Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction in the Philippine Publishing Workplace: A Mixed-Methods Study Toward Values-Based Leadership Development

Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction in the Philippine Publishing Workplace: A Mixed-Methods Study Toward Values-Based Leadership Development

Jocelyn C. Manansala^*, Javad Torkashvand, Francis Michael P. Yambao

PhD Student, Graduate School, Centro Escolar University Manila

^*Corresponding author

 DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.907000340

Received: 10 July 2025; Accepted: 12 July 2025; Published: 16 August 2025

ABSTRACT

This mixed-methods study examined the relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction among employees in a Philippine publishing company, aiming to support values-based and culturally responsive leadership development. Grounded in organizational justice and equity theories, interactional justice—characterized by respectful, empathetic, and transparent communication—emerged as a key determinant of job satisfaction. A total of 118 employees completed the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) and the Interactional Justice (IJ) subscale of the Organizational Justice Scale. Quantitative findings revealed a moderate-to-strong positive correlation (r = .530, p < .001) between interactional justice and job satisfaction, with regression analysis confirming its predictive strength (F(1, 116) = 45.21, p < .001). Generation significantly influenced job satisfaction, with Generation Z reporting higher satisfaction than Millennials, while years of service affected perceptions of justice, suggesting a decline over tenure. Job role did not yield significant effects. Qualitative responses from open-ended survey questions, analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis, offered culturally grounded interpretations of interactional justice in the Philippine workplace. Filipino values such as pakikipagkapwa, malasakit, katapatan, pag-unawa, pakikisama, and pagpapakatao shaped perceptions of fairness through relational encounters with managers and supervisors. Leadership behaviors such as active listening, empathy, and transparency were consistently valued. Due to time constraints, additional qualitative methods such as interviews and focus groups were not included. Nevertheless, thematic insights from employee narratives served as the foundation for a leadership training and development framework grounded in Filipino cultural values and workplace realities in the publishing sector. The study underscores the importance of equitable, values-based practices and targeted strategies to sustain employee satisfaction and engagement. Future research may explore longitudinal designs and expanded qualitative methods to examine how interactional justice and leadership behaviors evolve across organizational transitions and cultural contexts.

Keywords: Interactional Justice, Job Satisfaction, Leadership Development, Mixed-Methods Research, Philippine Publishing Workplace

INTRODUCTION

Organizational efficiency in today’s changing and more human-centered work contexts depends on cultivating employee satisfaction. Employee performance, retention, well-being, and organizational commitment are all significantly affected by job satisfaction, which is often defined as the good emotional state brought on by one’s work experience (Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Organizational justice, or the perceived fairness in the work environment, is one of the numerous elements that influence job satisfaction and has gained significant attention in organizational behavior research. It is categorized into three dimensions: distributive justice, which concerns the fairness of allocation of resources, incentives and recognition (Lee & Rhee, 2023); procedural justice, which focuses on the transparency and consistency of decision-making processes; and interactional justice, which highlights respect, empathy, and openness within the organization (Chun, 2024).

It is pertinent and appropriate to look into the connection between interactional justice and job satisfaction, particularly as businesses attempt to create inclusive, equitable, and stimulating work environments. The two main subcomponents of interactional justice are informational justice (giving sufficient and accurate explanations) and interpersonal justice (being courteous and respectful). In addition to improving views of justice, these leadership practices—respectful communication, active listening, and open information sharing—also foster trust and promote the wellbeing of employees (Colquitt et al., 2001; Cropanzano et al., 2007). Even if the literature on organizational justice is expanding, there is still a significant study vacuum about the precise function of interactional justice in predicting job satisfaction, especially in knowledge- and service-intensive sectors like educational publishing. Understanding how fair interpersonal treatment adds to job happiness is of considerable practical relevance in industries like these, where leadership behaviors and interpersonal interactions have a big impact on staff morale.

The ideas of organizational and interactional justice, which were primarily created in Western academic environments, might not yet have well-established equivalents in local workplace practices in the Philippines. They are therefore deserving of contextual study since their applicability, perception, and impacts may differ depending on the cultural and organizational environment. Additionally, moderating factors like tenure, job role, and generation may have an impact on how interactional justice is viewed and how it impacts job satisfaction. This study examines how interactional justice relates to job satisfaction among employees in a local book publishing company. It explores leadership actions that enhance perceptions of fairness and evaluates whether interactional justice serves as a key predictor of job satisfaction.

The reasoning is based on the idea that encouraging interactional justice through leadership development and training can result in more transparent, communicative, and sympathetic leaders’ elements that increase employee engagement and enhance organizational results. It is anticipated that the research’s conclusions, which highlight fairness-driven communication and interpersonal treatment, will offer practical guidance for human resources and leadership development initiatives. In the end, these initiatives can support the development of moral and enduring corporate cultures where justice, dignity, and trust are fundamental principles, which will benefit both present and future business leaders.

Objective

This study aims to shape leadership training efforts by exploring key aspects of interactional justice and job satisfaction, leading to the following research questions:

Research Problem

1. What is the relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction among employees in a book publishing company?
2. Does interactional justice predict job satisfaction levels?
3. Do factors such as generation, length of service, and job role influence employees’ perceptions of interactional justice and job satisfaction?
4. What themes related to interactional justice emerge from employees’ experiences, particularly with regard to leadership behaviors such as respect, active listening, transparency, and empathy, and how can these insights be integrated into a leadership training program?

Theoretical Framework and Conceptual Framework

This study is grounded in Organizational Justice Theory and Equity Theory. These theories explain how perceptions of fairness influence employee attitudes and behaviors, with a specific focus on job satisfaction as the dependent variable in this study.

Interactional justice, a subcategory of organizational justice (Colquitt, 2001) that reflects the perceived fairness of interpersonal treatment, serves as the independent variable. Employees who perceive fair interpersonal treatment tend to exhibit higher job satisfaction. Whereas those who experience unfair treatment tend to have lower job satisfaction.

The other theory explored in this research, Equity Theory (Adams, 1965), suggests that employees evaluate their efforts versus rewards received, often referred to as the input-output ratio. It also assumes that when employees perceive fair treatment, they experience higher job satisfaction.

Building on these theories, this study proposed a relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction, emphasizing fairness in interpersonal treatment as a key factor in employee job satisfaction, addressing the primary research question.

