The increasing volatility and complexity of tasks in organizations have stimulated employees to become involved in positive organizational behavior, so that they can adapt to changing work conditions (Luthans, 2002). Work engagement, a construct that provides a perspective on an individual’s relationship with, and behavior at, work, has become a worldwide topic of interest. Researchers have reported the positive effects of work engagement on individual loyalty and satisfaction (Schohat, & Vigoda-Gadot, 2010), subjective occupational success (Vincent-Höper, Muser, & Janneck, 2012), work performance (Bakker & Bal, 2010), and organizational financial performance (Gallup, 2009). Although the construct of engagement has been proposed in Western culture (Kahn, 1990), the meaning of engagement can be traced to the ancient Chinese Book of Rites (Sheng, 2015), which provides a literary account of Confucianism. In the Chinese Book of Rites there are guides about engagement and sociability; one should respect, and be dedicated to, one’s work and enjoy one’s relationships with others. In modern China, the values of dedication and engagement are widely accepted in occupational culture as motivating all types of employees. For example, at the 18th Communist Party of China national congress in 2012, engagement was put forward as one of the key values in the country. However, according to Gallup’s 142-country survey (Crabtree, 2013), only 13% of employees worldwide, and 6% of employees in China, are engaged at work. To encourage employees to devote themselves to their work, the mechanism underlying engagement needs more exploration.

With its established reputation as a predictor of a wide range of positive outcomes (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001), organizational justice may act as a pivotal variable to maintain a work environment that drives engaged behavior. The notion of organizational justice involves employees’ perception of the fairness of organizational decision procedures and outcomes that constitute their working conditions (Colquitt et al., 2001). Agarwal (2014) proposed a model of work engagement with trust as a mediating variable between procedural/interactional justice and work engagement. Results of a study with Chinese teachers at compulsory schools showed that the relationship between procedural fairness and job engagement was partially mediated by the quality of leader–member exchange (Meng & Wu, 2015). However, the psychological experience underlying the link between justice and engagement needs more exploration. According to the instrumental perspective, (in)justice implies information about, and confidence in, the security of valued rewards and resources. In a just workplace individuals are enabled to experience safety. When the organization is perceived to be just, the employees are more likely to engage in their work without worrying about losing resources. Psychological safety refers to employees’ belief that they are able to express themselves without fear of negative consequences to their self-image, status, or career (Kahn, 1990). Thus, the underlying psychological need for safety may act as a medium for demonstrating the effect of justice on engagement.

I investigated the work engagement domain by exploring the joint roles of organizational justice and psychological safety as the antecedents of workengagement, and, in particular, I focused on teachers employed at compulsory schools (grades 1-9) in mainland China.

Literature Review and Hypotheses

Organizational Justice and Work Engagement

Kahn (1990) described the concept of engagement as a process in which employees are physically, cognitively, and emotionally involved in their job roles. In this study, I have used the definition of work engagement as “a positive, fulfilling, work-related state of mind which is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Salanova, 2006, p. 701). Vigor is characterized by high levels of energy, mental resilience while working, persistence in the face of difficulties, and a willingness to invest effort in one’s work. Dedication refers to having a sense of inspiration, pride, significance, enthusiasm, and challenge at work, and absorption involves being happily and deeply engrossed in one’s work, and having difficulty in detaching oneself from work.

Because of the strong association between work engagement and bottom-line outcomes, such as job performance and client satisfaction, as well as financial returns (Schaufeli, 2013), the motivating factors for work engagement have become a focus of interest. Researchers proposed a climate for engagement that is measured by the six areas of work life, that is, justice, sustainable workload, personal control, community, rewards, and values (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Organizational justice comprises three dimensions, namely, distributive, procedural, and interactional (Colquitt, et al., 2013). I have argued that organizational justice has a positive effect on work engagement for two reasons: First, the antecedents of work engagement can be drawn from the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), according to which, lack of resources leads to people’s attempts to conserve their remaining resources (Halbesleben, Neveu, Paustian-Underdahl, & Westman, 2014). In a generalized conception of resources, organizational justice is considered to be a job resource. Employees would be more likely to invest their efforts in a just work environment. Conversely, in a less just workplace, employees would withdraw their involvement so that they did not suffer more losses.

Second, the relationship between justice and work engagement can also be explained from a social exchange theory perspective. In social exchange, the norm of reciprocity is the preferred rule (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Organizational justice is a symbolic resource that fosters reciprocal action by employees. As fair allocation or treatment provides resources that support employees’ work, employees tend to respond accordingly. Therefore, employees define their organizational relationship as a type of social exchange. Justice as a significant organizational resource evokes employees’ commitment to the relationship, leading them to reciprocally engage in valued aspects of work engagement, such as dedication or deep involvement in work.

In addition, results of several studies have theoretically and empirically supported the association between fairness and engagement. For example, scholars found a positive relationship between justice and work engagement with a sample of Japanese workers (Inoue et al., 2010). Similarly, results of a study conducted in western India clearly confirmed a significant effect of justice on work engagement (Agarwal, 2014). Therefore, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The three dimensions of organizational justice will each have a positive relationship with work engagement.

Psychological Safety as a Mediator Between Justice and Engagement

Psychological safety is the sense of being able to express oneself without fear of negative consequences to self-image, status, or career and stems from an experience of social situations that are predictable and consistently unthreatening. Employees feel comfortable expressing their opinions in this type of working environment.

Therefore, a mediating role for psychological safety in the organizational justice and work engagement relationship is suggested such that organizational justice increases employees’ psychological safety, which, in turn, positively influences their work engagement. Specifically, organizational justice is a favorable work environment characteristic that reduces risk and ambiguity. If the work setting is perceived as reasonable and predictable, employees do not worry about their output. Organizational justice boosts a sense of psychological safety, which is one of the basic needs of both the resource distribution mechanism and interpersonal support. If the resource distribution mechanism is fair, employees will not worry about their output; they can be confident that they will get their rewards based on their work. Thus, employees are more likely to devote their energy and passion to the organizational task as well as focusing on their work in a consistent and predictable environment. Therefore, I proposed the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Psychological safety will act as a mediator between organizational justice and work engagement.

Method

Participants and Procedure

A convenience sampling method was used to collect data from teachers working in compulsory schools in eastern China in 2013. All participants were enrolled in a training program that was supported by the National Compulsory School Teachers’ Training Project begun in 2010. I distributed 300 survey forms to the teachers in a training class, with small gifts to encourage participation (RMB30, US$4.60). I received 254 valid responses after missing data were deleted, with a response rate of 84.7%. The proportion of women (65.7%) in the study was much higher than men (34.3%). The majority of the participants (80.7%) had more than five years working experience in their current position. Nearly 80% of respondents were younger than 35 years of age: < 25 years (21.3%), 26–30 years (30.3%), 31–35 years (27.6%), 36–40 years (8.3%), 41–45 years (5.1%), 46–50 years (4.3%), 51–55 years (2.4%), 56–60 years (0.8%).

Measures

Respondents rated all items on 5-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Demographic control variables, including gender, tenure, and age, were measured.

Organizational justice. I used Kim and Leung’s (2007) brief nine-item scale that measures the perception of organizational justice, to assess the three facets of organizational justice. Distributive justice was measured with three items. A sample item is “I believe that the reward is distributed fairly here at work.” Procedural justice was measured with three items. A sample item is “The rules and procedures to make decisions are fair.” Interactional justice was measured with four items. A sample item is “The way my supervisor treats me is fair.” The final score for organizational justice was calculated from the overall average of the items. The second-order construct of organizational justice had an acceptable model fit (χ² = 52.68, df = 23, Tucker-Lewis index [TLI] = .98, comparative fit index [CFI] =. 99, root mean square residual [RMR] = .02, root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = .08). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .96.

Psychological safety. Three items from May, Gilson, and Harter’s (2004) scale were used to measure psychological safety by assessing whether employees felt comfortable expressing themselves or if there was a threatening climate in the work setting. A sample item is “I am not afraid to express my opinions at work.” In this study, Cronbach’s α was an acceptable .54.

Work engagement. I used Schaufeli, Martinez, Marques Pinto, Salanova, and Bakker’s (2002) 17-item scale to measure the teachers’ work engagement. Vigor was assessed with six items. A sample item is “I can continue working for very long periods at a time.” Dedication was measured with five items. A sample item is “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.” Six items were used to assess absorption. A sample item is “It is difficult to detach myself from my job.” The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed that the second-order construct of work engagement was verified with an acceptable model fit (χ² = 244.50, df = 105, TLI = .91, CFI = .93, RMR = .03, RMSEA = .08). In this study, Cronbach’s α was .93.

Data analysis. Data were analyzed using SPSS 19.0 and Amos 17.0. First, correlation analysis was applied to test the direct relationship between organizational justice and work engagement. Next, I used structural equation modeling (SEM) to verify the mediator role of psychological safety.

Results

Measurement Issues

The psychometric properties of the survey data were examined prior to testing the hypotheses. A series of CFAs were conducted to investigate whether or not the variables (organizational justice, psychological safety, and work engagement) captured distinct constructs. The measurement models were compared to find the optimal one. The results indicated that the three-variable measurement model had the best fit indices, χ² = 39.55, df = 22, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMR = .03, RMSEA = .06, as expected, showing the discriminant validity of the key measures in this study.

Hypothesis Testing

Cronbach’s alphas demonstrated good internal consistent reliability for each scale variable (see Table 2). The significant positive correlations for all the subdimensions of organizational justice and work engagement were over .50 (p < .01; see Table 2). These results indicate that organizational justice was related to work engagement, both at the subdimensional level and the construct as a whole. Therefore, the correlation analysis provided initial support for Hypothesis 1 and the nested nature of the data was revealed later. In addition, the correlation between organizational justice and psychological safety was significantly positive (r = .39, p < .01) and psychological safety had a positive relationship with work engagement (r = .42, p < .01). As the assumed mediator, psychological safety had a positive correlation with both the independent variable (organizational justice) and the dependent variable (work engagement). Because I examined the mediating role of psychological safety in the link between justice and engagement, SEM was applied to test the hypotheses. The result indicated a good model fit (χ²/df =1.80, TLI = .97, CFI = .98, RMR = .03, RMSEA = .06). The mediation effect of psychological safety was examined according to Baron and Kenny’s (1986) procedure. In the first step it was shown that the independent variable (organizational justice) had a significant total effect (c = .65, p < .01) on the dependent variable (work engagement). Second, both paths from organizational justice to psychological safety (the mediator, a = .44, p < .01) and psychological safety to work engagement (b = .16, p < .05) were significant. This result shows that the influence of organizational justice on work engagement depended on the mediator (psychological safety).

The direct effect of organizational justice on work engagement was significant (c' = .55, p < .01) and the indirect effect represented the difference between the total effect and direct effect (ab = c-c'). The significance of the indirect effect (ab = .07) was estimated by generating 1,000 bootstrap samples to obtain a 90% confidence interval, [.003, .16] p = .03, which did not include zero. The evidence shows that the relationship between organizational justice and work engagement was partially mediated by psychological safety. Finally, the proportion of the mediation effect of the total effect was revealed using the following equation (a × b/c = .44 × .16/.65 = .11), which indicates that the mediator had an 11% effect on the path from organizational justice to work engagement. As shown in Figure 2, all standardized path coefficients were statistically significant, and Hypothesis 2 was supported in the predicted directions.

Discussion

My results show a positive relationship between organizational justice and work engagement, and the underlying psychological mechanism, psychological safety, partially mediated this relationship.

I examined the three dimensions of organizational justice, namely, distributive, procedural, and interactional. Most previous researchers have considered only two dimensions in their studies. For example, Strom, Sears, and Kelly (2014) identified the positive impact that distributive and procedural justice had on work engagement among online survey respondents. In another quantitative study, Agarwal (2014) showed that procedural and interactional justice significantly influenced mangers’ engagement in India. Because I widened the discussion of organizational justice to the three dimensions, more characteristics involving fairness issues in the workplace were involved. I found that the method and outcome of income distribution is undoubtedly an important motivational issue that affects teachers’ work attitudes and behavior. However, in this study, I found that the authorities’ treatment of employees affected employees’ work engagement as well. This finding indicates that the more that supervisors treat teachers with politeness and dignity, the more effort teachers will expend in their work. These findings can be examined from a conservation of resources theory perspective: Organizational justice as a whole can be viewed as an external resource that enables teachers to perceive their work setting as a positive environment. In fair working conditions, teachers will be more likely to devote themselves wholeheartedly to teaching. In addition, a just working situation can be considered a signal of goodwill from the organization. The social exchange theory rule indicates that if teachers are absorbed in their work, the norm of reciprocity will develop.

Furthermore, the findings clearly indicate the partial mediating role of psychological safety. This means that a stronger perception of organizational justice leads to a higher level of psychological safety, which, in turn, enhances work engagement. Previous researchers have used other variables, for example, leader–member exchange (Meng & Wu, 2015), perceived organizational support and psychological contract (Biswas, Varma, & Ramaswami, 2013), and trust (Agarwal, 2014), as mediators to explain the relationship between organizational justice and employees’ work engagement. I extended the literature by examining the mediating role of psychological safety based on the justice theory and conservation of resources theory. Organizational justice has three dimensions including distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice. All of them influence work engagement, either from an instrumental perspective or from a resource perspective. In comparison with prior mediators, the satisfaction of basic needs through psychological safety may be a more proximal variable representing the driver of overt behavior.

There are important implications for compulsory school teachers’ management from the conceptual model developed in this study. Because work engagement is relevant to desirable organizational outcomes, the decision makers in compulsory school institutions should provide a reasonable and workable system to maintain teachers’ passion for their work. Justice is characterized by stable policy and effective implementation. The Teachers’ Law of China has experienced several transformations since 1994. A future target for change is to make top-level institutions adhere to the rule of justice, for example, with merit pay regulations.

Furthermore, according to my findings, interaction with supervisors is also a dimension that influences teacher engagement. It is worth highlighting the traditional Confucian value of honor for education and educators. That is, immediate supervisors need to establish a transparent reward system and show equal respect to all teachers. Finally, as a basic human need, psychological safety depends not only on the physical environment but also on confidence in the future. If the environment is perceived as just, teachers will feel safe investing their energy in their work. Therefore, a clear implication is the need to establish a multidimensional, just culture in the long term. The sample in this study did not conform to random stratified sampling principles. Therefore, the current findings should be carefully generalized to other locations or samples.

In China, the values of dedication and engagement can be traced to the Qin Dynasty, which was the first dynasty in Chinese history. However, it is clear that work engagement is behavior driven by individual motivation rather than by ancient philosophy. I examined the antecedents of work engagement and found that its positive relationship with organizational justice was partially mediated by psychological safety. This finding implies that, compared with traditional philosophy, a just environment directly affects employees’ psychological state, and, in turn, their behavior. Therefore, I call for more effort to be applied to the development of fair institutions rather than rigid propaganda.

Agarwal, U. A. (2014). Linking justice, trust and innovative work behaviour to work engagement. Personnel Review, 43, 41–73. http://doi.org/bb77

Bakker, A. B., & Bal, P. M. (2010). Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83, 189–206. http://doi.org/bnqffv

Biswas, S., Varma, A., & Ramaswami, A. (2013). Linking distributive and procedural justice to employee engagement through social exchange: A field study in India. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24, 1570–1587. http://doi.org/bb78

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, 425–445. http://doi.org/cpmf2x

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, 199–236. http://doi.org/q6c

Crabtree, S. (2013, October 8). Worldwide, 13% of employees are engaged at work: Low workplace engagement offers opportunities to improve business outcomes. (Report based on Gallup employee study). Retrieved from Gallup website: http://bit.ly/1aG9kMn

Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31, 874–900. http://doi.org/cjtkx7

Gallup Consulting. (2009). The Gallup Q12 – Employee engagement – Poll 2008 results. Australia overview. Retrieved from http://bit.ly/1PciD7o

Halbesleben, J. R. B., Neveu, J.-P., Paustian-Underdahl, S. C., & Westman, M. (2014). Getting to the “COR”: Understanding the role of resources in conservation of resources theory. Journal of Management, 40, 1334–1364. http://doi.orgbb79

Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist, 44, 513–524. http://doi.org/czr

Inoue, A., Kawakami, N., Ishizaki, M., Shimazu, A., Tsuchiya, M., Tabata, M., … Kuroda, M. (2010). Organizational justice, psychological distress, and work engagement in Japanese workers. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 83, 29–38. http://doi.org/c9mckj

Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692–724. http://doi.org/cbfz7t

Kim, T.-Y., & Leung, K. (2007). Forming and reacting to overall fairness: A cross-cultural comparison. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 104, 83–95. http://doi.org/dhbwdj

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695–706. http://doi.org/b28d7w

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512. http://doi.org/ffn5xr

May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77, 11–37. http://doi.org/dgtmkx

Meng, F., & Wu, J. (2015). Merit pay fairness, leader–member exchange, and job engagement: Evidence from Mainland China. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 35, 47–69. http://doi.org/bb9k

Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). What is engagement? In C. Truss, R. Delbridge, K. Alfes, A. Shantz, & E. Soane (Eds.), Employee engagement in theory and practice (pp. 15–35). London, UK: Routledge.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66, 701–716. http://doi.org/c45wq2

Schaufeli, W. B., Martinez, I. M., Marques Pinto, A., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 464–481. http://doi.org/br5kwg

Schohat, L. M., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2010). “Engage me once again”: Is employee engagement for real, or is it “same lady–different dress”? In S. L. Albrecht (Ed.), Handbook of employee engagement: Perspectives, issues, research and practice (pp. 98–107). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Sheng, D. (2015). Chinese book of rites. Beijing: Beijing United Publication.

Strom, D. L., Sears, K. L., & Kelly, K. M. (2014). Work engagement: The roles of organizational justice and leadership style in predicting engagement among employees. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 21, 71–82. http://doi.org/234

Vincent-Höper, S., Muser, C., & Janneck, M. (2012). Transformational leadership, work engagement, and occupational success. Career Development International, 17, 663–682. http://doi.org/bcbf

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (15BGL097)

the Ministry of Education of Humanities and Social Science project (14YJA630037)

and the Humanity and Art Innovation Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (13TS06).

Xiaojun Lyu, School of International and Public Affairs, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1954 Hua Shan Road, Shanghai 200030, People’s Republic of China. Email: [email protected]