The Fairness of Organization’s Performance Appraisal Social Capital and The Impact Toward Affective Commitment

This experimental study aims to examine the impact of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment in every context or situation that is configurational. The meta-analysis, concluded by Hartman, Yale, and Galle (1999), explained that researches on fairness in general was conducted in the context of unfairness. This particular study examined various situations to form a configuration of distributive justice, procedural justice, and subjective perspective of social capital as moderating variable. This study involved 268 subjects in one class relation to performance appraisal’s policy. The findings show that both distributive and procedural justice are vital predictors. Similarly, the configuration of these variables play a role in explaining affective commitment. Another important finding is that social capital, as a subjective perspective, plays a significant role in explaining affective commitment.


INTRODUCTION
In an organization, an employee has limited information in assessing organizational policies such as promotion, performance appraisal, and other policies related to the interests of the members.This limited information often initiate them to use cognitive "shortcut" in assessing organizational fairness.
This showed that limited information is used by the organization's members as an important source to assess fairness.Theoretically, this phenomenon is explained in fairness heuristic theory, which stated that the members of organization were unable to obtain a complete information on the fairness of organizational policies (Harris, Lievens, and Hoye, 2004).The unavailability of the information resulted in the members experiencing difficulties in assessing the fairness objectively.In this condition, the members would likely assess the fairness subjectively.On the other hand, fairness is the "value" that play an important role in building positive attitude and behavior within an organization.Affective commitment is the type of positive attitude and behavior that an organization like the most since it is a form of bond between employee and organization based on vision, values, and emotional bound.Several studies showed that distributive and procedural justice were crucial antecedents in explaining attitude phenomenon, specifically organizational commitment (Folger and Konovsky, 1989;McFarlin and Sweeney, 1992;Sweeney and McFarlin, 1993;Skarlicky and Folger, 1997;Schminke et al., 1997;Masterson et al., 2000;Colquitt et al., 2001;Colquitt, 2001;Viswesvaran & Ones, 2002;Parker & Kohlmeyer, 2005;Tjahjono, 2008;Tjahjono, 2010;Tjahjono, 2011;Palupi, 2013).With that, the fairness in terms of distribution's allocation or distributive justice and fairness in terms of allocation's process or procedural justice have an effect on the improvement of affective commitment.
The first issue is related to the presence social capital in fairness study.This issue explained the phenomenon of individual's subjective assessment, which, in this context, takes form of social capital, differentiate the individual's attitude.In the organizational psychology model, the psychological differences within individuals should be taken into consideration since this could influence the individual's attitude (Skarlicky, Folger and Tesluk, 1999).Social capital is the psychological variable that could explain how an individual act and behave.As an example, those who posses high level of social capital would not emphasize on equity-based fairness principles compared to those who have a lower level of social capital.The latter tend to emphasize in the attempt to maintain social relations.
The second issue is related to the method approach in fairness study.In general, studies on the influence of organizational fairness toward organizational commitment was conducted with survey method.The survey-based

