https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8920-6219
Figures
Abstract
Objective
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of perceived organizational fairness, organizational identity, and trust on the intrinsic motivation for the professional development of university teachers. In addition, this study aims to verify the mediating role of organizational identity and trust.
Method
This study adopts a quantitative research methodology to investigate the relationship between perceived organizational fairness, organizational identity, trust, and intrinsic motivation in the professional development of university teachers by constructing and validating a structural equation model.
Result
The study shows that perceived organizational fairness has a significant positive effect on the intrinsic motivation for the professional development of university teachers. Moreover, it validates the mediating effects of organizational identity and trust in the relationship between perceived organizational fairness and intrinsic motivation for teachers’ professional development, shedding light on the psychological mechanisms underlying teachers’ professional development motivation.
Conclusion
Organizational identity and trust not only directly influence teachers’ intrinsic motivation for professional development but also serve as mediators in the relationship between perceived organizational fairness and intrinsic motivation. These findings have important implications for university management in promoting teachers’ professional development and enhancing educational quality.
Citation: Wang Y (2025) The effect of perceived organizational fairness on the endogenous motivation of university teachers’ professional development: A study of the mediating role of trust and organizational identification. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0317445. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0317445
Editor: Zahra Masood Bhutta, National University of Modern Languages, PAKISTAN
Received: August 12, 2024; Accepted: December 27, 2024; Published: January 16, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Yangqin Wang. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: The data collected in this study was securely stored in accordance with the data protection policy of Hubei University of Science and Technology. The access rights to the original data are restricted to the research team only. The data that does not involve ethical privacy will be made public. Researchers can extract it from the attachment or contact the corresponding author and the Ethics Committee of Hubei University of Science and Technology to obtain it. Data acquisition: Llwyh@hbust.edu.cn.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
1. Introduction
Perceived organizational fairness refers to an individual’s evaluation of the ethical and moral dimensions of managerial behavior [1], reflecting a subjective assessment of ethical standards and inherent expectations. Initially, it was extensively studied within the domain of business management, where its impact on employee behavior and attitudes has been thoroughly explored. For instance, Masterson [2] argued that perceptions of organizational fairness are critical in fostering consumer satisfaction and loyalty. Lipponen et al. [3] identified its crucial role in organizational mergers and post-merger integration. Nurse [4] highlighted its significant impact on performance appraisal systems and employee development. Liao and Tai [5] demonstrated that trained employees’ perceptions of fairness influence their motivation, reactions, learning capacity, and the overall effectiveness of training programs. Cropanzano et al. [1] further argued that when justice is embedded as a core value within organizational management philosophies and practices, it can provide a sustained competitive advantage. Simmons [6] proposed that perceived organizational justice serves not only as a mediating variable between creativity-enhancing traits and creative performance but also plays a central role in facilitating creative output.
However, with the rapid development of contemporary higher education, the professional development of university faculty has become increasingly crucial, as it determines whether the quality of teaching and academic competitiveness can align with the high-quality, connotative development of colleges and universities. Consequently, the concept of perceived organizational fairness has gradually been integrated into the study of university faculty’s professional development. Teachers’ professional development is not only linked to the realization of individual career goals but also serves as a driving force for academic innovation and educational reform.
Despite this, the rapid growth of higher education has caused the professional development of faculty to lag significantly behind the evolving needs of education and teaching [7]. Although external incentives, such as title promotion and salary increase, can have some motivational effects, intrinsic motivation, which originates from the individual teacher and encompasses both intrinsic drive and self-directedness, is more critical for maintaining the sustained continuity and depth of their professional growth [8]. Endogenous motivation for teacher development stems from the intrinsic nature and initiative of individual teachers, emphasizing the human-centered and self-driven desire to improve, encapsulated in the sentiment “I want to develop” [9]. Currently, significant challenges in the professional development of university faculty have become increasingly apparent. First, teachers’ workloads are intensifying, and the competing demands of heavy course loads, research obligations, and administrative tasks make it difficult for them to allocate sufficient time and energy for professional growth. Second, the traditional teaching and evaluation system often emphasizes scientific research achievements, while neglecting the innovation and enhancement of teaching skills and methodologies. Additionally, in an environment characterized by limited resources and fierce competition, issues of fairness within university organizations are particularly conspicuous. Teachers may be less motivated to pursue professional development due to perceived unfairness, which encompasses not only the distribution of material resources but also career development opportunities, academic freedom, and involvement in decision-making processes.