This study also examined demographic factors as moderating variables. The conceptual framework is presented below:

This framework suggests that interactional justice directly influences job satisfaction, while demographic factors—such as years of service, generation, and job role—moderate this relationship, shaping how different employee groups perceive fairness and experience job satisfaction.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Organizational justice is how fairly an organization treats its people. It includes fairness in the results, procedures, and personal interactions. Distributive justice is known as fair outcomes and decisions in the workplace, like equal pay, raises, and promotions (Adams, 1965). Procedural justice pertaining to the way outcomes are decided is based on accurate information and ethical standards. It should consider everyone’s opinions, permit suggestions and arguments, be impartial, and be applied uniformly (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). People being informed about the processes and choices that impact them, as well as feeling valued and treated with dignity, are all components of interactional justice (Bies & Moag, 1986; Lind & Tyler, 1988).

Organizational justice is crucial because it relates to various job attitudes, stress levels, and behaviors. People’s views on organizational justice have a moderate link to job satisfaction and obligation to the organization (Rupp et al., 2014). In terms of behavior, views on justice are somewhat connected with task completion and positive extra-role activities like volunteering (Rupp et al., 2014). These perceptions are also somewhat associated with stress and burnout (Robbins et al., 2012). Additionally, perceptions of justice have a moderate correlation with intentions to leave the company (Cohen & Spector, 2001) and a modest correlation with actual turnover (Rubenstein et al., 2017).

Perceptions of justice influence attitudes, stress levels, and behaviors, particularly in relation to distributive, procedural and interactional justice. This becomes relevant when a company faces constraints, such as being unable to increase wages or offer larger raises. “Positive attitudes and behaviors can result from using fair methods and communicating those results in a courteous and transparent manner, even in the absence of positive results.”  Rupp et al. (2014) found that perceptions of procedural and interactional justice had a moderate impact on task performance.”  Additionally, providing a sufficient explanation reduces the likelihood of employee retaliation following a decision by 43% (Shaw, Wild, & Colquitt, 2003, p. 451). Therefore, there are many opportunities to enhance workforce outcomes by focusing on how employees perceive fairness.

Distributive justice refers to how fairly outcomes such as pay and feedback are shared among employees. It happens when workers feel that the distribution of these outcomes is fair (Colquitt et al., 2013). Results can be more abstract, like getting good feedback, or more concrete, like a wage. Distributive justice is created when workers perceive that they are paid fairly or treated equitably (Adams, 1965). While distributive justice takes into account the results, procedural justice looks at how fair the decision-making process is that leads to the results. Procedural fairness is experienced by employees when they believe they have a voice in the process. Procedures are considered fair when they are truthful, dependable, ethical, and impartial (Colquitt et al., 2013).

Interactional justice focuses on how people are treated during the decision-making process.  Fair treatment is perceived when employers demonstrate dignity, respect, and thoughtfulness while clearly explaining their decisions (Colquitt et al., 2013). Interactional justice encompasses both interpersonal and informational justice. Interpersonal justice is about how organizations treat their employees, focusing on showing respect and being courteous and Informational justice is concerned with whether employers give their employees enough information, emphasizing the importance of being timely, specific, and truthful (Colquitt, 2011).

Employee job satisfaction, or the extent of positive feelings of contentment and fulfillment one has regarding their job, is an important workplace element that is closely linked to perceived fairness in workplace interactions, particularly through interactional justice. Hoffman-Miller (2024) explains Adam’s Equity Theory (1965), which suggests employees perceive fairness by comparing their contributions to their rewards, shaping their overall job satisfaction. Interactional justice, focused on the quality of interpersonal treatment from leaders, reinforces perceptions of fairness.

Employees who receive respectful, empathetic, and transparent communication tend to report better job satisfaction. On the other hand, when leadership interactions are seen as unfair can diminish morale, emphasizing the importance of training programs that equip leaders to promote fairness, transparency, and trust.

These individual perceptions of fairness contribute to broader organizational justice. Organizational justice affects both individuals and teams. Most studies focus on how it impacts individuals, but there is also evidence that it plays a role at the team level, especially regarding team climate. Employees’ perceptions of fairness can be influenced by the work environment and team dynamics, shaping an overall justice climate.

Recent research suggests that distributive, procedural, and interactional justice climates influence employee creativity and adaptability, especially in uncertain work environments (Sun et al., 2023).

Another factor that predicts fairness in an organization is employee engagement. Studies indicate that ethical, justice, and competitive climate perceptions significantly impact employee commitment, reinforcing the role of fairness in fostering engagement (Ertosun, 2023). In addition, trust in leadership and perceptions of justice have been found to enhance employee identification and affective commitment, further supporting the importance of fairness in organizational settings (González-Cánovas et al., 2024).

When events take place in an organization, they can affect how employees feel. Different employees react to these events in various ways, often based on their personal outlook. Further, some workers could experience higher levels of anxiety than others amid a crisis. Research on stress indicators among government employees in Zambales, Philippines found that workplace challenges, including heavy workloads and bureaucratic procedures, significantly impact employee engagement and commitment. The study emphasized how stress and emotional responses influence perceptions of fairness within organizations, affecting employees’ overall well-being and job satisfaction (Olipane et al., 2023).

Fairness in the workplace is important in shaping individual experiences, team dynamics, and overall organizational success. Studies show that perceptions of fairness contribute to trust, cooperation among employees, stronger engagement, and improved job performance and satisfaction, according to studies (Colquitt et al., 2013). Organizational justice is associated with negative outcomes like unproductive work habits, high turnover, and burnout. Employees who perceive organizational processes and outcomes as fair are typically less likely to engage in negative workplace behaviors (Colquitt et al., 2013).

An important factor in fostering fairness within the workplace is organizational justice, comprising distributive, procedural, and interactional justice (Lee & Rhee, 2023). Research continues to show that employees experience higher job satisfaction when they perceive fairness in their organization (Herawati & Sunaryo, 2023).

The relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction is a key perspective in the workplace, influencing employee commitment, motivation, and overall well-being. The concept of organizational justice, which includes distributive, procedural, and interactional justice, substantially affects employees’ sense of fairness and, in turn, their degree of job satisfaction.

Distributive justice pertains to the perceived fairness of rewards, including compensation and promotions, while procedural justice focuses on the transparency and consistency of decision-making processes. Interactional justice, which emphasizes respectful treatment and open communication from leadership, further promotes employee morale and trust.

The connection between organizational justice and job satisfaction is an important consideration in the workplace, as it affects employee motivation, commitment, and well-being. When employees perceive fairness across distributive, procedural, and interactional areas, they tend to be more engaged and productive. On the other hand, a lack of fairness can lead to dissatisfaction, disengagement, and a stronger desire to leave the organization.

