Theoretical Framework di sini

Page 154 of 464 opportunity for the employee involvement in decision making [20]. Procedural justice has been defined as the perceived fairness of the means, or procedures, used to determine outcomes [21]. Perception of procedural fairness is determined by the results of the organization in designing procedures. If procedures are considered fair use, employees will reciprocate by showing satisfaction, trust, and commitment at a high level [22]. Greenberg Colquitt [23] states that there are six criteria that define the practice of procedural fairness in an organization. These include: consistency, free from bias, accuracy of information, reparability, feel represented and high sensitivity to ethics. Procedures should be consistent across time and performed similarly, regardless of who is involved, especially in the distribution of resources. Every procedure and decisions taken should be based on valid information and deserve to be trusted. Greenberg [24] reported that medium and high outcomes were fair, regardless of the procedure used, but that low outcomes were only fair when they were based on a fair procedure. 2.3 Distributive justice In this study, distributive justice refers to the outcome e.g. salary or promotion in field studies, e a d i la o ato studies, lasses ithi s hools a d the tea he s opi io a out the feasibility of the results and their contribution [18]. Cohen [25] stated that the distribution of justice should be based on four dimensions: receivership, receiver unit, functional method and standard evaluation. Distributive justice exists to the extent that the allocation of an outcome is consistent with the goals of a particular situation, such as maximizing productivity or improving cooperation, because the most common goal during most distributive justice research has been maximizing productivity; most research focused on the equity rule [18]. 2.4 Role of Distributive and Procedural Justice Greenberg [26] states o ga izatio al justi e is a o ept that e p esses e plo ees perceptions about the extent to which they were treated fairly in organizations and how such perceptions influenced organizational outcomes such as: commitment and satisfaction. Individuals with a high-level perception of organizational procedural justice also have a high level of commitment to the organization [21]. Various studies about procedural justice and distributive justice relates to commitment by members of the organization [32]. Several studies about how procedural justice and distributive justice relates in education are also related to commitment. Yavuz [3] studied how procedural justice, distributive justice and interactional justice relate with teachers commitment. Other studies have also sho that o ga izatio al justi e helps to p edi t tea he s o it e t [33-36].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1 Participants The teachers in this study were sampled from a random sample of schools located in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Out of 400 teachers from 20 middle schools, 346 77 returned usable questionnaires. Gender representation of respondents was 41.2 male and 58.8 Page 155 of 464 fe ale. ‘espo de ts age a d teaching experience was averagely 45 years and 15 years respectively. Five percent have diploma degrees, 90 have bachelor degrees and the remaining 5 have master degrees. 3.2 Instruments A quantitative questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type scale was administrated to the respondents who were instructed to refer to their current school to fill out the questionnaire that asked a range of questions about their perceptions and feelings on their profession, school commitment, procedural justice and distributive justice.

3.3 Measurements

3.3.1 Professional Commitment To easu e tea he s p ofessio al o it e t, e adapted Lodahl a d Kej e s [37] questionnaire, which was specifically adjusted to suit the educational setting context. This instrument consists of 14 ite s a d fo uses o tea he s i ol e e t i the p ese t jo a d o the i po ta e of the o k as a tea he i ge e al. “a ple ite s i lude: I feel dep essed he I fail at so ethi g o e ted ith p ofessio as a tea he a d I a very much involv ed pe so all i tea hi g p ofessio . The elia ilit le el of alpha as .85. The respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their agreement 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, and 5 = strongly agree with each of the items in the scale. The scale was measured by the mean response to the 14 items. 3.3.2 Procedural Justice. “i ite s of the p o edu al justi e easu e α = . de eloped Col uitt [18] were used to assess perceptions of procedural fairness. Sample items include Procedures designed by the school to collect accurate information necessary for making decisions and Procedures designed by the school have all sides affected by the decision represented. The respondents used a 5-point Likert-type scale to indicate their agreement 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neither disagree nor agree, and 5 = strongly agree with each of the items in the scale. Table 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations No. Variable Mean s.d 1 2 3 1 Procedural Justice 3.88 0.50 1.00 .546 .297 2 Distributive Justice 3.76 0.60 1.00 .268 3 Tea he s P ofessio al o it e t 3.99 0.43 1.00 p .01 Multiple regression analysis was employed to identify the influence of procedural justice a d dist i uti e justi e to tea he s p ofessio al o it e t see Ta le . Ta le sho s that two predictor variables, procedural justice and distributive justice were statistically sig ifi a t p edi to s of tea he s p ofessio al o it e t a d e plai ed . of its variance F 343 =19.924, p .01.