Endogenous motivation and exogenous factors are two essential elements of teacher development, and they are interconnected and mutually influential [10]. In this context, the driving force behind teachers’ professional development should not solely rely on external incentives and requirements but should also explore ways to stimulate intrinsic motivation. Endogenous motivation refers to a psychological tendency toward a specific goal that is formed by an individual in response to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivating factors [11]. It drives individuals to act autonomously and proactively. Teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development stems from the internalization of the social expectations and responsibilities associated with the “teacher” role, motivating them to engage in continuous learning to fulfill their professional duties and responsibilities [12]. Teachers’ learning behaviors, which are crucial for professional growth, are strongly linked to their intrinsic motivation and are influenced by their interactions with the environment [12]. For example, teachers may be motivated to learn due to a perceived need to enhance their students’ knowledge and skills, or due to a gap between expectations and the reality of students’ growth, driving them to solve practical problems in teaching [13]. Some teachers may view learning as a means to realize their life values while simultaneously promoting student growth [14]. Others may seek to enhance the meaning of their lives through self-reflection and proactive actions, demonstrating autonomy, positivity, initiative, and purposefulness. This underscores the subjectivity of teachers as educators and highlights their personal values [15]. From an individual perspective, teachers’ professional development should not be viewed solely in terms of its instrumental role but should also emphasize its reflection of the pursuit of a better life and deeper meaning. This pursuit significantly contributes to enhancing teachers’ sense of professional responsibility, moral consciousness, and life value [15]. Therefore, teachers’ professional development should extend beyond the mere instrumentality of the profession, becoming more deeply embedded in the pursuit and realization of both personal and societal values.
To overcome the current challenges in the professional development of university teachers, it is important to establish a fair and just environment at the organizational level to foster teachers’ endogenous motivation. Such an environment can help teachers feel respected and supported by the organization, enhance their sense of organizational identity and belonging, and build trust and expectations for their professional development. Cultivating a sense of organizational fairness can effectively stimulate teachers’ endogenous motivation, unlock their potential, and promote both their professional growth and the overall improvement in the quality of university education.
2. Theory and hypotheses
Equity theory forms the theoretical foundation for this study. It posits that an individual’s perception of fairness within an organization—specifically regarding resource distribution, decision-making processes, and outcomes—directly influences their motivation to engage in organizational activities [16]. Fairness within organizations is manifested in four principal areas.
Distributive justice, as defined by Adams [17] in 1965, focuses on whether the allocation of organizational outcomes and resources aligns with established criteria. Folger [18] further described it as an individual’s perception of the fairness of the outcomes they receive. For instance, in a university setting, the distribution of research funds, teaching resources, and promotion opportunities among faculty members would fall under distributive justice. Procedural fairness, emphasized by Hunton et al. [19], pertains to the fairness of the decision-making process and the rules that affect outcomes, granting employees a voice in the process. Leventhal [20] proposed six criteria for evaluating the fairness of procedures. In an academic context, this could involve the transparency and fairness of the process for awarding research grants, determining teaching schedules, or making tenure decisions. Interactional fairness, as described by Bies [21], relates to the respect and courtesy individuals receive in interpersonal interactions. Interactional justice refers to people’s perception of the fairness of how others behave in these interactions. In a university department, for example, the way colleagues and superiors communicate and treat each other during meetings or in day-to-day interactions would reflect interactional fairness. Informational justice, introduced by Colquitt [22], ensures that the information decision-makers rely on is honest and truthful. It primarily concerns whether decision-makers provide explanations or information regarding the procedures used and the distribution of results [23]. For instance, when a university administration makes changes to a policy, providing clear and honest communication about the reasons and implications would be an aspect of informational justice. Research has demonstrated that perceptions of organizational fairness can lead to diverse outcomes within an organization. Safari et al. [24] found that perceived organizational fairness positively influences impersonal trust within an organization. This suggests that when employees perceive fairness, they are more likely to trust the organization overall. Türkmena et al. [25] supported the importance of perceived organizational fairness in facilitating inter-organizational citizenship behaviors. In a university, this could translate to faculty members being more willing to participate in cross-departmental initiatives or contribute to the university’s reputation within the academic community. Dunaetz [26] emphasized the significance of maximizing organizational justice perceptions to ensure equitable treatment of individuals within the organization.
For faculty groups in higher education, perceptions of fairness are particularly closely tied to resource allocation and access to opportunities under distributive justice, as well as institutional rules and title evaluation systems under procedural justice [11]. Based on these insights, the following research hypotheses are proposed.
- H1: Perceived organizational fairness has a significant positive effect on the endogenous motivation of university teachers’ professional development. Perceived organizational fairness encompasses an individual’s perception of the fairness of the organization’s resource allocation, decision-making processes, and outcomes, and this perception significantly impacts employees’ attitudes and behaviors. Chen et al. [27] revealed the mechanism by which the perception of organizational fairness indirectly enhances member satisfaction by increasing organizational identity and trust. Similarly, Gao and Yang’s [28] findings supported the positive correlation between a sense of organizational fairness and organizational identity, and further highlighted that organizational identity plays a partially mediating role in teachers’ work engagement. In addition, Wang’s [29] study further confirmed the positive influence of a sense of organizational fairness on individual performance and emphasized the mediating role of organizational identity in this influence process. Moreover, Guo and Liu’s [30] study found that leadership fairness had a significant positive effect on job performance, with dimensions of dedication—including organizational identity—partially mediating the relationship between perceptions of organizational fairness and job performance. Collectively, these studies provide strong evidence for the direct positive effect of perceived organizational fairness on teachers’ professional development motivation.
- H2: Perceived organizational fairness positively influences organizational identity. The research conducted by the aforementioned scholars consistently demonstrates a positive relationship between perceptions of organizational fairness and organizational identity. When teachers perceive fairness within the organization, they are more likely to develop a strong identification with it, which is crucial for their integration and commitment to the organization.
- H3: Organizational identity positively impacts teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. A strong sense of organizational identity can enhance teachers’ motivation to contribute to the organization and engage in professional development activities. It provides them with a sense of belonging and purpose within the organization, which in turn drives them to improve their professional skills and knowledge.
- H4: Organizational identity mediates the effect of perceived organizational fairness on teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. Studies by Chi et al. [31], Deng [32], and others have shown that organizational identity can mediate the relationship between organizational fairness and teacher behaviors. It functions as an intermediary variable through which perceptions of fairness influence teachers’ motivation to develop professionally.
Existing research suggests that perceptions of organizational fairness are a key factor influencing employee behaviors and attitudes. Particularly in the field of higher education, perceived organizational fairness has a significant positive effect on the organizational citizenship behavior of university faculty [31]. Both perceived organizational fairness and trust are critical factors influencing various aspects of organizational behavior and employee attitudes. Ahmad and Huvila [33] demonstrated that favorable perceptions of organizational change can promote information sharing within an organization, with trust mediating this relationship. In the context of university teachers, this suggests that trust may play a similar mediating role in the relationship between organizational fairness and teachers’ professional development. When teachers trust the organization, they are more likely to share knowledge and collaborate, which is beneficial for their professional growth. Çetin and Güney [34] found that perceptions of organizational fairness and trust significantly influence employees’ organizational commitment behavior. For university teachers, organizational commitment is closely linked to their professional development, as it reflects their dedication to the institution and their willingness to invest in teaching and research. This research underscores the importance of both fairness and trust in shaping teachers’ long-term commitment and, consequently, their motivation to develop professionally. Erat et al. [35] explored the impact of transformational leadership and procedural justice on managerial trust and sustainable organizational identity. Although the focus was on managerial trust, their findings highlight the connection between fairness and trust in an organizational context. In the academic environment, similar relationships may exist, where fair procedures can enhance trust among teachers.
Based on the above literature, the following hypotheses are proposed:
- H5: Perceived organizational fairness positively influences trust. The existing research on the relationship between organizational fairness and trust across various organizational contexts provides a foundation for this hypothesis. When teachers perceive fairness within the organization, they are more likely to develop trust in it.
- H6: Trust positively impacts teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. This hypothesis aligns with the general understanding of the role of trust in fostering positive behaviors and motivation in the workplace. Trust can create a supportive working environment that encourages teachers to take risks, experiment with new teaching methods, and engage in professional development activities.
- H7: Trust mediates the effect of perceived organizational fairness on teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. Existing studies on the mediating role of trust in organizational relationships suggest that it can play a similar role in the context of organizational fairness and teacher professional development. Trust functions as a bridge through which perceptions of fairness influence teachers’ motivation to develop professionally.
Based on the proposed research hypotheses, a conceptual model is constructed to illustrate the relationships among perceived organizational fairness, trust, organizational identification, and teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. This model visually represents the theoretical framework of the study and guides the subsequent research methods and data analysis (Fig 1).
(Fig 1 was drawn by Figdraw. ID: OSIAS09035).
3. Methods
3.1. Survey instrument
The questionnaire for this study consists of two main parts. The first part collects demographic information about the respondents, including basic information and socio-economic characteristics. The second part focuses on evaluating the key variables in the theoretical model. The measurement items used are derived from well-established scales that have been widely recognized both domestically and internationally, ensuring the scientific validity and standardization of the research instrument. All items are based on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5 being “strongly agree.” This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. The study was approved by the Academic Ethics and Moral Supervision Committee of Hubei University of Science and Technology, with the following approval number: 202401004. The questionnaire will be distributed from February 2024 to April 2024. Data acquisition: Llwyh@hbust.edu.cn. Research data can be found in the S1 Table.
- Perceived organizational fairness
Perceived organizational fairness is a multidimensional concept. Colquitt [22] subdivided organizational fairness into four dimensions: procedural fairness, distributive fairness, interpersonal fairness, and informational fairness, with a total of 20 measurement items. Specifically, the measurement of procedural fairness involves seven items, numbered from question 1 to question 7. The measurement of distributive fairness consists of four items, numbered from question 8 to question 11. Interpersonal fairness is assessed through four items, numbered from question 12 to question 15. The measurement of informational fairness consists of five items, numbered from question 16 to question 20. Validated factor analysis showed that the four-factor model had chi-square/df = 1.90, IFI = 0.92, CFI = 0.92, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.055 (0.049, 0.060). - Organizational identification
Organizational identification is defined as the perceived unity and emotional belonging to an organization [36]. This definition is based on social identity theory, which suggests that people tend to identify themselves with social groups, developing positive self-concepts of the group and enhancing their own self-esteem [37]. Mael and Ashforth [38] used six-item descriptors to evaluate and make judgments about feelings toward the organization, with a scale internal consistency coefficient of 0.87. - Trust
Methot et al. [39] argued that multiple relationships in the workplace create strong emotional bonds that enhance mutual trust. Trust has a significant impact on performance, drawing on Mayer and Gavin’s [40] scale to construct a trust scale, which had an internal consistency coefficient of 0.80. - Endogenous dynamics of teachers’ professional
Development Sang et al. [41] developed the Teacher Professional Development Endogenous Dynamics Scale with a total reliability of 0.88. This study selected two dimensions: role responsibility and professional identity.
3.2. Sampling and data collection procedures
This study employed a stratified random sampling method to select 10 universities in China. The sample size calculation was conducted using the g*power program, determining the minimum sample size to be 330. Questionnaires were collected through an online platform, targeting university teachers in China. After excluding duplicate responses or incomplete data, this study obtained 514 valid questionnaires.
4. Data analysis
4.1. Statistical analysis methods
This study used SPSS 26 and AMOS 28 for statistical data analysis. First, reliability and validity tests of the scales were conducted. Second, the structural equation modeling (SEM) approach was used to construct conceptual models for path analysis of H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6. Finally, the Bootstrap method was used to test the mediating effects of H4 and H7.
4.2. Reliability and validity test of the scale
KMO and Bartlett’s Sphericity test were performed on the variables and the KMO value was 0.914 which was greater than 0.7 and the Bartlett’s Sphericity test sig value was less than 0.05 indicating that the data was suitable for factor analysis. The total explained variance was 68.878%, which was greater than the suggested value of 60% by Kline [42]. The 38 topics were factor analyzed using Harman’s one-way test as recommended by PODSAKOF et al. [43]. Using unrotated principal component analysis, eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted, of which the explained variance of factor 1 was 31.355%, which was less than the 40% criterion and passed the common method bias test, with standardized factor loadings ranging from 0.698 to 0.834 for each observed variable. The overall Cronbach’s coefficient was 0.942, and the Cronbach’s coefficients for each dimension were greater than 0.7, indicating good internal consistency across measurement topics within a single dimension [44], as shown in Table 1.
The values of combined reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are greater than the standardized values of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively, indicating that the convergent validity of the present model is good, as shown in Table 2. Based on the criterion proposed by Fornell and Larcker [45], a dimension is considered to have discriminant validity if the square root of its AVE is greater than its correlation coefficient with other dimensions in the model. In this study, the AVE square roots of all dimensions were greater than the correlation coefficients between them and the other dimensions, fulfilling the requirement of discriminant validity. The specific comparison results are shown in Table 3.
4.3. Structural modeling
In structural equation model evaluation, a chi-square/df ratio in the range of 0 to 3 is usually considered an indicator of good model fit. Meanwhile, similarity metrics, including the goodness-of-fit index (GFI), adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI), with values greater than 0.900 and closer to 1.000, indicate a high fit between the data and the model. In addition, indicators of variability, such as Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), which are less than 0.080, are considered indicative of a good model fit. Based on the tests performed, the model fit indicators obtained in this study are as follows: the chi-square/df ratio is 2.475, the GFI is 0.862, the AGFI is 0.844, the TLI is 0.912, the CFI is 0.918, the RMSEA is 0.054, and the SRMR is 0.0496. These results indicate that a good fit between the sample data and the model was achieved and that the model has a high goodness of fit.
4.4 Hypothesis testing
4.4.1. Direct effect test.
According to the results in Table 4 and Fig 2, the standardized path coefficients for hypotheses H1, H2, H3, H5, and H6 are 0.523, 0.687, 0.195, 0.496, and 0.264, respectively. These hypotheses are valid with a p-value < 0.05.
4.4.2. Mediating effect test.
By resampling the sample 1000 times using the Bootstrapping method, this study tested the significance of the mediating effects of Organizational Identity (OI) and Trust. The test results are shown in Table 5 under the set condition of 95% confidence interval.
The mediation effect point estimate for the path “Perceived organizational fairness→Organizational identity→Endogenous motivation for teachers’ professional development” is 0.165, and the 95% confidence interval does not contain 0. This indicates that organizational identity has a significant mediating role between perceived organizational fairness and endogenous motivation for teachers’ professional development, supported by a Z-value of 2.0625, which is greater than 1.96. Similarly, the mediation effect point estimate for the path “Perceived organizational fairness→Trust→Endogenous motivation for teachers’ professional development” is 0.1622, with a 95% confidence interval that does not include 0, and a Z-value of 3.24, also greater than 1.96, indicating that trust has a significant mediating effect between perceived organizational fairness and endogenous motivation for teachers’ professional development.
5. Conclusion
The present study provides significant insights into the relationship between perceived organizational fairness, organizational identity, trust, and the endogenous motivation of university teachers’ professional development. The findings clearly demonstrate that organizational identity and trust have a direct, positive impact on teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development. Teachers who exhibit a strong sense of organizational identity and trust in the organization are more likely to engage in professional development activities with greater enthusiasm and initiative [46]. This is because they experience a sense of belonging and confidence in the organization, which, in turn, drives them to pursue continuous improvement and growth in their professional careers [47].
Moreover, the mediating roles of organizational identity and trust in the relationship between perceived organizational fairness and teachers’ endogenous motivation for professional development were validated. When teachers perceive a high level of organizational fairness, it enhances their sense of organizational identity and trust, which, in turn, boosts their endogenous motivation [48]. This finding illuminates the psychological mechanism through which organizational fairness influences teachers’ motivation for professional development [49].
The results of this study have significant implications for university management. University administrators should prioritize the creation of a fair and just organizational environment, which can be achieved by ensuring transparent and equitable resource allocation, establishing fair decision-making procedures, and promoting respectful and honest interpersonal and informational interactions [50]. Such efforts will enhance teachers’ perceptions of organizational fairness, thereby strengthening their organizational identity and trust, ultimately stimulating their endogenous motivation for professional development. This, in turn, will contribute to the overall enhancement of teaching and research quality at the university [51].
In addition, this study has certain limitations. The samples were only collected from college teachers in China. Due to regional and cultural constraints, the universality of the research findings is limited. Future research could explore other potential factors that may interact with organizational fairness, identity, and trust to influence teachers’ professional development. For instance, the impact of different leadership styles on these relationships, or the role of individual characteristics such as personality traits and work values, could be further investigated [52]. Additionally, the influence of psychological empowerment and high-performance management practices on teachers’ professional development should be considered [53,54].
Acknowledgments
The author would like to express gratitude to the participants who took the time to complete the survey.
References
- 1. Cropanzano R, Bowen DE, Gilliland SW. The management of organizational justice. Acad Manage Perspect. 2007;21(4):34–48. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2007.27895338
- 2. Masterson SS. A trickle-down model of organizational justice: Relating employees’ and customers’ perceptions of and reactions to fairness. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(4):594–604. pmid:11519644
- 3. Lipponen J, Olkkonen ME, Moilanen M. Perceived procedural justice and employee responses to an organizational merger. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2004;13(3):391–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320444000146
- 4. Nurse L. Performance appraisal, employee development and organizational justice: Exploring the linkages. Int J Hum Resour Manage. 2005;16(7):1176–1194. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190500144012
- 5. Liao WC, Tai WT. Organizational justice, motivation to learn, and training outcomes. Soc Behav Pers. 2006;34(5):545–556. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.5.545
- 6.
Simmons AL. Organizational justice: A potential facilitator or barrier to individual creativity. PhD Thesis, Texas A&M University. 2006. Available from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/147132103.pdf
- 7. Gong C. The construction path of the professional development support system for college teachers. China Univ Sci Technol. 2024;2024(4):113–114 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.16209/j.cnki.cust.2024.04.015
- 8. Wang R, Yu H. Research on the endogenous dynamics and formation mechanism of faculty professional development in the Open University. J Vocat Educ 2020;36(11):98–103 (in Chinese).
- 9. Chen C, Liu Z. On the mechanism and logic of the endogenous faculty development. Educ Res Exp. 2024;2024(2):114–120 (in Chinese).
- 10. Xia F, Gao Y. Endogenous vs. exogenous development: a practical game of teacher professional development. J Chin Soc Educ. 2015;2015(8):86–91+100 (in Chinese).
- 11. Cui Y, Shen Y. The positioning and endogenous motivation of teachers in the new era. Educ Sci Forum. 2019;2019(10):61–66 (in Chinese).
- 12. Belay S, Melesse T. Exploring the link between teachers’ motivation for continuous professional development and professional learning communities: A structural equation modeling approach. SAGE Open. 2024;14(3):21582440241281855. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241281855
- 13. Nelson BS, Hammerman JK. Reconceptualizing teaching: Moving toward the creation of intellectual communities of students, teachers, and teacher educators. Teach Learn New Policies New Pract. 1996;11:3–21.
- 14. Wang K. The ecological turning of teacher learning and its traits. EducRes. 2010;2010(11):83–87 (in Chinese).
- 15. Wu Y, Li S, Dai H. Dissimilation of objectivity in teacher development and its regression of subjectivity. Educ Res. 2013;34(1):119–125 (in Chinese).
- 16. Greenberg J. Studying organizational justice cross‐culturally: Fundamental challenges. Int J Conflict Manage. 2001;12(4):365–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022864
- 17.
Adams JS. Inequity in social exchange. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press; 1965. pp. 267–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60108-2
- 18. Folger R. Distributive and procedural justice in the workplace. Soc Just Res. 1987;1:143–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01048013
- 19. Hunton JE, Hall TW, Price KH. The value of voice in participative decision making. J Appl Psychol. 1998;83(5):788–797. pmid:9806015
- 20.
Leventhal GS. What should be done with equity Theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Gergen KJ, Greenberg MS, Willis RH, editors. Social Exchange. Boston: Springer; 1976. pp. 27–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2
- 21. Bies RJ. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Res Negot Organ. 1986;1:43–55.
- 22. Colquitt JA. On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):386–400. pmid:11419799
- 23.
Greenberg J. The social side of fairness: Interpersonal and informational classes of organizational justice. In: Cropanzano R, editor. Justice in the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1993. pp. 79–103.
- 24. Safari A, Barzoki AS, Aqagoli PH. Exploring the antecedents and consequences of impersonal trust. Int J Organ Anal. 2020;28(6):1149–1173. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijoa-08-2019-1850
- 25. Türkmena A, Sağsanb M, Örücüc E. Mediating effects of organizational culture perception on the relation between organizational justice and interorganizational citizenship behavior. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica. 2020;29(5):696–714. https://doi.org/10.24205/03276716.2020.1065
- 26. Dunaetz DR. Organizational justice in young churches: Maximizing fair treatment of others and responding to violations. Jurnal Jaffray. 2020;18(1):1–18. https://doi.org/10.25278/jj.v18i1.405
- 27. Chen T, Zhang L, Peng Z, Chen J. Evaluation of farmer’s satisfaction with professional cooperatives from the perspective of organizational fairness: Based on a survey data of rural households in Yunnan Province. Res Agric Mod. 2023;44(3):490–500 (in Chinese). https://doi.org/10.13872/j.1000-0275.2023.0050
- 28. Gao X, Yang Y. The impact of the perception of fairness in performance appraisals on county-level schoolteachers’ work engagement—The mediating effect based on organizational identification. Educ Res. 2022;43(11):149–159 (in Chinese).
- 29.
Wang C. The impact of organizational justice on individual performance in temporary teams—The mediating role of organizational identification. M.Sc Thesis, Beijing Forestry University. 2022.
- 30. Guo G, Liu J. Research on the relationship among organizational justice, engagement and job performance of university administrators. J Natl Acad Educ Administr. 2022;2022(4):24–34 (in Chinese).
- 31. Chi J, He Z, Chen X. How does organizational justice affect the organizational citizenship behavior of university teachers?—Mediating role of organizational trust. J Natl Acad Educ Administr. 2021;2021(7):64–75 (in Chinese).
- 32.
Deng X. Research on the impact of organizational justice on employees’ behavior—Based on the mediating role of organizational identity. M.Sc Thesis, Sichuan Agricultural University. 2021. https://doi.org/10.27345/d.cnki.gsnyu.2021.000607
- 33. Ahmad F, Huvila I. Organizational changes, trust and information sharing: An empirical study. Aslib J Inf Manage. 2019;71(5):677–692. https://doi.org/10.1108/ajim-05-2018-0122
- 34. Çetin A, Güney S. The effects of perception of organizational justice and organizational trust on the organizational commitment behaviour in IMM Spor İstanbul and a purposeful implementation. Istanbul Manage J. 2019;87:93–109. https://doi.org/10.26650/imj.2019.87.0004
- 35. Erat S, Kitapçı H, Akçin K. Managerial perception and organizational identity: A comparative analysis. Sustainability. 2020;12(6):2278. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062278
- 36. Ashforth BE, Mael F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad Manage Rev. 1989;14(1):20–39. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
- 37.
Tajfel H, Turner J. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S, editors. The social psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole; 1979. pp. 33–37.
- 38. Mael F, Ashforth BE. Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational identification. J Organ Behav. 1992;13(2):103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
- 39. Methot JR, Lepine JA, Podsakoff NP, Christian JS. Are workplace friendships a mixed blessing? Exploring tradeoffs of multiplex relationships and their associations with job performance. Pers Psychol. 2016;69(2):311–355. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12109
- 40. Mayer RC, Gavin MB. Trust in management and performance: Who minds the shop while the employees watch the boss?. Acad Manage J. 2005;48(5):874–888. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.18803928
- 41. Sang G, Ye B, Huang Y. Teacher agency: Connotation, dimension and measurement. Educ Policy Rev China. 2019;2019:116–133 (in Chinese).
- 42.
Kline R. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Petscher Y, Schatschneider C, Compton DL, editors. Applied quantitative analysis in education and the social sciences. New York: Routledge; 2013.
- 43. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–803. pmid:14516251
- 44.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1978. p. 126.
- 45. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18:39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
- 46. Knippenberg D. Work motivation and performance: A social identity perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2000;49(3):357–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00020
- 47. Hubbell AP, Chory-Assad RM. Motivating factors: Perceptions of justice and their relationship with managerial and organizational trust. Commun Stud. 2005;56(1):47–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/0008957042000332241
- 48. Sopiah S, Sangadji EM, Narmaditya BS. The impact of organizational justice, self-efficacy and teachers performance: The mediating role of internal motivation. Pedagogika. 2021;141(1):79–93. https://doi.org/10.15823/P.2021.141.4
- 49. Luo M. The influence of organizational fairness on organizational identification: The regulatory role of moral identity and the mediating role of organization-based self-esteem. Adv Educ Humanit Soc Sci Res. 2023;7(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.56028/aehssr.7.1.1.2023
- 50. Farahbod F, Azadehdel MR, Jirdehi M. Organizational justice, employees trust and organizational support. Kuwait Chapter Arabian J Bus Manage Rev. 2013;3(2):74–85. https://doi.org/10.12816/0017457
- 51. Burns W, Dipaola MF, Ali-Khan C, Warren J, Doyle M, Giangreco M. A study of organizational justice, organizational citizenship behavior, and student achievement in high schools. Am Secondary Educ. 2013;42(1):4–23.
- 52. Pranitasari D. The influence of effective leadership and organizational trust to teacher’s work motivation and organizational commitment. Media Ekonomi dan Manajemen. 2020;35(1):75–91. https://doi.org/10.24856/mem.v35i1.1257
- 53. Haider S, Fatima F, Bakhsh K, Ahmed M. Effect of intervention on employees’ intentions to use environmentally sustainable work practices: A field experiment. J Environ Manage. 2019;248:109334. pmid:31466182
- 54. Sarwar N, Haider S, Akhtar MH, Bakhsh K. Moderated-mediation between ethical leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of psychological empowerment and high performance managerial practices. Manage Res Rev. 2023;46(5):649–666. https://doi.org/10.1108/MRR-07-2021-0528