Journal of Entrepreneurship Education (Print ISSN: 1098-8394; Online ISSN: 1528-2651)

Research Article: 2020 Vol: 23 Issue: 5

Agree to Disagree: Fairness Perception, Employee Dissent, and Psychological Capital

Muhammad Ashraf, Faculty of Management Science, Shah Abdul Latif University, Pakistan

Dr. Javed Ahmed Chandio, Dean Faculty of Commerce & Business Administration, University of Sindh, Pakistan

Rafia Javed, Private Schools, Karachi, Govt of Sindh, Pakistan

Citation Information: Ashraf, M., Chandio, J.A., Javed, R. (2020). Agree to disagree: Fairness perception, employee dissent, and psychological capital. Journal of Entrepreneurship Education, 23(5).


The main objective of this research was to empirically assess the direct relationship between organizational justice and organizational dissent. Moreover, the mediating mechanism through positive psychological capital has also been investigated between justice and dissent. The respondents were male and female educators working among several colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). The close-ended questionnaire was used to collect data from respondents (n=345). By using a robust statistical approach (SEM), results revealed that organizational justice negatively affects the educators to engage in organizational dissent. Further, positive psychological capital mediates the relationship between justice perception (organizational justice) and organizational dissent. All constructs have been assessed as higher-order (2nd order) level of abstraction and the mediating mechanism was followed as suggested by Sobel (1982). In this regard, it is seen that level of dissent among educators could be reduced and shifted positively by focusing on psychological capital which is caused by organizational injustice. The study is helpful for policymakers in establishing positive behaviors and attitudes among employees working in organizations.


Organizational Justice, Organizational Dissent, Psychological Capital, Structural Equation Modelling.


Organizational practices are continuously accommodating the perception of people working for them. To cater and grasp the reactive and proactive chemistry of people in the working environment numerous studies have been conducted. Such as Sasirekha & Ashok, (2016); Anson et al. (2015); have concluded that employee perception has an all-encompassing role in organizational performances, be it financial, marketing, and others. All the organizational practices are perceived by employees through their respective goggles. Thus for the management, it is important to corroborate, the way people are perceiving their decisions and practices. For example, while evaluating the performance of employees, the organizations are required to assess how their Performance Management System (PMS) is being valued by employees (Sharma et al., 2016). Thus counterwork behavior among them demonstrating the negative perception and vice versa.

The employee behavior in and outside the working environment is a reflection of the perception, as to how epiphenomenon doctrine narrates. More the positive perception s/he has more the higher-order productivity prevails both for organization and individual. From the distribution of output to fairness in its execution and perception about dignified treatment in the working environment are the attributes of organizational fairness and equity-based treatment. As content employees exhibit positive behavior through his/her contribution to organizational productivity like that a disgruntled employee lauds his/her through several counterwork behaviors. As a result, the adverse happening at work is most frequently conversed, whispered, shown to immediate supervisors, colleagues, friends, and even family members, such expression of disagreement and discontentment forms organizational dissent (Kassing & Armstrong, 2002).

However, the emotional stability among people in the working environment enables them to accommodate pressure cookers like the situation to a larger extent. In this regard, positive psychology has a very crucial role to play. People, with weaker emotional stability, are always prone to negative work behavior. The study of affirmative individualistic exposure, positive personal abilities, and optimistic Institutional practices assures the quality of life and avert the cause of suffering and negativity, which emerges when the occurrences in life are meaningless and barren. The studies exploring the pathological issues are very much abundant, however, dearth studies are evaluating the nexus of fairness, emotional stability, and organizational dissent. Conventionally there is agreed upon consensus that three resources are very much important for any organization, namely financial, technological, and human. Jensen & Luthans (2006); Luthans & Youssef (2004) suggested the fourth resource called positive psychological capital. This resource is said to increase the organization worth in market place. This research aims to answer the research dilemma.

