2016-6
Study on Determinants of Part-Time Workers’ Sense of Fairness:
From the Viewpoint of Systems for Converting toRegular Employees and Part-Time Workers’ Career
Orientation
Atsushi Yogo

Mitsutoshi Hirano

Study on Determinants of Part-Time Workers’ Sense of
Fairness: From the Viewpoint of Systems for Converting toRegular Employees and Part-Time Workers’ Career
Orientation

Atsushi Yogo
Okayama University, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences

Mitsutoshi Hirano
Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration

Abstract
This pap er ex a mined th e re la tio nsh ip s b e tween me ch an isms fo r c on ve rtin g to re gu la r
employees and the sense of fairness while also considering non-regular workers’ career-related
awareness. The data utilized in this research is from a survey conducted in January 2015, which
was contracted to an online survey company. This research is limited to the analysis of part-timeworkers employed at food supermarkets and systems for converting to regular
employees(N=120).To verify the hypotheses, a multiple regression analysis was performed withsense of fairness as the dependent variable. As a result, among the organizational variables that
had no direct effects, it was confirmed that the three points of role models, conversion conditions,and enrichment of procedures had interacted with intention for converting to regular employees.

11. Introduction
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications’ 2014 Labour Force Survey,
non-regular workers comprised 37.2% of all employed workers. Regular employees are being
increasingly replaced with non-regular workers. The trend of non-regular workers becoming acore part of the labor force, substantively and qualitatively, is worsening problems of disparities
between regular employees and non-regular workers, especially issues of equal treatment.
Accordingly, steady legislative responses have been drafted to redress the disparities in wages,
education, and training between regular employees and non-regular workers. For instance, partsof the Labor Contracts Act were revised in 2014, wherein legislation was created regarding thefollowing: Conversion to a Labor Contract without a Fixed Term (Article 18), Legal Designationof Principles on Dismissal (Article 19), and Prohibition of Unreasonable Labor Conditions(Article 20). Going forward, when a corporation repeatedly renews a non-regular worker ’s labor
contract with a fixed term for a total of five years, the corporation must convert the non-regular
worker ’s labor contract to one without a fixed term (in other words, that of a regular employee).
These legal reforms aimed at redressing unfair treatment given to non-regular workers are atype of legal intervention inducing corporations to redesign their treatment structures.
Specifically, it is likely that corporations will be required to create mechanisms for ensuringsmooth movement of non-regular workers (employed with fixed terms) to regular employees(without fixed terms). This conversion to regular employment promises not only improved
treatment but also guaranteed employment until retirement. Converting non-regular workers toregular employees may impose new costs on corporations, such as increased personnel expenses,
more rigid personnel assignment, and more difficult employment adjustment. This has
necessitated the creation of a new employment category called “limited regular employee.” This
employment category is for employment contracts without fixed terms. In exchange for reduced
employment security, certain additional restrictions are placed on the characteristic working
methods of the so-called “regular employees,” who can do anything, go anywhere, and work at
any time.
The various meetings of the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) have been thedriving force behind considering these limited regular employees (MHLW, 2012). It is likely that
more corporations will create the new “limited regular employee” category—buffering thedivision between non-regular workers and regular employees—and put in place systems forconverting from non-regular workers to limited regular employees.
However, establishing the new limited regular employee category, and introducing amechanism for ensuring smooth movement conversion to regular employees might change theinternal order of the organization and impact the employees’ perception of fairness in various
