The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm

JEA
47,1 Organizational citizenship and
organizational justice in Turkish
primary schools
108
Kursad Ylmaz
Faculty of Education, Dumlupnar University, Kutahya, Turkey, and
Received March 2007
Revised April 2008 Murat Tasdan
Accepted July 2008
Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to determine primary school teachers perceptions regarding
organizational citizenship and organizational justice. The study also aims to determine whether such
perceptions vary depending on the variables of gender, field of study and seniority, and whether
organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational justice are related.
Design/methodology/approach Data were gathered via a survey instrument that incorporated
the Organizational Citizenship Behavior Scale for Schools (OCB-Scale) and the Organizational
Justice Scale (OJS).
Findings It was found that the teachers had positive perceptions regarding organizational
citizenship and organizational justice. Their organizational citizenship perceptions did not vary
according to gender, field of study and seniority, whereas their organizational justice perceptions
varied according to seniority, but not gender and field of study. There was a moderate positive
relationship between the teachers organizational citizenship and organizational justice perceptions.
Research limitations/implications The study is limited to the perceptions of primary school
teachers.
Practical implications The findings of this research provide particular information for Turkish
policy makers concerned with school administration as well as insights that may be relevant to similar
studies internationally.
Originality/value The study of organizational citizenship and organizational justice in schools
adds to a relatively limited literature on this theme.
Keywords Citizenship, Social justice, Primary schools, Teachers, Turkey
Paper type Research paper

Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 47 No. 1, 2009
pp. 108-126
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230910928106
Introduction
In order to ensure organizational efficiency, organizations need employees
cooperation, benevolence, self-sacrifice and, at times, extra effort. Thus voluntary
work by employees is important for organizations. In this sense, organizational
citizenship behaviors are attached more and more importance and are frequently used
in studies to understand or interpret organizational behavior. In this context, the
relationships between organizational citizenship behaviors and many variables have
been examined. Among these variables, are job satisfaction (Smith et al., 1983;
Bateman and Organ, 1983; Moorman, 1993), characteristics of work (Farh et al., 1990;
Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Smith et al., 1983; Van Dyne et al., 1994), attitude towards
job (Moorman, 1991; Niehoff and Moorman, 1993; Organ and Ryan, 1995; Organ, 1988;
Podsakoff et al., 1990; Podsakoff et al., 1993; Schnake, 1991; Schnake et al., 1995; Smith
et al., 1983), performance (Ball et al., 1994; Piercy et al., 2006), motivation (Folger, 1993), Organizational
hierarchical position (Aquino and Bommer, 2003), personality (Smith et al., 1983; Van citizenship
Dyne et al., 1994; Organ and Lingl, 1995; Holmes et al., 2002), needs (Schnake, 1991),
psychological contract (Coyle-Shapiro, 2002; Turnley et al., 2003), commitment and
organizational commitment (OReilly and Chatman, 1986; Eisenberger et al., 1990;
Organ, 1990; Truckenbrodt, 2000), leadership and leadership behavior (Podsakoff et al.,
1990; Farh et al., 1990; Wayne and Green, 1993; Podsakoff et al., 1996; Schnake et al., 109
1993; Truckenbrodt, 2000), trust (Deluga, 1995; Podsakoff et al., 1996), values (Burton,
2003), perception of fairness (Moorman et al., 1993; Tepper and Taylor, 2003) and
justice and organizational justice (Moorman, 1991; Sheppard et al., 1992; Eskew, 1993;
Tansky, 1993; Skarlicki and Latham, 1996).
One of the factors that might affect employees organizational citizenship behaviors
is their perception of justice in their work place or organizational justice. Over the last
decade organizational behavior scientists have gradually paid greater attention to
employees perceptions of organizational justice (Eskew, 1993, p. 185). Some studies
(Moorman, 1991; Sheppard et al., 1992; Greenberg, 1993a; Tansky, 1993; Skarlicki and
Latham, 1996; Allen and Rush, 1998) have attempted to determine the relationship
between organizational citizenship and organizational justice wherein it has been
anticipated that ones perception of organizational justice influences organizational
citizenship behaviors.

Review of literature
In the literature, studies on organizational citizenship (Smith et al., 1983; Organ, 1988,
1990; Organ and Ryan, 1995) and organizational justice (Beugre, 1998; Greenberg and
Lind, 2000) are not new. The concepts of organizational citizenship and organizational
justice have been discussed in many studies of organizations. However, studies on
organizational citizenship and organizational justice in schools have been limited (Hoy
and Tarter, 2004; DiPaola and Hoy, 2005). According to Oplatka (2006) the number of
research papers on organizational citizenship in schools is only ten worldwide. In the
study by DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran (2001), the first authors to examine
organizational citizenship behavior in the field of education, Organs organizational
citizenship concept (Organ, 1988; Organ and Ryan, 1995) was adapted to public schools
(DiPaola and Hoy, 2005, p. 35). One may claim that the first study of the adaptation of
the organizational justice concept to schools was by Hoy and Tarter (2004) who
explained organizational justice in schools in terms of its relationship with trust.
As seen above, studies concerning the adaptation of organizational citizenship
(Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000; DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Christ et al.,
2003; Bogler and Somech, 2005; DiPaola and Hoy, 2005) and organizational justice (Hoy
and Tarter, 2004) to schools is quite new.
In Turkey, there have been many studies on organizational citizenship (Kamer,
2001; Erdem and O zen, 2002; Elci and Alpkan, 2006; Katrnl et al., 2006) and on
organizational justice (Wasti, 2001; Isbasi, 2001; O zen, 2001, 2003; O
zdevecioglu, 2004;
Dilek, 2004; Tarkan and Tepeci, 2006). However, these studies were conducted in
institutions other than schools. Although there have been studies to adapt the concepts
of organizational citizenship and organizational justice to educational administration
and schools in Turkey (Unal, 2003; Yaylac, 2004; Tan, 2006), the number of those is
JEA very low. There are no studies on the relationship between organizational citizenship
47,1 and organizational justice among the studies given as examples.
Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to determine Turkish primary school
teachers perceptions regarding organizational citizenship and organizational justice
and to establish to what extent perceptions of these two phenomena are related. In this
paper, organizational citizenship and organizational justice are discussed as holistic
110 entities and their sub-dimensions are disregarded.