The Fairness of Organization's Performance Appraisal Social
Capital and The Impact Toward Affective Commitment studies are often conducted in the context of policy that is negative for the employee (Hartman, Yrle & Galle., 1999).
With that, the researches conduced an experiment in order to observe the influence of organizational fairness on employee's attitude in various contexts that were designed artificially.Where survey-based studies in general merely examined policies in negative context, experimental studies would portray several artificial phenomenons.
For example, how the satisfaction of an individual and organizational commitment would be should the policy include various interaction patterns, such as high-level distributive justice and high-level procedural justice or how would it be if the level of distributive justice was high but the level of procedural justice was low, or on other interactive patterns of justice.
The third issue of this research is related to organizational practice, which is the phenomenon of human resource management (HRM) within organization.The performance appraisal is the important function in the application of HRM practices.With regard to the role of performance appraisal, Taylor, Tracy, Renard, Harrison, and Carroll (1995) showed a number of evidence that both process and results of performance appraisal are often inflating, which means that the performance appraisal's report is higher than the actual employee's performance or deflating, where the performance appraisal's report is lower than the actual employee's performance.Beside that, management performance in organization can be support the whole organization, within the affactive apprasial or measurement (Saragih, Nugroho and Eko, 2012).
Relating to the three issues, the first objective of this research paper is to both examine and analyze whether social capital were instrumental in moderating the influence of both distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment or whether the differences of social capital play were instrumental in explaining the influence of distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment.The second objective is to both examine and analyze whether the differences of interaction patterns of both distributive and procedural justice would differentiate its influence on affective commitment.The third objective is to both examine and analyze how the model could explain the practice of performance appraisal.
Social capital is the individual's ability to mobilize his or her potential through his or her network (Akdere, 2005).Individual's ability is attached in a long-term period (Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998), so that social capital is a personal wealth that is attached to somebody.
In the view of Kostova and Roth (2003), social capital reflected the employee's tendency to maintain social relations or tend to pay attention to economic interests.Those who possess lower level of social capital tend to maximize individual interests.They are less motivated to be involved in social system and they are not oriented to social interests (Chua, 2002, andPrimeaux et al., 2003).
Viewed from distributive justice, the interests of those who have lower level of social capital is more focused on short-term needs, namely economic interests.The same thing applied for procedural justice, where the interests of those with lower level of social capital is so that the procedures of a policy, like performance appraisal, could protect their interests.This phenomenon is explained by the personal interests' model, where individuals care about procedural justice because these procedures would accommodate their interests (Thibaut and Walker, 1978;Lind and Tyler, 1988).
Should some procedures are viewed as unfair, those with lower level of social capital would be more sensitive on the change of their commitment degree.
Based on the understanding above, this research paper offers two hypotheses, which are; 1) Social capital moderate the influence of distributive justice on affective commitment.The influence of distributive justice towards affective commitment is stronger on those who possess lower level of social capital; 2) Social capital moderate the influence of procedural justice on affective commitment.The influence of procedural justice towards affective commitment is stronger on those with lower level of social capital.

RESEARCH METHODS
In this research paper, the author used quantitative approach with experimental method.Experimental study is limited in terms of external validity, but its strength lays in internal validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979).This section discusses the data collection method, followed by manipulation checks to evaluate whether the manipulation conducted in the class is implemented well by the experimenter.The indicators of both distributive and procedural justice refer to Tjahjono (2007), while the social capital refer to Tjahjono (2010), and the affective commitment refer to Allen and Meyer (1990) and Meyer et al. (1993).The next step is examining the hypotheses of this research project by using three-way ANOVA and, should the interactions are significant, will be followed by a post hoc analysis to differentiate whether the two sample groups (high social capital group and low social capital group) that are compared in this research paper are different.The appearance of differences indicate the presence of the moderating role of social capital towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment.
The subjects of this research paper consist of the firstyear and the second-year students of the management study program who take financial management course (parallel class).Before the research took place, the author had both selected and classified these students into high and low social capital groups with the use of average score.Based on the selection, the author concluded 268 students as research subjects.With that, each social capital groups consists of 134 subjects.
In addition, before the experimental study took place, the lecturer of the management class had announced to the students that most of them receive bad score test.The lecturer continued on by giving an opportunity for these students to participate in a mentoring led by the assistant lecturer of the course as well as a make-up exam designed by the lecturer.The implementation of both the assistance and the make-up exam is conducted by a team of assistant lecturers.The team consists of four students of Psychology Master's Programs who already took the experimental design course and one administrative officer.
Out of 268 subjects, 247 or 92.16 percent attended both the mentoring and the exam.These subjects were put into one group consisting of subjects with high social capital and another group consisting of subjects with low social capital.The total number of high social capital subjects is 124 people, while the number of low social capital subjects is 123 people.Afterward, each subjects was put into four situations, namely: (1) high distributive justicehigh procedural justice (KDT-KPT); (2) high distributive justice -low procedural justice (KDT-KPR); (3) low distributive justice -high procedural justice (KDR-KPT) and ( 4) low distributive justice -low procedural justice (KDR-KPR).After the subject was put in the four situation, the author concluded eight groups.The number of subjects on each sample groups is around 29, 30, and 31 people.
The manipulation checks were viewed from the average results of either distributive justice or procedural justice based on high or low degree.The goal is to observe whether there are significant differences between the treatment of high or low distributive justice and procedural justice.Significant differences indicate that independent variables have been successfully manipulated.Table 1 and 2 show the manipulation checks of both distributive and procedural justice.
The results of these manipulation checks indicate the existence of significant differences so that these manipulation checks are deemed successful.The descriptive data of affective commitment in relation to distributive justice, procedural justice, and social capital are shown on Table 3.
The series of process just like previous examination begins with the consideration of three ANOVA assumptions.The empirical results of the examination on satisfaction produce Levene's test that indicate F 3,948 with (p 0,05).The result indicates the assumption of homogeneity of variance is not met based on the data.However, this is not fatal so long as the measurement of the sample is proportional (Ghozali, 2005).
Table 4. support that both distributive and procedural fairness play a significant role in explaining organizational commitment.The findings of this research project indicate the role of procedural justice is more dominant in explaining organizational commitment (see partial eta squared KD and KP).Partial eta squared KD is 0.534 smaller than KP 0.612.
The first phase of moderation testing examine both hypothesis 1 and hypothesis 2. The examination is conducted by observing the KD x MS interaction and the KP x MS interaction.The result indicates that the KD and MS interaction is significant at (p 0,001), and the KP and MS interaction is significant at (p 0,001).The next investigation is by conducting examination with plots and descriptive statistics for KD and MS as well as KP and MS by separating these into high-low sub-samples (Gibson, 2001).
The descriptive statistics indicate that when KD is high, those with high social capital will have higher organizational commitment (M=11.47)than those with low social capital (M=10.82).When the KD is low, those with high social capital will have a stronger commitment degree than those with low social capital.The average rating of the organizational commitment of those with high social capital (M=9,90) > the average rating of the organizational commitment of those with low social capital (M=7,13).Figure 1.indicates the sensitivity of the green line-low social capital is more sensitive than the blue line-high social capital.Therefore, social capital moderate the influence of distributive justice towards organizational commitment.Specifically, the influence of distributive justice towards positive affective commitment     The descriptive statistic indicate a moderating role of social capital when the KP is high.Those with high social capital have a higher organizational commitment (M=11.94)than those with low social capital (M=10.81).Meanwhile, during the time when the KP is low, those with high social capital have a higher organizational commitment (M=9.39)than those with low social capital (M =7.15).Figure 2. indicate the sensitivity of green line-low social capital is more sensitive than the blue line-high social capital.Therefore, social capital moderate the influence of procedural justice towards affective commitment.The influence of procedural justice on affective commitment is positively stronger on those with low social capital, as illustrated on Figure 2, which means the hypothesis 2 is supported empirically.Since the interaction of KD, KP, and MS is significant, then it is followed by post hoc analysis.The results of the post hoc analysis on affective commitment indicate as follows in table 5.
Based on the results of the post hoc analysis above, in general the interaction pattern of KD, KP, and MS is significantly different in explaining the difference of the organizational commitment level.Methodologically, the four interaction patterns (if empirically proven) indicate that KD and KP moderate each other and subsequently interact with MS in predicting affective commitment.The following is the explanation of the four interaction patterns of KD and KP.
First, the interaction pattern where KD High -KP High.The results of the post hoc analysis indicate that there is no moderating role of social capital towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment.Empirically, the affective commitment of those with high or low social capital is not different.(Table Post Hoc Analysis -Code 1 and 5).
Second, the interaction pattern where KD High -KP Low.The results of the post hoc analysis indicate that there is a moderating role of social capital towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment (p 0,001).The affective commitment on those with high social capital is higher  Third, the interaction pattern where KD Low -KP High.The results of the post hoc analysis indicate that there is a moderating role of social capital towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment (p 0.001).The affective commitment of those with high social capital is higher than those with low social capital (the mean difference is at 2.59 -Table Post Hoc Analysis -Code 3 and 7).
Fourth, the interaction pattern where KD Low -KP Low.The results of the examination indicate the role of social capital in moderating the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment (p 0,001).The affective commitment on those with high social capital is higher than those with low social capital (the mean difference is at 2.83 -Table Post Hoc Analysis -Code 4 and 8).

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
The outcomes of this research project indicate that both distributive and procedural justice play an important role in explaining commitment.This is in line with the view that is presented by Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) and, empirically, received many supports (Colquitt et al., 2001).However, several findings in the past did not support the concept of two-type model (Tang & Sarsfield-Baldwin, 1996;).Sweeney and McFarlin (1993) realized the limitations of their study.The main criticism from these two was that their proposed model need to involve more complex variable.Possible research opportunities include the examination of moderating variable.The view is sharpened by Harris et al. (2004) who said that the perspective of individual subjective assessment should be considered in creating the model.The fairness heuristic theory stated that people would not receive the perfect information in assessing the fairness of a policy.The unavailability of an objective information would lead to people assess fairness subjectively.This subjective assessment is associated with their own characteristics.
The Hypothesis 1 of this research project is that social capital moderate the influence of distributive justice towards affective commitment significantly.The influence of distributive justice towards affective commitment is stronger on those with lower level of social capital.In this research project, those with lower level of social capital would have the commitment degree that tend to decline when the perception of distributive justice is low.The ratio of the average value of affective commitment towards low social capital (M=7.13) with high social capital (M=9.90).Meanwhile, during the time of which the distributive justice is high, those with lower level of social capital (10.82) also have a lower commitment degree in comparison to those with high social capital (11.47), even when the difference is still smaller in comparison to the low distributive justice interaction pattern.The regression line on Figure 1.indicate that those with low social capital is more sensitive to be influenced by distributive justice so it can be said that the influence of distributive justice towards affective commitment is stronger on those with low social capital.
The same with Hypothesis 2, which stated that social capital moderate the influence of procedural justice towards affective commitment.The influence of procedural justice towards affective commitment is stronger on those with low social capital.In this research project, those with low social capital would have the commitment degree that tend to decline when the perception of procedural justice is low.The ratio of the mean of affective commitment on low social capital (M=7.15) with high social capital (M=9.39).Meanwhile, during the time of which the procedural justice is high, those with low social capital (10.81) also have a lower commitment degree in comparison to those with high social capital (11.94).The difference of high and low social capital in the interaction pattern of high procedural justice is still smaller in comparison to the interaction pattern of low procedural justice.The regression line of Figure 2. indicate that those with low social capital is more sensitive to be influenced by procedural justice.Those with low social capital, in general, is oriented to personal interests.In the perspective of those with low social capital, the procedural justice illustrate the ability of the organization to accommodate their personal interests.The procedure itself is considered as means to resolve the conflicts within the organization (Thibaut & Walker, 1978).
In relation to affective commitment, the interaction between distributive justice, procedural justice, and social capital is as follows: a) On the interaction pattern (2) of KDT-KPR (3) KDR-KPT and interaction pattern (4) of KDR-KPR, the role of social capital as the moderating variable is significant in explaining affective commitment; b) On the interaction pattern (1) KDT-KPT, the moderating role of social capital is not significant in explaining affective commitment.
Based on the theory of understanding as well as the discussion of this research project, several things that play a role in bringing out the role of social capital into the model is as follows.(1) Limited information, which is when people do not receive enough information to evaluate the phenomenon of justice in front of them.The limited information will push the presence of subjective assessment.Social capital is the variable that receive empirical evidence in this research project.; (2) In the perspective of social identity theory, those with high social capital tend to identify themselves with the organization that they will differentiate how they act or behave.Those with high social capital will be more sensitive on the social aspect in comparison to economic aspect; (3) The justice principles that are used will be different between those with high social capital and those with low social capital.This has been indicated from time to time by previous researchers in illustrating the differences of both the perception and the attitude among those with high social capital and those with low social capital; (4) The new findings of this research project is the discovery of the factor of justice situation or the interaction pattern of distributive justice, procedural justice, and social capital that play a role in explaining the presence of social capital on justice model.During the situation of which justice is "troubled", the moderating role of social justice will appear.
In principle, those individuals need welfare so that their attention is focused on the outcome allocation.Should the outcome allocation is unfair, especially if the process is also unfair, both social capital groups would respond negatively.However, individuals with high social capital will still have better organizational commitment in comparison to individuals with low social capital, because these individuals prefer long-term relation in social system (Chua, 2002;Primeaux et al., 2003;Kostova & Roth, 2003).Therefore, individuals with high social capital are not too sensitive with the degree of fairness they felt in comparison to individuals with low social capital in explaining the degree of their commitment.In relation to the setting of the research project, the students with high social capital prefer longterm relation with the organization, so that their level of affective commitment is higher.
Meanwhile, the interaction pattern (1) of high distributive justice-high procedural justice illustrate the phenomenon that the problem of fairness is relatively not significant in individual perceptions so that there is no difference among them in responding and evaluating the organization on the whole.Therefore, not all the influences of justice types on affective commitment are moderated by social capital.This is in line with the view of Clayton & Opotow (2003) that the results that are inconsistent in researches on justice in relation with the different reactions of people within an organization are related with interaction patterns.These interaction patterns are related to the perception of justice and the reactions of people that both complex and dynamic.
When injustice takes place, the moderating role of social capital will become visible.Individuals with high social capital will be different in comparison to those with low social capital when it comes to responding low level of justice.This findings of this research project indicate that during the situation where the level of justice is high, the role of social capital is not supported.Therefore, the role of social capital or the difference of individual subjectivity does not appear during the time when people do not see the problems of justice within their organization.
In relation to the performance appraisal that is deemed to be a paradox and of which the effectiveness is doubted by a number of experts on organization, there are several views that see the effectiveness from the employee's side.The effectiveness of performance appraisal can be viewed by observing both the attitude and the reaction of these employees.The findings of this research project indicate that performance appraisal that is perceived as "just" both distributively and procedurally will have an influence towards the improvement of commitment.
In the practice of management, the performance appraisal still play an important role.The findings of this research paper indicate that the fairness in performance appraisal play a role in improving the affective commitment.This simultaneously answers the view performance appraisal, in practice, is paradoxical.
The management also needs to understand the characteristic of each employees, which is, in this context, their social capital property that create different responses towards management policies.With that, the management should know the characteristic of their employees such as the social capital of the latter.
There are three theoretical implications in this research project.First, both distributive and procedural justice serve as the dominant predictor in explaining affective commitment.Second, in the condition of injustice, the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment is important to consider the variable of individual subjective assessment, in this case the social capital.Third, this research project provides support toward the subjective perspective of social capital in understanding the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment.The context factor or the interaction pattern of justice become the most important thing to be considered.
Meanwhile, there are two practical implications in relation to organizations in this research project.First, the distributive justice strongly influence affective commitment.Therefore, an organization needs to examine the aspect of allocation in relation to both the attention and the interest of the employees.Second, procedural justice play a strong role in explaining affective commitment, so that an organization need to carefully examine the procedure of formal policies in relation to the appearance of policies within the organization.This means that fair procedures illustrate good capacity of an organization so that employees will commit to the organization.

CONCLUSION
In general, distributive and procedural justice still play an important role in explaining affective commitment.The findings of this experiment show that the role of social capital as the moderating variable towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice on affective commitment would receive support in a situation where the justice itself was deemed to be "troubled."The findings indicate that the moderating role of social capital towards the influence of distributive and procedural justice towards affective commitment is determined by the interaction pattern of both types of justice.
This research paper has several limitations and suggestions for future researches.First, the separation of the subject into one group that consists of those with higher level of social capital and another group that consists of those with lower level of social capital in an experimental should be based on certain standards and non-relative, so that it may firmly reflect individuals with higher or lower level of social capital.Future researches should consider the way to categorize high and low social capital in great detail.Second, the subject of this research paper is limited to both the number and the scale of one university.It is important for future studies to consider even more aspects as well as wider scope for the researches.

Figure
Figure 1.KD and MS Interaction -Affective Commitment

Table 4 . The ANOVA of Affective Commitment is
stronger on those with low social capital in comparison to those with high social capital, hypothesis 1 receives empirical support.

Table 5 . The Post hoc Analysis of Affective Commitment than
those with low social capital (the mean difference is at 1.61 -TablePostHoc Analysis -Code 2 and 6).