Posted: February 13th, 2015

Transformational leadership and innovation in United Arab Emirates (UAE) government sector.

Order Description

Title: Transformational leadership and innovation in United Arab Emirates (UAE) government sector.
Notes:
This research paper based on Quantitative research paper
Follow only the bellow points of the research
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Significance of Study
1.2. Research Problem
1.3. Aim of the Research
1.4. Research Objectives
1.5. Research Questions
2. Literature Review and Hypothesis ( as per writer suggestion)
2.1. title 1
2.2. title2
etc. ……
2.3. Conceptual Framework
3. Research Methodology
3.1. Sample
3.2. Questionnaire Instrument
3.3. Measures
3.3.1. Dependent Variable
3.3.2. Independent Variables

– Design professional Questionnaire include to the writer work. (Look at the sample attached in appendix 1 for questionnaire sample)
– Don’t do the data analysis, finding, discussion and conclusion only the first parts of the research.
– Look at the sample research within order attachment.

The British University in Dubai

The Perception of Organizational Justice and Turnover Intentions of Employees
in the United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Organizations are aware that the secret of their success is their human capital, their employees therefore they always try to find ways of retaining their employees, especially the high performing ones. Therefore, it is important for organizations to be aware of reasons why their employees think about leaving their organizations. This study attempts to investigate the impact of the perception of organizational justice on employees turnover intentions in the UAE, in addition to investigating the impact of the factors that comprise the perceptions of organizational justice such as the perception of procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice on turnover intentions.
An empirical study was conducted on employees within the UAE with a predesigned survey which was distributed by paper and online. The completed 100 surveys were analyzed through SPSS using correlation and regression analysis. The results indicated that the perception of organizational justice had a relationship with turnover intentions. In addition the perception of interpersonal and informational justice merged into interactional justice had a negative relationship with turnover intentions. On the other hand, there was no significantly statistical relationship between the perception of procedural and distributive justice on turnover intentions.
In conclusion, it is recommended that direct supervisors of employees keep in mind the way they treat them as any mistreatment will lead to employees thinking of leaving the organization.
Table of Contents
Abstract    1
1.    Introduction    3
1.1.    Significance of Study    3
1.2.    Research Problem    3
1.3.    Aim of the Research    3
1.4.    Research Objectives    4
1.5.    Research Questions    4
2.    Literature Review and Hypothesis    4
2.1.    Turnover Intention    4
2.2.    The perception of Organizational Justice    5
2.2.1.    The perception of Procedural Justice    6
2.2.2.    The perception of Distributive Justice    6
2.2.3.    The perception of Interpersonal Justice    6
2.2.4.    The perception of informational justice    7
2.3.    Conceptual Framework    7
3.    Research Methodology    8
3.1.    Sample    8
3.2.    Questionnaire Instrument    8
3.3.    Measures    9
3.3.1.    Dependent Variable    9
3.3.2.    Independent Variables    9
4.    Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion    10
4.1.    Descriptive Statistics    10
4.2.    Validity Testing (Factor Analysis)    11
4.3.    Reliability Test    13
4.4.    Hypothesis Testing    13
4.4.1.    Correlation Test    14
4.5.    Regression Analysis    14
4.6.    Discussion    15
5.    Conclusion    16
5.1.    Recommendations    16
5.2.    Suggestions for Future Research    17
6.    References    18
7.    Appendix    20
7.1.    Appendix 1: Questionnaire    20
7.2.    Appendix 2: Reliability Tests Results    22
7.3.    Appendix 3: Regression Analysis Outputs (Enter Method)    26
7.4.    Appendix 4: Regression Analysis Outputs (Stepwise Method)    27