This relationship is also shaped by factors like leadership style, communication practices, and company culture, which can either strengthen or weaken the effect of fairness. This highlights the need for organizations to apply fair policies, practice open communication, and make decisions transparently to create a supportive and productive work environment (Chen et al., 2024).

A study among Malaysian workers supports this, showing that both distributive and procedural justice positively affect job satisfaction. Employees felt more satisfied when they believed that resources were distributed fairly and procedures were consistently followed.

In another study on employees in Indonesian educational institutions, it was found that procedural and distributive justice positively influence job satisfaction, which in turn strengthens organizational commitment (Bagis, 2018). This highlights how fairness in resource distribution and consistency with procedures fosters workplace satisfaction and reduces turnover intentions.

Additionally, a study that looked at nurses’ perspectives showed that job satisfaction partially mediates the large impact that organizational justice has on job performance. This suggests that treating people fairly at work not only increases their job happiness but also helps them perform better on the job (Mashi, 2017). Research has indicated a strong correlation among job satisfaction and organizational justice in the setting of Jordanian electrical industrial businesses.

Prioritizing fair treatment in the workplace by the managers is important in fostering employee job satisfaction as perceptions of organizational justice influence job contentment. Research conducted in a Philippine hotel setting reinforces this, demonstrating that distributive and interactional justice positively impact employees’ job satisfaction (Sia & Tan, 2016).

Furthermore, a study conducted in the hospitality sector of Adıyaman found a strong and favorable correlation between job satisfaction and perceived organizational justice, underscoring the influence of fairness perceptions in raising employee satisfaction within the service industry (Dönbak & Kırpık, 2021).

Taken together, these findings reinforce the role of organizational justice in shaping job satisfaction across diverse industries and cultural settings. As Mashi (2017) notes, organizations seeking to enhance employee well-being and performance should implement policies that promote equity in outcomes, procedures, and interpersonal interactions.

While interactional justice is widely explored in foreign literature through interpersonal fairness, respect, and transparency, Filipino workplace dynamics reveal culturally grounded interpretations of these constructs.

The deeply ingrained value of pakikipagkapwa-tao, which is a shared identity that recognizes others as fellow beings, naturally parallels interactional justice as practiced in Philippine organizations, where respect, openness, and fairness in interpersonal dealings are emphasized. In social interactions, this norm reflects a strong emphasis on empathy, compassion, and mutual regard (Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000).

Malasakit, or genuine concern for others, is evident in leadership approaches that prioritize emotional support and employee well-being (Dalisay & Ong, 2015). Filipino employees consistently place high importance on interpersonal fairness, as shown in studies by Tamayo and Gregorio (2013) and Lazaro et al. (2019), which link empathetic leadership communication to affective commitment and job satisfaction.

Delgado and Garcia (2020) observed that “positive interpersonal treatment, especially by those in authority, strengthens work commitment and loyalty” and this resonates with core principles of interactional justice, particularly when leaders communicate with empathy and transparency. They also highlighted the role of pakikisama (smooth interpersonal relationships) in fostering workplace harmony.

Taken together, these values situate interactional justice not merely as procedural fairness, but as a form of relational ethics deeply rooted in Filipino cultural norms.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design 

This study utilized a descriptive research design incorporating both quantitative and qualitative methods to examine employees’ perceptions of interactional justice and job satisfaction within a book publishing house.  A combination of standardized surveys and semi-structured qualitative interviews embedded within an online survey form was utilized to gather comprehensive data.

Research Participants

The sampling size was determined based on the total workforce of the book publishing house at the time of data collection. There were 142 employees in the company, but ten employees with less than three months of service were excluded to ensure the responses reflected experiences within a reasonable period of employment. This resulted in a total of 132 eligible participants. The survey was distributed via email, and 118 employees, comprising both staff and officers, accomplished the questionnaire, giving a response rate of 89%. This exceeded the required minimum sample size of 98 using Slovin’s formula, making the data substantial to gain meaningful insights into the company’s workplace dynamics.

While the sample size of 118 participants reflects the constraints of a single organizational setting, it offered sufficient depth for both quantitative analysis and qualitative insights grounded in Filipino cultural narratives, which guided the development of a culturally responsive leadership training framework.

Data Collection and Instruments

Employees completed validated instruments commonly used in related literature to assess interactional justice and job satisfaction. Demographic information—including generation, length of service, and job role—was also collected to explore potential moderating factors. To deepen insights into leadership communication, attentive listening, transparency, and empathy within the book publishing house, open-ended questions were integrated into the Google Survey form.

Responses from these qualitative prompts were expected to shape leadership training programs tailored to the company’s needs. To reliably measure employee experiences, the study employed two standardized instruments. The first was Paul Spector’s Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS), a 36-item tool assessing facets such as pay, promotion, fringe benefits, supervision, rewards, operating procedures, nature of work, coworkers, and communication. Given its established reliability across organizational settings, permission for use was obtained from the author and the survey was adapted for online administration.

The second instrument was the Organizational Justice Scale, specifically the Interactional Justice Dimension subscale developed by Jason A. Colquitt (2001). This nine-item subscale measured perceived fairness in interpersonal interactions, and was likewise embedded in the online survey. Both tools used a six-point Likert scale (1–Disagree very much to 6–Agree very much), with scoring instructions and reverse-coded items adapted from the original sources.

Additionally, semi-structured questions were developed to explore employee experiences of interactional justice in daily leader interactions. Demographic data was derived from survey responses and cross-validated against company records for accuracy (e.g., job role). While responses were self-reported, steps were taken to reduce bias by assuring participants of confidentiality.

Open-ended survey responses were thematically analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) reflexive six-phase approach. Filipino cultural values—such as pakikipagkapwa, malasakit, katapatan, pag-unawa, pakikisama, and pagpapakatao—were intentionally considered during coding, allowing themes to emerge from both semantic patterns and culturally grounded interpretations of leadership and justice. Due to time limitations inherent to the scope of the term paper, additional qualitative methods such as focus group discussions or interviews were not feasible. Instead, the study focused on thematically analyzing open-ended feedback from the survey to surface culturally resonant insights.

Ethical considerations were carefully observed throughout the study. Written permission from the authors of standardized instruments was obtained, and formal authorization from the company president was secured. Informed consent statements were embedded in the survey to emphasize voluntary participation. Personal data protection protocols were followed to ensure anonymity and confidentiality—no identifying information (e.g., names or email addresses) was collected. Organizational anonymity was likewise preserved in the final research output.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Demographic Characteristics of Respondents

A total of 118 employees from a book publishing company participated in the study through the company’s human resources department. Their demographic distribution is summarized in Tables 1 to 3, covering generation, and job role.

Generation

The majority of respondents belong to the Millennial generation (61%), followed by Generation X (28.8%), with Generation Z making up the remaining 10.2% (see Table 1). This distribution shows a workforce predominantly composed of younger professionals, with fewer Gen Z employees currently represented.

Table 1. Frequency Distribution of Generations

(Dimock, 2019; Van Twist & Newcombe, 2021; Sharma, P., & Pandit, R., 2021)

 Due to the limited number of Gen Z respondents (n=12), subgroup comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Future studies may look into a more balanced generational distribution to improve statistical power.

Years of Service

Regarding years of service or tenure, 39% of employees have worked in the company for 1 to 5 years (early tenure). This is the largest tenure group. 23.7% have between 11 and 20 years of service (long-term tenure), while 15.3% are relatively new employees with less than a year of experience. The smallest category includes (seasoned) employees with over 20 years of service (8.5%). The company’s workforce is a mix of tenured employees and newer hires, with a significant portion of employees in the early tenure stage (Table 2).

Table 2 Frequency Distribution of Employees by Years of Service

Job Role

Most respondents reported that they hold Executional roles (44.1%), directly implementing tasks and interacting with leadership for direction and approvals. This is followed by Support roles (33.1%), which facilitate operations across departments. Influencers, including mid-level managers, supervisors and team leaders, account for 12.7%, while Decision-makers, such as executives and senior managers who set company-wide policies and strategies, represent just 5.9% of respondents (see Table 3). A small portion of employees (4.2%) were uncertain about their job classification. Given the anonymized nature of the responses, role classification for these cases were inferred using contextual information based on their qualitative responses and remarks section. Participants who described their tasks or provided role descriptions were categorized by the researchers as either Support or Executional based on alignment with predefined role definitions. Despite these efforts, five employees could not be reliably classified. This role ambiguity presents a limitation in the dataset and suggests the need for standardized classification tools during data collection, including clearer demographic labeling and anonymous cross-validation protocols to reduce interpretive bias in future research.

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Employee Job Roles

Table 4 gives an overview of employees’ perceptions of Job Satisfaction and Interactional Justice based on data from 118 employees of the book publishing company.

Table 4.  Descriptive Statistics for Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction

Interactional Justice

Employees of the selected company generally perceive fair treatment from leadership, with an average rating of M = 4.86. However, perceptions of fairness (interactional justice) range widely, from 1.89 (low fairness) to 6.00 (strong fairness), which reflects a range of experiences of the employees. The standard deviation (SD = 1.03) indicates higher variation in terms of fairness perceptions. The employees hold differing views on how justly they are treated in workplace interactions.

While employees reported overall satisfaction and fairness, the variability in scores—especially in interactional justice—suggests some employees seem to experience significantly different workplace conditions. Whether these differences have interesting patterns across employee groups or not can be looked into with further analysis of datasets presented in this paper or otherwise, in future research given the limitations of this study.

Job Satisfaction

On average, employees reported above-average job satisfaction (M = 4.02). Their satisfaction levels vary, ranging from 2.19 (lower satisfaction) to 5.47 (high satisfaction). This indicates that while most employees feel positively about their jobs, some of them experience notably lower satisfaction levels. The standard deviation (SD = 0.57) suggests moderate variation, meaning that while most employees have similar satisfaction levels, some outliers exist that can be looked into.

Relationship Between Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction

A correlation analysis explored the relationship between Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction, identifying a moderate to strong positive association (r = .530, p < .001) (see Table 5). This shows that employees who perceive higher fairness in workplace interactions tend to report higher job satisfaction levels. The confidence interval [0.386, 0.648] supports the statistical strength of the relationship between these two variables, such that the correlation is unlikely due to chance.

Table 5. Correlations Between Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction

Note: N = 118. p<.001 (2-tailed)

These findings imply that interactional justice significantly influences job satisfaction. Employees who perceive fair treatment from their leaders tend to have positive workplace experiences.

 Fairness is a potential key factor in workplace morale. Given that this is a correlation study, and an association between interactional justice and job satisfaction was established, it does not confirm causality. Further analysis, such as regression modeling, was done to determine if interactional justice directly influences job satisfaction.

Interactional Justice as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction

A linear regression analysis was performed to determine the extent to which interactional justice predicts job satisfaction. The model accounted for 28% of the variance in job satisfaction (R² = .280). Refer to Table 6 for details.

Table 6. Model Summary for Interactional Justice as a Predictor of Job Satisfaction

The ANOVA test result was statistically significant (F (1, 116) = 45.21, p < .001). This confirms that interactional justice predicts job satisfaction (see Table 7).

Table 7. ANOVA Result for Interactional Justice and Job Satisfaction

The regression coefficient (B = .289, p < .001) suggests that for every one-unit increase in interactional justice, job satisfaction increases by 0.289 points (see Table 8). This supports the idea that employees who perceive fair treatment by their leaders are more likely to experience greater satisfaction in their roles. The results indicate that the perceived fairness in their share of job rewards and company resources significantly and positively affect job satisfaction. Meanwhile, perceived fairness in interactional treatment also contributes to job satisfaction though to a lesser degree (p< .10). This finding aligns with the research of Sia and Tan (2016), wherein perceived fairness on interactional treatment positively affects job satisfaction but to a lesser degree of significance.

Table 8. Regression Coefficients for Interactional Justice Predicting Job Satisfaction

The findings highlight the importance of interactional justice in improving workplace dynamics. While fairness in leadership interactions significantly influences job satisfaction, careful consideration of other factors may also contribute to an employee’s overall workplace experiences. A participant shared,“I have a good working relationship with my immediate department head, particularly regarding open communication. To improve the overall work experience, it might be beneficial to explore how decisions made outside our department can better consider the perspectives and realities of our daily work.”

Demographic Variability in Interactional Justice

The researchers examined employees’ perceptions of fairness in interpersonal treatment across various demographic factors to gain insight into how interactional justice is experienced within the book publishing company. Specifically, the study explored whether employees’ generation, length of service, and job role contribute to differences in their perceptions of fairness. To assess these potential influences, Chi-Square tests were performed to determine the statistical significance of each variable’s impact on interactional justice.

Generation

The analysis found no significant relationship between generation and interactional justice (χ² = 51.709, df = 56, p = .638), indicating that employees across different generations report similar experiences of fairness in interpersonal treatment.

Years of Service

Findings indicate a statistically significant relationship between years of service and interactional justice (χ² = 151.859, df = 112, p = .007), suggesting that employees with longer tenure perceive fairness differently than those with fewer years of service. A linear trend (p = .019) further suggests a predictable shift in fairness perceptions over time.

Analysis of mean scores provides further insight into this trend. As shown in Table 9, it is apparent that employees in their first year of service reported the highest interactional justice perceptions (Mean = 5.0435), suggesting that newer employees may initially view workplace fairness more positively. However, as tenure increases, fairness perceptions tend to decline, with employees having more than twenty (20) years of service reporting the lowest mean score (4.3790). This pattern may reflect shifting expectations over time, accumulated workplace experiences, changes in interactions with leadership and policies, or workplace attitudes that can actually be shaped by internal factors.

Table 9. Descriptive Statistics for Interactional Justice by Years of Service

Job Role

In contrast to results relating years of service with interactional justice, no significant association was found between job role and interactional justice (χ² = 84.815, df = 112, p = .974), suggesting that employees across different roles experience fairness similarly. The linear trend test (p = .264) also shows no clear pattern in fairness perceptions across roles.

Although statistical results indicate no strong relationship between job role and interactional justice, individual experiences may still vary. Future research could explore these differences through qualitative insights, capturing how fairness is perceived across varying job responsibilities.

Overall, the findings suggest that generation and job role do not significantly influence the perceptions of interactional justice, with employees across different age groups and roles reporting similar experiences of fairness in workplace interactions. However, it is interesting to note that years of service emerged as a significant factor, which shows that tenure plays a role in shaping how employees perceive fairness. Employees in their first year of service reported the highest interactional justice perceptions, while those with more than twenty (20) years of service had the lowest ratings in this aspect. This pattern may reflect shifting expectations, accumulated workplace experiences, evolving interactions with leadership, or internal workplace attitudes that develop over time.

Although years of service showed a significant relationship with interactional justice, a high percentage of small expected counts presents challenges to the reliability of the findings. Additionally, Chi-Square tests cannot determine the strength or direction of relationships—only whether an association exists. Future research should explore alternative statistical methods to better capture trends. Also, qualitative approaches could provide deeper insight into the reasons behind shifting perceptions of fairness among employees with varying tenure lengths.

To gain deeper insights, interviews, focus groups, or open-ended surveys could help explore why employees’ perceptions of fairness decline with tenure. Investigating workplace factors such as leadership styles, policy changes, organizational culture, and job expectations may also provide further context.

Demographic Variability in Job Satisfaction

This section explores whether generation, length of service, and job role contribute to differences in employees’ job satisfaction levels. The analysis examines whether these demographic factors affect workplace satisfaction or if other influences may be at play. Insights into patterns of job satisfaction across employee groups are presented.

Generation

The analysis of variance of job satisfaction across different generations reveals statistically significant differences, as indicated by the results of the ANOVA (p = 0.033) and Welch tests (p = 0.038). Additionally, Levene’s test results (p-values < 0.05) indicate that the spread of job satisfaction scores differs across generations. It was noted that the effect size is relatively small (Eta-squared = 0.058), suggesting that generational differences do not exert a substantial impact. These data are presented in Tables 10 to 12.

Table. 10. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Job Satisfaction by Generation

Table 11. Welch’s Robust Test of Equality of Means for Job Satisfaction by Generation

Note: Asymptotically F distributed.

Table 12. Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variances for Job Satisfaction by Generation

In order to determine which generations, differ in terms of job satisfaction, post-hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted. An Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test further examined these differences, confirming a statistically significant variation in job satisfaction among generations (H = 6.523, p = .038) as presented in Table13.

Table 13. Independent-Samples Kruskal-Wallis Test for Job Satisfaction by Generation

Note: The test statistic is adjusted for ties.

To identify specific generational differences, Tukey’s HSD test was performed as presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Tukey HSD Multiple Comparisons for Job Satisfaction Across Generations

Note: *Mean differences are significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 15 highlights a notable gap in job satisfaction between Millennials and Generation Z, with a Mean Difference of  -0.42597 (p = .040), indicating that Millennials report lower satisfaction compared to the youngest generation. In contrast, comparisons between Generation X and Generation Z, as well as Millennials and Generation X, did not yield statistically significant differences (p > .05), suggesting similar satisfaction levels among these groups. Notably, Generation Z employees reported the highest satisfaction (Mean = 4.3550), potentially viewing workplace dynamics more favorably, while Millennials expressed lower job satisfaction (Mean = 3.9290) when compared with the two other generations.

Although variations—particularly between Millennials and Generation Z—are present, they do not appear substantial enough to be the primary driver of overall job satisfaction. Other workplace factors may have a greater impact and warrant further exploration. Past research suggests that generational cohorts are shaped by shared historical and social experiences, values, and belief systems. However, distinctions between adjacent generations tend to be subtle, with many workplace needs and behaviors remaining consistent across age groups. This reinforces the idea that factors beyond generational differences—such as tenure, organizational culture, and leadership dynamics—play a more pivotal role in shaping job satisfaction (Sharma & Pandit, 2021).

For instance, younger employees may have lower expectations regarding their involvement in decision-making compared to their more experienced millennial counterparts. As Millenials assume greater responsibilities, their confidence in decision-making is stronger.  This reflects a dynamic and changing organization rather than attributable to the generational divide.

An employee stated, “The leader’s ability to listen to others has a positive impact on the workplace experience, as all aspects are considered before making a decision, especially if it is a major one. All factors should be evaluated first, particularly about specific project concerns, since each project may present unique challenges not encountered in others.”

This emphasis on inclusive decision-making shows the importance of leadership adaptability when dealing with multigenerational workforce. When leaders actively listen and acknowledge the unique challenges their employees face, it fosters a sense of value and empowerment. This, in turn, builds trust, encourages collaboration, and promotes a more productive and engaged workforce.

“My leader has always been considerate since she ensures an open and mutual understanding when it comes to communication. She encourages my involvement in projects by welcoming my recommendations and providing constructive feedback. Through clear communication and openness to responses, she demonstrates respect and professionalism. This effective communication has motivated me to work harder and has sparked my interest and enthusiasm in performing my job well.”

In a broader context, younger and mid-career employees may seek a more progressive or flexible work environment—one that prioritizes well-being and personal boundaries. At the same time, employees across generations share concerns about fair compensation, career advancement, and other workplace issues, highlighting the diverse priorities that shape employee expectations.

Table 15. Homogenous Subsets for Job Satisfaction Across Generations, Tukey HSD Post Hoc Test

Note: Means for groups in homogenous subsets are displayed. The harmonic mean sample size is 23.690. Group sizes are unequal; Type 1 error levels are not guaranteed.

Length of Service

The relationship between years of service and job satisfaction was examined using One-Way ANOVA, Welch’s Test, and Levene’s Test. Results from One-Way ANOVA (F = 2.037, p = 0.094) and Welch’s Test (F = 2.185, p = 0.088) indicate no statistically significant difference in job satisfaction based on years of service. Since both p-values exceed the 0.05 threshold, tenure does not substantially impact employee satisfaction within this dataset. See table 16.

Table 16. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Job Satisfaction by Years of Service

The Levene’s Test results (p-values ranging from 0.334 to 0.346) indicate that the variances in job satisfaction are equal across different years of service. Satisfaction levels do not fluctuate significantly between employee tenure groups. This contrasts with the previously analyzed generational differences, where job satisfaction varied more widely. Furthermore, the effect size is small (Eta-Squared = 0.067), indicating that differences in job satisfaction across tenure groups are weak and not substantial.

Job Role

The findings indicate that job satisfaction does not significantly differ across various job roles. The One-Way ANOVA (F = 0.874, p = 0.482) and Welch’s Test (F = 1.234, p = 0.329) showed no statistically significant association between job role and job satisfaction, since both p-values are greater than 0.05 (see Table 17). Employees in different roles reported similar satisfaction levels, suggesting that job category does not strongly influence overall job satisfaction.

Table 17. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for Job Satisfaction by Job Role

Additionally, Levene’s Test (p-values between 0.178 and 0.253) confirms that job satisfaction variances remain relatively stable across roles, reinforcing the finding that job roles do not meaningfully impact employees’ satisfaction levels.

Just like the results across tenure groups, this latest analysis contrasts with generational differences where job satisfaction varied more distinctly across groups. The effect size is small with an Eta-Squared value of 0.030, reinforcing that the job role has a weak influence on job satisfaction.  The findings suggest that job role has minimal influence on job satisfaction within this research dataset. Employees in different roles report similar satisfaction levels.

An employee mentioned, “I believe more emphasis needs to be placed on addressing core issues like fair compensation that reflects the workload and value of our work, realistic project timelines that prevent burnout, and a willingness to evolve and adopt modern work practices. While good communication can help in addressing these areas, the issues themselves are the primary drivers of (or lack thereof) job satisfaction.” Other work factors—such as compensation, organizational culture, leadership style, or company policies among others—may be looked into in future research to gain better perspectives of the underlying drivers of employees’ job satisfaction in an organization.

Overall, the analysis reveals that generation is the only demographic factor showing a statistically significant difference in job satisfaction, with Millennials reporting lower satisfaction compared to Generation Z. Meanwhile, years of service and job role did not show meaningful differences in job satisfaction, suggesting that tenure and job category do not strongly influence workplace experiences.

Beyond demographic factors, an analysis of mean subscale scores from the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) highlights other workplace elements that shape employee satisfaction. Supervision, co-workers, and nature of work received the most positive ratings (Mean = 4.90), followed by communication (Mean = 4.40), suggesting that employees generally value interpersonal relationships and workplace interactions. However, operating conditions, fringe benefits, pay, promotion, and contingent rewards were rated only average, pointing to areas for improvement.

A previous study by Waworuntu, Kainde, and Mandagi (2022) found that Millennials experience higher concerns about burnout and job dissatisfaction, which aligns with the findings of this research that Millennials report lower job satisfaction compared to Generation Z. In contrast, Gen Z employees tend to have a more idealistic outlook toward work and career progression, prioritizing growth opportunities and flexibility.

Additionally, tenure and job role were not found to be significant predictors of job satisfaction in both the current study and the findings of Sia and Tan (2016). This reinforces the conclusion that generational differences play a significant role in shaping workplace experiences than tenure or job roles.

Despite these generational distinctions, both Millennials and Gen Z employees share a common appreciation for supportive work environments, career development opportunities, and flexibility, highlighting the importance of workplace conditions beyond demographic influences.

These findings suggest that non-demographic workplace factors may have a greater role in determining job satisfaction than generation, tenure, or job role. Future research could explore leadership styles, compensation structures, career growth opportunities, and workplace culture to gain a more comprehensive understanding of employees’ overall satisfaction.

Qualitative Feedback and Cultural Understanding of Interactional Justice

In addition to the quantitative results, the qualitative responses reveal culturally grounded perceptions of fairness and satisfaction. These insights align with indigenous values such as pakikipagkapwa-tao, malasakit, and pakikisama, which shape expectations around respectful communication, empathy, and relational harmony. As one respondent shared, “I feel supported not just as an employee, but as a person (kapwa)”  highlighting how relational sensitivity promotes both morale and motivation.

This interpretation strengthens recent findings from Philippine studies. Ramos and Santiago (2021) argue that fairness in Filipino workplaces is inseparable from relational ethics that is rooted in transparency, honesty, and the mutual recognition of lived experiences across hierarchical roles. Similarly, Delgado and Garcia (2020) emphasize that pakikisama and other relational norms contribute to loyalty and work commitment, especially when leaders practice empathetic dialogue and inclusive communication. Lazaro et al. (2019) further affirm that among the three facets of organizational justice, interactional justice remains the strongest predictor of affective commitment and satisfaction within Philippine service industries.

Overall, these cultural interpretations offer another perspective through which interactional justice becomes not merely an abstract construct for Filipino workers, but a reflection of shared humanity (pakikipagkapwa) within their own culture where fairness is experienced through mutual respect, emotional attentiveness, and socially grounded leadership behaviors. This view is further illustrated in the thematic analysis of employee narratives (see Table 18).

Table 18. Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Feedback in Relation to Filipino Cultural Values

The respondents’ qualitative feedback highlights how leadership behaviors can align with culturally relevant expectations of justice and relational ethics. These narratives demonstrate how fairness is expressed in the workplace and point toward leadership practices rooted in active listening, transparent communication, and empathy.

Cultural concepts were interpreted through thematic relevance and grounded in Filipino workplace narratives, drawing inspiration from established Filipino psychological frameworks (e.g., Enriquez, 1992; Pe-Pua & Protacio-Marcelino, 2000) and participant responses.

SUMMARY

The findings point out the interconnected nature of interactional justice and job satisfaction. Employees who perceive fairness in workplace interactions tend to report higher satisfaction levels, as shown by the moderate positive correlation (r = .530, p < .001) between these variables. Additionally, regression analysis confirms that interactional justice significantly predicts job satisfaction, explaining 28% of its variance (R² = .280). While employees generally reported positive perceptions of fairness and above-average job satisfaction, their responses vary, emphasizing the need to closely examine individual workplace experiences. Among demographic factors, generation was the only variable significantly associated with job satisfaction, with Millennials reporting lower satisfaction than Generation Z.  Years of service also influenced perceptions of fairness, as newer employees rated interactional justice more positively than those with longer tenure. This suggests that perceptions of fairness may change over time, possibly due to evolving expectations, leadership interactions, or workplace experiences. However, as this study utilized a cross-sectional design, causal relationships cannot be established. Future longitudinal research could better capture changes in justice perceptions over time.

Meanwhile, job role and tenure did not strongly predict job satisfaction, reinforcing that organizational factors may play a more crucial role than demographics in shaping workplace experiences. Additionally, variability in fairness ratings (M = 4.86, SD = 1.03) and job satisfaction scores (M = 4.02, SD = 0.57) highlights individual differences in workplace perceptions, pointing to areas for further investigation.

The results of this study underscore the need for broader studies by expanding the sample to include multiple organizations within and beyond the Philippine publishing industry. This would enhance generalizability and enable more comprehensive comparisons across Philippine workplaces.

Reflections drawn from the qualitative responses point to how, for many Filipino employees, perceptions of fairness are grounded not only in organizational practices but also in everyday relational encounters, where empathy, openness, and pakikipagkapwa shape how justice is felt and lived in the workplace.

Moving forward, identifying and examining additional workplace variables that may influence  perceptions of fairness and satisfaction, such as leadership practices, organizational culture, compensation structures, job expectations, and work-life balance, could deepen understanding across diverse contexts. These variables may be essential in cultivating more equitable and engaging work environments across sectors. The findings also emphasize the role of leadership behaviors in shaping perceptions of fairness and satisfaction, thus, reinforcing the need for targeted leadership development initiatives.

Practical Implications for Leadership Development

Findings reveal that leadership behaviors play a crucial role in fostering employees’ perceptions of fairness and overall job satisfaction. Given the identified generational differences and long-tenured employees’ declining fairness perceptions, leadership training programs should address these gaps through targeted interventions. The proposed framework (see Annex 1) outlines key competencies for leadership development that promote interactional justice and satisfaction. Training programs can be designed around the following areas:

1. Active Listening and Transparent Communication. Equipping leaders with skills to actively listen to employees’ concerns, encourage open dialogue, and provide clear explanations for decisions, ensuring employees feel heard and valued.
2. Empowerment and Trust. Equipping leaders with strategies to delegate responsibilities, recognize employees’ capabilities, and balance autonomy with guidance, improving engagement and confidence.
3. Fairness and Recognition. Strengthening fair leadership practices by ensuring equal treatment, acknowledgment of employee contributions, and constructive feedback mechanisms.
4. Work-Life Balance and Professional Boundaries. Helping leaders recognize workplace stressors, respect employees’ time and well-being, and set healthy communication boundaries.
5. Empathetic Leadership and Supportive Culture. Developing emotionally intelligent leaders who acknowledge personal challenges, offer support, and promote a workplace rooted in trust and mutual respect.
6. Leadership Intervention. Addressing the decline in interactional justice perceptions among long-tenured employees by implementing fair and consistent leadership practices across all experience levels. When applicable, tailored interventions can also support employees’ unique needs.
7. Generational Awareness. Helping leaders recognize the differing expectations and workplace values among employee groups, particularly addressing Millennials’ lower satisfaction and creating strategies to engage this group effectively.

The proposed training framework outlines key competencies for leadership development that promote interactional justice and satisfaction. These are summarized in Table 19.

Table 19. Leadership Development Framework for Enhancing Justice and Satisfaction

By integrating insights from this research into targeted leadership training, organizations can strengthen fairness, engagement, and trust, improving long-term employee satisfaction, retention, and productivity. Addressing interactional justice among long-tenured employees and recognizing generational differences in workplace expectations will be crucial in fostering an equitable and dynamic work environment. Future studies should continue exploring the lasting impact of leadership behaviors, ensuring data-driven improvements in leadership training and workplace strategies.

CONCLUSION

This study establishes a moderate-to-strong positive relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction, reinforcing the importance of fair leadership practices in shaping workplace engagement. Findings also confirm that interactional justice plays a crucial role in predicting job satisfaction, underscoring the need for equitable leadership to sustain employee morale. While demographic factors such as generation and years of service influence workplace perceptions and satisfaction, leadership behaviors and organizational culture emerged as more significant drivers. Given the generational differences in job satisfaction and the decline in fairness perceptions among long-tenured employees, leadership development strategies are essential to address these gaps. Future research should explore how leadership behaviors—such as respect, active listening, transparency, and empathy—contribute to workplace fairness and long-term satisfaction.

Insights from qualitative feedback affirm that, for Filipino employees, fairness is rooted in everyday relational encounters—where empathy, mutual recognition, and pakikipagkapwa give meaning to justice in the workplace.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors sincerely thank all participants for their valuable contributions to this research. We also acknowledge

the participating company, whose support was instrumental in completing the study. Appreciation is extended to all those who assisted in various ways. Thank you.

Data Availability

The anonymized data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest related to the conduct, analysis, or reporting of this study.

REFERENCES

1. Adams, J. S. (1965). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 422–436.
2. Annette Towler. (2019, July 21). The benefits of organizational justice and practical ways to improve it. Retrieved from https://www.ckju.net/en/dossier/benefits-organizational-justice-and-practical-ways-how-improve-it/35572
3. Bagis, F. (2018). Does job satisfaction mediate the effect of procedural justice and distributive justice on organizational commitment? Case study of education institutions. 5th International Conference on Community Development (AMCA 2018). ResearchGate.
4. Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & B. H. Baseman (Eds.), Research on negotiation in organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 43–55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Chen, J., Xu, J., Lu, Y., & Tang, W. (2024). Predictive effects of organizational justice on job satisfaction in bus drivers: The moderating effects of role overload and proactive personality. BMC Public Health, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-18801-6
7. Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 278–321.
8. Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
9. Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
10. Cropanzano, R., Prehar, C. A., & Chen, P. Y. (2002). Using social exchange theory to distinguish procedural from interactional justice. Group & Organization Management, 27(3), 324–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601102027003002
11. Colquitt, J. A., Noe, R. A., & Jackson, C. L. (2002). Justice in teams: Antecedents and consequences of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 55, 83–109.
12. Chun, J. W. (2024). Revisiting the dimensions of organizational justice: A contemporary perspective on fairness at work. International Journal of Human Resource Management Studies, 52(1), 1–18.
13. Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: A meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 199–236.
14. Colquitt, J. A., & Shaw, J. C. (2005). How should organizational justice be measured? In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), The handbook of organizational justice (pp. 113–152). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
15. Dalisay, F. D., & Ong, M. C. (2015). Leadership communication styles and employee morale in Philippine business Philippine Journal of Organizational Communication, 12(1), 22–34.
16. Delgado, J. R., & Garcia, L. P. (2020). Smooth interpersonal relationships and organizational loyalty: A qualitative study. Philippine Journal of Psychology, 53(2), 45–59.
17. Dimock, M. (2019, January 17). Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center.
18. Dönbak, E. R., & Kırpık, G. (2021). Examining the relationship between organizational justice perception and job satisfaction: The case of hospitality business in Adıyaman. Journal of Business Research – Turk, 12(4), 3676–3688. Retrieved from https://isarder.org/index.php/isarder/article/view/1240
19. Enriquez, V. G. (1992). From colonial to liberation psychology: The Philippine experience. University of the Philippines Press. Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-839X.00054
20. Ertosun, Ö. G. (2023). The role of ethical, justice, and competitive climate perceptions on
    employee engagement. Journal of Economics, Business & Political Studies, 10(1).
21. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management     Review, 12, 9–22.
22. Greenberg, J. (1990). Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(5), 561–568.
23. González-Cánovas, A., Trillo, A., Bretones, F. D., & Fernández-Millán, J. M. (2024). Trust in leadership and perceptions of justice in fostering employee commitment. Frontiers in Psychology, 15.
24. Herawati, N., & Sunaryo, S. (2023). The effect of organizational justice on job satisfaction: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. International Journal of Economics, Business and Management Research, 7(7), 1–15.
25. Hoffman-Miller, P. (2024). Equity theory. EBSCO Research Starters. Retrieved from EBSCO.Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 341–367. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511
26. Lazaro, R. B., Fernandez, M. D., & Tan, S. J. (2019). Organizational justice and employee commitment in the Philippine service sector. Asia-Pacific Management Review, 24(3), 321–330.
27. Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27–55). New York: Plenum.
28. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
29. Lee, H.W., & Rhee, D.Y. (2023). Effects of organizational justice on employee satisfaction: Integrating the exchange and the value-based perspectives. Sustainability, 15(5993).
30. Lee, S.M., & Rhee, K. Y. (2023). The effects of distributive and procedural justice on organizational trust and commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior Studies, 45(2), 115–130.
31. Myers, T., & Paul, M. (2020, November 25). Umbrella summary: Organizational justice. Quality Improvement Center for Workforce Development. Retrieved from https://www.qic-wd.org/umbrella/organizational-justice
32. Mashi, M. S. (2017). The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational justice and employee outcomes. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(16), 1351-1360. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2017.1388819
33. Olipane, H. G., Avecilla, J. F. D., & Tubes, F. N. J. (2023). Stress indicators among government employees in Zambales, Philippines. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences Research, 7(9), 154-162.
34. Pe-Pua, R., & Protacio-Marcelino, E. (2000). Sikolohiyang Pilipino (Filipino psychology): A legacy of Virgilio G. Enriquez. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 3(1), 49–71.
35. Ramos, E. C., & Santiago, K. L. (2021). Relational leadership and Filipino workplace values: Understanding fairness in hierarchical contexts. Journal of Southeast Asian Work Studies, 5(1), 14–28.
36. Robbins, J. M., Ford, M. T., & Tetrick, L. E. (2012). Perceived unfairness and employee health: A meta-analytic integration. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 235–272.
37. Roberson, Q. M., & Colquitt, J. A. (2005). Shared and configural justice: A social network model of justice in teams. Academy of Management Review, 30, 595–607.
38. Rubenstein, A. L., Eberly, M. B., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2017). Surveying the forest: A meta-analysis, moderator investigation, and future-oriented discussion of the antecedents of voluntary employee turnover. Personnel Psychology, 71, 1–43.
39. Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Jones, K. S., & Liao, H. (2014). The utility of a multifoci approach to the study of organizational justice: A meta-analytic investigation into the consideration of normative rules, moral accountability, bandwidth-fidelity, and social exchange. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 123, 159–185.
40. Sharma, P., & Pandit, R. (2021). Workplace expectations of Gen Z towards factors of motivation. Wesleyan Journal of Research, 14(30), 81-89.
41. Shaw, J. C., Wild, E., & Colquitt, J. A. (2003). To justify or excuse? A meta-analytic review of the effects of explanations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 444–458.
42. Sia, L. A., & Tan, T. A. G. (2016). The influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction in a hotel setting. DLSU Business & Economics Review, 26(1), 17-29.
43. Sun, L.-Y., Li, C., Pan, W., & Leung, A. S. M. (2023). Justice climate and employee creativity in the work uncertainty context: A cross-level investigation. Asian Business & Management, 22, 1065–1093.
44. Tamayo, A. B., & Gregorio, D. L. (2013). Fairness and performance: Organizational justice perceptions of call center agents in Metro Manila. Philippine Management Review, 20(1), 18–35.
45. TheoryHub. (n.d.). Equity Theory – Academic theories reviews for research and T&L. Retrieved from Theory Hub.
46. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). A theory of procedural justice. California Law Review, 66, 541– 566.
47. Van Eck Duymaer van Twist, A., & Newcombe, S. (2021). Strauss-Howe generational theory. In J. Crossley & A. Lockhart (Eds.), Critical dictionary of apocalyptic and millenarian movements. Retrieved from13346-strauss-howe-generational-theory.pdf
48. Waworuntu, E. C., Kainde, S. J. R., & Mandagi, D. W. (2022). Work-life balance, job satisfaction, and performance among Millennial and Gen Z employees: A systematic review. Society, 10(2), 286–300.