ways. In other words, this may make evident issues of balanced treatment from new conflictaxes—for example, “limited regular employees vs. regular employees” in addition to the
traditional division of “regular employees vs. non-regular workers.”
However, almost no research has been conducted on mechanisms for converting to regular
employees and non-regular workers’ sense of fairness. The field of scholarly research onorganizational justice has elucidated mechanisms by which people feel senses of acceptance andfairness. Still, research in the field of organizational justice theory has not necessarily reflected
the aforementioned social problems in terms of awareness of the issues, and has no direct
implications in the re-designing of corporate personnel systems. Based on this awareness of theissues, this paper will examine the relationships between mechanisms for converting to regular2employees and the sense of fairness while also considering non-regular workers’ career-related
awareness.
2. Review of prior research
2.1 Issue of equal treatment to non-regular workers
This paper will focus on the employment category of “limited regular employee” andmechanisms for converting to regular employees. How do so-called “regular employees” and“limited regular employees” differ? Sato (2012) names four standards that identify so-called“regular employees,” focusing on the comprehensive, unlimited aspects of their ways of working:1) No limits on the their duties, 2) No limits on the offices or work locations where they are
assigned, 3) Overtime work, and 4) Full-time work. The regular employee category meets thesefour standards based on the presupposition of employment with no fixed term. The limited regular
employee category does not meet one or more of these standards, and includes limitations placedon type of occupation, working hours (short-term or full-time work with no overtime), work
location, etc.
Considering this focus on limited regular employees, research has been conducted on therelationships between the personnel affairs policy and non-regular workers’ satisfaction withregard to issues of equal treatment. For example, according to Shimanuki (2007), it has been
demonstrated that if non-regular workers are a qualitative core of the labor force to a large degree,
the introduction of a system for converting to regular employees and equal treatment boosts thedegree of satisfaction non-regular workers feel regarding their wages. In addition, Okunishi(2008) conducted an exploratory analysis on the determinants for the degree of acceptance that
non-regular workers feel regarding the disparities between their wages and those of regular
employees.
2-2. Research on organizational justiceThe organizational justice framework is the key concept in research on fairness of treatment. It
is categorized into distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice, etc. “Distributive
justice” refers to whether or not distribution results are fair when rare resources are divided
between employees. In other words, this is an issue of employees’ perception of
fairness—whether or not the results are fair when remuneration is divided among employees,
such as wages, bonuses, and promotions. According to the equity theory of Adams (1963), therepresentative advocate of distributive justice, individuals first compare their own circumstanceswith those of other people—the subjects of comparison. At that time, if an individual perceives
that his or her degree of contribution (input) and received remuneration (outcome) are in
equilibrium with those of other people, he or she feels the distribution is fair. In contrast, if theindividual feels that his or her remuneration is low and not in line with his or her efforts andresults, the individual feels a sense of unfairness. In this way, a sense of fairness is formed bycomparing and considering whether one is receiving suitable treatment as per the level ofcontribution and remuneration compared to others.
Meanwhile, “procedural justice” (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Leventhal, 1980) refers to the senseof fairness regarding decision-making procedures. It signifies whether fair measures, methods,
and decision-making processes are utilized for all sorts of decisions regarding personnel affairs
and treatment, such as wage determination, employment, promotions, raising status, discipline,
and resignation. According to Leventhal (1980), procedural justice is based on six standards:
3

consistence, bias suppression, accuracy, correctability, representativeness, and ethicality. It has
been demonstrated that a higher perception of procedural justice means employees have a lower
intention to leave their jobs or stay absent, etc., which also results in positive organizational
actions such as organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) (Lind & Tyler, 1988; Ogan & Ryan,
1995; Colquitt, et al., 2001; Conlon, Meyer, & Nowakowski, 2005).
Attempts are being made to apply procedural justice research to human resources management.
For example, Morishima (1997) summarizes three personnel affairs policies for enhancing
procedural justice: disclosure of information, handling of complaints, and statements. Morishimaclarified that if these three procedures are suitably performed, employees feel less dissatisfaction
when they are not promoted or their status is not raised. In addition, Shimanuki (2007) focused on
the disparities between non-regular workers and regular employees, empirically showing that
non-regular workers’ wage-related satisfaction, under certain conditions, can be improved byhaving a system in place for converting them to regular employees and ensuring equal treatment.
2-3. Potential dysfunctions in having a system in place for converting to regular employees
However, it is not always the case that the introduction of a system for converting to regular
employees increases non-regular workers’ sense of fairness. Yogo (2014) argues that the
introduction of such a system can conversely decrease non-regular workers’ sense of fairness.
Similarly, Hirano (2015) demonstrates that the introduction of such a system actually decreases
the sense of fairness for non-regular workers that accept the restrictive nature of organizational
circumstances, such as job relocation.
As referred to by Shimanuki (2007) and Okunishi (2008), whether one feels a sense of justiceis stipulated by the subject of comparison. According to Ambrose et al. (1991), people tend to use
as subjects of comparison other persons who have similar attributes and persons with whom theyfrequently interact. According to the social comparison theory (Festinger, 1954), people do not
merely accept responses from others in a passive way. Rather, they have the desire to appraise
their own various aspects through comparisons with others. Relative deprivation (Merton & Rossi,
1957; Ishida, 2015)—that can be described as the theoretical basis for the equity theory—saysthat an individual’s response to an experience cannot be predicted from the absolute properties ofthe experience itself (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Individuals make judgments about circumstances notfrom an absolute point of view, but through comparisons with surrounding conditions. They may
be dissatisfied even with objectively desirable circumstances, or conversely may feel happy evenin environments that seem inferior at first glance. This theory is particularly persuasive when
explaining actions such as uprisings and political violence (Moore, 1978; Muller, 1979). It also
holds great significance in terms of justice psychology (Lind & Tyler, 1988). According to Ishida(2015), male laborers in Japan decide on subjects of comparison based on work standards when
determining if income is high or low. As this research suggests, if the subject of comparison ischanged, a perspective of treatment that previously seemed fair can be completely changed into asense of unfairness.
Judging from the above theories, non-regular workers will mainly use other non-regular
workers as the subjects of comparison. However, with the introduction of a system of convertingthem to regular employees, non-regular workers’ subjects of comparison are switched to regular
employees, which may create an increased sense of unfairness (Hirano, 2015). This hypothesis
says that the subject of comparison is changed. Yogo (2013) investigates the negative aspects of
having a system for converting to regular systems from a viewpoint that differs from the changed
4