1.    Introduction
In order for organizations to be competitive they need to ensure that they have the right caliber of employees in their organizations and ensure that high performers are retained as  they have a positive influence on increasing the level of competitiveness of their organizations. Therefore employees thoughts, feelings, behavior and attitudes have a critical impact on the goals and objectives of the organization (Owolabi, 2012). As employees will always seek employment in in organizations where they are accepted, respected and valued. Accordingly, they will stay in organizations that treat them fairly. Suliman and Al Katheeri (2013) claimed that “Fairness should be adopted not only because accuracy is not achievable but because justice is an important societal value and feelings of justice have important consequences for society and the workplace”. Muzumdar (2012) found that justice has a positive influence on employees performance which means when employees perceive that they are being treated fairly they will perform better than those who not do not, and accordingly will remain in the organization and not intend to leave it.
1.1.    Significance of Study
As per Shibaoka et al. (2010) that when employees feel that they are being treated unfairly in their organizations it increases the risk of health problems where there are reports that suggest an association between the low perception of organizational justice and cardiovascular disease in addition to some minor psychiatric disorders. Taking into consideration the health risks previously mentioned will lead to an increase in employee absenteeism, which could ultimately lead to the employee making a decision to leave the organization. Therefore, it is viable to research the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions. Currently the link between the perception of organizational justice, and its four factors, and turnover in UAE have not been fully explored, which will be addressed in this study.
1.2.    Research Problem
The research question of this study is:
How does the perception of organizational justice influence employee turnover intentions in the UAE?
1.3.    Aim of the Research
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and it components such as the perception of distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational justice and turnover intentions of employees in the UAE.
1.4.    Research Objectives
In order to find the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions of employees within the UAE we will be conducting a quantitative research using a survey. In order to obtain sufficient participants for the survey we will not be selecting a specific organization, as it would be time consuming to obtain approvals. In addition, obtaining participants from various organizations will enable the participants to provide their honest opinions without being fearful of being exposed since the research might provide a negative connotation regarding the organization especially if it has a low perception of organizational justice and its components. The survey will be administered through paper and web link as we are using snowball sampling to obtain participants. The survey will explore the relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions of employees within the UAE by asking questions related to the perception of procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice. After analyzing the results of the survey will develop recommendations to increase the level of the perception of organizational justice and its components to prevent employee turnover intentions of employees in the UAE.
1.5.    Research Questions
•    What is the statistical relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions of employees in the UAE?
•    How does the perception of procedural justice influence turnover intentions of employees in the UAE?
•    How does the perception of distributive justice influence turnover intentions of employees in the UAE?
•    How does the perception of interpersonal justice influence turnover intentions of employees in the UAE?
•    How does the perception of informational justice influence turnover intentions of employees in the UAE?
2.    Literature Review and Hypothesis
The following section will explore the existing research that has investigated the constructs of turnover intentions, the perception of organizational justice, the perception of procedural justice, the perception of distributive justice, the perception of interpersonal justice, and the perception of informational justice.
2.1.    Turnover Intention
As per Kumar and Gupta (2008) the definition of turnover intentions is “the relative strength of an individual’s intent to leave the organization”. Many researchers have investigated the issue of turnover intentions as the organization loses when employees who are high performer intend to leave in addition employees turnover has significant impact on organizational as well as on society (Owolabi, 2012). As Mobley (1982) has indicated there are both positive and negative impacts to turnover. In this study we are investigating turnover intentions due to the negative impact it has on organizations such as the cost of recruiting, hiring, assimilation, and training new employees, and losing the knowledge that the current employee has in regards to their work (Mobley, 1982). Owolabi (2012) stated that turnover intention is a result from job related attitude. Hence, appropriate actions have to be taken on how to prevent employees from thinking about leaving as they ensure the success of the organization. According to Rai (2013) study on the relationship between perception of organizational justice and turnover, he concluded that a positive relationship between perception of distributive justice and turnover. Although many studies have been conducted on the relationship between the perception of organizational justice, and employees turnover intentions in the west, very few analysis have been carried in regards to organizations in the UAE. Therefore, the aim of this is study is to find the gap between the perception of organizational justice and employees turnover in organizations in the UAE.
2.2.    The perception of Organizational Justice
As per Owolabi (2012) “organizational justice refers to the idea that an action or decision is morally right” in regards to the employees pay, promotion, amount of work distributed, information provided in a timely manner or the treatment received by the direct supervisor. Hence it can be observed that retaining and managing employees is considered an important component to organizational success (Kumar and Gupta, 2008).The perception of organizational justice is the way that employees feel their organizations treatment of them is a fair or unfair manner (Ponnu and Chuah, 2010). This means that, when employees perceive unfairness, their intention to leave the organization is high, therefore organizations have to prevent the turnover intention by investing more time, effort and money in motivating and rewarding their employees. Employees will provide their best for their organizations when they feel that their organization treats them fairly, which is a construct termed the perception of organizational justice (Deconinck and Johnson, 2009).
The perception of organizational justice is determined through different forms of justice as they are related to different outcomes in the organization, therefore it is valuable to measure multiple types of justice in order to predict various organizational outcomes (Hansen et al., 2013). Therefore, this study will be exploring the four forms of the perception of organizational justice which are the perceptions of procedural, distributive, interpersonal and informational justice and their relationship with turnover intentions.
2.2.1.    The perception of Procedural Justice
Muzumdar (2012) defined the perception of procedural justice as process where employee perceive fairness in order to get the outcome. Accordingly the perception of procedural justice relates to process, method and procedural of fairness perception to make outcome decisions and these tools are believed to be consistent, accurate and ethical (Rai, 2013). Ponnu and Chuah (2010) explain procedural justice will be considered fair if they meet some criteria which are explained further. The availability and accessibility of truthful and correct information to be able to make decisions, the same process should be followed for all employees at all times, the processes are ethical and moral and without bias (Ponnu and Chuah, 2010). Finally, the processes can be corrected and all employees involved in the process can state their concerns regarding the process which will be taken into consideration without prejudice (Karim, 2009) .  Therefore if employees believe that they are being treated fairly regarding the processes it will strengthen the relationship between employees and their leaders (Suliman and Alkathairi, 2013). Hence as the perception of procedural justice, trust and commitment towards leaders and organization increase, which as result will lead positive outcomes in the organization, therefore reducing the intention of the employees to leave their organizations.
2.2.2.    The perception of Distributive Justice
The perception of distributive justice is the way that employees comprehend the fairness of the organization in regards to rewards, pay, compensation, and promotion (Muzumdar, 2012;Deconinck and Johnson, 2009). As distributive justice looks at the returns and rewards that the employee will gain in the organization therefore it is related to motivation (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010). If an employee is motivated, he/she will perform highly but if he/she believes that, he will not be rewarded for the efforts he puts into his work he will start to not perform and ultimately think about leaving the organization if he/she feels that the work given is not reciprocated by the rewards expected.
2.2.3.    The perception of Interpersonal Justice
The perception of interpersonal justice refers to employees perceptions of fairness of treatment that he/she receive from their organizational management or their direct supervisors. The aspects that indicate interpersonal justice are respectfulness, sincerity and consistency. If an employee believes that they are being treated unfairly by their supervisors they will feel that the social exchange which occurs between them and their supervisor is violated and will start of withdrawing from the organization (Erkutlu, 2011). As the perception of interpersonal justice is usually merged with informational justice to form a construct called interactional justice therefore not much research has been conducted on interpersonal justice and informational justice and its relationship to turnover intentions.
2.2.4.    The perception of informational justice
The perception of informational justice is in regards to the communication aspect between the supervisor and the employee. The employee feels he/she is being treated fairly when he receives information in a timely manner and there is no discrimination between information given to him/her and another employee, the information provided is reasonable, and the information provided is not vague and explained in a specific manner appropriate to the employee (Deconinck and Johnson, 2009). As explained previously the perception of informational justice is merged with interpersonal justice into a term called interactional justice therefore not much research has been conducted in regards to informational justice and turnover intentions.
2.3.    Conceptual Framework
Based on the research that has been discussed figure 1 provides the theoretical framework of the following hypothesizes:
Hypothesis 1 (H1): The perception of distributive justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 2 (H2): The perception of procedural justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): The perception of informational justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 4 (H4): The perception of interpersonal justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions.
Hypothesis 5 (H5): There is a statistically significant negative relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions.
Figure 1: Theoretical Framework of the consequences of Perception of organizational justice

3.    Research Methodology
In this research we are investigating the statistical relationship between perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions therefore quantitative research design was used (Saunders et al., 2012). As per Saunders et al. (2012) quantitative research incorporates control to ensure validity in addition to being able to generalize the results on the sample of the population. The following section will elaborate on the sample collected, the questionnaire instrument, and the measures used to collect the data.
3.1.    Sample
As this research is exploring the statistical relationship between perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions of employees in the United Arab Emirates without restricting it to any sector within the country therefore the data was gathered from employees working in the United Arab Emirates through the administration of paper and online based questionnaire, where they participated voluntarily. General ethical issues were taken into consideration while formatting the paper and online based questionnaires such as informed consent, confidentiality of data and anonymity of participants’ identities, and researchers affecting the response of participants (Saunders et al., 2012). To ensure informed consent the beginning of the survey was formatted whereby agreement to responding to the questionnaire would mean consent to the questionnaire. To ensure confidentiality of data and anonymity of participants’ identities there was no request for the name of the respondent or the company the participant works in. To ensure that researchers bias in the responses do not occur therefore most of the participants responded to the questionnaire without the presence of the researchers.
3.2.    Questionnaire Instrument
The questionnaire was developed so that the introduction encompassed the ethical considerations such as participant informed consent, confidentiality and anonymity as is demonstrated in appendix 1. The survey was divided into five sections with 33 items. The first section was designed to capture the demographic information, while the second to the fourth section were designed to collect data regarding perception of organizational justice and the final section collated data regarding turnover intentions.
The questionnaire was administered by handing out it on paper in addition to an online survey. A total of 86 paper based questionnaires were administered by the researchers and some were provided to individuals to distribute in their workplace (snowball technique). Some paper based questionnaires were incomplete (26 questionnaires) therefore were not included in the data analysis for the research. The online questionnaire was created using survey gizmo and a request for participation was distributed through e-mail, and phone text messages and recipients were informed to distribute the questionnaire link. The total of completed paper based and online questionnaires within the United Arab Emirates were 100 out of which 66 questionnaires were paper based and 34 questionnaires were online based questionnaires.
3.3.    Measures
The following sections will elaborate on the measures used for both the dependent and independent variables in this research in order to later on test the hypothesizes that have been raised in this study.
3.3.1.    Dependent Variable
The turnover intentions of employees was a uni dimensional dependent variable which was in the final section of the questionnaire covered by 5 items which were adapted from Aryee et al. (2002). Participants were asked to respond based on a 5 point Likert scale where 5 was strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree.
3.3.2.    Independent Variables
The independent variables were both demographic data and perception of organizational justice which were covered in the first to the fourth section of the survey. The first section collated data regarding demographic information and employee and organizational for the participant such as gender, marital status, nationality education, age, organizational sector, job status, the number of years working in the organization, and the number of years working in the current position (9 items) were adapted from Suliman (2001). The items responses ranged from 2 point (e.g. gender) up to 6 points (e.g. nationality).
The second to the fourth section were designed to collect data regarding perception of organizational justice variable with a total of 19 items (adapted from a Colquitt (2001)) covering the factors of perception of procedural justice (6 items), perception of distributive justice (4 questions), perception of interpersonal justice (4 items), and perception of informational justice (5 items). Participants were asked to respond based on a 5 point Likert scale where 5 was strongly agree to 1 strongly disagree.

4.    Data Analysis, Findings and Discussion
In the following section, we will display the data analysis whereby the researchers used Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) followed by elaboration on the findings based on the data analysis in addition to a discussion regarding the findings. The following items were recoded using SPSS as they were negatively worded in the study instrument: “my supervisor is disrespectful to me”, “my supervisor does not communicate work details in a timely manner”, “my supervisor does not tailor (his/her) communications to individuals; specific needs” and “I don’t have intention to leave my current job”.
4.1.    Descriptive Statistics
This section will describe the distribution of the participant in regards to their demographics and career highlighting the major findings, which will be reiterated in the discussion section. In demographics, we will describe gender, marital status, nationality, education, and age, while in career we will describe organizational type, job status, the number of years the participant has been working in the organization, and the number of years the participant has been working in their current position displayed in table 1.
As far as the gender of the respondents is concerned, the female respondents (57%) were more than the male respondents (43%). As for the marital status the married respondents (75%) were much higher than the unmarried respondents (25%). The respondents nationalities were interestingly distributed where the United Arab Emirates national respondents (32%) are the most but Arab (31%) and Asian (31%) equally responded which were close to them. The educational qualifications of the respondents were mostly masters or above (46%) followed by respondents with a bachelor’s degree (32%). The majority of the respondents worked in government organizations (63%) followed by private organizations (20%). The majority of the respondents were at middle level status (67%) in their organizations followed by first level status (28%). The majority of respondents worked in their organization between 2 – 7 years (49%) followed by 8 – 13 years (22%). Finally the majority of the respondents worked in their current position/job between 2 – 7 years (53%) followed by one year or less (19%).
In summary, the participants were female, married, UAE nationals, with a master’s degree or above, working in government organizations, at middle level status, and have been working in the same organization and in the same position between 2 – 7 years.

Table 1: Frequency Demographics and Career Variables

4.2.    Validity Testing (Factor Analysis)
In order to ensure that the variables and factors being measured represent what they are supposed to measure the researchers have conducted factor analysis to ensure the validity of the items representing the factors/variables. As described by Field  (2009) through factor analysis we can understand the structure of a set of variables by measuring the aspects of the same underlying dimensions so we can reduce the factors to their underlying dimensions when they load together in the same component. In order to explore the factors further we will be looking at a loading of 0.3 or more when interpreting a factor (Foster, 2001)
As indicated from the results of the factor analysis in table 2, the factor/variable for turnover intention loaded as a separate component, as well as the perception of procedural justice and distributive justice. On the other hand the factors for the perception of interpersonal justice and informational justice loaded in the same component therefore we have merged them together as one factor called the perception of interactional justice which has been defined by various researchers (Colquitt, 2001;De Gieter et al., 2012). Going forward all tests will be conducted on the perception of interactional justice as a factor of the perception of organizational justice variable, where this factor will represent both the perception of interpersonal justice and the perception of informational justice.
Table 2: Factor Analysis Results
Rotated Component Matrixa
Items    Component
1    2    3    4    5
Item 1 Turnover Intention        .770
Item 2 Turnover Intention        .866
Item 3 Turnover Intention        .822
Item 4 Turnover Intention        .663
Item 5 Turnover Intention        -.605
Item 1 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice
.637
Item 2 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice                     .708
Item 3 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice                 .808
Item 4 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice                .410
Item 5 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice                .863
Item 6 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice                .652
Item 1 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice            .691
Item 2 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice            .776
Item 3 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice            .837
Item 4 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice            .686
Item 1 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    .753
Item 2 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    .662
Item 3 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    .545
Item 4 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice                    .739
Item 1 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    .602
Item 2 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    .642
Item 3 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    .733
Item 4 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    .745
Item 5 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    .603
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

4.3.    Reliability Test
The reliability test will indicate if we conduct the same survey at different points in time it will measure the same variables the same way, and to accomplish this we will be testing the reliability using Cronbach Alpha and the value we are looking is above 0.7 (Foster, 2001;Field, 2009). In order to determine the reliability of the survey the researchers conducted a reliability test on each of the factors and variables after which an overall reliability test was conducted for the whole survey as is displayed in appendix 2 and the highlights of the results are in table 3.
Upon conducting the reliability test on the items representing perception of procedural justice, perception of distributive justice and the perception of interactional justice it was apparent that they were highly reliable with values of .793, .847, and .810 respectively. On conducting the reliability test on items representing organization justice by including all items for procedural, distributive, and interactional justice, the values were .870 that is highly reliable. On the other hand, when the test was conducted on items representing turnover intention the result was .510 that was not reliable therefore item 5 was deleted and the new value was .852 that is highly reliable. Finally, the researchers conducted a reliability test on all items in the survey excluding the item deleted in turnover intention and the result was .743 that is highly reliable.
Table 3: Cronbach Alpha Values
Description    Value    Items    New Value    Items
Procedural Justice    .793    6
Distributive Justice    .847    4
Interactional Justice    .810    9
All Organizational Justice Items    .870    19
Turnover Intentions    .510    5    .852    4
All Items    .743    23

4.4.    Hypothesis Testing
In the following section, the researchers will conduct correlation test and regression analysis to provide statistical evidence that will either support or reject the hypothesis proposed earlier.
4.4.1.    Correlation Test
The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient test will measure the extent which the dependent variable and its factors vary with the independent variable by looking for a significance value of less than 0.01 (Foster, 2001). Table 4 displays the results of the test where it is apparent that there is a relationship between turnover intention dependent variable and the perception of organizational justice independent variable, and the perception of interactional justice factor at significant levels of .000. The relationship between turnover intention and the perception of organizational justice is a negative relationship hence an increase in perception of organizational justice will lead to a decrease in turnover intention which supports H5. In addition, there is a relationship between turnover intention (dependent variable) and the perception of interactional justice factor where an increase in the perception of interactional justice will lead to a decrease in turnover intentions, which supports the H3 and H4 as the perception of interactional justice factor represents both the perception of interpersonal justice factor and informational justice factor. On the other hand as per the previously mentioned acceptable significance level of less than 0.01 both H1 and H2 are rejected as the significance levels are more than 0.01.
Table 4: Pearson Correlation Coefficient Test Results
Correlations
OrgJustVar    ProcJustFactor    DistJustFactor    NewInteractJusticeFactor
NewTurnover
Intention    Pearson Correlation    -.421**    -.244*    -.212*    -.451**
Sig. (2-tailed)    .000    .014    .034    .000
N    100    100    100    100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

4.5.    Regression Analysis
In using regression analysis we can predict the value of turnover intentions from the perception of organizational justice variable, the perception of interpersonal justice factor and the perception of informational justice factor as we had indicated previously in using the correlation coefficient test that they had a significant relationship with turnover intention (Foster, 2001).
To find the prediction of the perception of organizational justice on turnover intention we conducted the analysis using SPSS enter method displayed in appendix 3 where the R2 and adjusted R2 values of .177 and .168 respectively indicate that there is a high degree of goodness of fit of the regression model. In addition, R2 and adjusted R2 values indicate that over 17% of variance in turnover intention could be explained by the perception of organizational justice. In looking at the F-ratio which is 21.059 which is significant at p < .001 which indicates that the regression model predicts the turnover intentions well (Saunders et al., 2012;Field, 2009). The beta value of -.174 indicates that if we have more perception of organizational justice then it will lead to an increase in turnover intentions which reiterates the results of the correlation test conducted previously therefore supporting H1.
To find the prediction of the perception of procedural justice, distributive and interactional justice on turnover intention we conducted the analysis using SPSS stepwise method displayed in appendix 4. The perception of interactional justice, which was a merger of the perception of interpersonal and informational justice affected turnover intention. Where the R2 and adjusted R2 values of .203 and .195 respectively indicate that there is a high degree of goodness of fit of the regression model. In addition, R2 and adjusted R2 values indicate that over 20% of variance in turnover intention could be explained by the perception of interactional justice. In looking at the F-ratio which is 25.023 which is significant at p < .001 which indicates that the regression model predicts the turnover intentions well (Saunders et al., 2012;Field, 2009). The beta value of -.311 indicates that if there is more perception of interactional justice (merger of interpersonal and informational justice) would lead to less turnover intentions which reiterates the results of the correlation test conducted previously therefore supporting H3 and H4. On the other hand, the perception of procedural and distributive justice have been excluded from the regression due to p > .001 therefore we reject H1 and H2, which reiterates the results of the correlation test.
4.6.    Discussion
As per the results of both the correlation test and the regression analysis, it was apparent that the perception of distributive justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions and the perception of procedural justice will be negatively related to turnover intentions were not supported, as there significance was more than .01, which is not in line with many researchers. In the research conducted by Nadiri and Tanova (2010) they were able to obtain results stating that there is a relationship between procedural justice and distributive justice whereby they controlled for other justice perceptions such as interactional justice. In the current research, no such controls were put into effect.
In addition, there was a significantly negative relationship between the perception of interactional justice and turnover intentions of employees in the UAE taking into consideration that interactional justice was defined after factor analysis was conducted and both interpersonal and informational justice loaded in the same component. Therefore H3 and H4 regarding interpersonal and informational justice were supported which is in line with Muzumdar (2012) research as he stated that “the influence of interactional justice combining the effects of both interpersonal and informational justice is found to have more of an effect on employee’s intention of turnover compared to other forms of justice”. Through this finding it is apparent that the relationship that employees have with their supervisors in UAE governmental organizations are important as a way of perceiving fairness in the organization which affects their intention to leave the organization.
On the other hand, there is a statistically significant negative relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions of employees in the UAE.

5.    Conclusion
This study has provided evidence of the negative relationship between the perception of organizational justice and turnover intentions in employees working in the UAE. The results demonstrate that the perception of interpersonal and informational justice (merged into interactional justice) have a negative relationship with turnover intentions of employees in the UAE which matches the findings of other researchers. On the other hand, there was no statistical evidence of a relationship between the perception of procedural and distributive justice on turnover intentions of employees in the UAE. Accordingly there are some recommendations and future research opportunities which will be discussed in the below sections.
5.1.    Recommendations
When employees feel that they are being treated unfairly they will either avoid the workplace which is indicated by frequent absenteeism or they will escape the organization by leaving it, but before leaving they will make a decision to leave. Therefore as per Owolabi (2012) in such situations management should change the way that they treat the employees so that they feel that they are being treated fairly. As this study has shown that employees working in the United Arab Emirates intentions to leave is affected by their perception of organizational justice within their organization especially their perception of interpersonal and informational justice (perception of interactional justice) which is related to their relationship with their direct supervisor. As per Suliman and Al Obaidli (2011) “employees leave managers NOT organizations”. Therefore, managers should find ways to ensure that their employees are being treated fairly by treating them politely and respectfully, in addition to disseminating information to them in timely manner.
5.2.    Suggestions for Future Research
The current findings have several suggestions for future research within the United Arab Emirates such as conducting this research by putting controls into place such as education, number of years working in the organization, age and gender as they tend to inflate relations between other variables (Nadiri and Tanova, 2010)
As the research was conducted in English while the language utilized in governmental organizations is mainly Arabic and the majority of the respondents were UAE or Arab nationals, which could have impacted the answers obtained therefore this survey should be conducted in Arabic.
This research was conducted without taking into consideration the types of government organizations in various Emirates as the perception of organizational justice could change due to the culture of the Emirate and the organization, therefore future research should take into consideration the effect of culture.

6.    References
1.    Aryee, S., Budhwar, P. & Chen, Z. 2002. Trust as a mediator of the relationship between organizational justice and work outcomes: test of a social exchange model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol.23(3),  pp.267-285.
2.    Colquitt, J. 2001. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. The Journal of applied psychology, Vol.86(3),  pp.386-400.
3.    De Gieter, S., De Cooman, R., Hofmans, J., Pepermans, R. & Jegers, M. 2012. Pay-level satisfaction and psychological reward satisfaction as mediators of the organizational justice-turnover intention relationship. International studies of management and organization, Vol.42(1),  pp.50-67.
4.    Deconinck, J. & Johnson, J. 2009. The effects of perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and organizational justice on turnover among salespeople. The journal of personal selling & sales management, Vol.29(4),  pp.333-350.
5.    Erkutlu, H. 2011. The moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Leadership & organization development journal, Vol.32(6),  pp.532-554.
6.    Field, A. 2009. Discovering statistics using SPSS, London, SAGE.
7.    Foster, J. 2001. Data Analysis Using Spss for Windows Versions 8 – 10, Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, Limited.
8.    Hansen, A., Byrne, Z. & Kiersch, C. 2013. Development and Validation of an Abridged Measure of Organizational Justice. The Journal of Psychology, Vol.147(3),  pp.217-244.
9.    Karim, J. 2009. Justice-Turnover Relationship: Commitment as a Mediator. The IUP Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol.VIII(1),  pp.7-27.
10.    Kumar, K. & Gupta, G. 2008. Perceived Organizational Justice, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions: A Co-Relational Study. Gujarat Journal of Psychology, Vol.25-26 2008.
11.    Mobley, W. 1982. Some Unanswered Questions in Turnover and Withdrawal Research. The Academy of Management Review, Vol.7(1),  pp.111-116.
12.    Muzumdar, P. 2012. Influence of interactional justice on the turnover behavioral decision in an organization. Journal of Behavioral Studies in Business, Vol.5(Journal Article),  pp.1.
13.    Nadiri, H. & Tanova, C. 2010. An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.29(1),  pp.33-41.
14.    Owolabi, A. 2012. Effect of organizational justice and organizational environment on turn-over intention of health workers in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Research in world economy, Vol.3(1),  pp.28-34.
15.    Ponnu, C. & Chuah, C. 2010. Organizational commitment, organizational justice and employee turnover in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, Vol.4(13),  pp.2676-2692.
16.    Rai, G. 2013. Impact of organizational justice on satisfaction, commitment and turnover intention: Can fair treatment by organizations make a difference in their workers’ attitudes and behaviors? International Journal of Human Sciences, Vol.10(2),  pp.260-284.
17.    Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A. 2012. Research methods for business students, New York, Pearson.
18.    Shibaoka, M., Takada, M., Watanabe, M., Kojima, R., Kakinuma, M., Tanaka, K. & Kawakami, N. 2010. Development and Validity of the Japanese Version of the Organizational Justice Scale. Industrial Health, Vol.48(1),  pp.66-73.
19.    Suliman, A. 2001. Work performance: is it one thing or many things? The multidimensionality of performance in a Middle Eastern context. International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.12(6),  pp.1049-1061.
20.    Suliman, A. & Al Obaidli, H. 2011. Organizational climate and turnover in Islamic banking in the UAE. International Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Finance and Management, Vol.4(4),  pp.308.
21.    Suliman, A. & Alkathairi, M. 2013. Organizational justice, commitment and performance in developing countries. Employee Relations, Vol.35(1),  pp.98-115.

7.    Appendix
7.1.    Appendix 1: Questionnaire
Dear Sir/Madam,
By completing this 2 page questionnaire, you will be consenting to participating in a research project that aims to find the reasons behind an employee thinking about leaving their organization/company due to the fair or unfair treatment they receive from the organization/company they work in.
Your responses are completely confidential and we assure you that your anonymity is guaranteed in the reporting of all data in any publications arising from this project.
The data will be accessible only to Nada Albustani and Faisal Anwahi. Your honest responses to all questions will be greatly appreciated.
If you have any questions or comments about this project, please contact Nada Albustani, at [email protected].
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey.

General Information (Please tick one box for each question)
Gender:
? Male
? Female    Marital Status:
? Married
? Unmarried     Age:
? Less than 25
? 25-35
? 36-46
? 47-57
? 58 or above    Nationality:
? UAE
? Arab
? Asian
? American
? European
? Canadian    Education:
? Less than High School
? High School
? High Diploma
? Bachelors
? Masters or above    Organizational Type:
? Government
? Semi-Government
? Private    Job Status:
? First level
? Middle level
? Lower level
Number of years worked in the current organization
? One year or less
? 2-7
? 8-13

? 14-19
? 20 years or more    Number of years worked in the current position or job:
? One year or less
? 2-7
? 8-13
? 14-19
? 20 years or more
Statement    Strongly Agree    Agree    Neutral    Disagree    Strongly Disagree
Perception of Procedural justice
I have been able to express my views and feelings about my work/job procedures
I have had influence over my work/job procedures
I have applied my work procedures consistently
My work procedures have been free of bias
My work procedures are based on accurate information
My work procedures are ethical and moral

Perception of Distributive justice
My work reflects the effort I have put into it
The amount of work I provide is appropriate for the work that is completed
The work I complete reflects what I have contributed to the organization
My work is justified, given my performance
Perception of interpersonal justice
My supervisor treats me in a polite manner
My supervisor treats me with dignity
My supervisor is disrespectful to me
My supervisor refrains from improper remarks or comments
Perception of informational justice
My supervisor has been candid in (his/her) communications with me
My supervisor has explained the work procedures thoroughly
My supervisors’ explanations regarding the work procedures are reasonable
My supervisor does not communicate work details in a timely manner
My supervisor does not tailor (his/her) communications to individuals’ specific needs
Intention to Leave Organization/Company
I often think about quitting
It is very likely that I will actively look for a new job in the next year
I will leave this organization in the next year
I don’t have intention to leave my current job
I plan to spend the rest of my career in this organization

7.2.    Appendix 2: Reliability Tests Results

Interactional Justice Items (Included Items for Informational and Interpersonal Justice)
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.810    9
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    28.15    28.654    .778    .756
Item 2 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    28.22    29.709    .692    .768
Item 3 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    28.42    32.266    .349    .812
Item 4 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    28.85    37.604    -.031    .855
Item 1 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    28.53    32.635    .460    .796
Item 2 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    28.60    30.162    .616    .777
Item 3 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    28.57    29.500    .743    .763
Item 4 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    29.06    28.764    .621    .774
Item 5 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    29.20    30.889    .483    .794

Procedural Justice Items
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.793    6
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    19.51    9.929    .488    .776
Item 2 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    19.57    10.510    .490    .773
Item 3 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    19.28    9.719    .693    .729
Item 4 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    19.69    10.095    .484    .776
Item 5 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    19.52    9.161    .659    .732
Item 6 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     19.28    10.345    .481    .776

Distributive Justice Items
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.847    4
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    11.73    5.209    .706    .797
Item 2 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    11.73    5.694    .698    .804
Item 3 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    11.64    5.425    .712    .796
Item 4 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    11.88    5.177    .640    .830

All items representing organizational justice
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.870    19
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.37    95.771    .535    .861
Item 2 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.43    98.551    .459    .864
Item 3 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.14    98.243    .496    .863
Item 4 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.55    96.654    .507    .862
Item 5 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.38    96.501    .505    .862
Item 6 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice    67.14    99.253    .386    .866
Item 1 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    67.30    95.061    .589    .859
Item 2 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    67.30    97.121    .549    .861
Item 3 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    67.21    97.865    .463    .864
Item 4 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    67.45    96.250    .479    .863
Item 1 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    67.18    92.594    .643    .857
Item 2 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    67.25    92.735    .653    .856
Item 3 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    67.45    99.886    .222    .875
Item 4 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    67.88    104.794    .023    .882
Item 1 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    67.56    96.673    .491    .863
Item 2 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    67.63    91.670    .681    .855
Item 3 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    67.60    91.010    .776    .852
Item 4 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    68.09    93.638    .483    .864
Item 5 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    68.23    97.795    .327    .870

Turnover Intentions Items
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.510    5

Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Turnover Intention    11.62    6.905    .760    .077
Item 2 Turnover Intention    11.62    7.551    .678    .163
Item 3 Turnover Intention    11.71    7.420    .745    .123
Item 4 Turnover Intention    11.72    9.941    .283    .452
Item 5 Turnover Intention     11.53    18.353    -.549    .852

Turnover Intention Items After Deletion
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.852    4
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Turnover Intention    8.60    10.444    .716    .801
Item 2 Turnover Intention    8.60    10.343    .773    .776
Item 3 Turnover Intention    8.69    10.539    .782    .774
Item 4 Turnover Intention    8.70    12.010    .514    .884

All items with deleting Turnover Intention item 5
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha    N of Items
.743    23
Item-Total Statistics
Items    Scale Mean if Item Deleted    Scale Variance if Item Deleted    Corrected Item-Total Correlation    Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted
Item 1 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     78.90    78.657    .487    .721
Item 2 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     78.96    79.897    .496    .723
Item 3 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     78.67    79.860    .516    .723
Item 4 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     79.08    80.095    .417    .726
Item 5 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     78.91    79.073    .472    .723
Item 6 Procedural Justice of Organizational Justice     78.67    81.981    .323    .732
Item 1 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    78.83    77.092    .599    .714
Item 2 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    78.83    80.486    .452    .726
Item 3 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    78.74    80.538    .413    .727
Item 4 Distributive Justice of Organizational Justice    78.98    78.202    .486    .721
Item 1 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    78.71    77.097    .522    .717
Item 2 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    78.78    77.143    .534    .717
Item 3 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    78.98    84.343    .091    .750
Item 4 Interpersonal Justice of Organizational Justice    79.41    85.861    .029    .754
Item 1 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    79.09    78.446    .506    .720
Item 2 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    79.16    75.348    .613    .710
Item 3 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    79.13    74.983    .689    .706
Item 4 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    79.62    78.783    .343    .730
Item 5 Informational Justice of Organizational Justice    79.76    82.992    .163    .744
Item 1 Turnover Intention    79.83    88.304    -.091    .767
Item 2 Turnover Intention    79.83    88.304    -.089    .766
Item 3 Turnover Intention    79.92    89.145    -.123    .767
Item 4 Turnover Intention    79.93    92.591    -.259    .779

7.3.    Appendix 3: Regression Analysis Outputs (Enter Method)

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model    Variables Entered    Variables Removed    Method
1    OrgJustVarb    .    Enter
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention
b. All requested variables entered.

Model Summary
Model    R    R Square    Adjusted R Square    Std. Error of the Estimate
1    .421a    .177    .168    3.90647
a. Predictors: (Constant), OrgJustVar

ANOVAa
Model    Sum of Squares    df    Mean Square    F    Sig.
1    Regression    321.379    1    321.379    21.059    .000b
Residual    1495.531    98    15.261
Total    1816.910    99
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention
b. Predictors: (Constant), OrgJustVar

Coefficientsa
Model    Unstandardized Coefficients    Standardized Coefficients    t    Sig.
B    Std. Error    Beta
1    (Constant)    23.956    2.736        8.756    .000
OrgJustVar    -.174    .038    -.421    -4.589    .000
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention

7.4.    Appendix 4: Regression Analysis Outputs (Stepwise Method)

Variables Entered/Removeda
Model    Variables Entered    Variables Removed    Method
1    NewInteractJusticeFactor    .    Stepwise (Criteria: Probability-of-F-to-enter <= .050, Probability-of-F-to-remove >= .100).
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention

Model Summary
Model    R    R Square    Adjusted R Square    Std. Error of the Estimate
1    .451a    .203    .195    3.84303
a. Predictors: (Constant), NewInteractJusticeFactor

ANOVAa
Model    Sum of Squares    df    Mean Square    F    Sig.
1    Regression    369.559    1    369.559    25.023    .000b
Residual    1447.351    98    14.769
Total    1816.910    99
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention
b. Predictors: (Constant), NewInteractJusticeFactor

Coefficientsa
Model    Unstandardized Coefficients    Standardized Coefficients    t    Sig.
B    Std. Error    Beta
1    (Constant)    21.558    2.041        10.561    .000
NewInteractJusticeFactor    -.311    .062    -.451    -5.002    .000
a. Dependent Variable: NewTurnoverIntention