Organizational Justice

According to Greenberg (2018), an individual’s perception of fairness can be developed within an organization with the organizational Justice in terms of equity theory. Historically, organizational justice is deeply associated with the theory of equity. The equity theory, as per practical deliberation was given by Adam (1965), that persons go through the conflict of cognitive nature particularly when things being handled in hand go in contrast to their prospect. This relevant theory further details that personal interaction is to be accounted for in their persistent social mindset in making of assessment within the allied individuals. Hence, ‘input and out’ ratio wise can be assessed within reference to individuals. The organizational justice, because of equity, ensures the guarantee to the most successful corporations. This designed perspective regarding the prevalence of justice in the organization, further revealed that if organizations need to have loyal, job-satisfied and self-committed employees in the organization, then they shall avail the fairness in business operations and fair trial justice to personnel in all type of organization problems handling. When employees perceive themselves as stakeholders of the company, they develop a high-level sense of ownership and personal attachment just because of justice prevailed in affairs of interest. In this situation, all organizational decisions are being back up supported by workers of the company. Hence, employee performance and the company’s productivity can be enhanced together with almost job-satisfaction of employees. Similarly, when there is a positive flow of interpersonal communication in organizations, company workers/personnel feel a higher level of justice. In the context of organizational justice, as highlighted by DeConinck (2010), it is vividly stated that the organizational justice results are believed to be the trust and trustworthy professional commitment where there is a social justice enforced. The main focusing organizational problems, for example, maybe posed in sanctioning of monetary resources, hiring and firing of the company employees, policymaking and policy implementation that shall greatly influence on the decision-makers and the individuals who were influenced of relevant decisions shall necessitate exclusive focus and interaction in line of justice provisions (Colquitt et al., 2005). In terms of equity features as stated by Wat & Shaffer (2005) that equity has normally been abstracted in means of achieved conformity/justice and functionalized construct of three dimensions: interactional, procedural, and distributive categories of justice. Particularly, distributive Justice related to employees’ perceptional concerns either benefit-oriented or fairly distributed (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). As per the analytical and observational preview presented by Greenberg (2018) that distributive justice is a category of organizational justice that emphasizes on the belief of senior management personnel that their employees shall achieve equality in the acknowledgment of potential job assignments with similar monitory gains like pay & motivation in all respects. Sensibly, the distributive justice entails the employees’ rights, incentives, and job duties shall be distributed according to employees’ abilities and skills and contributions. It has further been critically argued by Cropanzano et al. (2007) that distributive justice is connected with the ground realities that not all workers can be handled with alike-treatment, and that the workload allocation outcomes are found distinguished at the workplace. It has been discovered by Dailey & Kirk (1992) that workers use to make rationalize their wants and sometimes may quit by knowing the conflicting situation based on the way how unfairly rewards are distributed among favorites one. The issue of important concern in distributive justice is the material gains conferred to employees are rightly, appropriately, and ethically (Ozen, 2003).

The second category of organizational justice is the procedural justice that can be defined as the procedural fairness for the smooth working of the organization are concerning issues of the methods, mechanisms, and procedures staffing and employment be made on merit standards to determine the desired results, (Folger & Cropanzano, 1998). According to expert viewpoints of Greenberg (1996) that procedural justice can be assessed with the perception of an individual concerning whether the procedures adopted in decision making for issues about employees or otherwise are according to policies of the company. The significance of procedural justice can be judged from the rights, incentives, and fringe benefits including Gracia-awards offered to workers with fair opportunities which provide them good results; they also show their likeness in the company’s fair procedures utilized in measuring their major output-results (Greenberg, 2018). According to Cropanzano, Ambrose, Greenberg and Cropanzano (2001) it will be alarming and situation of employee de-motivation in case procedural injustice is practiced in an organization because workers or stakeholders accept the organizational behavior as part of an unfair deal; they will consider the whole organizational system being operative of unfair means. Subsequently, it is prescribed that any organization that fails to provide procedural justice may necessarily attempt to enforce it as part of the routine practice. Thus, employees may never accept the unfair practices in making basic decisions in unfair means.

Interactional Justice is related to preview as to how the conduct of the decision-makers is comprehended (Bies & Moag, 1986). In terms of the rule of business, interactional justice is the way management treats the workers (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). The interactional justice factually provides the actual presentation of the process adopted in making decisions within the company. As per the system organizational justice and in the context of interpersonal justice, people’s perceptions, the fairness of mind and manners can be evaluated; what they attribute from others by applying fair trial and fair deals in all affairs of the organization (Greenberg, 2018). According to Colquitt et al. (2005), it is observed that the chief put the condition by objecting as to why the layoff/dismissal of an employee in a subjective manner, then it is sensed in a positive feeling born by the organization’s employees. On the valid grounds with fair dealing, the employee shall undermine the layoff as fair enough. Thus, they shall not file suit against the organization for termination on discriminatory grounds. This you-value approach expresses, to a greater extent, the critical role of the interactional justice, as the way an organization behaves its workers who in likelihood enhance the quality image and goodwill of the organization.

Organizational Dissent

Almost every organization also faces dissent as omnipresent happening in organizations (Kassing, 1997; Kassing & Kava, 2013). For example, employees may have job-dissatisfaction while serving the organization or with the management (Kassing, 2011), or specific group members within the corporation who may defy the state of affairs by expressing contrary opinions, and perceptions including company goals and material gains also (Perlow & Repenning, 2009). By concept, the dissent is an endeavor by employed members of the organization (Kassing et al., 2012) to express the voice and demand the change “the practices, policies, and outputs of the organization to which one belongs” (Hirschman, 1970, p. 30). As per the perceptions indicated by Graham (1986) that importantly dissent emphasized the important issues about the organization and provides all optional ways by engaging authentic and sensible contemplation of substitutes which may improve performance, decision quality, and expand the innovations (Garner, 2014). The organizations lacking the dissent in the company may subsidize to groupthink/decisions and concurrent losses such as the ‘bay of pigs ‘annexation in 1961 (Janis, 1972) and two space shuttles’ explosion, at Challenger in 1986 (Elmes & Gemmill, 1990) and Columbia in 2003 (Argyris, 1990). Dissent manifestation and management usually take enough time, utmost patience, and resources backups (Kassing, 1997), and every corporation may not be able or reluctant to make sort of investments despite other performance benefits. In the context organizations, the constructive of dissent and its effects are yet to be explored in some operational areas within organizations in communication (Kassing, 2011) and more particularly in the field of education. The other research scholars Burke & Cooper (2013) have focused on more research into the perception and presumptions of voice expression of dissent climate. There is ambiguity existing in the proper understanding of how a corporation’s tolerance and passions for dissent proportionally linked with performance.

The retaliating and disgruntled expression by the employees has been categorized into three strategies and termed as ways of expressing dissent (Kassing, 1997). The first of them is Articulated Dissent “which is an expression of dissent explicitly and openly in a productive manner within an organization, that can cause the organizational adjustment”. Employees articulate their dissent with the view that their opinion will be taken positively by the organization. Such types of dissents are considered as early stages of whistleblowing. Latent dissent happens when people in the working environment desire to voice their sayings and opinions, but the perception prevails among them, that they do not have avenues for expressing dissent. As a result, the state of frustration cropped among them and burst dissent aggressively before ineffective audiences within the organization or with the equally frustrated employees. Displaced dissent involves disagreeing without retaliating, confronting, or challenging and entails the expression of dissent to the people outside organizations (friends, spouses, family members, etc.) excluding media, political sources. Studies have suggested that employees are always happened to be in clear senses while expressing dissent, and how it will be responded to in an organization. The dissenters could be unnoticed, compensated, or even punished (Graham, 1986). When employees perceive that their expression of dissent is unnoticed, ignored, and unresponsive from the part of immediate boss and all the avenues went blocked. Such circumstances may choose to blow the whistle on the organization. The quality of response from the part of the immediate boss to an articulate dissent, determine the future expression of employee dissent. Thus the positive response, in terms of distribution, procedures, and treatment to articulated dissent can encourage the employees to record constructive and efficient feedback by channelizing positive avenues. Besides, that employee may also weigh the other consideration to dissent decisions.

Empirical Justification

Employees may react to injustice in an organization by exhibiting dissent in their behavior as suggested equity theory (Chory & Hubbell, 2008). People in the working environment may talk about their concern to organizational high ups to influence change and to peers or people sitting outside the organizations (Friends, Family members) to diffuse their frustration and secure the affectionate support, or due to fear of termination from the job they may show reluctance to retaliate against their superiors.

Before this study, the organizational justice and dissent have been studied altogether by Goodboy et al. (2008) which has provided evidence of significant relationships. However, earlier to this, Chia et al. (2006) confirmed in their research that when people in the working environment smell a rat in the execution of procedures or informational unfairness, hold back decisions till they have a consultation with other organizational members and develop consensus. The researchers (Chia et al., 2006) further noted that start to explore the information regarding verify the authenticity or to discard their doubt of unfairness, this nexus of exchanging information with each other shows their social interaction in the working environment. These findings confirm that people in the working environment may be checking their social forum to register their concern about unfairness. The study conducted by (Chia et al., 2006) is confined only to the Chinese workers in electricity plants, focusing only on two types of justice, and the research conducted (Goodboy et al., 2008) in US Context. This study examines the people working as educators in various colleges of Pakistan and Bangladesh. Three types of justices and propensity to retaliate and show confronting behavior when they perceive unfairness are the focuses of this study. Based on this rationale we have formulated the following hypotheses:

H1: Organizational Justice is negatively related to the propensity to engage in organizational dissent

H1(a): Distributive Justice Significantly and negatively related with the propensity to engage in organization dissent.

H1(b): Procedural Justice Significantly and negatively related with the propensity to engage in organization dissent.

H1(c): Interactional Justice significantly and negatively related with the propensity to engage in organization dissent.

Positive Psychology

The inclusion of positive psychology as a research construct is not a too old phenomenon in organizational behavior (Ashraf et al., 2020; Luthans & Youssef, 2007), it has been also termed as positive organizational behavior (POB) (Avey et al., 2010; Mathe et al., 2017). Luthans et al., (2008) documented the concept of psychological capital as affirmative input, which in turn can produce significant and positive employee performance. The scholars have concluded four identical dimensions of positive psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2007; Malone, 2010; Seaton, 2011; Kappagoda et al., 2014). Self-efficacy is coined as a preliminary dimension of positive psychological capital (Luthans et al., 2007) succeeded by optimism (Peterson, 2000), followed by hope (Luthans et al,, 2008) and the last one is termed as resilience. Self-Efficacy refers to having been in a state of confidence to carry out challenging tasks for successful business operations. Stajkovic & Luthans (1998) describe self-efficacy as an individualistic trust of capabilities to exhibit an amount of enthusiasm for the challenging work assignment. The intention related to self-regulation and to achieve the predetermined objective refers to optimism. An optimist is an individual who anticipates betters happenings, whereas a pessimist considers vice versa (Carver et al., 2005). The study confirms that an optimistic person in the working environment keeps thinking positively and tries to find the affirmative aspect of even dreadful events (Luthans et al., 2007). Optimist employees are always carrying internal stability (Seligman, 1998). Whereas hope signifies positive persuasion regarding persistent and prolonged excellence. It also refers to the determination of an individual about the achievement of the organizational objective (Luthans et al., 2008). The hope is a blend of individual capability and commitment towards objectives, strategy to switch between alternative plans of actions (Snyder, 2000; Luthans et al., 2007; Avey et al., 2009). The fourth dimension of positive psychology is termed resilience, which refers to the possibility to fight back from dreadful failures (Mills et al., 2013). Masten et at. (2014) described resilience in positive psychology as step by step strategy to adapt to changing workplace settings.

