The relationship between hotel staff’s organizational justice perception, relationship quality and job performance

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research theoretical model

Note: Potential variables in the set model are represented by corresponding English letters to save space. Among them: DJ represents distributive justice; PJ represents procedural justice; IPJ represents interpersonal justice; IFJ represents informational justice; ES represents employee satisfaction; TP represents task performance; ET represents employee trust; CP represents contextual performance. In the following Figure 2, the potential variables are also represented by the corresponding English letters, whose meanings are completely consistent with the set theoretical model.

Table 1. Socioeconomic characteristics of hotel staff

Basic information of the samples	Classification	Number of people	Percentage (%)	Basic information of the samples	Classification	Number of people	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	147	48.5	Age	≤25	139	45.9
	Female	156	51.5		26 ~ 30	115	39.0
Education Background	College and below	156	51.5		31 ~ 40	33	10.9
	Undergraduate	136	44.9		41 ~ 50	9	2.9
	Postgraduate	11	3.6		≥51	7	1.3
Post	Service personnel	205	67.7	Monthly income	≤1999 Yuan	133	43.9
	First-line manager	63	20.8		2000 ~ 2999 Yuan	103	34.0
	Middle management	22	7.3		3000 ~ 3999 Yuan	28	9.2
	Senior management	5	1.6		4000 ~ 4999 Yuan	22	7.3
	Technical staff	8	2.6		≥5000 Yuan	17	5.6
Length of service	Less than 1 year	43	14.2	Number of times of changing job	0	37	12.2
	1 ~ 2 years	107	35.3		1	79	26.1
	3 ~ 5 years	139	45.9		2	101	33.3
	6 ~ 10 years	10	3.3		3	44	14.5
	More than 10 years	4	1.3		4 and more	42	13.9

Table 2. Exploratory factor analysis results of organizational justice

Organizational justice	Factor load	Eigenvalues	Cumulative variance contribution rate (%)	Reliability(α coefficient)
Common factor 1: distributive justice		7.414	49.428	0.875
OF1: The assignment results properly describe the completion of my work	0.757
OF2: The assignment results reflect my contribution to the hotel	0.802
OF3: The assignment results appropriately reflect my work input	0.807
OF4: In terms of workload and responsibility, the reward for me is fair	0.734
Common factor 2: Procedural justice		2.012	13.415	0.875
OF5: Leaders will communicate with me in time during the execution of the assignment procedure	0.814
OF6: Personally specific needs are taken into account during the execution of the assignment procedure	0.680
OF7: Leaders always explain in detail the execution of the assignment procedure	0.783
OF8: The explanation about the assignment procedure is reasonable	0.754
Common factor 3: Interpersonal justice		1.126	7.521	0.910
OF9: The superior leader respects me	0.782
OF10: The superior leader treats me politely	0.816
OF11: The superior leader does not make an inappropriate evaluation of me	0.839
OF12: My work is recognized by my superiors	0.773
Common factor 4: Informational justice
OF13: The assignment result is based on accurate information	0.897	1.226	8.176	0.942
OF14: The hotel can maintain consistency in system implementation	0.924
OF15: Employees have the opportunity to correct unfair results during the assignment process	0.910

Note: The factor load was obtained by the maximum orthogonal rotation, and the common factor was extracted by the Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

Table 3. Fit-index of models

	${\mathit{\chi }}^{\mathbf{2}}/df$	RMSEA	GFI	AGFI	NFI	RFI	IFI	TLI	CFI
Measurement model	2.111	0.061	0.929	0.899	0.949	0.937	0.973	0.966	0.972
Theoretical model	1.903	0.055	0.871	0.844	0.915	0.904	0.958	0.952	0.958
Modified model	1.821	0.052	0.876	0.849	0.919	0.908	0.962	0.957	0.962

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis result of organizational justice

Latent variable	Observation variable	Standardized load	Standard error	Value t	Combination reliability	Cronbach alpha value	Average extracted variance
Distributive justice	OF1	0.816	0.042	16.646	0.876	0.875	0.640
	OF2	0.867	0.041	18.245
	OF3	0.748	0.045	14.678
	OF4	0.764	0.043	15.128
Procedural justice	OF5	0.744	0.043	14.515	0.874	0.875	0.635
	OF6	0.830	0.042	17.031
	OF7	0.785	0.043	15.669
	OF8	0.825	0.042	16.886
Interpersonal justice	OF9	0.889	0.036	19.431	0.912	0.910	0.721
	OF10	0.929	0.035	20.939
	OF11	0.793	0.043	16.254
	OF12	0.776	0.039	15.756
Informational justice	OF13	0.874	0.047	19.065	0.943	0.942	0.864
	OF14	0.953	0.043	21.999
	OF15	0.931	0.045	21.148

Table 5. The correlation coefficient and average extracted variance

	Distributive justice	Procedural justice	Interpersonal justice	Informational justice
Distributive justice	0.800
Procedural justice	0.691	0.797
Interpersonal justice	0.702	0.680	0.849
Informational justice	0.369	0.480	0.397	0.929

Note: The value below the diagonal is the correlation coefficient between the latent variables, and the value above the diagonal is the square root of the average extracted variance.

Figure 2. Modified theoretical model

Note: *** indicates that the path is significant at the level of 0.01, indicating that the path is not significant.