Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia p�ISSN: 2541-0849

e-ISSN: 2548-1398

Vol. 7, No. 10, Oktober 2022

 
EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF SEX DIVERSITY AND EMPLOYEE PERCEPTION OF RETAINING SEX DIVERSITY ON WORK EFFORTS MEDIATED BY INTERACTIONAL JUSTICE, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Yohanes Rico Ananda Putra, Muhammad Irfan Syaebani

Department of Management, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Indonesia, Indonesia

Email: [email protected]

Abstract
Digital transformation has become one of the government programs. In an organization full of diversity, leaders need to carry out good governance. Proper diversity management is needed for organizations with diverse employees. Diversity management can be felt by employees from two perspectives, namely how employees see the existing diversity and how employees see the organization's efforts to maintain diversity. Apart from being applied to managing organizations, diversity management is directly proportional to organizational justice. This research aims to determine the effect of perceptions of sex diversity and perceptions of retaining sex diversity on employee work efforts in the public sector mediated by interactional justice, distributive justice, and procedural justice in organizations. Research data was collected using a questionnaire and obtained 148 respondents. The collected data was analyzed using the Partial Least Square (PLS-SEM) based Structural Equation Modeling method with the SmartPLS application. The results showed that there was a positive effect on perceptions of employee diversity and perceptions of retaining employee diversity on work effort mediated by procedural justice. However, the results showed that other variables had a different effect. This research contributes to providing an overview regarding how to improve the work efforts of employees in the public sector, especially those with a high level of diversity.
 
Keywords: Perceptions of Sex Diversity, Perceptions of Retaining Sex Diversity, Interactional Justice, Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice, Work Effort
 
 
Introduction
Indonesia is a large country that has a lot of diversity. The condition of diversity in Indonesia will certainly have an impact on workplace. Harrison and Klein (2007) state that diversity refers to the depiction of the distribution of differences among member units with respect to common attributes such as tenure, ethnicity, awareness, task attitudes, or salary. Harison, Price, and Bell (1998) classify the diversity into surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity. According to Harrison et al., (1998) surface-level diversity can be interpreted as differences among group members that are as obvious as biological characteristics that are usually manifested in physical features such as age or sex. In social science literature these features are often tested for their impact on performance.
In this modern era, a very important issue for public sector organizations in Indonesia is digital transformation. In order to realize digital transformation, it is known that only 7 performance indicators have reached 100% in 2021 while 6 other performance indicators have not reached the target. Therefore, managerial evaluation is needed to improve organizational performance.
With the existence of a diverse workforce composition, the perception of diversity has become a strategic priority. In addition, Yang and Konrad (2011) state that diversity management is a very important matter for aligning social norms to achieve justice. Organizational justice is a concept that states the perceptions of employees or member organizations regarding the extent to which they are treated fairly and equally in accordance with the expected moral and ethical standards in the workplace and how these perceptions affect organizational outcomes such as performance and satisfaction.
On the other hand, organizational justice is also very important to improve organizational performance. According to Balogun (2014), the perception of organizational justice is a subjective situation in which an individual compares themselves with other individuals around them. Yang and Konrad (2011) said that diversity management is the best way to achieve organizational justice.
Walker, Chirchill and Ford (1977) define motivation as a number of work efforts that are expected to have by a person to carry out activities or tasks related to his work. In addition, Bass (1985) said that organizations will work optimally when their human resources increase their work effort more than they should. This is also supported by the opinion of McAllister (1995) which emphasizes that employees need to make work efforts if they want to achieve better performance.
Seeing the importance of digital transformation issues and the not yet optimal performance shown by the implementing organization. Therefore, this research intends to examine the effect of employee perceptions of sex diversity and employee perceptions of retaining sex diversity on work efforts mediated by interactional justice, procedural justice and distributive justice in public sector organizations with diversity restrictions at the level surface, namely sex as previously described.
In the context of sex diversity among employees in the public sector, this research will compare groups that have high sex diversity with a composition of 57% male and 43% female. And the group that has low sex diversity with a composition of 73% male and 27% female.
 
Literature Review
Work Effort

Bandura and Cervone (1986) stated that the main thing that defines motivation is the level of work effort that has done and maintained. Furthermore, Williams and Seiler (1973) argued that work effort can be understood as a measure of work motivation. And Walker, Chirchill and Ford (1977) define motivation as a number of work efforts that are expected to have a person to carry out activities or tasks related to his work.

Yeo and Neal (2004) stated that work effort refers to a series of attentional resources spent by someone to do their job. The resources of this attention described by Kanfer (1990) include direction, intensity, and persistence. Direction refers to what a person is doing with what frequency. The intensity in question is how hard a person does his job.

Employee Perception of Sex Diversity

Burr (2003) explains that diversity is a discourse that refers to socially constructed ideas about differences between people that may combine to produce certain versions of events that vary in social contexts. Diversity management in public organizations can be aimed at making the organizational climate more inclusive to obtain the possible positive effects of diversity and reduce the negative effects of diversity itself (Nishii, 2013). Harrison, Price, and Bell (1998) classify diversity into surface-level diversity and deep-level diversity. According to Harrison et al., (1998) surface level diversity can be interpreted as differences among group members that are clearly visible as biological characteristics which are usually manifested in physical features such as age or sex. In the social science literature these characteristics are often tested to see their impact on performance.

In the context of this research, it will use diversity at the surface level in a limited way. The difference that underlies the diversity studied is sex. Employees are distinguished by sex. Therefore, it is limited to how employees perceive sex diversity in filling positions in their organization.

H1: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Interactional Justice.

H2: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Distributive Justice

H3: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Procedural Justice.

H4: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort.

Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity

Larger organizational studies provide useful context regarding leadership management styles (Vermeeren, 2014). But analysis of the role played by management still rare. This gap inspires researchers to conduct further research on this issue. Bleijenbergh (2010) concluded while reviewing the literature on diversity management that research is needed on how to increase managers awareness of the diversity that exists in the workplace and support their involvement in the implementation process.

The tendency to maintain diversity within an organization is a form of diversity management applied by managers or leaders to achieve organizational interests. However, diversity management concerns organizational and management practices that are assumed to be used to increase the value of the organization and for the benefit of all employees (Kirton & Greene, 2010).

This research will use diversity at the surface level in a limited way. The difference that underlies the diversity studied is sex. Employees are distinguished by sex. Therefore, it is limited to employee perceptions of how leaders or organizations treat and maintain sex diversity in filling positions in their organizations.

H5: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Interactional Justice.

H6: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Distributive Justice.

H7: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Procedural Justice.

H8: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort.

Interactional Justice
Interactional justice is the perception of justice felt by employees from their interactions with other employees when a procedure is implemented. Miao (2020) explains that interactional justice is a form of organizational justice that is most vulnerable to being controlled or manipulated by managers. However, interactional justice is also the most complex because it can be triggered by many events and phenomenas, while other forms of justice can only be perceived based on one or a few phenomenas.

Interactional justice focuses on the fairness of behavior that employees receive from their organizations. Leaders are often unable to directly affect distributive justice and procedural justice, they are usually free to determine to what extent and how they treat their employees with more dignity, respect and honesty (Scott et al., 2009) Although interactional fairness has many positive effects, leaders must spend sufficient time and effort to ensure that their employees are treated with dignity, respect, and honesty.

H9: Interactional Justice has a significant positive effect on Work Effort.

Distributive Justice
Distributive justice is the perception of fairness towards the treatment received compared to the treatment received by other members of the organization. Distributive justice is also defined as the perception of fairness resulting from the awarding or remuneration received between individuals or employees of their organizations (Robbins, 2015). Distributive justice refers to employees perceptions of the results they receive given by the organization or in certain cases it can also be interpreted as a manager. The results or compensation for services provided can be based on employee contributions, employee needs, or on an equal basis, which is then compared to other employees.
Robbins (2015) explains that distributive justice relates to conditions where not all employees are treated the same but on the basis of; equality, namely equality of business and compensation for services; eligibility, namely the feasibility of compensation for services based on the services provided; contribution, namely based on the amount of effort that has been made; and performance, namely the suitability of performance with compensation.

H10: Distributive Justice has a significant positive effect on Work Effort.

Procedural Justice
Procedural justice is the perception of fairness towards the procedures used to make decisions so that every member of the organization feels involved in it. This is closely related to the perception of the rules and procedures governing the running of a business process. The values ​​attached to this variable are impartiality, the opportunity to be heard, and the basis for decisions. Robbins (2015) explains that procedural justice can also be based on views on the fairness of the reward process and punishment decisions.
Robbins (2015) states that the perception of procedural justice is obtained from a comparison of a process with the regulations that underlie it. Indicators of organizational justice are as follows: process control reflects the opportunity to have opinions as long as regulations are applied; decision control represents the opportunity to oversee the application of regulations; consistency reflects the similarity of regulations applied; information accuracy reflects the accuracy of the information used to make decisions; capable of correction reflects the ability to repair errors mechanism; ethics and morals reflect an assessment of the guidelines for implementing regulations.
Organizational justice can be divided into interactional justice, distributive justice and procedural justice. Different criteria for organizational fairness will be very important in different circumstances. Under certain structural conditions, procedural justice may be the most prominent for individuals. Meanwhile, in other structural conditions, employees will focus on other forms of justice (Tyler, 1990).

H11: Procedural Justice has a significant positive effect on Work Effort.

H12: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Interactional Justice.

H13: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Distributive Justice.

H14: Employee Perception of Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Procedural Justice.

H15: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Interactional Justice.

H16: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Distributive Justice.

H17: Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity has a significant positive effect on Work Effort mediated by Procedural Justice.

 
After constructing the hypothesis based on the variables of this research, the research model of this research is presented as in Figure 1.
 

Figure 1. Research Model

Research Methods

This research uses quantitative research methods. The sample chosen is employees in public sector organizations in Indonesia who are tasked with carrying out digital transformation. The sample was divided into two groups, group A which had high sex diversity and group B which had low sex diversity.

This research uses a Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is a technique used to test a number of temporary conjectures about the impact of latent variables, observed variables, with the ability to take into account measurement errors (Lee, 2007). Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is also called multivariate analysis because it can be used simultaneously to analyze several research variables (Hair et al., 2017). The application used in this research to carry out SEM is SmartPLS 3.

Questionnaires are distributed online using Google Forms. There are 41 question items adapted from previous research that discuss relevant variables. The variables Employee Perception of Sex Diversity (EPD), Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity (EPRD), Interactional Justice (IJ), Distributive Justice (DJ) and Procedural Justice (PJ) were adapted from Blouch and Azeem (2019). Meanwhile, the Work Effort (WE) variable was adapted from Gould-Williams (2003). All the scales were measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 = "strongly disagree"; 5 = "strongly agree").

Results and Discussion

In this research there are 6 variables, namely Employee Perception of Sex Diversity (EPD), Employee Perception of Retaining Sex Diversity (EPRD), Interactional Justice (IJ), Distributive Justice (DJ), Procedural Justice (PJ) and Work Effort (WE) which measured by 41 indicators. There are 148 data collected. After conducting the T-test it is known that all variables have Sig values. (2-tailed) <0.05, the two groups have significant differences in each variable. Then it will be analyzed separately. Group A has 68 respondents and group B has 80 respondents.

Table 1
Measurement Analysis

Variable	Indicator	Group A	Group B
EPD	9 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable
EPRD	4 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable
IJ	9 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable
DJ	4 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable
PJ	7 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable
WE	8 items	Valid and Reliable	Valid and Reliable

Based on the test results, it was found that all variables from group A and group B were declared reliable based on Cronbach's Alpha and Composite Reliability ≥ 0.70. All variables from group A and group B are declared valid based on Outer loading values ≥ 0.70, and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values ≥ 0.50.

Next test in this research, the significance level used was 0.05 with the one tailed type because the hypotheses that were prepared had a direction of effect. Therefore, if the t value ≥ 1.645 for the hypothesis is said to be a positive effect and the value ≤ -1.645 for the hypothesis is said to be a negative effect. The next significant indicator is that the p-value must be less than 0.05. Following are the results of the analysis of the significance of path coefficients in this research. Table 2 and Table 3 show the result of indirect effect analysis.

Table 2

Indirect Effect Analysis of Group A

	Path coefficients	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T-Values	P values
PD → PDJ	0,456	0,417	0,232	1,964	0,025
PD → PIJ	0,488	0,448	0,251	1,948	0,026
PD → PPJ	0,400	0,379	0,210	1,903	0,029
PD → WE	-0,009	-0,005	0,104	0,083	0,467
PDJ → WE	0,056	0,053	0,121	0,462	0,322
PIJ → WE	0,033	0,045	0,100	0,327	0,372
PPJ → WE	0,729	0,726	0,110	6,628	0,000
RD → PDJ	0,419	0,461	0,240	1,742	0,041
RD → PIJ	0,336	0,386	0,242	1,389	0,083
RD → PPJ	0,477	0,502	0,211	2,261	0,012
RD → WE	0,170	0,161	0,136	1,251	0,106

Table 3

Indirect Effect Analysis of Group B

	Path coefficients	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T-Values	P values
PD → PDJ	0,222	0,192	0,191	1,161	0,123
PD → PIJ	0,197	0,189	0,144	1,375	0,085
PD → PPJ	0,366	0,339	0,197	1,853	0,032
PD → WE	-0,237	-0,218	0,139	1,712	0,044
PDJ → WE	-0,331	-0,225	0,290	1,142	0,127
PIJ → WE	0,291	0,296	0,212	1,374	0,085
PPJ → WE	0,700	0,665	0,202	3,471	0,000
RD → PDJ	0,715	0,748	0,206	3,470	0,000
RD → PIJ	0,767	0,777	0,137	5,589	0,000
RD → PPJ	0,553	0,585	0,214	2,585	0,005
RD → WE	0,536	0,442	0,306	1,754	0,040

After measuring the direct effects, the testers conducted a mediation test (indirect effects) to prove whether there was an indirect relationship in the constructed research model. This criterion includes the t value must be ≥ 1.645 for the positive effect hypothesis and ≤ -1.645 for the negative effect hypothesis. The next significant indicator is that the p-value must be less than 0.05. The following are the results of the analysis of the mediation effect test in this research.

Tabel 4

Indirect Effect Analysis of Group A

	Original Sample	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T-Values	P values
PD → PDJ→ WE	0,025	0,015	0,053	0,482	0,315
RD → PDJ→ WE	0,023	0,031	0,073	0,322	0,374
PD → PIJ→ WE	0,016	0,024	0,058	0,273	0,393
RD → PIJ→ WE	0,011	0,015	0,045	0,244	0,404
PD → PPJ→ WE	0,292	0,275	0,157	1,862	0,032
RD → PPJ→ WE	0,348	0,364	0,161	2,157	0,016

Tabel 5

Indirect Effect Analysis of Group B

	Original Sample	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T-Values	P values
PD → PDJ→ WE	-0,074	-0,066	0,091	0,812	0,209
RD → PDJ→ WE	-0,237	-0,143	0,229	1,033	0,151
PD → PIJ→ WE	0,058	0,048	0,061	0,946	0,172
RD → PIJ→ WE	0,224	0,237	0,181	1,238	0,108
PD → PPJ→ WE	0,256	0,225	0,155	1,653	0,050
RD → PPJ→ WE	0,387	0,390	0,197	1,967	0,025

Results of testing this hypothesis is carried out by looking at the results of the structural model that has been obtained. The significance value of the relationship between variables determines whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected. Because it leads to the one-tailed type, significance can be achieved if the t-values ≥ 1.645 for the positive effect hypothesis and ≤-1.645 for the negative effect hypothesis. The p-values need to be below 0.05 to reach significance. As a result, the following model is obtained:

Figure 2. Path coefficients dan T-value of Group A

Figure 3. Path coefficients dan T-value of Group B

The research model in Figure 2 and Figure 3 describes the relationship formed from each variable after it is known with the following information:

1. Black color means positive effect.
2. The red color means a negative effect.
3. Solid line means significant effect.
4. The dotted line means that the effect is not significant.
 
Conclusion
Different organizational characteristics it is expected to produce different findings. However, from the table above it is known that there are 6 hypotheses which are equally accepted because it shows the results in the form of a positive and significant effect from both group. The six hypotheses which are both accepted with the results of a positive and significant effect are in line with the previous research by Blouch and Azeem (2019) which states that the perception of diversity applied in diversity management has a positive effect on organizational justice. In the context of this research, it turns out that there are findings that perceptions of sex diversity in the two units can have a significant positive effect on procedural justice. This is thought to occur because the better the employee's perception of sex diversity, the better their tendency to feel justice that comes from implementing work procedures in their organization.
Similar to the previous relationship, a positive and significant effect also occurs from the variable perception of retaining sex diversity on procedural justice. In addition, the variable perception of retaining sex diversity also has a positive and significant effect on distributive justice. Distributive justice accommodates more about salaries, facilities, and rewards obtained from organizations, which in the implementation of distributive justice in the public sector have been determined and regulated through laws and regulations, and policies of organizational leaders. Therefore, it is very possible how leaders treat diversity will effect how leaders determine policies related to distributive justice.
The last finding which shows a significant positive effect is from the procedural justice variable on employee work effort. This finding is also in line with Blouch and Azeem (2019) which state that organizational justice is directly proportional to employee performance. The results of the research show that when justice is examined, it is only procedural justice that can positively and significantly affect work effort. This is because in public sector organizations, the implementation of procedures according to applicable regulations is something that absolutely applies to any activity and to anyone. Therefore, equality in the implementation of procedures can be felt by every employee whether from a work environment that has sex diversity or not and has a significant positive effect on employee work efforts.
The results of calculations from other variables for the two groups of data from the inspectorate and test center obtained varied results. After conducting literacy studies on several sources, Spicermann et al. (2013) mentioned the effect of surface level variations on performance resulting in inconsistent results.
 
 
 
 
 
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 

Balogun, J., Jacobs, C., Jarzabkowski, P., Mantere, S., and Vaara, E. (2014). Placing strategy discourse in context: Sociomateriality, sensemaking, and power. Journal of Management Studies, 51(2), 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12059

Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 3(8), 92�113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90028-2

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: The Free Press.

Bleijenbergh, I., Peters, P., and Poutsma, E. (2010). DM beyond the business case. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 29(5), 413-421. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2018-0150

Blouch, R., & Azeem, M.F. (2019). Effects of perceived diversity on perceived organizational performance: Mediating role of perceived organizational justice. Employee Relations, 41(5), 1079�1097. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-05-2018-0150

Burr, V. (2003). Social constructionism (2nd ed). New York: Routledge.

Gould-Williams, J. (2003). The importance of HR practices and workplace trust in achieving superior performance: A study of public-sector organizations. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 28�54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190210158501

Hair, J., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). California: SAGE Publications.

Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., & Bell, M.P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface and deep level diversity on work group cohesion. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 96�107. https://doi.org/10.2307/256901

Harrison, D.A., & Klein, K.J. (2007). What's the difference? Diversity constructs as separation, variety, or disparity in organizations. The Academy of Management Journal, 32(4), 1199�1228. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.26586096

Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1(2), 75�130.

Kirton, G., and Greene, A. (2010). The dynamics of managing diversity, a critical approach. Oxford: Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Lee, S. (2007). Structural equation modeling: A Bayesian approach. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons.

McAllister, D.J. (1995). Affect and cognition based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal. 38 (I), 24-54. https://doi.org/10.2307/256727

Miao, R. (2021). High-performance work systems and key employee attitudes: The roles of psychological capital and an interactional justice climate. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 32(2), 443-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2019.1710722

Nishii, L. (2013). The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender diverse groups. Academy of Management Journal, 56(6), 1754-1774. https://doi.org/1754-1774. 10.5465/amj.2009.0823

Robbins, S.P., dan Judge, T.A. (2015). Perilaku Organisasi. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.

Scott, B.A., Colquitt, J.A., & Paddock, E.L. (2009). An actor-focused model of justice rule adherence and violation: The role of managerial motives and discretion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 756�769. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015712

Spickermann, A. (2013). Surface and deep-level diversity in panel selection-exploring diversity effects on response behaviour in foresight. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 85, 105-120. https://doi.org/105-120. 10.1016/j.techfore.2013.04.009

Tyler, T.R., & Schuller, R. (1990). A relational model of authority in work organizations: The psychology of procedural justice. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.

Vermeeren, B. (2014). Variability in HRM implementation among line managers and its effect on performance: A 2-1-2 mediational multilevel approach. The International Journal of HR Management, 25(22), 3039-3059. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2014.934891

Walker, O.C., Churchill, G.A., & Ford, N.M. (1977). Motivation and performance in industrial selling: Present knowledge and needed research. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(2), 156�168. https://doi.org/10.2307/3150465

Williams, W.E., & Seiler, D.A. (1973). Relationship between measures of effort and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(1), 49�54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034201

Yang, Y., and Konrad, A.M. (2011). Understanding diversity management practices: Implications of institutional theory and resource-based theory. Group & Organization Management, 36 (1), 6-38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601110390997

Yeo, G.B., & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 231�247. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.2.231

Copyright holder:

Yohanes Rico Ananda Putra, Muhammad Irfan Syaebani (2022)

First publication right:

Syntax Literate: Jurnal Ilmiah Indonesia

This article is licensed under: