(Luận văn thạc sĩ) the influence of applicants’ perceptions of fairness to job offer acceptance in the private sector in vietnam

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

CAO VU HA TRANG

THE INFLUENCE OF APPLICANTS’
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS TO
JOB OFFER ACCEPTANCE IN
THE PRIVATE-SECTOR IN VIETNAM

MASTER’S THESIS
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Hanoi, 2019


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
VIETNAM JAPAN UNIVERSITY

CAO VU HA TRANG

THE INFLUENCE OF APPLICANTS’
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS TO
JOB OFFER ACCEPTANCE IN
THE PRIVATE-SECTOR IN VIETNAM

MAJOR: BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
CODE: 60340102

RESEARCH SUPERVISORS:
PROF. DR. DANIEL ARTURO HELLER

Dr. TRAN HUY PHUONG

Hanoi, 2019


ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deep gratitude to all those who have given me the
possibility to complete this graduation thesis. In preparing this graduation thesis, I
have had generous help and advice from my teachers, my colleagues, my family and
my friends, I would like to express my great thanks to all of them.
First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my supervisor Dr.
Tran Huy Phuong and my co-supervisor Prof. Daniel Heller, who have given
immeasurable help, constant guidance with many careful instructions, comments
and valuable advices to me. Without their support, I am not able to have a complete
thesis.
Secondly, I wish to show my sincere thanks to all my teachers at VietnamJapan University, who have provided me with worthy lessons throughout two years
of study. Without their helps, it would be impossible for me to finish this work.
Last but not least, I would like to send my loving thanks to my family and
my friends whose great love and care in both terms of spirit and health to encourage
me to complete the thesis.


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1.

Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

1.1

Background ....................................................................................................................... 1

1.2

Research rationale............................................................................................................. 2

1.3

Research objective and research question ........................................................................ 4

1.4

Research scope ................................................................................................................. 5

1.5

Research methodology...................................................................................................... 6

1.6

Structure of the research ................................................................................................... 6

Summary of Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................... 7
Chapter 2.
2.1

Literature review ...................................................................................................... 8
Overview of job offer acceptance ..................................................................................... 8

2.1.1

Definition of job offer acceptance ................................................................................ 8

2.1.2

The importance role of job offer acceptance ................................................................ 8

2.1.3

The main factors affecting job offer acceptance ........................................................ 10

2.2

Overview of application perceptions of fairness ............................................................ 12

2.2.1

Interactional Justice ................................................................................................... 12

2.2.2

Procedural Justice...................................................................................................... 14

2.2.3

Distributive Justice ..................................................................................................... 16

2.3

Empirical results of applicant perceptions of justice and job acceptance ....................... 19

Summary of Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................. 20
Chapter 3.

Research model ...................................................................................................... 21

3.1

Analytical framework ..................................................................................................... 21

3.2

Hypothesis development ................................................................................................. 23

Summary of Chapter 3 ................................................................................................................. 26
Chapter 4.

Methodology and Data Analysis ............................................................................ 27

4.1

Data collection ................................................................................................................ 27

4.2

Measurement test ............................................................................................................ 28

4.3

Hypothesis testing........................................................................................................... 30

4.3.1

Descriptive statistics about the candidates participating in the survey ..................... 30

4.3.2

Cronbach’s Alpha Test ............................................................................................... 31

4.3.3

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) ........................................................................... 36

4.3.4

Pearson Correlation Test ........................................................................................... 38

4.3.5

Regression analysis .................................................................................................... 40

4.4

Analysis result summary................................................................................................. 46


Summary of Chapter 4 ................................................................................................................. 47
Chapter 5.