Organizational citizenship
Smith et al. (1983) introduced the notion of organizational citizenship behavior defining
it as discretionary behavior that goes beyond ones official role and is intended to help
other people in the organization or to show conscientiousness and support toward the
organization. Later, Organ (1988, p. 4) proposed the following definition:
Individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal
reward system, and in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.
This definition stresses three main features of organizational citizenship behavior.
First, the behavior must be voluntary. Second, the behavior benefits from the
organizational perspective (Van Dyne et al., 1995). Third, organizational citizenship
behavior has a multidimensional nature (Bogler and Somech, 2005).
Organ used the concept of organizational citizenship to show employees behaviors
contributed to the organization by exceeding their own tasks (Bateman and Organ,
1983). In the first conceptualization of organizational citizenship (Smith et al., 1983),
behaviors were identified as altruism and generalized compliance. In later studies
(Organ, 1988) the concept expanded to five categories. In fact, although interest in
behaviors like citizenship has increased, it can be said that there has been a lack of
agreement on its dimensions. As a result of their study, Podsakoff et al. (2000) showed
that there were 30 potentially different forms that comprise citizenship behaviors. In
the present study, Organs (1988) five categories are discussed since they are widely
used.

Altruism
Altruism is voluntary behavior that includes helping others concerning an
organizational task or a problem. Altruism is also related to determining how to
help others (Organ, 1988). An experienced executive introducing rules of work to a new
executive, although not part of his/her job definition (Podsakoff et al., 1993), may serve
as an example of such behavior. Displaying self-sacrifice and extra role behaviors are
two of the most important organizational citizenship behaviors (Podsakoff and
Mackenzie, 1994, p. 351).
In schools, altruism may be witnessed, for example, in substitute teaching when a
teacher is ill or when an experienced teacher assists a new teacher, without any
payment, and not included in his/her responsibilities.

Conscientiousness
Conscientiousness expresses certain role behaviors displayed by employees at a level
that exceeds the expected. In other words, it is sincere devotion to the organization, as
well as respect for the rules of the organization beyond the organizations requirements
(Organ, 1988). An employee on leave calling his coworkers to ensure there is no Organizational
problem with work may serve as an example of conscientiousness (Podsakoff et al., citizenship
1993).
It may be argued that conscientiousness is common in educational institutions and,
especially, schools. For example, some teachers teach their students on weekdays after
work and at weekends without being paid; some voluntarily help with administrative
affairs at schools although such a task is not a part of their job specification. 111

Sportsmanship
Sportsmanship means not complaining in case of problems. In this sense,
sportsmanship is related to avoiding negative behaviors (Organ, 1988). A secretarys
willingness to assume and carry out an extra temporary task, without complaining,
when she has a right of objection may serve as an example of such (Podsakoff et al.,
1993). Positive thinking by teachers and their efforts to improve their students
academic achievement, despite all the financial strains in their schools (especially in
state schools), serves as another example.

Courtesy
Courtesy is related to undertaking and carrying out the obligation of cooperation with
others (Organ, 1988). For example, a school administrator who informs teachers about
something that may not directly concern them or that he/she is not obliged to reveal is
an example of such.

Civic virtue
Civic virtue means having a thorough knowledge of things happening in the
organization with, for example, certain interest in new developments, work methods
and company policies and self-improvement efforts. An academician attending
receptions or meetings that promote the image of the school, when not necessary, may
serve to exemplify such behavior (Podsakoff et al., 1993).
Behaviors of teachers and school administrators trying to improve their schools
image can be considered as civic virtue. For instance, when a teacher becomes
concerned with school problems or educational problems in general and tries to find
solutions to these, his/her behavior may be considered as civil virtue. Similarly, when a
teacher attends self-improvement courses in order to increase the achievement of
his/her school or his/her students, such behavior serves as another example of civil
virtue.
As is clear, the relationships between organizational citizenship and several
variables have been examined in various studies. However, adaptation of
organizational citizenship behaviors to schools has not been rigorously investigated.
In most studies conducted, organizational citizenship in schools has been viewed as
different from that of other organizations (DiPaola and Hoy, 2005, p. 37). Perhaps the
reason for this is the necessity to locate organizational citizenship behavior in an
educational context in schools. Teachers spend most of their time at schools with their
colleagues. Schools are places where teachers achieve personal and organizational
goals, where they produce and share. As a result, teachers work for both students
academic achievement and school success (DiPaola and Hoy, 2005).
JEA Schools generally would like to hire teachers who have a feeling of commitment to
47,1 students this because they are service organizations. Thus, in a service organization
such as a school, both its employees and the organization itself should consider
students benefits as paramount. Always there is the challenge of achieving a balance
between professional goals and organizational goals for teachers (DiPaola and Hoy,
2005).
112
Organizational justice
The principles of justice in a society help define the rights and obligations of people
relative to each other and to the social institutions of which they are a part (Stevens and
Wood, 1995, p. xiii). Social justice is one of the most important topics within the ambit
of justice. Social justice is generally concerned with the belief that society should be
based on giving individuals and groups fair treatment and a just share of the benefits
of the society without discrimination by class, gender, ethnicity or culture (Fua, 2007).
The most important duty in ensuring social justice in schools is the responsibility of
school administrators. In this context, leadership behaviors of school administrators
must contribute to the development of a conscience of justice and equality among
students and other school personnel (Cunningham and Cordeiro, 2003).
The special issue Leadership, learning and social justice of the Journal of
Educational Administration (Vol. 45 No. 6, 2007) contributes greatly to an
understanding of social justice within the context of educational administration. The
articles (Normore et al., 2007; Fua, 2007; McMahon, 2007; Kana and Aitken, 2007;
Landorf and Nevin, 2007; Chiu and Walker, 2007; Collard, 2007; Brooks and Jean-Marie,
2007; Stevenson, 2007; Skrla et al., 2007) in this thematic issue enlighten ones
knowledge of social justice practices in several countries the US, Hong Kong, Tonga,
Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK. Articles give enlightening information
about ensuring social justice. In this context, one of the most important contributions
by school administrators is to cultivate organizational justice. In this sense, it is
essential to examine organizational justice and equity in schools.
Organizational justice was defined by Greenberg (1996) as a concept that expressed
employees perceptions about the extent to which they were treated fairly in
organizations and how such perceptions influenced organizational outcomes such as
commitment and satisfaction. Organizational justice theory is concerned with
employees perceptions of justice in work-related issues (Greenberg, 1990). In this
sense, the concept of organizational justice is related to employees perceptions about
the decisions and practices of organizational management (Witt, 1993, p. 19) and their
perceptions of equity in work-related issues such as employees work-related attitudes
and behaviors (Eskew, 1993, p. 185). In other words, organizational justice is concerned
with the rules developed to distribute or to take decisions on distribution of
acquisitions such as tasks, goods, services, rewards, punishments, wages,
organizational positions, opportunities and roles among employees and societal
norms that constitute the basis for these rules (Folger and Cropanzano, 1998). Briefly,
organizational justice constitutes the employees perceptions of justice in work-related
matters (Greenberg, 1990). According to Greenberg (1996), the concept of
organizational justice refers essentially to perceptions of justice and equality by
individuals in an organization.
 General principles of organizational justice may be summarized as follows (Hoy and Organizational
Tarter, 2004, pp. 251-252): citizenship
.
The principle of equality. This presupposes that the contributions made to the
organization by individuals are in proportion to their incomes.
.
The principle of perception. The effect of the general perception of justice on the
individual.
113
.
The principle of polyphony. This assumes that an increase in participation in
decision making will entail an increase in fair decisions.
.
The principle of interpersonal justice. This presupposes that respectful, kind and
mature behaviors will be displayed in order to ensure justice.
.
The principle of consistency. This is based on the view that consistency in leaders
behaviors is essential to create a perception of justice among those in inferior
positions.
.
The principle of political and social equality. This assumes that it is essential to
share a collective organizational mission in decision-making and to take
decisions according to personal interests independently.
.
The principle of correction. This is related to the amelioration of wrong or bad
decisions.

