UNESCO. UNESCO (1973). Higher Education in Europe. Problems and Prospects. Paris: UNESCO. Vuorinen, I., Jarvinen, R. & Lehtinen, U. (1998). Content and measurement of productivity in the service sector: A conceptual analysis with an illustrative case from the insurance business. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 9 (4), 377-396. Wallhaus, R. A. (1975). The many dimensions of productivity. New Directions for Institutional Research, 8, 1-16. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 170 Webber, S. S. & Klimosky, R. J. (2004). Client-project manager engagements, trust and loyalty. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25, 997-1013. Wilkes, J., G. & Yip, K. S. (2011). “Performance leadership: managing for flexibility”. Journal of Business Strategy, 32 (5), 22-34. Wilmot, R. & Galford, R. (2007). ‘A commitment to trust’, Communication World, 24 (2), 34-42. Wilson, J. M. Straus, S. G, & McEvily, B. (2006). All in due time: The development of trust in computer-medi ated and face-to-face teams. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 16-33. Wilson, J. Q. (1993). The moral sense. New York: The Free Press. Wong, Y. T., Ngo, H. Y., & Wong, C. S. (2004). “Perceived Organisational Justice, Trust, and OCB: A Study of Chinese Workers in Joint Ventures and State-owned Enterprises”. Journal of World Business, 41(4): 344-355. World Bank (1999) World development report, knowledge for development. Washington D. C: World Bank World Bank (2004) Improving Tertiary education in Sub-Sahara Africa: Things that work. Report of a regional training conference, Accra, Ghana. World Bank. (2003). Lifelong Learning in the Global Knowledge Economy: Challenges for Developing Countries. Washington DC: A World Bank Report. Wyllys, R. E. (1978). Teaching Discriptive and Inferential Statistics in Library Schools. Journal of Education for Librarianship, 19 (1), 3-20. Yilmaz, A. & Atalay C. G. (2009). “A Theoretical Analyze on the Concept of Trust in Organisational Life”. European Journal of Social Sciences, 8(2), 341-352. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 171 Yilmaz, K. & Tasdan, M. (2009). Organisational citizenship and organisational justice in Turkish primary schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 47 (1), 108-126. Yusuf, M. O. (2005). Integrating information and communication technologies (ICTS) in Nigeria tertiary education. The African symposium: An Online J. Afr. Educ. Res. Network, 5 (2), 43 – 50. Zahedi, S., & Najjari, R. (2008). HR productivity and knowledge management. PeykeNoor, 6 (1), 2–13. Zand, D. E. (1972). Trust and managerial problem solving. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 229–239. Zeffane, R. M., Ibrahim, M. & El Mehairi, R. (2006) Exploring the differential impact of job satisfaction on Employee Attendance and Conduct : The Case of a Utility Company in the United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the UTCC International Conference in Business. University of the Thai Chamber of Commerce, December, 2006. Zeidner, R. (2008) ‘Employees trust managers more than top brass’, Human Resources Magazine, 53(10), 10. Zolin, R., Hinds, P. J., Fruchter, R, & Levitt, R. E. (2004). Interpersonal trust in cross- functional, geographically distributed work: a longitudinal study. Information and Organisation, 14, 1-26. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 172 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Questionnaire UNIVERSITY OF GHANA BUSINESS SCHOOL MASTER OF PHILOSOPHY IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION-HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONNAIRE Dear Respondent, This questionnaire is designed to assist the researcher to make an objective assessment on “the dimensions of organisational justice which best predict employee trust and productivity in the Ghanaian Higher Education Institutions”. This exercise is essentially academic and as part of the requirements for the award of an Mphil degree in HRM. Your response is of utmost importance and as such your answers would be treated with the utmost confidentiality. Please tick (√) the response applicable to you. In the case of any queries or comments regarding this survey, kindly contact me on 0209389040 or e-mail at emmanuelsefa.aboagye@gmail.com Thank you SECTION A: PERSONAL INFORMATION 1. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] 2. Age a. 18-25 [ ] b. 26-33 [ ] c. 34-40 [ ] d. 41-48 [ ] e. 49+ [ ] University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 173 3. How long have you worked with your institution? Less than 2 year [ ] 2-5 years [ ] 6-10 years [ ] 11-16 years [ ] over 16 years [ ] 4. What is your current status or rank (position)? Professor emeritus [ ] Senior Professor [ ] Professor [ ] Associate Professor [ ] Senior Lecturer [ ] Junior Lecturer [ ] Researcher/Assistant Lecturer [ ] Other [ ], kindly specify; …………………….. SECTION B Using the scale below, please respond to each statement by ticking or circling the appropriate alternative that best describes your perception. 1 = strongly disagree 2 = disagree 3 = neither agree nor disagree 4 = agree 5 = strongly agree University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 174 S tr o n g ly d is a g re e d is a g re e N eu tr a l a g re e S tr o n g ly a g re e 1. I have a say in the development of procedure and process for making decisions 1 2 3 4 5 2. I am able to appeal against the decisions of the Institution 1 2 3 4 5 3. In arriving at decisions the procedures followed by the Institution are consistent. 1 2 3 4 5 4. The benefits I receive reflect my effort towards work. 1 2 3 4 5 5. The benefits I receive is equal and fair as compared to my working colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 6. The Institution treats me with dignity and respect 1 2 3 4 5 7. I receive cordial working relationship from my supervisor and colleagues 1 2 3 4 5 8. The Institution is honest when communicating to me and communicates details in timely manner 1 2 3 4 5 9. The institution explains decision making process thoroughly to the understanding of all employees/academic staff 1 2 3 4 5 10. The Institution clearly communicates to meet individuals’ needs 1 2 3 4 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 175 11. I am willing to let my Institution and/or supervisor have enough influence over issues that are important to me 1 2 3 4 5 12. I am willing to give my Institution and/or supervisor the benefit of the doubt because I trust them 1 2 3 4 5 13. I have confidence in my Institution’s and/or supervisor’s ability, integrity and benevolence 1 2 3 4 5 14. I can confidently say that my Institution and/or supervisor keeps my interests in mind when making decisions 1 2 3 4 5 15. I have little idle time because I am always occupied with work directed at achieving my goals 1 2 3 4 5 16. I am able to achieve my goals in delivering research, teaching and public services 1 2 3 4 5 17. I enjoy my work so much that am less discouraged when challenges arise. 1 2 3 4 5 18. I am able to meet requirements set for research publication and pass rate in certification exams of students 1 2 3 4 5 19. What is your total average number of research publication in your career as an academic staff…………….. University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 176 APPENDIX B: Figures Figure 4.5: Scatterplot for employee trust University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 177 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 178 Figure 4.6: Scatterplot for employee productivity University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 179 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh