The Role of Team Efficacy and Coaching on the Relationships between Distributive and Procedural Justice and Job Engagement Yoonhee Cho Department of Business Administration, College of Social Science, Ewha Womans University, Seoul, South Korea Gye-Hoon Hong Department of Business Administration, College of Social Science, Dongduk Womans University, Seoul, South Korea

Introductio n Job engagement has been a central research interest of organizational scholars for decades, and in recent years, many of these scholars have started focusing on the antecedents of employees’ job engagement. Referring to social exchange theory, employees would deeply engage in their jobs if they perceive the fair outcomes distribution depending on the fair procedures. Inoue, Tsuno, Tomioka, & Nakanishi (2010) found that procedural justice is positively associated with work engagement. Distributive Justice: fairness in the allocation of a set of outcomes Procedural Justice: fairness in the means by which decisions or outcome distributions are made Limitation of Previous studies & Aims of the Study Although there are different types of organizational justice, the differential effects on job engagement are not investigated. Furthermore, other situational factors such as team’s ability and team leader’s coaching style are recognized as key amplifiers of organizational outcomes. However, previous studies have not found which situational factors can amplify the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ job engagement. Given the gap, this research focuses on the effects of each type of justice and their influences on organizational outcomes and the moderating effects of team’s ability and team leader’s coaching style.

Hypotheses Distributive justice, which is fairness in the actual distribution of workplace rewards (Hegtvdet & Markovsky, 1995; Colquitt, 2001), will positively influence employees’ job engagement because it fosters employees’ growth, learning, and development and help them achieve work goals. Procedural justice which is fairness in the means by which decisions or outcome distributions are made (Hegtvdet & Markovsky, 1995) will help employees engage to their jobs because it makes them perceive themselves as valued members in their organizations. Hypothesis 1: Distributive justice is positively related to employees’ job engagement Hypothesis 2: Procedural justice is positively related to employees’ job engagement Team efficacy is one of the job resources that influences job engagement positively. When team efficacy is high, team members’ ability will contribute to enhancing individual performance. Enhanced performance will increase the level of outcome distribution and will lead to the higher engagement of employees. Procedural justice provides a source of self-validation that employees perceive themselves as influential figures who can participate in decision making process and overall outcomes. Motivation to work will increase more if team members’ overall ability is perceived. Hypothesis 3: Team efficacy will moderate the relationship between distributive and employees’ job engagement Hypothesis 4: Team efficacy will moderate the relationship between procedural justice and employees’ job engagement If team leaders provide proper feedback and insights for employees’ performance rather than unilateral leadership, they would further engage in their jobs because they perceive that their potentials are being recognized by the organizations. Hypothesis 5: Coaching will moderate the relationship between distributive and employees’ job engagement Hypothesis 6: Coaching will moderate the relationship between procedural justice and employees’ job engagement

Sample and Method Data collected from 346 employees working in seven South Korean firms Results

Both types of justice are positively related to job engagement. The two moderators played critical roles in the relationship between distributive justice and job engagement only. Conclusion Distributive justice itself cannot be an ultimate indicator of employees’ job engagement as it requires multifaceted influences such as collective ability and team leaders’ guide for employees’ development. As procedural justice are concerned with fairness in the methods by which rewards are distributed employees might already perceive themselves as critical figures in the organizations who deserve right to speak and participate reflecting a high level of self-esteem. In other words, they would not require additional motivational influence since they are already motivated to work. Procedural justice reflects right and esteem, employees might no longer require a motivational influence but rather seek more strategic ways to maintain the organizational system. References A. Inoue, N. Kawakami, K. Tsuno, K. Tomioka, M. Nakanishi, “Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers”, International archives of occupational and environmental health,” International archives of occupational and environmental health, vol.83, issue 1, pp.29-38, K. Hegtvdet, & B. Markovsky, Justice and Injustice, In Sociological Perspectives on Social Psychology, edited by Karen S. Cook, Gary Alan Fine, and James S. House. Needham Heights, NY: Allyn and Bacon, J. A. Colquitt, “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 86, issue 3, pp , 2001.