Although there are various justice typologies in the literature, a theoretical framework
to include all types of justice has not yet been suggested (Roch and Shanock, 2006,
p. 300). In the present study, organizational justice is examined under the following
headings: distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice.

Distributive justice
Distributive justice theories include the justice judgment model (Leventhal, 1976, 1980
cited in Eskew, 1993), distributive justice theory (Homans, 1961 cited in Eskew,
1993), allocation preference theory (Leventhal et al., 1980 cited in Eskew, 1993) and
equity theory (Adams 1963; cited in Eskew, 1993, p. 186). Distributive justice is
found in the comparison of the proportion of acquisitions gained according to the
balance between inputs and outputs of each group (Paterson et al., 2002, pp. 393-394).
Distributive justice assumes the fair distribution of organizational resources. It
determines employees perceptions about payment, promotion and similar results.
According to Homans (1961), distributive justice is related specifically to the results of
decisions on distribution (Eskew, 1993).
Approaches to distributive justice are primarily related to structural determinants.
Structural determinants are rules and environmental contexts in the decision making
process (Greenberg, 1993b). Distributive justice is not related to very specific cases,
although it is connected to resource allocation and the results of resource allocation.
Distributive justice is related to the perception held by an employee after comparing
his/her results with those of others. Organ (1988) stated that distributive justice is
arguments on status, seniority, production, effort, needs and determination of
payment. In his explanation, Organ suggested three rules of distribution. These rules
are justice, equity and needs which can also be seen as dimensions of distributive
justice (Koopmann, 2002).
JEA Procedural justice
Procedural justice is the perception of justice in the decision-making process. This kind
47,1 of justice is based on the perception that the reasons for the decisions taken by the
management are justified. According to Konovsky (2000), procedural justice is related
to the way decisions on distribution are made. The concept of procedural justice hinges
on an individuals assessment about rightness or wrongness of procedures and
114 methods in decision making relevant to him or others. The principles that influence
such a view of justice are numerous (Cropanzano, 1993; Greenberg, 1996).
Procedural justice is the perception of equity regarding rules and regulations applied
in the process of rewarding or punishing. Employees who have a sense of equity
regarding the method tend to perceive distribution of rewards and punishments as fair
(Greenberg, 1987; Folger and Konovsky, 1989) (cited in Eskew, 1993, p. 187). Procedural
justice is related to equity in procedures applied in organizations and organizational
procedures in decision-making. These procedures generally include promotions,
performance assessment, rewards and sharing other organizational opportunities
(Roch and Shanock, 2006, p. 300). According to Organ (1988), the criteria used for making
decisions regarding organizational practices are related to that type of justice.
In a meta-analysis, it was found out that procedural justice was crucial in many
work-related variables (Fischer and Smith, 2006). Procedural justice also has a social
aspect which Bies and Moag (1986) called the social aspect of procedural justice
interactional justice (Eskew, 1993, p. 187).

Interactional justice
Interactional justice is an important consideration in the workplace because of the
effects associated with seemingly fair or unfair treatment (Frey, 1997). Interactional
justice is based on the ideas of Bies and Moag (1986) (cited in Eskew, 1993, p. 187) who
defined it in consideration with the equality of the perception of decision makers
behaviors. Interactional justice can be defined as the way the administration treats the
justice receiver and concerns the human aspect of organizational practices
(Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001).
In organizational life, employees perceptions of organizational justice are related to
many important organizational behaviors and attitudes. Researchers have found that
perception of organizational justice was related to various behaviors and attitudes of
employees. Perceived organizational support (Rhoades and Eisenberger, 2002; Rhoades
et al., 2001) and organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989; McFarlin and
Sweeney, 1992; Tang and Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996) serve as examples. One theme
related to organizational justice is organizational citizenship behavior. According to
some studies, one of the predictors of organizational citizenship behavior is the
perception of organizational justice (Organ and Paine, 1999; Podsakoff et al., 2000;
Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001). Such perceptions are
instrumental in developing the levels of faith and trust needed for employees to provide
the beneficial, yet discretionary, behaviors that define citizenship (Organ, 1988).