subject of comparison hypothesis—namely, the “frustration effect” hypothesis. It is discussed inorganizational justice-related research that when remuneration is not suitably distributed,
people’s sense of fairness actually decreases if procedural justice is enhanced. Folger (1977) calls
this phenomenon the “frustration effect.” In other words, mechanisms to boost procedural
justice—such as the disclosure of information and handling of complaints—are effective if
remuneration is sufficiently high to begin with, or if it is expected that treatment will improve inthe future. However, if this does not include fair distribution results, there are cases in which theprocedural justice policy is perceived negatively by non-regular workers as simply deception or away to release pressure.
Altogether, existing research has regarded systems for converting to regular employees asmechanisms for increasing non-regular workers’ sense of fairness, but there is no generality oruniversality. Under certain conditions, such systems may turn dysfunctional by conversely
degrading non-regular workers’ sense of fairness. Therefore, it is necessary to first examine thereal state of these systems in detail, and then analyze their impacts on non-regular workers’ senseof fairness.

3. Deriving an analysis framework and hypotheses
This paper will conduct an exploratory analysis of the compatibility conditions by focusing on
systems for converting to regular employees (organizational factors) and non-regular workers’
career-related awareness (individual factor) as determinants in employees’ sense of fairness,particularly distributive justice.
First, let us focus on three facts regarding systems for converting to regular employees(organizational factors): 1) Existence of role models, 2) Strictness of conversion conditions andperception of these conditions, and 3) Procedural enrichment of converting systems. In terms of
non-regular workers’ individual aspects, let us also focus on whether or not non-regular workers
have a career orientation wherein they hope to become regular employees. The rationale forderiving the hypothesis is as follows.
First, as existing research suggests, systems for converting to regular employees can turndysfunctional. However, what are the specific conditions under which these dysfunctions are
exposed? The first is whether employees perceive these systems as being substantially
dysfunctional, as implied by the frustration effect. If there are few actual cases of non-regular
workers converting to regular employees, or when there are actual cases but the conversion
procedures are opaque, one cannot say that the system is functional. One also cannot say it isfunctional if, after conversion, the employee is subject to difficult labor conditions that are vastlydifferent from the employee’s previous style of working. In such circumstances, it is possible thatthe system for converting to regular employees will actually increase the non-regular workers’
sense of unfairness. Accordingly, one must consider three aspects to perceive the true nature ofsuch a system, rather than the simple dichotomization of whether or not a system exists.
The first condition is the existence of role models that have converted from non-regular
workers to regular employees. Role models represent an individual’s ideal or potential self-basedon the individual’s developmental desires and objectives (Gibson, 2003; Ibarra, 1999; Oikawa,
Sakurai, 2006). For instance, in the context of promoting active participation by women, female
employees demonstrate greater self-efficacy regarding promotion at workplaces with several
female manager role models (Koizumi, Park, Hirano, 2013). It is expected that the same apply to5non-regular workers. Similarly, the existence of role models as examples of non-regular workers
that have converted to regular employees increases the system’s substantial qualities. The
following hypothesis is accordingly derived.
Hypothesis 1. If there are role models as examples for converting to regular employees, thedistributive sense of fairness is greater
The second organizational factor is the actual strictness of conversion conditions andnon-regular workers’ perception of these conditions. Hirano (2009), from the viewpoint oftransaction cost, points out that rational employment categories differ according to the degree ofrestriction accepted by employees. If employees are placed under restrictions according to theorganization’s convenience—such as being asked to move for job transfers to suit theorganization’s convenience, or assignment conversion of a different occupation type—managers
must treat the applicable employee as a regular employee and provide more employment security.
Here, the types of restraints imposed by organizations on regular employees can be categorized
as follows: 1) Time, 2) Work locations, and 3) Type of occupation. A non-regular worker must
accept such restraints when he or she is converted to a regular employee, and it is possible thatthese will become psychological barriers for the non-regular worker. The non-regular worker
recognizes the conversion hurdles as higher according to the stricter conditions requested for theconversion, or the greater perception by the non-regular worker of these conditions as strict.
Consequently, it is expected that non-regular workers will perceive the system for converting toregular employees as one that lacks substantial qualities, which will negatively impact their senseof fairness. Hypotheses 2-1 and 2-2 below are based on this.
Hypothesis 2-1. Stricter conversion conditions lower the distributive sense of fairness
Hypothesis 2-2. Greater perception of conversion difficulty lowers the distributive sense offairness
The third organizational factor is the enrichment of procedures associated with the system of
converting to regular employees. In general, procedural justice has positive effects on
distributive justice as well. However, the distributive sense of fairness decreases if theseprocedures are opaque. Specifically, it is expected that the sense of fairness increases with theintroduction of personnel affairs policies, such as the disclosure of information and provision ofopportunities for formal objection. The following hypothesis is based on the prediction that thesame applies to the system of converting to regular employees.
Hypothesis 3. Enriching procedures associated with the system of converting to regular
employees increases the distributive sense of fairness
Lastly, this paper will focus on non-regular workers’ career-related awareness as an individual
factor. When discussing issues of equal treatment, it is particularly important to focus on
non-regular workers called “reluctant non-regular workers.” These laborers are employed as
non-regular workers due to lack of regular employment. It is thought that reluctant non-regular
workers have a strong desire for conversion to regular employees. Therefore, it is important toconsider the strength of non-regular workers’ personal intention for conversion to regular6

employees.
Career aspirations can be divided into “will” and “can” (Hirano, 1999). Among these, “can”
may be considered alternatively in Hypothesis 2-2 as a perception of the difficulty of conversion
systems. Accordingly, the focus here is placed on non-regular workers’ intention to become
regular employees. It seems likely that non-regular workers with a strong intention to become
regular employees will frequently use regular employees as the subjects of comparison. However,these workers are still non-regular workers; therefore, they are treated differently from regular
employees. Thus, it is expected that this will negatively affect the sense of fairness regarding thesystem. Hypothesis 4 below is based on this.
Hypothesis 4. A stronger intention by non-regular workers for conversion to regular employees
will lower the distributive sense of fairness
Non-regular workers’ intention for conversion may impact the compatibility relationshipbetween the organizational and individual factors as described above; considering theinterrelationship between individuals and organizations is essential. For instance, non-regular
workers that hope to become regular employees are greatly interested in the systems of
converting to regular employees. However, these systems may not be particularly significant if
they are satisfied with their current ways of working as non-regular workers. In this research,
there are three organizational aspects: 1) Role models, 2) Strictness of conversion conditions (orperception of these conditions), and 3) Procedural enrichment. All of these depend on the
non-regular worker ’s intention for conversion, and they may impact his or her sense of fairness.
Specifically, if the worker has a strong intention for conversion, it is expected that organizational
factors will have more significant effects on his or her sense of fairness. The following
hypothesis is based on this.
Hypothesis 5. A strong intention by non-regular workers for conversion to regular employees will
increase the effects of organizational factors on the distributive sense of fairness.
4. Data and variables
The data utilized in this research is from a survey conducted in January 2015, which wascontracted to an online survey company. Information about the survey was sent to the company’s
monitor members, asking them to respond by filling out the survey online. The respondents
answered all survey questions only if they met specific conditions.
Here, “certain conditions” refers to the fact that this survey was only for respondents that met
two conditions, in order to extract sample attributes that were in line with the objectives of thisresearch: 1) He or she is a part-time worker, and 2) His or her workplace is a retail store. Amongthese, this research is limited to the analysis of part-time workers employed at food supermarkets
and systems for converting to regular employees (N=120). It is thought that there is a relatively
high ratio of non-regular workers in the food supermarket industry compared to other industries,and equal treatment issues are easily exposed. Some say that online questionnaire-type surveys
are more biased in terms of respondents than a random sampling; however, this method was
utilized because it was an exploratory survey based on the awareness of issues described above.
From distributive justice, “sense of fairness” based on the equity principle was chosen as thedependent variable. Specifically, this is the combined variable (α=.898) of three items: “There is7equilibrium in my work results and treatment,” “My pay and treatment are of a reasonable levelcompared to other companies in the same industry,” and “My pay and treatment are in line withmy work efforts.” Deutsch (1975) points out the existence of three types of principles against the
backdrop of forming a sense of fairness regarding distribution, mainly equity principle, equality
principle, and need principle. This research focuses on the equity principle—the perception of
fairness regarding whether one is receiving sufficient remuneration for one’s contributions, basedon the presupposition of comparisons with other people.
The independent variables are role model dummy, conversion conditions, perception of
conversion difficulty (reverse scale), and conversion procedural justice, which are determinantson the organization side; intention for conversion to regular employee is termed as an individual
factor. The role model dummy is a dummy variable with a value of 1 if the respondent answered“Yes” to the question, “Have any of the non-regular workers in your surrounding environment
converted to regular employees?” Conversion condition is a composite variable made with asimple calculation of six dummy variables (0, 1) for the question, “Are conditions such as thosebelow currently required by the company to work as a regular employee?” 1) Full-time work, 2)
Irregular working hours, 3) Consent to job transfers that involve moving at the time of conversion,4) Consent to the possibility of job transfers that involve moving, 5) Consent to type ofoccupation change at the time of the conversion, and 6) Consent to the possibility of type ofoccupation change in the future.
The perception of degree of conversion difficulty is a composite variable (α=.672) consistingof three items: “I can become a regular employee at this company in the future,” “(R) I doubt I
can become a regular employee no matter how hard I work,” and “(R) There is no work forregular employees as an extension of my current work.” The “(R)” at the beginning of thequestions is the reverse scale, which will be corrected at the time of analysis. For this variable,
the higher the score, the greater the perception that conversion is easy. This signifies that there is
low perception of conversion difficulty. When interpreting the results, caution is necessary in
judging whether influences of this variable are positive or negative.
Lastly, conversion procedural justice is a composite variable of the items (α=.528): “Theselection process for promotion to regular employee is fully disclosed, “(R) There is anatmosphere where I cannot express myself even if I am dissatisfied with whether promotion toregular employee is permitted,” “(R) The mechanisms of the converting to regular employees
system are partial to certain employees,” “(R) The rules for determining promotion to regular
employee are frequently changed, so they are inconsistent,” “Onsite employee comments are fullyreflected in the promotion of non-regular workers to regular employees,” and “If there are issues
with the rules for determining promotion to regular employee, they can be corrected.”
The intention of part-time workers to become regular employees is a composite variableconsisting of three items: (α=.886): “I would like to be more active in the future as a regular
employee,” “I want to do a good job and become a regular employee,” and “(R) I want to work at
my current pace without becoming a regular employee.”
The control variables are age, female (dummy), and “has children” (dummy) to control forthese impacts. Interactions corresponding to Hypothesis 5 are created by centering them and thenmultiplying them with each variable.
5. Results
To verify the hypotheses, a multiple regression analysis was performed with sense of fairness8

as the dependent variable. First, regarding organizational factors for sense of fairness fromhypotheses 1 to 3, a positively significant relationship was obtained only for conversion
procedural justice. Hypothesis 3 was supported, while hypotheses 1 and 2 were rejected. For
Hypothesis 4, which focused on individual intention regarding conversion, the coefficient wassignificant in a negative way. This supported the hypothesis. For Hypothesis 5, which focused oninteractions, three of the four interactions were significant. Therefore, the hypothesis was
generally supported.
Table 1. Multiple regression analysis regarding sense of fairness determinants
dependent variableindependent variable
Age
Female dummyChild dummy●Role model dummy●Conversion condision●Perception of conversion difficulty（R）●Conversion procedual justice○Intension for conversion
Interaction_Role model*Intension
Interaction_ condision*Intension
Interaction_ difficulty*Intension
Interaction_ procedual*Intension
R2
Adj R2F value†; p <.10, *; p <.05, **; p<.01, ***; p<.001

distributive
justice_ equity
-.103
.008
.006
.073
-.128
-.052
.345 ***-.285 *
.216 †-.254 **-.022
.206 *.230.143
2.660 **

6. Discussion
First, regarding hypotheses 1 and 2, no impacts were observed on the sense of fairness
regarding the existence of role models, difficulty of conversion, or perception of this difficulty.
In other words, the existence of role models is not a direct factor in boosting non-regular workers’
sense of fairness. According to the supported Hypothesis 3, with the enrichment of procedures
regarding conversion, the sense of fairness increases. These results once again verified the resultsof procedural justice pointed out by Leventhal (1980) and Morishima (1997)—the disclosure of
information and bias suppression—from the system for converting to regular employees context.
These procedures must be fully ensured in the operation of conversion systems as well.
Hypothesis 4 was supported as an individual factor. It was confirmed that the sense of fairness
decreases more for non-regular workers who want to use conversion systems to become regular
employees. For non-regular workers who wish to be converted to regular employees, the subjectof comparison is easily changed and frustration is evident. Yet, this is said to indicate
dissatisfaction regarding the distribution results, in which one has not successfully converted to aregular employee. These results also conform to the theory of relative deprivation. In other words,
when there are mechanisms for promotion to regular employees, non-regular workers with astrong intention for conversion to regular employees are actually not having their hopes fulfilled,9frequently leading to a sense of unfairness.
In addition, among the organizational variables that had no direct effects, it was confirmed thatthe three points of role models, conversion conditions, and enrichment of procedures hadinteracted with intention for conversion. There is a 10% level of significance regarding
interactions between role models and conversion-related intentions, showing a positive
relationship. According to Figure 1—in which each independent variable was divided into
average value ± standard deviation and applied to a regression equation (the same is true for
Figures 2 and 3)—conversion-related intention has a negative impact only when there are no
conversion role models. In other words, having conversion role models can mitigate the negative
effects of conversion-related intention. This explains the mechanisms of influence on sense offairness involving changed subjects of comparison. If there are employees in the surrounding
environment who have been converted, they become the subjects of comparison for non-regular
workers. This suggests that non-regular workers perceive the system as fair compared to the casein which regular employees have always been the subjects of comparison.
Regarding the strictness of conversion conditions as well, conversion-related intention canrelieve the sense of unfairness if the conditions are not strict. The relaxation of conversion
conditions directly contributes to an improved sense of fairness, which indicates the significanceof limited regular-employee systems with limited restrictions. Compatibility with legislation has
been the main driving force for limited regular-employee systems up until now. However,considering the career orientation of employees, these systems proactively contribute to the senseof fairness held by non-regular workers. In other words, if non-regular workers are subjected toconversion conditions with high hurdles, there is the risk that the system for converting to regular
employees will become a dead shell and frustration will grow.
Finally, interactions were also confirmed regarding procedural justice. Procedural enrichment
has a main effect (Hypothesis 3) and significant impacts. It should not be merely intended as
deception or a method of releasing complaints. If a system for converting to regular employees
exists to enhance non-regular workers’ sense of fairness according to a plan, there must be past
results from the usage of this system (cultivation of role models), as well as substantial andpragmatic procedural enrichment to relax the conversion conditions.
Figure 1. Interactions between conversion-related intention and role models
N Role model

Y Role model

distributive justice equity

3.60
3.40
3.20

3.40
3.03

3.00
2.80
2.60

2.94

2.40

2.33

2.20
2.00

LOW

HIGH

Intension for conversion

10

Figure 2. Interactions between conversion-related intention and conversion conditions
L conversion conditions
H conversion conditions
distributive justice equity

3.40
3.20
3.00
2.80

3.29
3.05

3.02

2.60
2.40

2.34

2.20
2.00

LOW

HIGH

Intension for conversion

11

Figure 3. Interactions between conversion-related intention and procedural justice
L Procedual justice

H Procedual justice

3.40
distributive justice equity

3.20
3.00

3.27
3.07

3.18

2.80
2.60
2.40
2.20
2.00

2.19
LOW

HIGH

Intension for conversion

References
Adams, J.S. (1963) “Toward an understanding of inequity,” Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, Vol.67, No.5, pp.422-436.
Adams, J.S. (1965) “Inequity in social exchange,” In L. Berkowitz(Ed.) Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, Academic Press, Vol.2, pp.267-299.
Ambrose, M. L., Harland, L. K. and Kulik, C. T. (1991) “Influence of social comparisons on
perceptions of organizational fairness,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.76, No. 2,
pp.239-246.
Baron, J.N. & Kreps, D.M. (1999) Strategic Human Resources: Frameworks for General
Managers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Barrett-Howard, E. & Tyler, T. R. (1986) “Procedural justice as a criterion in allocation
decisions,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.50, pp.294-304.
Cappelli, P. (2008) Talent on Demand: Managing Talent in an Age of Uncertainty, Harvard
Business School Press.
Colquitt, J.A. (2001) “On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of ameasure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.86, No.3, pp.386-400.
Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D.E., Wesson, M.J., Porter, C.O.L.H. & Ng, K.Y. (2001) “Justice at themillennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research,” Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol.86, No.3, pp.425-445.
Conlon, D. E., Meyer, C.J. & Nowakowski, J. M. (2005) “How does organizational justice affectperformance, withdrawal, and counterproductive behavior?” In J. Greenberg. & J.Colquitt.
(Eds.) Handbook of Organizational Justice, Eribaum, pp.301-328.
Delery, J.E. & Doty, D.H. (1996) “Modes of theorizing on strategic human resource management:
Tests of universalistic, contingency, and configurational performance predictions,” Academy ofManagement Journal, Vol.39, No.4, pp.802-835.
Deutsch, M. (1975) “Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used for
distributive justice?” Journal of Social Issues, Vol.31, No.3, pp.137-150.
Festinger, L. (1954) “A theory of social comparison processes,” Human Relations, Vol.7, No.2,
12pp.117-140.
Folger, R. (1977) “Distributive and procedural justice: Combined impact of “voice” andimprovement on experienced inequity,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol.35,
No.2, pp.108-119.
Folger, R, & Konovsky, M. (1989) “Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to
pay raise decisions,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol.32, pp.115-130.
Gibson, D. E.(2003) “Developing the professional self-concept: role model construals in early,
middle, and late career stages,” Organization Science, Vol.14, No.5, pp.591-610.
Gerhart, R. (2007) “Horizontal and vertical fit in human resource systems,” In C. Ostroff & T.
Judge (Eds.) Perspectives on Organizational Fit, Eribaum, pp.317-348.
Greenberg, J. (1987) “A taxonomy of organizational justice theories,” Academy of Management
Review, Vol.12, No.1, pp9-22.
Greenberg, J. (1990) “Organizational justice: Yesterday, today and tomorrow,” Journal ofManagement, Vol.16, No.2, pp.399-432.
Greenberg, J. & Colquitt, J. (2005) Handbook of Organizational Justice, Eribaum.
Haidt, J. (2012) The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion,
Pantheon.
Hirano, M. (1999) Kyaria Domein: Midoru Kyaria no Bunka to Tougou[Career Domain:
Differentiation and Integration of Middle Career], Chikura shobo.
Hirano, M. (2009) “Naibu roudou shijou ni okeru koyou kubun no tayouka to tankan no gourisei:
Jinzai potoforio shisutemu kara no kousatsu[Rationality of the diversification of employment
categories and the transition among separate categories of employees in the internal labormarket: A study based on the human resource portfolio system],” Japanese Journal of Labour
Studies, No.586, pp.5-19.
Hirano, M. (2015) “Roudou keiyaku hou kaisei no itosezaru kekka no yukue: Kourigyou patojugyouin no bunpaiteki kouseikan wo tegakari toshite[Unintended consequence of the revisedlabor contract act: From the viewpoint of the part-time worker's perception of organizational
justice in the retail industry],” Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, No.655,pp.47-58.
Huselid, M.A. (1995) “The impact of human resource management practices on turnover,productivity, and corporate financial performance,” Academy of Management Journal, Vol.38,
No.3, pp.635-672.
Huselid, M.A. & Becker, B. E. (2000) “Comment on measurement error in research on humanresources and firm performance: How much error is there and how does it influence effect size
estimates? By Gerhart, Wright, McMahan & Snell,” Personnel Psychology, Vol.53, No.4,
pp.835-854.
Ibarra, H. (1999) ”Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional
adaptation,” Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.44, pp.764-791.
Ishida, A.(2015) Soutaitekihakudatsu no Shakaigaku : Fubyoudou to Ishiki no Paradokkusu[ASociology of Relative Deprivation: Paradoxes of Inequality and Perception], Tokyo daigaku
shuppan.
Koizumi, D., Park, H. & Hirano, M. (2013) “Josei katsuyaku suishin shisaku ga jakunen josei nokyaria jiko kouryokukan ni ataeru eikyou[The influence of positive action measures on young
female employees' career-related self-efficacy],” Japanese Journal of Administrative Science,
Vol.26, No.1, pp.17-29.
Lawler E. E. (1986) High-Involvement Management:Participative Strategies for Improving
13

Organizational Performance, Jossey-Bass Inc.
Lepak, D.P. & Snell, S.A. (1999) “The human resource architecture: toward a theory of humancapital allocation and development,” Academy of Management Review, Vol.24, No.1, pp.31-48.
Leventhal, G.S. (1980) “What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study offairness in social relationship,” In K.J Gergen, M.S.Greenberg & R.H. Willis (Eds.) Social
Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research, Plenum Press, pp.27-55.
Lind, E.A. & Tyler, T.R. (1988) The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice, NY: Plenum Press.
MacDuffie,J.P. (1995) “Human resources bundles and manufacturing performance,” Industrial
and Labor Relations Review, Vol.48, No.2, pp.173-188.
Merton, R.K. & Rossi, A.S. (1957) “Contribution to the theory of reference group behavior,” In
R.K. Merton (Ed.) Social Theory and Social Structure, (rev. ed., pp.225-280), New York: Free
Press.
Miles, R.E. & Snow, C.C. (1984) “Designing strategic human resource system,” Organizational
Dynamics, Summer, pp.36-52.
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare(2012) Tayou na Keitai ni yoru Seishain ni Kansuru
Kenkyuukai Houkokusho[Workshop Report about “Regular Employee of the Various Forms”].
Misaki, H. (2007) “Soshikiteki kousei ni eikyou wo ataeru youin ni kansuru jisho kenkyu:
soshikiteki kousei riron no hatten ni mukete[Research on organizational justice and strategy],
Journal of University of Hyogo, Vol.59, No.2-3, pp.181-203.
Moore, B. (1978) Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt, White Plains, New York:
Sharp.
Morishima, M. (1997) “Atarashii koyoukankei to katei no kouheisei[Emreging employment
relationships and the role of procedural justice], Organizational Science, Vol.31, No.2,
pp.12-19.
Morishima, M. (1999) “Howaito kara insenthibu shisutemu no henka to katei nokouheisei[Changing white-collar incentive system and procedural justice],” Journal of Social
Science, Vol.50, No.3, pp.81-100.
Muller, E.N. (1979) Aggressive Political Participation, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Oikawa, C. & Sakurai, S(2006) “Yakuwari moderu to seigyo shouten ga naihatsuteki doukiduke niataeru eikyou[The effects of role model and regulatory focus on intrinsic motivation],” Tsukuba
Psychological Research, Vol.32, pp.73-82.
Okunishi, Y.(2008) “Seishain oyobi hiseishain no chingin to shigoto ni kannsuru
ishiki[Perceptions of pay and work by standard and non-standard workers],” Japanese Journalof Labour Studies, No.576, pp.54-69.
Organ, D.W. & Ryan, K. (1995) “A meta-analystic review of attitudinal and dispositional
predictors of organizational citizenship behavior,” Personnel Psychology, Vol.48, No.4,
pp.775-802.
Sekiguchi, T. & Hayashi, Y. (2009) “Soshikiteki kousei kenkyu no hatten to fea
manejimento[Advances in organizational justice research and implications for fairmanagement],” Japanese Journal of Administrative Science, Vol.22, No.1, pp.1-12.
Shinozaki, T., Ishihara, M., Shiokawa, T. & Genda, Y. (2003) “Pato ga seishain tono chingin
kakusa ni nattoku shinai riyuu ha nanika [A case for gaining consensus on wage differentials forpart- and full-time workers],” Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, No.512, pp.58-73.
Shimanuki, T. (2007) “Pato taima no kikan roudouryoku ka ga chingin manzokudo ni ataeru
eikyou: soshikinai kouseisei no kangaekata wo tegakari ni[Influence of utilizing part-time14

workers as regular workers on satisfaction with pay: From perspective of organizational
justice],” Japanese Journal of Labour Studies, No.568, pp.63-76.
Takahashi, K. (2001) “Koyo soshiki ni okeru jinji hyouka no kouheisei[Fairness of personnel
appraisals in employment organizations],” Organizational Science, Vol.34, No.4, pp.26-28.
Thibaut, J. & Walker, L. (1975) Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Tyler, T.R., Boeckmann, R.J., Smith, H.J. & Huo, Y.J. (1997) Social Justice in a Diverse Society,
Colorado: Westview.
Yogo, A. (2013) “Jihatsuteki rishoku no kiteiin toshiteno jinnji hyouka to kouseisei: hi-senkei
kankei to sono yokusei[The performance appraisal and fairness as voluntary turnover factor: anonlinear effect and its inhibition],” Japan journal of Human Resource Management, Vol.14,
No.2, pp.105-123.
Yogo, A. (2014) “Koyou kubun no soui ni chakumoku shita kouseikan no kiteiin ni kansuru
jisshou bunseki[Examining factor of justice perception focused on employment division],”Japan Society of Human Resource Management 44th National Convention reports, pp.116-123.

[2016.3.28 1218]

15