The Mediating Role of Positive Psychology

Shang Guan et al. (2017) have studied the psychological capital as an intervening variable between occupational stress and job satisfaction in the Chinese context; they found that psychological capital partially mediates the said association. The positive and significant influence of psychological capital has been studied in several fields of inquiry, such as healthcare services (Sun et al., 2011; Liu et al., 2012), educators (Pan et al., 2015), and law enforcement.

H2: Positive Psychological Capital mediates the relationship between organizational justice and organizational dissent.

Conceptual Model

The conceptual framework demonstrates both direct and indirect influence among variables of interest. The research constructs organizational justice has a direct influence on organizational dissent. The fairness in distribution, execution of the decision, and dignified treatment with employees will mitigate the sense of disgruntled attitude, demonstration of disagreement, and retaliating attitude. Contrary to that injustice is bound to create deviating behaviors. However, people enriched with positive psychology may demonstrate with passion even in unfairness. Thus positive psychological capital is the mediating variable between organizational justice and organizational dissent. The graphical representation is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1 Conceptual Model


Target Population

People working in various colleges of Karachi were targeted to be the participants of the survey for this study. The population framework was made available from the official website of Education and Literacy Department Govt. of Sindh ( The number of people working in 119 colleges of govt. was around 4000. After screening and eliminating the incomplete records we remained with 3000 probable participants. Whereas the educators engaged in various colleges at Dhaka (Bangladesh) were 3400. After screening and eliminating incomplete records in population frame we remained with 2300 complete records, which constituted the target population for this study. Thus overall we had 6300 educators as the target population for this study.

Sample Size

Three hundred forty-five (70.4% male and 29.6% female) who had at least 10 years of working experience were targeted to become the elements of the sample. The respondents' mean age was around 36 years. Approximately 54% of people were lecturers and being there on the same designation for more than 10 years. 25% of them were Assistant professors in prolong wait of promotion for 7 years. Around 18% were Associate Professors mostly on the verge of superannuation, and persistent denied promotion to the next order. And remaining were professors constituting only 3%. The lectures were loaded with 30 hours per week, 21 hours for Assistant professors, 14 hours for Associate Professors, and 7 hours for professors.

Variables of Interest

We had organizational justice as an exogenous variable along with its three dimensions, namely distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. The organizational dissent was the endogenous variable for this study along with its three dimensions namely Articulated Dissent, Antagonist Dissent, and Displaced Dissent. The study also had Positive Psychological Capital as a mediating variable. The mediating variable positive psychological capital had four sub-variables namely, Self-efficacy, Hope, Optimism, and Resilience.

Data Collection Instrument

We have used a pre-designed scale of organizational justice developed by (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993). The scale for organizational dissent developed by (Kassing, 1997) has been used to collect data for this study. The data collection instrument for positive psychological capital having 24 items altogether developed by (Luthans et al., 2007; Sapyaprapa, et al., 2013) has been used to collect data for this study.

Analytical Strategy

Descriptive Statistics regarding demographic profiles have been given in the first part of the analysis, followed by the inferential statistics section. The inferential statistics section is organized into two subsections namely Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). We have applied statistical software SPSS 20 for descriptive analysis and AMOS 20 has been used for conducting Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to test the direct and indirect influence among the variables of interest. As recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988), it was necessary to test the construct validity through CFA followed by testing hypothesized paths through SEM


Reliabilities and Validities of Constructs

The items measuring related research construct should be considered internally consistent, as excellent, good, and fairly acceptable when they returnα ≥ 0.90, α ≥ 0.80, and α ≥ 0.70; respectively (Leech et al., 2011; Cronbach, 1951). The results of this study for each construct given in table 1, the Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability is greater than 0.70 which is fairly more than acceptability range. The composite reliability (CR) for each construct was more than the minimum level of 0.70. Hence this research fulfills the required cut-off values for Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). The Squire Root of Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was fairly more than 0.50, being considered as a fundamental prerequisite for performing SEM; which also furthers validated the convergent validities of constructs (Fornel, Lacker, 1981; Leech et.,2011).

Table 1 Factor Loadings and Reliabilities
Variables Constructs Factor Loading Cronbach’s Alpha Composite Reliability AVE*
Distributive Justice DJ1 0.50 .783 .785 .764
DJ2 0.76
DJ3 0.64
DJ4 0.78
DJ5 0.59
Procedural Justice PJ1 0.73 0.745 0.765 0.745
PJ2 0.72
PJ3 0.80
Interactional Justice IJ1 0.81 0.813 0.815 0.799
IJ2 0.80
IJ3 0.83
AD1 0.74 0.739 0.748 0.738
AD2 0.76
AD3 0.70
Antagonist Dissent Ant1 0.77 0.771 0.813 0.593
Ant2 0.78
Ant3 0.76
Displaced Dissent DD1 0.88 0.753 0.864 0.681
DD2 0.84
DD3 0.75
Self-Efficacy SEF1 0.77 0.790 0.782 0.546
SEF2 0.66
SEF3 0.78
Hope H1 0.77 0.765 0.860 0.551
H2 0.76
H3 0.73
H4 0.71
H5 0.74
Optimistic OP1 0.78 0.831 0.820 0.603
OP2 0.79
OP3 0.76
Resilience RE1 0.88 0.740 0.920 0.792
RE2 0.89
RE3 0.90

Correlation analysis

The outcome of correlation analysis is given in Table 2. Organizational justice is shown as a positive significant correlation with positive psychological capital and a negative significant correlation with organizational dissent. The positive psychological capital is shown as a negative significant correlation with organizational dissent.

Table 2. Correlations Analysis
Variables 1 2 3
Org_Justice 1    
PosPsyC 0.316** 1  
OrgDissnt -0.174** -0.097* 1

SEM Outcomes

Previously, this research had shown the outcomes of the measurement part (CFA analysis) of SEM which confirmed the validity and power of constructs in explaining the proposed relationships. Moving ahead, the structural part of SEM helps to assess the anticipated hypotheses. SEM runs a multivariate statistical method that helps in assessing various structural relationships within a single model. By doing so, this study has analyzed three structural models to retain (or failed to retain) the proposed hypotheses. Moreover, Sobel’s (1982) technique is applied for mediation analysis. Table 3 and Figure 2 show the structural outcomes for organizational justice (exogenous variable) and organizational dissent (endogenous). Both constructs have been analyzed with a higher order (2nd order) level of abstraction. The results are demonstrating a significant and negative propensity between organizational justice and organizational dissent among educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). The path outcome shows (b=-0.61, p<0.001). This outcome has confirmed H1 and it is being retained. Moreover, fit indices (such as CMIN/DF, CFI, GFI, TLI, and RMSEA, etc.) are under suitable ranges (say,>0.90).

Table 3 Path Coefficients & Fit Indices
Path Weight P-Value
Organizational Justice → Organizational Dissent -0.61 ***
Fit Indices(Absolute, Incremental, Parsimonious)
CMIN/DF= 2.43, GFI=0.960, AGFI=0.951, TLI=0.899, CFI=0.920, RMSEA=0.052

Figure 2 Structural Model (Organizational Justice→Organizational Dissent)

Once again, with the dimension of organizational justice (Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Interactional Justice) the model has been assessed to determine the effects of these dimensions of Organizational dissent. Table 4 and Figure 3 show that dimensions contain first order of abstraction and Organizational dissent is to be assessed having the same (2nd order) level of abstraction. The path results revealed that Distributive, procedural, and interactional justice have significant and negative propensity with organizational dissent among educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). The path results for Distributive Justice → Organizational Dissent shows (b=-0.72, p<0.001), Procedural Justice → Organizational Dissent (b=-0.54, p<0.001), and Interactional justice → Organizational Dissent (b=-0.49, p<0.001). Based on the given outcomes of Figure 3, the sub hypotheses H1(a), H1(b), and H1(c) have been retained. Meanwhile, the model fitness is observed good enough.

Table 4 Path Coefficients & Fit Indices
Path Weight P-Value
Distributive Justice → Organizational Dissent -0.72 ***
Procedural Justice → Organizational Dissent -0.54 ***
Interactional Justice → Organizational Justice -0.49 ***
Fit Indices(Absolute, Incremental, Parsimonious)
CMIN/DF= 2.18, GFI=0.990, AGFI=0.982, TLI=0.910, CFI=0.951, RMSEA=0.049

Figure 3 Structural Model (Distributive Justice → Organizational Dissent, Procedural Justice → Organizational Dissent, Interactional Justice → Organizational Dissent)

Below, Table 5 and Figure 4 show the outcomes of SEM. The model assessed the mediating effect (Indirect effect) of positive psychological capital on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational dissent. Constructs like Positive Psychological capital (with its dimensions, self-efficacy, hope, optimism, resilience), organizational justice (with its dimensions, distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice) and organizational dissent (with its dimensions Articulated dissent, antagonistic dissent, and displaced dissent) have been construed as higher-order constructs. This mediating effect has been determined following the suggested criteria by Sobel (1982). In this regard, a very essential statistical website of Preacher and Leonardelli (2006) was used to determine the t-value and p-value. The paths for positive Psychological capital for both organizational justice and organizational dissent were found statistically significant. Meanwhile, the indirect path (Organizational Justice → positive psychological capital → Organizational Dissent) was found as t-value=2.67, and the p-value were fully statistically significant (p<0.001). Based on these statistical outcomes, it is confirmed that organizational justice affects organizational dissent through positive psychological capital among educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). Previously, the direct effect of organizational justice or organizational dissent revealed (b=-0.61, p<0.001), and, as positive psychological capital had appeared in between organizational justice and organizational dissent, the regressions weight has completely shifted from negative to positive (b=0.49, p<0.001). These statistical outcomes confirm the existence of a mediating effect.

Table 5 Path Coefficients & Fit Indices
Path Weight P-Value
Organizational Justice → Positive Psychological Capital → Organizational Dissent 0.49 ***
Fit Indices (Absolute, Incremental, Parsimonious)
CMIN/DF= 1.98, GFI=0.985, AGFI=0.981, TLI=0.940, CFI=0.962, RMSEA=0.050

Figure 4 Structural Equation Modelling (Organizational Justice → Positive Psychological Capital → Organizational Dissent)

Discussion and Findings

Organizational practices have been permanently shaped the impression following employees. Numerous studies have been conducted to understand and elaborate on people's reactions to their particular workplace (Sasirekha & Ashok, 2016; Anson et al., 2015). Thus, it becomes the notion that employees’ perceptions play an important role in corporate performance among various departments of the organization. Employees intend to know the particular set of organizational practices that would help them in their jobs with a comfortable environment. Therefore, it is important for management to validate the way people understand organizational practices. Meanwhile, organizational justice plays a pivotal role in organizational practices. An Individual’s perception of fairness can be developed within an organization with the organizational Justice as followed in the concept of equity theory (Greenberg, 2018). Further, organizational justice is deeply associated with the theory of equity, where it has been documented that personal interaction is to be accounted for in their persistent social mindset in making certain assessments within the allied individuals. The organizational justice, because of equity, ensures the guarantee to the most successful corporations. On the other side, most organizations face dissent as a pervasive factor (Kassing, 1997; Kassing & Kava, 2013). By concept, the dissent is an endeavor by employed members of the organization (Kassing et al., 2012) to express the voice and demand the change “the practices, policies, and outputs of the organization to which one belongs” (Hirschman, 1970). Moreover, as Kassing & Armstrong (2002) says about organizational dissent the behavior of employees inside and outside the work environment is a reflection of emotion. The higher the positive feedback, the higher the order performance for both the organization and the individual. Besides, Organizational equity and fairness are characterized as behavioral aspects by which employee well-being at the workplace could be enhanced. However, emotional stability in the working environment allows people to adapt and indulged in the prevailing tough situation. In this sense, positive psychology plays a very important role in the game. Thus, people with low emotional stability are always susceptible to retaliate with negative behaviors. This research has chosen organizational justice as an exogenous (independent) variable, organizational dissent as an endogenous (dependent) variable, and positive psychological capital as a mediating variable. Organizational justice has second-order abstraction through its dimensions like distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. In the same manner, organizational dissent has also the higher-order abstraction through its dimensions like articulated dissent, antagonistic dissent, and displaced dissent. The mediating variable positive psychological capital contains self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience as its dimensions. Furthermore, this study has selected the educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh) to determine the direct influence of organizational justice on organizational dissent and indirect effect (through positive psychological capital) between organizational justice and organizational dissent. Based on statistical outcomes, it was determined that organizational Justice is negatively related with the propensity to engage in organizational dissent among the educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). Moreover, the dimensions of organizational justice are also assessed separately which revealed that distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice are negatively related with a propensity to engage in organizational dissent among the educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). Besides, positive psychological capital mediates the relationship between organizational justice and organizational dissent (assessed through Sobel’s, 1982 mediation concept). This study caters to the attention of organizational policymakers to make a robust strategy in maintaining organizational practices.


The core objective of this research was to determine the influence of organizational justice on the propensity to engage in organizational dissent among the educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). Moreover, the study also includes the untapped mediating mechanism of positive psychological capital in between organizational justice and dissent. The justice practices are prevailing among organizations and negatively influence organizational dissent, thus, to tackle this situation positive psychological capital intervenes between justice and dissent. Organizational justice negatively affects people engage in organizational dissent, however, in the presence of positive psychological capital the negative relationship has shifted into a positive one, and organizational justice made a strong causal effect on psychological capital. The data was collected through a close-ended questionnaire from male and female educators working in various colleges of Karachi (Pakistan) and Dhaka (Bangladesh). The SPSS v20 was used for data input and assessed an AMOS v21 by using Structural equation modeling (SEM). The Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was treated as a measurement part and relationships among constructs were observed through the structural part of SEM.


  1. Adam, J.S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. Advances in Exlierimental Social lisychology, 267-299.
  2. Anderson, J.C, &amli; Gerbing, D.W (1988). Structural equation modeling in liractice: A review and recommended two-steli aliliroach. lisychological Bulletin, 103, 411-423.
  3. Anson, R.A.Q., Giridhar, B.K., Barkur, G., &amli; lirasad, S.H.C. (2015). emliloyee liercelition on organizational lierformance:a structural equation modeling aliliroach. The International Journal Of Business &amli; Management, 3(5), 252.
  4. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses: Facilitating organizational learning. Allyn &amli; Bacon.
  5. Ashraf, M., Mangi, R.A., &amli; Laghari, M.K. (2020) Study of worklilace ostracism, emliloyee engagement and interacting effect of lisychological caliital (liSCAli): A conservation of resources theory liersliective. liakistan Business Review, 22(1), 43-59
  6. Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M., &amli; lialmer, N.F. (2010). Imliact of liositive lisychological caliital on emliloyee well-being over time. Journal of occuliational health lisychology, 15(1), 17.
  7. Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., &amli; Jensen, S.M. (2009). lisychological caliital: A liositive resource for combating emliloyee stress and turnover. Human resource management, 48(5), 677-693.
  8. Bies, R.J. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, 43-55.
  9. Burke, R.J., &amli; Coolier, C.L. (Eds.). (2013). Voice and whistleblowing in organizations: Overcoming fear, fostering courage and unleashing candour. Edward Elgar liublishing.
  10. Carver, C.S., Smith, R.G., Antoni, M.H., lietronis, V.M., Weiss, S., &amli; Derhagoliian, (2005). Olitimistic liersonality and lisychosocial well-being during treatment liredict lisychosocial well-being among long-term survivors of breast cancer. Health lisychology, 24, 508-516.
  11. Chia, H.B., Foo, M.D., &amli; Fang, R. (2006). Worklilaces as communities: The role of social networks in who seeks, gives, and accelits information on justice issues. Journal of Community lisychology, 34, 363-377.
  12. Chory, R.M., &amli; Hubbell, (2008). Organizational justice and managerial trust as liredictors of antisocial emliloyee reslionses. Communication Quarterly, 56(4), 357-375.
  13. Colquitt, J.A., Greenberg, J., &amli; Zaliata-lihelan, (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg &amli; J.A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice (li. 3-56). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates liublishers.
  14. Cohen-Charash, Y., &amli; Sliector, li.E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision lirocesses, 86(2), 278-321.
  15. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alliha and the internal structure of tests. lisychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
  16. Crolianzano, R., Bowen, D.E., &amli; Gilliland, S.W. (2007). The Management of Organizational Justice. Academy of Management liersliectives, 21(4), 34-48.
  17. Crolianzano, R., Ambrose, M.L., Greenberg, J., &amli; Crolianzano, R. (2001). lirocedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic liersliective and a research agenda. Advances in organizational justice, 119, 151.
  18. Dailey, R.C., &amli; Kirk, D.J. (1992). Distributive and lirocedural justice as antecedents of job dissatisfaction and intent to turnover. Human Relations, 45(3), 305-317.
  19. DeConinck, J.B. (2010). The effect of organizational justice, lierceived organizational suliliort, and lierceived suliervisor suliliort on marketing emliloyees' level of trust. Journal of Business Research, 63(12), 1349-1355.
  20. Elmes, M.B., &amli; Gemmill, G. (1990). The lisychodynamics of mindlessness and dissent in small groulis. Small Grouli Research, 21(1), 28-44.
  21. Folger, R., &amli; Crolianzano, R. (1998). Foundations for organizational science.Organizational justice and human resource management. Sage liublications, Inc.
  22. Fornell, C., &amli; Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating Structural Equation Models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.
  23. Garner, J.T. (2014). Olien Doors and Iron Cages. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 27-54.
  24. Goodboy, A.K., Chory, R.M., &amli; Dunleavy, K.N. (2008). Organizational dissent as a function of organizational justice. Communication Research Reliorts, 25(4), 255-265.
  25. Graham, J.W. (1986). lirincililed organizational dissent: A theoretical essay. Research in organizational behavior.
  26. Greenberg, J. (1996). The quest for justice on the job: Essays and exlieriments. Sage liublications, Incorliorated.
  27. Greenberg, J. (2018). Emliloyee theft as a reaction to underliayment inequity: The hidden cost of liay cuts. Occuliational Crime, 99-106.
  28. Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Reslionses to decline in firms, organizations, and states (Vol. 25). Harvard university liress.
  29. Janis, I.L. (1972). Victims of groulithink: A lisychological study of foreign-liolicy decisions and fiascoes.
  30. Jensen, S.M., &amli; Luthans, F. (2006). Relationshili between entrelireneurs' lisychological caliital and their authentic leadershili. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18(2), 254-273.
  31. Kaliliagoda, U.W.M.R., Othman, H., Fithri, Z., &amli; De Alwis, (2014). The imliact of lisychological caliital on job lierformance in the banking sector in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Arts and Commerce, 3(5).
  32. Kassing, J.W., &amli; Armstrong, T.A. (2002). Someone’s going to hear about this: Examining the association between dissent-triggering events and emliloyees’ dissent exliression. Management Communication Quarterly, 16, 39-65.
  33. Kassing, J.W. (2011). Stressing out about dissent: Examining the relationshili between coliing strategies and dissent exliression. Communication Research Reliorts, 28(3), 225-234.
  34. Kassing, J.W., liiemonte, N.M., Goman, C.C., &amli; Mitchell, C.A. (2012). Dissent exliression as an indicator of work engagement and intention to leave. Journal of Business Communication, 49(3), 237-253.
  35. Kassing, J.W. (1997). Articulating, antagonizing, and dislilacing: A model of emliloyee dissent. Communication Studies, 48(4), 311-332.
  36. Kassing, J.W., &amli; Kava, W. (2013). Assessing Disagreement Exliressed to Management: Develoliment of the Uliward Dissent Scale. Communication Research Reliorts, 30(1), 46-56.
  37. Kassing, J. (2011). Dissent in Organization. Malden: liolity liress.
  38. Leech, N.L., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., &amli; O'Conner, R. (2011). Assessing internal consistency in counseling research. Counseling Outcome Research and Evaluation, 2(2), 115-125.
  39. Liu, L., Chang, Y., Fu, J., Wang, J., &amli; Wang, L. (2012). The mediating role of lisychological caliital on the association between occuliational stress and deliressive symlitoms among Chinese lihysicians: A cross-sectional study. BMC liublic Health, 12(1).
  40. Luthans, F., &amli; Youssef, C.M. (2004). Human, social, and now liositive lisychological caliital management. Organizational Dynamics, 33(2), 143-160.
  41. Luthans, F., &amli; Youssef, C.M. (2007). Emerging liositive organizational behavior. Journal of management, 33(3), 321-349.
  42. Luthans, F., Avey, J.B., &amli; liatera, J.L. (2008). Exlierimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develoli liositive lisychological caliital. Academy of Management Learning &amli; Education, 7(2), 209-221.
  43. Malone, L. D. (2010). Individual differences and stress reactions as liredictors of lierformance in liilot trainees (Master thesis). Available from liroQuest Dissertations and Theses database.
  44. Masten, A.S., Cutuli, J.J., Herbers, J.E., Hinz, E., Obradović, J., &amli; Wenzel, A.J. (2014). Academic risk and resilience in the context of homelessness. Child develoliment liersliectives, 8(4), 201-206.
  45. Mathe, K., Scott-Halsell, S., Kim, S., &amli; Krawczyk, M. (2017). lisychological caliital in the quick service restaurant industry: A study of unit-level lierformance. Journal of Hosliitality &amli; Tourism Research, 41(7), 823-845.
  46. Mills, M., R. Fleck, C., &amli; Kozikowski, A. (2013). liositive lisychology at work: A concelitual review, state-of-liractice assessment, and a look ahead. The Journal of liositive lisychology, 8(2), 153-164.
  47. Niehoff,, &amli; Moorman, R.H. (1993) Justice as a mediator of the relationshili between methods of monitoring and organizational citizenshili behavior, Academy of Management Journal, 36(5), 527–556.
  48. Ozen, J. (2003). Organizational justice as the key to trust in organization. In F. Erdem (Ed.), Trust in social sciences (lili. 183–207). Ankara: Vadi liublishing
  49. lian, B., Shen, X., Liu, L., Yang, Y., &amli; Wang, L. (2015). Factors Associated with Job Satisfaction among University Teachers in the Northeastern Region of China: A Cross-Sectional Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and liublic Health, 12(10), 12761-12775.
  50. lierlow, L.A., &amli; Relienning, (2009). The dynamics of silencing conflict. Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 195-223.
  51. lieterson, C. (2000). The future of olitimism. American lisychologist, 55, 44-55
  52. Saliyaliralia, S., Tuicomeliee, A., &amli; Watakakosol, R. (2013). Validation of lisychological caliital questionnaire in Thai emliloyees. In liroceedings of the Asian Conference on lisychology and the Behavioral Sciences, Jalian (lili. 394-400).
  53. Sasirekha, A., &amli; Ashok, J. (2016). Emliloyees’ liercelition towards lierformance Measurement Factors: Structural Equation Modeling Aliliroach. Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities, 6(10), 1205.
  54. Shang Guan, C.Y., Li, Y., &amli; Ma, H.L. (2017). The mediating role of lisychological caliital on the association between occuliational stress and job satisfaction among townshili cadres in a sliecific lirovince of China: a cross-sectional study. International journal of environmental research and liublic health, 14(9), 972.
  55. Sharma,, Sharma, T., &amli; Agarwal, M.N. (2016). Measuring emliloyee liercelition of lierformance management system effectiveness. Emliloyee Relations, 38(2), 224-247.
  56. Sobel, M.E. (1982). Asymlitotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological Methodology 1982 (lili. 290-312).
  57. Stajkovic, A.D., &amli; Luthans, F. (1998a). Self-efficacy and work-related lierformance: A meta-analysis. lisychological Bulletin, 124, 240-261.
  58. Sun, T., Zhao, X.W., Yang, L.B., &amli; Fan, L.H. (2011). The imliact of lisychological caliital on job embeddedness and job lierformance among nurses: a structural equation aliliroach. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 68(1), 69-79.
  59. Wat, D., &amli; Shaffer, M.A. (2005). Equity and relationshili quality influences on organizational citizenshili behaviors: The mediating role of trust in the suliervisor and emliowerment. liersonnel Review, 34(4), 406-422.
Get the App