Purpose and method of the study

The purpose of this study was to determine Turkish primary school teachers
organizational citizenship and organizational justice perceptions, and to investigate the
relationship between the two. Accordingly, a survey instrument was developed
addressing several research questions.
 The study group consisted of 424 state primary school teachers in Ankara, the Organizational
capital of Turkey, 62.4 percent of whom were female, and 37.6 percent were male. citizenship
Professional seniority of the teachers ranged from 25-30 years to 1-5 years. Of the
respondents 51.9 percent were classroom teachers, and 49.1 percent were teachers of
specific fields of study.
The organizational citizenship behavior scale for schools (OCB-scale) was used to
determine the primary school teachers perceptions regarding organizational 115
citizenship behaviors and the organizational justice scale (OJS) was used to
determine their organizational justice perceptions. The scales, developed by Wayne
K. Hoy, were used with his permission. After having been translated into Turkish by a
panel of ten educationists, the scales were submitted to experts in the field to elicit their
views and criticisms. They were asked to assess these scales in terms of the Turkish
educational system, its culture and values. The scale was then shown to several
teachers and their views and suggestions were sought. In the light of the suggestions
made, the scales were amended and translated into English by a bilingual teacher. The
final copy of the scale that was adapted by the authors was compared to Hoys original
scale and displayed close and readily acceptable congruence. The responses in scales
were arranged as follows: 1 I strongly disagree, 2 I disagree, 3 I moderately
agree, 4 I Agree and 5 I strongly agree.
The organizational citizenship behavior scale for schools is a Likert-type scale with
12 items. Included in the scale are items such as teachers are willing to work in new
committees and teachers volunteer to support extra curricular activities. The
organizational justice scale is composed of ten Likert-type items including, for
example, students are treated fairly in this school and the principal treats everyone
in this school fairly.
In the analysis of the first and the second sub-questions of the study, arithmetic
averages were used to determine the teachers organizational citizenship and
organizational justice perceptions. For the analysis of the third and the fourth
questions of the study, t-tests were used for independent samples to determine whether
the teachers organizational citizenship and organizational justice perceptions differed
according to sex and field of study, and one-way ANOVA was used to determine
whether they differed according to seniority. In the fifth question of the study, the
Pearson Product Moment correlation test was used to analyze the relationship between
the teachers organizational citizenship and organizational justice perceptions. The
study attempted to answer the following questions:
(1) What are teachers perceptions about organizational citizenship behaviors?
(2) What are teachers organizational justice perceptions?
(3) Are there any differences between teachers perceptions of organizational
citizenship behaviors according to gender, seniority and field of study?
(4) Are there any differences between teachers organizational justice perceptions
according to gender, seniority and field of study?
(5) Is there a relationship between teachers perceptions of organizational
citizenship behaviors and organizational justice?
JEA Results
47,1 Question 1. What are teachers perceptions of organizational citizenship behaviors?
The mean of the primary school teachers total organizational citizenship perceptions
was X 3:58. When compared to the answer scale, the mean corresponds to the
answer I agree. Consequently, we may say that the primary school teachers
perceptions about organizational citizenship were quite positive.
116 When the means of the answers to the individual items in the organizational
citizenship scale were considered, a moderately positive perception was observed
(Table I). The participants answered I agree to nine out of 12 items in the scale and I
moderately agree to three.

Question 2. What are teachers organizational justice perceptions?

The mean of the total organizational justice perceptions of the primary school
teachers was X 3:63. When compared to the answer scale, this corresponds to the
answer I agree. Consequently, we may say that the perception of the primary school
teachers on organizational citizenship were positive.
From the means of the answers given by the primary school teachers to the items in
the organizational justice scale, a positive perception was again observed (Table II).
The participants answered I agree to all the ten items in the scale.

Question 3. Are there any differences between teachers perceptions of organizational

citizenship behaviors according to gender, seniority and field of study?
There was no significant difference between the primary school teachers
organizational citizenship perceptions in terms of gender [t 422 1:54, p . 0.05].
The difference was not significant although the perceptions of the female teachers
(X 3:62) were more positive than those of the male teachers (X 3:52).

Organizational citizenship scale items Factor load Total correlations

Teachers help the students in their personal time 0.64 0.57

Teachers waste most of the class time 0.44 0.43
Teachers help the new teachers voluntarily 0.64 0.54
Teachers are willing to work in new committees 0.63 0.54
Teachers are volunteer to support extra-curricular
activities 0.64 0.53
Teachers come to school and meetings on time 0.71 0.63
Teachers help their substitutes 0.77 0.67
Teachers start class on time and use class time
effectively 0.70 0.61
Teachers share the information about various issues 0.74 0.66
Teachers take most of their time for their personal
work 0.31 0.27
Table I. Teachers work in the school committees voluntarily 0.82 0.75
Factor loads and total Teachers give innovative suggestions to improve the
correlations of the items quality of school 0.81 0.72
in the organizational
citizenship scale Notes: Variance explained: 45.66 percent; Eigenvalue of the factor: 5.48; Cronbach alpha a 0:87
 Organizational
Factor Total
Organizational justice scale items load correlations citizenship
The behaviors of the principal are consistent 0.79 0.73
Students are treated fairly in this school 0.69 0.64
Principal does not try to be popular 0.73 0.67
Principal treats everyone with dignity and respect 0.85 0.81 117
Nobody is treated as being preferential in this school 0.87 0.83
Principal treats everyone in this school fairly 0.88 0.84
Teachers in this school do not consider their
self-interest in their jobs 0.44 0.39
Principal is loyal to ethical standards 0.78 0.74
Teachers in this school are involved in decisions Table II.
about themselves 0.79 0.73 Factor loads and total
Teachers are treated fairly in this school 0.89 0.85 correlations of the items
in the organizational
Notes: Variance explained: 61.74 percent; Eigenvalue of the factor: 6.17; Cronbach alpha a 0:92 justice scale

There was no significant difference between the primary school teachers

organizational citizenship perceptions according to seniority [F 32408 0:69,
p , 0.05]. The average scores of the seniority groups were similar.
There was no significant difference between the primary school teachers
organizational citizenship perceptions according to their field of study [t 422 0:36,
p . 0.05]. The perceptions of the classroom teachers (X 3:60) were similar to those of
the teachers of specific fields of study (X 3:57).

Question 4. Are there any differences between teachers organizational justice

perceptions according to gender, seniority and field of study?
There was no significant difference between the primary school teachers
organizational justice perceptions according to gender [t 422 0:66, p . 0.05].
There was a significant difference between the primary school teachers
organizational justice perceptions according to seniority [F 32408 3:44, p , .05].
According to the results of the Turkey HSD test, the difference is between those with a
seniority of 1-5 years and those of 6-10 years. Those with a seniority of 6-10 years
held the most positive perceptions among the seniority groups concerning
organizational justice, whereas those with a seniority of 1-5 years had the most
negative perceptions.
There was no significant difference between the primary school teachers
organizational justice perceptions according to their field of study [t 422 0:74,
p . 0.05]. The perceptions of the classroom teachers (X 3:67) were similar to those of
the teachers of specific fields of study (X 3:60).

Question 5. Is there a relationship between teachers perceptions about organizational

citizenship behaviors and organizational justice?
There was a positive relationship between the primary school teachers organizational
citizenship and organizational justice perceptions (r 0:459, p , 0.01). Therefore, we
may say that the more positive the perception of organizational citizenship is, the more
positive the perception of organizational justice is likely to be. When the determination
coefficient (r 2 0:21) is considered, we may suggest that 21 percent of the total
JEA variance in the perception of organizational citizenship is due to the perception of
47,1 organizational justice.

Discussion
In the present study, it was determined that teachers at Turkish primary schools had a
moderately positive perception about organizational citizenship. The findings are in
118 accordance with those from previous studies. Yaylacs (2004) findings, for example,
show that the primary school teachers included in that study stated school
administrators occasionally displayed organizational citizenship behaviors. Based
on the limited results of our study and the study by Yaylac (2004), it can be said that
primary school teachers organizational citizenship perceptions in Turkey are at a
moderate level.
The findings are not encouraging for the Turkish educational system. Teachers
organizational citizenship behaviors are much more important in a country like Turkey
where there are many problems in the educational system and where there are ongoing
attempts to solve these problems. For example, Turkey has not solved problems like
teacher training, educating and selecting educational administrators, developing
curriculum, overcoming various educational inequalities, and reducing the number of
students per class (Kavak and O zdemir, 2007). In this context, teachers desirable
organizational citizenship behaviors are needed more than ever. Developing
organizational citizenship at schools is akin to changing school culture. Such a
development is slow and far from a simple process. In this process, it will require extra
voluntary efforts and extra time spared by teachers to make schools better places
(DiPaola and Hoy, 2005). Those with a positive perception of organizational citizenship
behaviors make greater efforts for their organizations and devote themselves to their
organizations more than others.
In the present study, it was determined that the primary school teachers had a
moderately positive perception about organizational justice. This finding is in
accordance with the findings from previous studies. Tan (2006), for example, showed
that primary school teachers had a moderate perception about organizational justice. In
another study it was found that primary school teachers considered school
administrators usually displayed positive organizational justice (Yaylac, 2004).
Accordingly, we may propose that primary school teachers do not have a very positive
perception concerning organizational justice at schools. This finding may indicate that
behaviors to ensure a perception of organizational justice in schools are not often
displayed in the school environment.
Employees perceptions of equity in organizational practice influence their
organizational commitment and their trust in administrators. Equity in practice
founded on procedures and in acquisitions is an indicator of respect shown by
administrators concerning their employees rights and personal values (Konovsky and
Pugh, 1994). Moreover, a positive perception of organizational justice will assist
employees to feel as members of the organization, to become more responsive in
relationships in the work place, and to develop relationships based on trust.
The current study has shown that teachers organizational citizenship perceptions
do not vary according to gender, field of study and seniority. Similarly, their
organizational justice perceptions do not vary according to gender and field of study,
whereas they do vary according to seniority. Accordingly, we suggest that gender,
field and seniority are not important variables in the development of organizational Organizational
citizenship and that organizational justice perception is not influenced by variables of citizenship
gender and field, but is influenced by seniority.
There is a moderate positive relationship between organizational citizenship and
organizational justice. Accordingly, we suggest that the more positive the
organizational citizenship perception, the more positive the organizational justice
perception will be. Expressed otherwise, a positive organizational justice perception 119
may increase a positive citizenship perception. However, there is no one-to-one
relationship between these two perceptions.. When the relevant literature on
organizational citizenship and organizational justice is reviewed, it becomes clear that
organizational justice perception has crucial effects on the display of organizational
citizenship behaviors. There are findings showing that, in organizational life, those
with a positive organizational justice perception display more organizational
citizenship behaviors than others. There are also findings from empirical studies to
support this outcome. According to these studies, one of the predictors of
organizational citizenship behaviors is organizational justice perception (Organ and
Paine, 1999; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Colquitt et al., 2001; Cohen-Charash and Spector,
2001).

Implications and conclusion

In an associated study, Yaylac (2004) did not investigate the relationship between
organizational citizenship and organizational justice. However, Yaylac did analyze
relationship between the sub-dimensions of organizational citizenship and
organizational justice and showed that there were some low and moderate
connections.
Previous studies on organizational citizenship (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran,
2001; DiPaola and Hoy, 2005; Oplatka, 2006; Somech and Ron, 2007) and organizational
justice (Hoy and Tarter, 2004) formed a certain conceptual basis and provided
sufficient information to guide this study. The present research is expected to
contribute further. However, this study investigated only teachers perceptions.
Further research to determine school administrators perceptions and to compare
teachers perceptions with those of school administrators are needed, particularly in
Turkish schools.
Furthermore, the factors that influence organizational citizenship behaviors should
be detected. Among these variables we may regard elements such as school
administrators leadership behaviors, the wage system, job satisfaction, organizational
culture, organizational trust, organizational commitment, and individuals
characteristics.
The current study was conducted in Turkish primary schools. A similar study
could profitably be conducted in secondary schools, higher education institutes and
vocational schools. In the present study, perceptions of organizational citizenship and
organizational justice are considered as a whole and sub-dimensions of these two
concepts are disregarded. Further studies of the sub-dimensions of these two concepts
are warranted.
In order to improve teachers organizational citizenship behaviors, school
administrators should motivate teachers more than ever and there should be a more
flexible atmosphere at schools since over-formality may result in rule-oriented
JEA behaviors and roughness (DiPaola and Hoy, 2005). Informal groups may play crucial
47,1 functions in the development of voluntary behaviors such as organizational
citizenship. In this sense, informal groups should be developed and encouraged.
Teachers should be praised when they display good organizational citizenship
behaviors and, as DiPaola and Hoy (2005) suggest, informal praise may be the best
praise. Mentorship programs and solidarity between colleagues should be utilized and
120 encouraged in order to develop teachers organizational citizenship and to socialize new
teachers accordingly. Teachers should not be distracted with trivial work such as
excessive correspondence, unnecessary meetings and rules (DiPaola and Hoy, 2005).
School administrators should be fairer in the application of rules at schools and in
distribution of work, tasks, rewards and promotions. Teachers should be involved in
decisions. Relevant persons should be informed about decisions taken and
applications. Moreover, teachers needs should be regarded (Hoy and Tarter, 2004).
As a result, it is seen that primary school teachers organizational citizenship and
organizational justice perceptions are at a level that can be improved. Noting that the
perceptions among teachers do not rise to a high level, it can be said that primary
school teachers do not consider practices at schools as fair as they could be.. Regarding
these results, we may consider that there are some deficiencies in the Turkish
educational system.
Finally, it is essential to develop willingness, informality, cooperation, participation,
mutual interaction and solidarity in order to develop improved organizational
citizenship behaviors in Turkish schools, since managing schools according to
bureaucratic rules and principles will hinder teachers voluntary behaviors.

References
Allen, T.D. and Rush, M.C. (1998), The effects of organizational citizenship behavior on
performance judgments: a field study and a laboratory experiment, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 247-60.
Aquino, K. and Bommer, W.H. (2003), Preferential mistreatment: how victim status moderates
the relation between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization,
Organization Science, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 374-85.
Ball, G.A., Trevino, L.K. and Sims, H.P. Jr (1994), Just and unjust punishment: influences on
subordinate performance and citizenship, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 2,
pp. 299-322.
Bateman, T.S. and Organ, D.W. (1983), Job satisfaction and good soldier: the relation between
affect and employee citizenship, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 587-95.
Beugre, C.C. (1998), Managing Equity in Organizations, Quorum Books, Westport, CT.
Bogler, R. and Somech, A. (2005), Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does it
relate to participation in decision making?, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 43
No. 5, pp. 420-38.
Brooks, J.S. and Jean-Marie, G. (2007), Black leadership, white leadership: race and race relations
in an urban high school, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 756-68.
Burton, C.H. (2003), An empirical investigation of the interrelations of organizational culture,
managerial values, and organizational citizenship behavior, unpublished PhD thesis,
The George Washington University, Washington, DC.
Chiu, M.M. and Walker, A. (2007), Leadership for social justice in Hong Kong schools: Organizational
addressing mechanisms of inequality, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45
No. 6, pp. 724-39. citizenship
Christ, O., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U. and Stellmacher, J. (2003), When teachers go to extra mile:
foci or organizational identification as determinants of different forms of organizational
citizenship behavior among schoolteachers, British Journal of Educational Psychology,
Vol. 73 No. 3, pp. 329-41. 121
Cohen-Charash, Y. and Spector, P.E. (2001), The role of justice in organizations: a meta-analysis,
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 278-321.
Collard, J. (2007), Constructing theory for leadership in intercultural contexts, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 740-55.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, O.L.H. and Ng, K.Y. (2001), Justice at the
millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 3, pp. 425-45.
Coyle-Shapiro, J. (2002), A psychological contract perspective on organizational citizenship
behavior, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 927-46.
Cropanzano, R. (1993), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching Equity in Human Resource
Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
Cunningham, W.G. and Cordeiro, P.A. (2003), Educational Leadership: A Problem Based
Approach, Pearson Education Inc., Boston, MA.
Deluga, R.J. (1995), The relation between trust in the supervisor and subordinate organizational
citizenship behavior, Military Psychology, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-16.
DiPaola, M.F. and Hoy, W.K. (2005), Organizational citizenship of faculty and achievement of
high school students, The High School Journal, Vol. 88 No. 3, pp. 35-44.
DiPaola, M.F. and Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001), Organizational citizenship behavior in schools
and its relation to school climate, Journal of School Leadership, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 424-47.
Dilek, U. (2004), Organizational justice perceptions and their relation with organizational
commitment, unpublished Masters thesis, Turkish Military Academy, Ankara.
Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P. and Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990), Perceived organizational support and
employee diligence, commitment, and innovation, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 75
No. 1, pp. 51-9.
Elci, M. and Alpkan, L. (2006), The influences of ethical climate on organizational citizenship
behaviors, Hacettepe University Journal of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 141-70.
Erdem, F. and Ozen, J. (2002), The effect of trust in a guide at academic organizations on the
development of civil virtue behaviour, as a dimension of organizational citizenship
behaviour, paper presented at the Xth National Administrative and Organizational
Convention, Antalya, Turkey, May 23-25.
Eskew, D.E. (1993), The role of organizational justice in organizational citizenship behavior,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 185-94.
Farh, J., Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1990), Accounting for organizational citizenship
behavior: Leader equity and task scope versus satisfaction, Journal of Management,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 705-22.
Fischer, R. and Smith, P.B. (2006), Who cares about justice? The moderating effect of values on
the link between organisational justice and work behaviour, Applied Psychology:
An International Review, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 541-62.
JEA Folger, R. (1993), Justice, motivation, and performance beyond role requirements, Employee
Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 239-48.
47,1 Folger, R. and Cropanzano, R. (1998), Organizational Justice and Human Resource Management,
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Folger, R. and Konovsky, M.A. (1989), Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions
to pay raise decisions, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 115-30.
122 Frey, F.M. (1997), The management of justice through accounts: constructing acceptable
justifications, unpublished PhD thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA.
Fua, S.J. (2007), Looking towards the source social justice and leadership conceptualisations
from Tonga, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 672-83.
Greenberg, J. (1987), A taxonomy of organizational justice theories, Academy of Management
Review, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990), Organizational justice: yesterday, today, tomorrow, Journal of
Management, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 399-432.
Greenberg, J. (1993a), Justice and organizational citizenship: a commentary on the state of the
science, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 249-56.
Greenberg, J. (1993b), The social side of equity: interpersonal and informational classes of
organizational justice, in Cropanzano, R. (Ed.), Justice in the Workplace: Approaching
Equity in Human Resource Management, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ,
pp. 79-103.
Greenberg, J. (1996), The Quest for Justice on the Job, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Greenberg, J. and Lind, E.A. (2000), The pursuit of organizational justice: from conceptualization
to implication to application, in Cooper, C.L. and Locke, E.W. (Eds), Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Blackwell Press, Malden, MA, pp. 72-108.
Holmes, S.A., Langford, M., Welch, O.J. and Welch, S.T. (2002), Associations between internal
controls and organizational citizenship behavior, Journal of Managerial Issues, Vol. 14
No. 1, pp. 85-99.
Hoy, W.K. and Tarter, C.J. (2004), Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust,
International Journal of Educational Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 250-9.
Isbas, J.O. (2001), The role of employees trust in administrators and their perceptions of
organizational justice in terms of the development of citizenship behavior, Administrative
Research Journal, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 51-73.
Kamer, M. (2001), The effect of organizational trust on organizational commitment and
organizational citizenship behaviors, unpublished Masters thesis, Marmara University,
Marmara.
Kana, P. and Aitken, V. (2007), She didnt ask me about my grandma: using process drama to
explore issues of cultural exclusion and educational leadership, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 97-710.
Katrnl, A.E., Atabay, G. and Gunay, G. (2006), Congruence of family and organizational values
in relation to organizational citizenship behaviour, Journal of Human Values, Vol. 12
No. 1, pp. 81-9.
Kavak, Y. and Ozdemir, S. (2007), The Basic Problems and Suggestions for Solving the Problems
of Pre-education Schools and Basic Education System in Turkey: Inadequacies in Basic
Education, The Turkish Education Association Publishing, Ankara.
Konovsky, M.A. (2000), Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business
organizations, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 489-511.
Konovsky, M.A. and Pugh, S.D. (1994), Citizenship behavior and social exchange, Academy of Organizational
Management Journal, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 656-69.
citizenship
Koopmann, R. (2002), The relation between perceived organization justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: a review of the literature, Journal of Student Research, available at:
www.uwstout.edu/rs/uwsjsr/table.htm (accessed 12 January 2006).
Landorf, H. and Nevin, A. (2007), Inclusive global education: implications for social justice,
Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 711-23. 123
McFarlin, D.B. and Sweeney, P.D. (1992), Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of
satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes, The Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 626-37.
McMahon, B. (2007), Educational administrators conceptions of whiteness, anti-racism and
social justice, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 684-96.
Moorman, R.H. (1991), Relation between organizational justice and organizational citizenship
behaviors: do equity perceptions influence employee citizenship?, Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 76 No. 6, pp. 127-33.
Moorman, R.H. (1993), The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures
on the relation between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior, Human
Relations, Vol. 46 No. 6, pp. 759-76.