Findings, Implications and Discussion .................................................................. 48

5.1

Findings and discussion .................................................................................................. 48

5.2

Implications .................................................................................................................... 50

5.3

Limitations of research and future research orientation ................................................. 53

Summary of Chapter 5 ................................................................................................................. 54
References ........................................................................................................................................ 55


LIST OF CHARTS
Chart 3.1. Conceptual framework of Konradt et al. (2015) ......................................................22
Chart 3.2. Conceptual framework .............................................................................................23
Chart 4.1. Age group of candidates ..........................................................................................30
Chart 4.2. Experience of interviewed candidates .....................................................................31


LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Cronbach’s Alpha Test of Procedural Justice Perception scale...............................32
Table 4.2. Cronbach’s Alpha Test of Distributive Justice Perception scale .............................34
Table 4.3. Cronbach’s Alpha Test of Interactional Justice Perception scale ............................35
Table 4.4. KMO and Bartlett's Test ..........................................................................................36
Table 4.5. Total Variance Explained ........................................................................................37
Table 4.6. Rotated Component Matrix .....................................................................................38

Table 4.7. Pearson Correlation Test..........................................................................................39
Table 4.8. Model summary .......................................................................................................40
Table 4.9. ANOVA Test ...........................................................................................................41
Table 4.10. Regression result ....................................................................................................41
Table 4.11. Tests of Interaction effects between GEN and PJ .................................................43
Table 4.12. Tests of Interaction effects between GEN and DJ .................................................44
Table 4.13. Tests of Interaction effects between EXP and PJ ..................................................45
Table 4.14. Tests of Interaction effects between EXP and PJ ..................................................46


Chapter 1. Introduction
1.1 Background
In Eastern philosophy, the use of people is highly valued and considered one of the
prerequisites of success. Especially in the field of business, people are considered
one of the most important resources to decide the success or failure of the business.
A company or organization has strong financial resources, modern technical
machinery but if the operation of human resource management is ineffective, it is
difficult to develop long term. Therefore, recruiting to provide quality human
resources for the organization is the most important function performed (Rynes &
Cable, 2003). However, the fact that people are the most expensive and difficult to
manage resources in the business. The high recruitment cost that were not
associated with accepting the candidate's job offer affected the efficiency of
recruitment and reduced the organization's success (Murphy, 1986).
In the context of Vietnam’s integration, the wave of investment by foreign
enterprises is increasing, leading to a fierce competition in the labour market.
Domestic enterprises are increasingly struggling to maintain and manage human
resource, especially the high-quality human resource. To survive and to grow in the
marketplace, business owners need to have good human resources to achieve
common goals of organizations. This shown the great role of human resources and
the recruitment of personnel (International Labour Organization and Asian

Development Bank, 2014).
In a human resource strategy, it is necessary to promote close relationships between
employees, employees and administrators, employees and organizations (Legge,
1995). More interestingly, businesses no longer focused on control and submission
but instead promote their working capacity and the cohesion of staff with the
organization (Farnham & Pimlott, 1990). To achieve cohesion as mentioned above,
ensuring fairness in the organization is essential. In previous research, authors
emphasized the role of organizational justice in order to gain the trust of employees,
loyalty, high labour productivity promotes the ability of organizations to fulfill their

pg. 1


vision. Employees tended to show their confidence in the organization or supervisor
and also became effective when they realized to be treated fairly by their
organization. Greenberg (1990) suggested that organizational justice has a strong
impact on a number of organizational variables, including faith, commitment, job
satisfaction, intention to quit, participation in work, productivity action and civic
behaviour of the organization. Therefore, justice policy should be applied by
organizations (Akanbi & Ofoegbu, 2013). Moreover, the organizational justice
aspects (procedural, distributive, interpersonal) should be applied in the
organizational, practical and regulatory policies of the enterprise (Colquitt, Conlon,
Wesson, Porter, & Nguyen, 2001).
Derived from the above-mentioned empirical studies and analyses, a study of the
perception of enterprise fairness and the acceptance of job offers of employees is
essential. This is the motivation for conducting a behavioural study of workers.
Therefore, the research topic “The influence of applicants’ perception of fairness to
job offer acceptance in the private-sector in Vietnam” is selected for
implementation.
1.2 Research rationale

This study was implemented for several reasons as follows:
Firstly, in recent years, along with the trend of the world, integration process of
Vietnam has become stronger than ever, especially in the private sector. This
integration process opens up great opportunities for employment for workers.
Typically, to join in the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), Vietnam can create
more 6 million jobs equivalent to 1/10 of the increase in employment by 2025 of the
entire ASEAN regions due to the impact of the formation of the AEC (International
Labour Organization and Asian Development Bank, 2014). Thus, with multilateral
and bilateral agreements, regional integration creates great opportunities for
Vietnamese workers. However, more competition with foreign businesses in the
wake of strong foreign direct investment is a major challenge for domestic
enterprises. Therefore, understanding the behaviour of employees is necessary to

pg. 2


provide operational policies, recruitment policies and personnel policies to attract
high quality labour. Of these factors, organizational equity is an aspect of policy.
This is the reason for this study to be conducted. The pretension is that outputs of
this research can contribute greatly to organizations.
Secondly, in Vietnam, research on workers’ behaviour is a common topic, but only
focus on the analysis of factors affecting recruitment activities based on internal and
external indicators. In the selection of jobs, Pham (2013) studied the impact of a
number of objective factors on the current job choice behaviour of high school
students. The research results show that the behaviour of career choice is affected
by the school’s career orientation and family orientation. In the period when
workers join the organization, some authors conduct research on employee
satisfaction with their work (Nguyen, Nguyen, Nguyen, & Nguyen, 2018; Nguyen
P. , 2018). Nguyen's research team (2018) studied on the subjects of construction
workers and discovered factors including promotion opportunities and working

conditions relationships with colleagues and work characteristics having a
relationship with job satisfaction. The above studies were typical of the recruitment
phase that was preceded by posting employment. The candidate stage was still
confused when deciding whether or not to approve the job offer (Chapman,
Uggerslev, Piasentin, & Carroll, 2005). This topic has not been paid much attention
by the study authors in Vietnam. Therefore, the analysis of candidate behavior in
this period is limited. In particular, currently, no research has been done on the topic
of organizational justice and its relationship with the decision of job offer
acceptances. This is the motivation for this research to be carried out.
Thirdly, some previous researchers had conducted researches on the relationship
between awareness of fairness and decision to job offer (Chapman, D. S.; Webster,
J., 2006; Walsh, Tuller, Barnes‐Farrell, & Matthews, 2010; Harold, Holtz,
Griepentrog, Brewer, & Marsh, 2015; Konradt, Garbers, Böge, Erdogan, & Bauer,
2015). However, these authors conducted research based on a general
organizational equity perspective that does not divide into different aspects of

pg. 3


equity. Typically, improving the situation of previous studies only focused on
process-based justice. Chapman & Webster (2006) had added a number of other
factors to the research that were candidates' signals and expectations, payment of
salaries, locations and marketability. Although this study had a strong point of being
implemented on a large sample size with 588 applicants from 215 businesses in
Canada. However, the two authors were still limited when only focusing on three
mechanisms of process justice. In the same case, Konradt et al. (2015) also focused
on the process of justice awareness according to the process when carrying out a 3year long study with data from 182 candidates in the apprenticeship program of a
large industrial company in Germany.
In another study, Harold et al. (2015) developed more with previous studies to study
two aspects of organizational justice, procedural justice perceptions and

interactional justice perceptions. Besides, authors also studied some other aspects
such as the image of organization awareness, organization familiarity, the
compatibility between people and organization, recruitment behavior. It also used
the control variable Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) scores, age and
gender of candidates. Although it was considered to be more complete than the
studies, this study was still limited when allocation justice was not studied.
According to the classification, organizational justice included three aspects which
were distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice (Ambrose,
Hess, & Ganesan, 2007; Yean & Yusof, 2016). This is a research gap to conduct a
complete study on each aspect of organizational justice. Expanding from previous
studies, this study examines three aspects of organizational justice as mentioned
above. In addition, two control variables are also used as candidates' gender and
work experience.
1.3 Research objective and research question
The target of the review study is analysis of the influence of candidates on fairness
for accepting private sector job offers in Vietnam. In order to clarify this objective,
specific objectives are given below:

pg. 4


-

To systematize the theoretical basis related to accepting job offers and
awareness of fairness.

-

To study empirical relationships between awareness of fairness and
acceptance of job offers.

-

Based on the analytical framework, to conduct an empirical analysis of the
impact in the candidate's perception of fairness to accepting job offers in
private sector in Vietnam.

-

To provide recommendations to enhance the candidates’ job offer acceptance.

To clarify the specific research objectives above, the below research questions are
conducted answer:
-

Which theoretical bases relate to accepting job offers and awareness of
justice?

-

The empirical relationship between awareness of justice and acceptance of a
job offer?

-

How the candidate's perception affects the acceptance of job offers in private
sector in Vietnam?

-

What are the recommendations for businesses to enhance the candidates’ job
offer acceptance?

1.4 Research scope
The scope of this study is defined as the spatial scope and the time range. The scope
of space is the private sector in Vietnam, the focus is on private enterprises.
Specifically, due to time constraints, information resources and relationships with
businesses, this study focuses on businesses in the two major cities of Hanoi and Ho
Chi Minh City. Businesses are selected to submit questionnaires to survey
candidates with diverse industries such as finance, banking, construction,
information technology, etc. Besides, time range relates to research data. The
primary data source in this study is synthesized through a survey of questionnaires
in the period from February to April 2019.

pg. 5


1.5 Research methodology
The research method is an association of quantitative methods and qualitative
methods. Qualitative research is used in synthesizing theoretical bases related to
awareness of fairness, the relationship between awareness of fairness and the
decision to accept work offers. Specifically, in qualitative research, it used the
secondary materials from international publications, books, international journals,
reports and workshop materials to develop literature review. The core part of the
study is quantitative analysis. Specifically, a linear regression analysis model is
used to study the impact of the candidate's perception of fairness to the acceptance
of job offers. Quantitative analysis techniques include saving reliability with
Cronbach’s Alpha Test, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Pearson Correlation
Test, Regression analysis and Multi-collinear testing. The data used in the analysis
are primary data compiled through a survey of the questionnaires to the candidates

who have interviewed in private companies in Vietnam.
1.6 Structure of the research
The structure of the study consists of 5 chapters. In the introductory chapter, it is
introduced the research context, research facilities, research objectives and research
questions, the scope of the study. Chapter 2 introduces literature review. The
content of the theoretical basis involves job offers and application perceptions of
fairness. Research gaps are also given in chapter 2 of the study. In the next chapter,
the content is the analytical framework and the development of research hypotheses.
These contents combine theoretical framework and empirical research results in
previous studies. The content of Chapter 4 is the method of research and data
analysis. In this chapter, along with describing the techniques used to analyze data,
the aggregated data is analyzed. The research hypotheses built in the previous
chapter are also tested. The output of empirical analysis in chapter 4 is the basis to
develop the final chapter content. Chapter 5 includes conclusions as well as
discussion of those conclusions and application.

pg. 6


Summary of Chapter 1
In Chapter 1, the thesis introduces an overview of research topics, research
objectives and questions. It also provides content about the scope of research,
research methodology and structure of the thesis. In the next chapter, it introduces
the

theoretical

overview

of

accepting

the

candidate’s

job

offer.

pg. 7


Chapter 2. Literature review
2.1 Overview of job offer acceptance
2.1.1 Definition of job offer acceptance
The concept of job offer is simply an invitation for a potential employee, whether or
not the applicant has applied for a job in an organization (Heathfield, 2019). The job
offer often have the outline of the terms and conditions of employment offered to
employees in the future. These include wages, benefits, job responsibilities, and the
name and title of the report manager. The job offer may also include expected
working hours, desired start dates and provide important details for future
employees.
The process of forming the job offer may include the following two stages. First,
the organization attracts candidates to organizations for employers to select and
screen qualified people to work at a certain position in the organization. Secondly,
the organization evaluates candidates in many different ways, based on the
requirements of the job, among those attracted through recruitment. The recruitment
process needs to identify the skills, knowledge and personal characteristics

necessary for immediate needs of the business position as well as the future
development goals of the business (Ployhart & Harold, 2004).
Based on the simple concept above, the job offer acceptance can be understood
simply as the acceptance of an invitation for a given job. It implies that candidates
are willing to join the organization to work with the terms and conditions of
employment given. In another aspect, acceptance of work offers was related to the
amount of work and wages that employees receive (Abraham, et al., 2013).
2.1.2 The importance role of job offer acceptance
One of the main functions of human resource management is ensuring organizations
to access to appropriate candidates for achievement of the organization's goals
(Konradt, Garbers, Böge, Erdogan, & Bauer, 2015). According to research results of
Boston Consulting Group (2012), the recruitment of the best qualified candidates

pg. 8


had the effect of promoting the growth of revenue and the rate of the organization.
Another important argument also emphasizes that human resource management is
responsible for attracting and selecting the appropriate workforce, providing them
with appropriate training to improve their capacity. The ultimate goal is to achieve
the organization's goals. Effective recruitment not only enhances the overall
effectiveness of the organization but also helps manage human resources more
effectively (Saddam & Mansor, 2015). Moreover, effective recruitment activities
help organizations attract and hire people with appropriate qualifications and always
update their knowledge, skills and professional attitudes. As a result, workers are
able to meet what the organization requires them to do (Lockwood, 2007).
In the field of recruitment, the candidate's acceptance of a job offer is considered a
success factor. The final stage of recruitment is that the candidate accepts or rejects
job offers (Harold, Uggerslev, & Kraichy, Recruitment and job choice, 2013).
Combined with the above analysis, it is important for businesses to accept job offers

that are important for businesses not only to reduce recruitment costs but also to
increase revenue efficiency and profit of the business.
In another result, Chapman et al. (2005) answered the question of why the candidate
who made the final decision was accepting a job offer. They discovered influencing
factors including job characteristics and organization, employer characteristics and
job expectations. Thus, the acceptance of the job offer by the candidates also partly
shows whether the recruitment activities and characteristics of the business are
effective or not. Another aspect, it should be noted that important vacancies weigh
much on information. The fact that candidates cannot access information including
objective and subjective aspects leads to a decision not to commit to long-term
commitment to the organization. This reflects that the candidate's decision whether
or not to help the business review the process of providing information through
online job boards, company websites and web log (Harold, Uggerslev, & Kraichy,
Recruitment and job choice, 2013).

pg. 9


Moreover, subjective images and relevance, as well as features of the recruitment
process can simultaneously predict candidates’ job choice decisions. Therefore, it
implies that, through the results of the proposal of accepting jobs, organizations can
adjust these factor (Barber, 1998). Supporting this view, Walker et al. (2013)
confirmed that the results of accepting job offers also meant higher organizational
relationships and attractiveness.
2.1.3 The main factors affecting job offer acceptance
Factors influencing the applicant's ability to accept job offers have been studied and
provided diverse evidence in previous studies. Specifically, Jurgensen (1978)
confirmed that the following 10 attributes in terms of what was most important to
them in a job: advancement, benefits, company, co-workers, hours, pay, security,
supervisor, type of work and working conditions. Turban (1995) argued that

website access, workplace awareness and the ability to host servers positively
impacted the decision to accept jobs. In the previous research. However, these two
authors did not provide a clear comparison to clarify the difference between the
decision to accept the job offer of unemployed and unemployed candidates. It was
clear that there was a difference based on the argument of search theory. It implied
that unemployed individuals should make significant concessions to get new jobs.
However, there was a lack of information regarding how the unemployed
considered their decision-making process (Abraham, et al., 2013).
In another aspect, the cost of commuting to work also affects the acceptance of
work offers. In a previous study, the research team discussed that job offers could
be rejected because of high travel costs or low availability of unemployed people
(Abraham, et al., 2013). However, through empirical studies, an opposition result
was discovered. This proves that there is no clear relationship between employment
status and migration (Kley, 2013). While in another study, migration was higher in
the unemployed group (Boenisch & Schneider, 2010).
According to another approach related to job search theory, job search was a logical
strategy for individuals trying to escape unemployment (Mortensen, 1976).

pg. 10


Unemployed people would try to expand the search radius, conceding terms to
increase the chances of getting a suitable job offer. It came from the characteristics
of this group of people as a low level and lack of expertise to access better networks
(Abraham, et al., 2013). This also shows that the characteristics of workers are also
a factor affecting the acceptance of work offers.
On the enterprise side, the income of employees was also a factor affecting the
decision to accept job offers. Workers may decide to accept a new job with a higher
income (Abraham, et al., 2013). However, it is not simple in the current income,
another idea is the decision to accept a job offer driven by expectations of future

work. Therefore, employees may accept new job offers if future job prospects are
better than their current status, regardless of whether they are employed or
unemployed (Logan, 1996).
Interestingly, the awareness of the fit between Person – Organization fit is also an
important factor closely related to the candidates' decision to accept the job offer
(Harold, Holtz, Griepentrog, Brewer, & Marsh, 2015). A supportive argument for
this point was given as social identity theory by Tajfel and Turner (1986).
According to this theory, each individual's actions are related to the social context
around them like their family, the neighborhood they live in, where they work.
Often, in order to develop and maintain a positive concept, individuals look to
groups with the appropriate features and characteristics. In other words, individuals
seek to organizations that were compatible with them (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In
accordance with this view, the attraction – selection – attrition hypothesis confirmed
that candidates were attractive and engaged in organizations when they see a high
degree of relevance (Schneider, 1987). From the analytical framework, this theory
offers several solutions to increase the relevance of candidates. Recommendations
to address organizational changes. Specifically, the utility of measures and its
benefits in corporate governance, environment and organizational culture. There is
also the importance of recruiting, the need for human-based theories of leadership
and work attitudes.

pg. 11


The above content mentioned a number of factors affecting the decision of
approving work proposals. However, when discussing the issue in depth, previous
studies had focused on the outcome of recruitment, which was a non-behavioural
factor. Therefore, it implied that it was impossible to predict the decision to accept
the job (Chapman, Uggerslev, Piasentin, & Carroll, 2005). For example, an
appealing assessment of an organization did not necessarily mean that labour

accepts changes in their careers.
To solve this problem, some authors had studied the psychology of workers.
Specifically, authors have focused on research and found that awareness of justice
was the central determinant of applicant behaviour (Bell, Ryan, & Wiechmann,
2004; Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004; Ployhart & Harold, 2004). In a previous
study, Lind (2001) had confirmed that demonstrating high degree of equity is the
most important in the early stages of recruitment. Accordingly, the fairness of the
organization was a factor for the applicant to decide whether to become a member
of the organization.
2.2 Overview of application perceptions of fairness
2.2.1 Interactional Justice
Historically, Greenberg (1987) pioneered the concept of organizational equity
regarding employee evaluations for organizational behavior as well as employee
behavior and attitudes. Referring to justice or fairness, it is an idea that an action or
decision is right, can be determined by morality, religion or law. People often pay
attention to fairness in things and situations that take place in different contexts in
their daily lives (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008). Along with the
development of human resource, fairness in the organization had emerged as an
important definition to clarify attitudes and behaviors at work (Ambrose, Hess, &
Ganesan, 2007). Employees who were aware of justice had been considered a
strong predictor of some important results, for example job satisfaction,
commitment of organizations, even corporates revenue (Cohen-Charash & Spector,
2001). Organizational justice includes three aspects which are procedural justice,

pg. 12


distributive justice, and interactional justice. Accordingly, procedural justice and
distributive justice are two basic aspects of organizational justice. Interactive justice
is the latest justice discovered regarding the elements of justice between individuals

and information (Muzumdar, 2012). The following are theories related to each of
above types of justice.
In terms of concept, sociologist John R. Schermerhorn defined interactive justice as
the degree to which people affected by decisions were treated with respect and
dignity. Interactive justice is divided into two parts. The first part is called
interpersonal justice and the second part is informational justice (Muzumdar, 2012).
Interpersonal justice was defined as how a person was treated by his supervisors and
subordinates, etc (Lin & Tyler, 1988). Treating supervisors is respect, dignity,
encouragement and encouragement. According to Frazier et al. (2010),
interpersonal justice considered personality and attitude of communication affecting
individuals. It involved how individuals were responsible for allocating resources
and rewards at work to recipients (Chou, 2009). One facility was given that apology
was seen as a tactic to enhance justice among individuals as they relate to showing
remorse. In addition, apology helped those who were harmed avoid their negative
effects, thereby reducing anger effectively (Greenberg, J., 1990).
In another aspect, informational justice is seen as an explanation provided to those
who convey information about why the procedure is used in a certain way or why
the result is distributed according to a certain way. When an explanation is more full
than common, the level of awareness of information justice is higher (Greenberg, J.,
1990). Thereafter, Greenberg (1993) asserted that information explanations can help
people affected by decisions to understand the reasons for those decisions. Because
it is a means of changing the response and receptive ability of employees to the
given procedures.
In the early stages of the recruitment process, before the candidate makes a decision
to accept a job offer, interactional justice can be perceived through a number of
factors. These factors include the interviewer giving kindness and consideration to

pg. 13

the candidate; interviewers treat candidates with respect and dignity; the interviewer
is sensitive to the applicant's individual needs; the manager treats the candidate
honestly. It helps the candidate understand clearly before making a decision about
accepting the job. On the other hand, interactional justice is also expressed through
the way the company’s representative shows interest in the candidate's rights as
employees. In order to interact with candidates on the decision to join the
organization, the interactional justice is also reflected by the company's agent or
interviewer discussing with candidates about their decision making and the meaning
of decision making (Yaghoubi, Mashinchi, Ebrahimi, Abdollahi, & Ebrahimi,
2011). Thus, when the candidate has not participated in the organization, the
awareness of the interaction is reflected through interaction with the representative
of the company. In Vietnam, this representative may be the head of a certain
department in the company or the head of the HR department, even the executive
board of the enterprise. Although different in responsibilities, these subjects have a
common feature of being knowledgeable about the core business and business
model of the business.
2.2.2 Procedural Justice
In term of concept, Thibaut and Walker (1975) introduced the definition of
procedural justice that solved the common process that the distribution of results
was carried out. Besides, Brockner and Siegel (1996) defined that procedural justice
was a positive personal awareness of the processes and procedures relating to the
determination of outcomes related to higher levels of trust in the organization and
managers. Therefore, procedural justice plays an important role for every
organization. When employees feel that their views and concerns are heard in the
decision-making process, they are often more likely to support than reject or deal
with decisions of the entire leadership and organization. This view is confirmed by
one previous research (Lin & Tyler, 1988). Two authors further explained that
organizations ignoring procedural justice concerns were at risk of causing negative
organizational attitudes. The result was dissatisfaction with the organization’s

pg. 14


results on decisions, even employees who do not comply with rules and procedures.
Some cases led to low labor productivity.
The question is why procedural justice can have a strong impact on such
organizations? Thibaut and Walker (1975) stressed that procedural justice is
considered as a control process that functions as a protector of personal interests.
This helps individuals protect their interests. Two authors demonstrated this
assumption that individuals would be more satisfied with adverse results if they
believe that the decision-making processes were fair. In the context of strategic
decision making, Kim and Mauborgne (1998) stressed the way of justice according
to the procedure emotional recognition and promotes intellectual. Two researchers
believed that a fair process in each organizational activity made organization
members feel being respected for the intellectual and their emotional values. This
made them ready to accept new challenges and cooperated with others in a way that
enhanced value creation at the enterprise level.
Moreover, another important factor in the applicant’s fair perception was what they
receive from the candidate. This information included recruitment interviews, job
samples. These were information that candidates believed to be valid and appear to
measure candidates' perceptions of fairness (Hausknecht, Day, & Thomas, 2004).
Some studies on manipulation of procedures shown that violation of administrative
consistency and speech in the recruitment process negatively affected this fair
perception (Rolland & Steiner, 2007). For computer-based testing, studies show that
the applicant's consistency, treatment and opportunity were the most powerful
predictors of fair awareness. (Konradt, Garbers, Böge, Erdogan, & Bauer, 2015).
However, the perception of procedural justice of the candidates is different in each
stage of recruitment. Chan and Schmitt (2004) argued that the candidates
distinguished procedural justice rules from being more or less different from
changes in time. This reflected when candidates moved from earlier to later stages

Procedural justice rules are measured by a number of items such as formal
characteristics (represented by rules related to work, execution opportunities,

pg. 15


reconsideration opportunities, consistency of governance), explanation (feedback,
open and known information) and interpersonal treatment (treatment of applicants
and ownership of questions) (Konradt, Warszta, & Ellwart, 2013).
In the first phase of recruitment, by the perception of procedural justice, when the
applicant requests additional responsibilities of the job, the company’s
representative or interviewer clarifies what the candidate is interested in. On the
other hand, procedural justice is also confirmed through interviewers' treatment
with candidates during the interview process. The process from filing and
interviewing is also considered as fair to candidates according to the company's
procedural justice. On the other hand, in many cases, the labor contract is the result
of the interview process. The procedures related to the content of the contract given
by the company representative during the interview are also used by the candidates
for evaluation. These procedures are legal provisions in the recruitment process.
Thus, during the interview process, the behavior of the company representatives
with the candidates in a fair manner is very necessary.
2.2.3 Distributive Justice
Just like the two types of justice introduced above, distributive justice is also a
diverse concept. Sezen (2001) provided that distributive justice based on the
distributive of organizational benefits for deserving employees. In another view,
Toremen and Tan (2010) defined distributive justice as an employee's perception of
rational distributive of resources and benefits of the organization. The emergence of
distributive justice may be related to the fair theory of Adam (1965). This theory
described that people compared their job performance ratios to their own work input
with the proportion of their peers. In this case, it appeared a consideration between

the efficiency of work among individuals in the same organization. When
evaluating distributive justice, individuals often evaluate their work input and the
results received from the organization. Previous studies have found that distributive
justice had a relationship with employee satisfaction, employee satisfaction with

pg. 16


leaders, and revenue goals of employees (Tyler & Caine, 1981; McFarlin &
Sweeney, 1992; Foley, Kidder, & Powell, 2002).
Moreover, in businesses, distributive justice played a very important role. The most
common goal in most equity distribution studies had been maximizing productivity.
Most studies had focused on fair rules (Adam, 1965). Because unfair distribution
can lead to distrust, dispute, disrespect and other social issues between employees
and their managers (Suliman, 2007). In other words, employee productivity was
likely to increase when they were rewarded. When employees achieve expectations
that were not met, some negative impacted on businesses appear such as reducing
labor productivity, organizational dissatisfaction and distrust (Frazier, Johnson,
Gavin, Gooty, & Snow, 2010).
According to Noruzy et al. (2011) Distribution justice focused on employee
confidence and feeling satisfied with the results of their work such as salary and job
assignment. Distributive justice refereed to equity awareness of the results an
individual received from the organization. Results can be distributed on an equal
basis, needs or contributions and individuals determine the fairness of distribution
through comparison with others (Alsalem & Alhaiani, 2007). To assess the
perception of fairness distribution, Leventhal (1976) gave a number of items to
assess related outcomes such as salary or promotion at work, rewards in labor,
refresher classes, the requirement of appropriateness in distributing results related to
the contributions of workers. Three distribution rules including justice, fairness and
demand were considered aspects of distribution justice (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson,

Porter, & Nguyen, 2001). On another aspect, Forsyth (2006) refers to the five norms
of distribution justice included:
 Equity: This factor assumes that the distribution of results is based on
employee input. Employee inputs include skills, time, money and energy
invested by individuals to perform their tasks. As a result, more investmentintensive employees are required to receive more results than those who

pg. 17


invest less. Individuals who invest in high levels of inputs will receive more
results than those who invest less
 Equality: Although the employee's input is different, the employees are
entitled to equal rewards.
 Power: In this respect, the fact that people with multiple rights, status or
control over the group should receive more than those in lower positions,
with less authority, status or control over the group.
 Need: People with the greatest needs need to be provided with the resources
needed to meet those needs. These individuals should be provided with more
resources than those who already own them, regardless of their inputs.
 Responsibility: This norm is based on distribution justice based on resource
sharing. In other words, the most resource-intensive individual group
members should share their resources with those with less.
In the first phase of recruitment, distribution justice can be perceived through a
number of manifestations such as: the company representative proposes fairness to
candidates for work schedule, salary, workload (Yaghoubi, Mashinchi, Ebrahimi,
Abdollahi, & Ebrahimi, 2011). During the interview process, an opinion that is
always given by the candidates is a balance between the work, the proposed
responsibilities and the achievements of the candidates. In particular, candidates are
aware of the information the interviewer gives, such as job responsibilities, salary,
bonuses, promotion schedule, or whether the work schedule is equal. Thereby, the

candidates will evaluate and compare with the volume and responsibility of such
work, the salary and bonus of the company is worthy of what we spend. This
comparison can take place in the company, especially in comparison with group
interviews, any difference perceived in the interview about the allocation of
resources and what is going on with the company or industry can change the
perception of the applicant’s distribution justice.

pg. 18