Moorman, R.H., Nichoff, B.P. and Organ, D.W. (1993), Treating employees fairly and
organizational citizenship behaviors: sorting the effects of job satisfaction, organizational
commitment, and procedural justice, Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6
No. 3, pp. 209-25.
Niehoff, B.P. and Moorman, R.H. (1993), Justice as a mediator of the relation between methods of
monitoring and organizational citizenship behavior, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 527-56.
Normore, A.H., Rodriguez, L. and Wynne, J. (2007), Making all children winners: confronting
social justice issues to redeem Americas soul, Journal of Educational Administration,
Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 653-71.
Oplatka, I. (2006), Going beyond role expectations: toward an understanding of the
determinants and components of teacher organizational behavior, Educational
Administration Quarterly, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 385-423.
OReilly, C. and Chatman, J. (1986), Organizational commitment and psychological attachment:
the effects of compliance, identification and internalization on prosocial behavior, Journal
of Applied Psychology, Vol. 71 No. 3, pp. 492-9.
Organ, D.W. (1988), Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The Good Soldier Syndrome, Lexington
Books, Lexington, MA.
Organ, D.W. (1990), The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior, Research in
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 43-72.
Organ, D.W. and Lingl, A. (1995), Personality, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship
behavior, The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 135 No. 3, pp. 339-50.
Organ, D.W. and Paine, J.B. (1999), A new kind of performance for industrial and organizational
psychology: recent contributions to the study of organizational citizenship behavior,
in Cooper, C.L. and Robertson, I.T. (Eds), International Review of Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp. 338-68.
Organ, D.W. and Ryan, K. (1995), A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 4,
pp. 775-802.
 zdevecioglu, M. (2004), A research to determine the effects of positive and negative
JEA O
psychographics on perceived organizational justice, within the framework of affective
47,1 events theory, Ankara University Faculty of Political Sciences Journal, Vol. 59 No. 3,
pp. 181-202.
Ozen, J. (2001), Development of justice theories and types of organizational justice, HFSA Law
Philosophy and Sociology Archive, Vol. 5, pp. 107-17.
124 O zen, J. (2003), Organizational justice as the key to trust in organization, in Erdem, F. (Ed.),
Trust in Social Sciences, Vadi Publishing, Ankara, pp. 183-207.
Paterson, J.M., Green, A. and Cary, J. (2002), The measurement of organizational justice in
organizational change programs: a reliability, validity and context-sensitivity
assessment, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 75 No. 4,
pp. 393-408.
Piercy, N.F., Cravens, D.W., Lane, N. and Vorhies, D.W. (2006), Driving organizational
citizenship behaviors and salespersons in role behavior performance: the role of
management control and perceived organizational support, Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 244-62.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Mackenzie, S.B. (1994), Organisational citizenship behaviors and sales unit
effectiveness, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, August, pp. 351-64.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Bommer, W.H. (1996), Transformational leaders
behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management,
Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 259-98.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Hui, C. (1993), Organizational citizenship behaviors as
determinants of managerial evaluations of employee performance: a review and
suggestions for future research, in Ferris, G.R. and Rowland, K.M. (Eds), Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT, pp. 1-40.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Moorman, R.H. and Fetter, R. (1990), Transformational
leaders behavior and their effects on followers trust in leader, satisfaction, and
organizational citizenship behaviors, Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 107-42.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Paine, J.B. and Bachrach, D.G. (2000), Organizational
citizenship behaviors: a critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and
suggestions for future research, Journal of Management, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 513-63.
Rhoades, L. and Eisenberger, R. (2002), Perceived organizational support: a review of the
literature, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 4, pp. 698-714.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R. and Armeli, S. (2001), Affective commitment to the organization:
the contribution of perceived organizational support, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 86 No. 5, pp. 825-36.
Roch, S.G. and Shanock, L.R. (2006), Organizational justice in an exchange framework:
clarifying organizational justice distinctions, Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 299-322.
Schnake, M. (1991), Organizational citizenship: a review, proposed model, and research agenda,
Human Relations, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 735-59.
Schnake, M., Cochran, D.S. and Dumler, M.P. (1995), Encouraging organizational citizenship:
the effects of job satisfaction, perceived equity and leadership, Journal of Managerial
Issues, Vol. 7 No. 2, pp. 209-21.
Schnake, M., Dumler, M. and Cochran, D.S. (1993), The relation between traditional leadership, Organizational
and super leadership, and organizational citizenship behavior, Group and Organization
Management, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 352-65. citizenship
Sheppard, B.H., Lewick, R.J. and Minton, J.W. (1992), Organizational Justice: The Search for
Equity in the Workplace, Lexington Books, New York, NY.
Skarlicki, D. and Latham, G. (1996), Increasing citizenship behavior with a labour union: a test
of organizational justice theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 161-9. 125
Skrla, L., McKenzie, K.B. and Scheurich, J.J. (2007), Concluding reflections on leadership for
learning in the context of social justice: an international perspective, Journal of
Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 782-7.
Smith, C.A., Organ, D.W. and Near, J.P. (1983), Organizational citizenship behavior: its nature
and antecedents, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 68 No. 44, pp. 653-63.
Somech, A. and Drach-Zahavy, A. (2000), Understanding organizational citizenship behavior in
schools: the relation between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers extra-role
behavior, Teaching and Teacher Education, Vol. 16, pp. 649-59.
Somech, A. and Ron, I. (2007), Promoting organizational citizenship behavior in schools:
the impact of individual and organizational characteristics, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 38-66.
Stevens, E. and Wood, G.H. (1995), Justice, Ideology, and Education, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York,
NY.
Stevenson, H.J. (2007), A case study in leading schools for social justice: when morals and
markets collide, Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 769-81.
Tan, C. (2006), The primary school teachers perceptions about organizational justice,
unpublished Master thesis, Frat University, Firat.
Tang, T.L. and Sarsfield-Baldwin, L.J. (1996), Distributive and procedural justice as related to
satisfaction and commitment, SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 3,
pp. 25-32.
Tansky, J.W. (1993), Justice and organizational citizenship behavior: what is the relation?,
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 195-207.
Tarkan, G. and Tepeci, M. (2006), A research on the effects of organizational justice and
managerial centralization on employee theft: Mersin University students perceptions at
the school of tourism management and hotel administration, Anatolia: Tourism Research
Journal, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 137-52.
Tepper, B.J. and Taylor, E.C. (2003), Relation among supervisors and subordinates procedural
justice perceptions and organizational citizenship behaviors, Academy of Management
Journal, Vol. 46 No. 1, pp. 97-105.
Truckenbrodt, Y.B. (2000), The relation between leader-member exchange and commitment and
organizational behavior, Acquisition Review Quarterly, Vol. 7, pp. 233-44.
Turnley, W.H., Bolino, M.C., Lester, S.W. and Bloodgood, J.M. (2003), The impact of
psychological contract fulfillment on the performance of in-role and organizational
citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 187-206.
nal, Z. (2003), Job satisfaction of teachers and organizational citizenship, unpublished Master
U
thesis, Afyonkarahisar Kocatepe University, Afyonkarahisar.
Van Dyne, L., Cummings, L.L. and McLean Parks, J. (1995), Extra-role behaviors: in pursuit of
construct and definitional clarity, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 1,
pp. 215-85.
JEA Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. and Dienesch, R.M. (1994), Organizational citizenship behavior:
construct redefinition, measurement, and validation, Academy of Management Journal,
47,1 Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 765-802.
Wasti, S.A. (2001), The concept of organizational justice and an analysis of reliability and
validity of a translated scale in Turkish, Administrative Research Journal, Vol. 1,
pp. 33-50.
126 Wayne, S.J. and Green, S.A. (1993), The effects of leader-member exchange on employee
citizenship and impression management behavior, Human Relations, Vol. 46 No. 12,
pp. 1431-40.
Witt, L.A. (1993), Reactions to work assignment as predictors of organizational commitment:
the moderating effect of occupational identification, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 26
No. 1, pp. 17-30.
Yaylac, A.F. (2004), Public basic education. School teachers and managers organization
citizenship behaviors, unpublished PhD thesis, Ankara University, Ankara.

Corresponding author
Murat Tasdan can be contacted at: murattasdan@gmail.com

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints