BR Report Before Final

Business Research Report
How does organizational justice theory affect workplace motivation to Employee

engagement?
By
Group 3 Organizational Justice Theory SECTION 417
1. 5711416 Siwakorn Weerakul

2. 5735244 Soe Moe Htut
3. 5812003 Jedsada Thianthong
4. 5811653 Kawin Ninwalaikun
5. 5818835 Asita K.
6. 5814927 Phitthaya Joempraditwong
Submitted to
Mr. Sumit Sharma
A Final Report for MGT 3940: Business Research Methodology

Semester 1/2018
Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics

Assumption University
Bangkok, Thailand
November 20, 2018
GROUP MEMBERS
ID NAME PHOTO
5711416 Siwakorn Weerakul
5735244 Soe Moe Htut
5812003 Jedsada Thianthong
5811653 Kawin Ninwalaikun
5818835 Asita K.
5814927 Phitthaya Joempraditwong

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This research was conducted by using questionnaire survey in order to test and determine factors
that affect work motivation of Employee Engagement.The factors or independent variables that are
used in this research are procedural justice,distributive justice,interpersonal justice and
informational justice which presented in the conceptual framework in this research.The
questionnaire papers were applied to collect data and multiple regression analysis was used as the
main data analysis tool. The results indicated that all factors affect works motivation of Employee
Engagement.
Non-probability sampling (convenience sampling) was applied in which 150 sample sizes were
determined by collecting data from 150 respondents which are works in each company and
analyzing all factors by using SAS Enterprise Guide 7.1.
There are 16 objectives and hypothesis included in this research.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
1.2 Statement of Problem
1.3 Significance of the Research
1.4 Objective of the Research
1.5 Scope of the Research
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Motivation
2.2 Theory of Motivation
2.3 Consequence of Motivation
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design
3.2 Population, Sampling Technique, and Sample size
3.3 Measurement Tool
3.4 Data Collection
3.5 Data Analysis Plan
3.6 Summary
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 Sample Profiles
4.2 Descriptive Information
4.2.1 Frequency Table
4.3 Hypotheses Testing
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion
5.2 Limitation
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX QUESTIONNIARE
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
As a result of choosing organizational justice topic, with regard to how an employee judges the
behaviour of the organization and the employee's resulting attitude and behaviour. Fairness refers to
the idea that an action or decision is morally right, which may be defined according to ethics,
religion, fairness, equity, or law. People are naturally attentive to the justice of events and situations
in their everyday lives, across a variety of contexts (Tabibnia, Satpute, & Lieberman, 2008).
Individuals react to actions and decisions made by organizations every day. An individual's
perceptions of these decisions as fair or unfair can influence the individual's subsequent attitudes
and behaviors. Fairness is often of central interest to organizations because the implications of
perceptions of injustice can impact job attitudes and behaviors at work. Justice in organizations can
include issues related to perceptions of fair pay, equal opportunities for promotion, and personnel
selection procedures
So, we decided to do the research in many type of companies such as CNH Industrial Co.,Ltd ,
Department of land Transport , The Coffee Brick, aFter You Public Company Limited , Mcdonald's
company and etc. In order to understand about the organizational justice theory.
1.2 Statement of Problem
How would an employee judges the behaviour affect the organization justice in the company.
1.3 Significance of the Research

Our research attempts to understand the reason for people to employees engagement. This research
is based on need for achievement, need for affiliation, and need for power influence. With this
information from people, we will know what employee satisfy and cause them in the organization.
Therefore, the researchers for employees engagement for organization justice will be able to apply
this information to learn more about their employees as well as improve then in the organization.
1.4 Objective of the Research
1. Procedural, distributive, interpersonal and Informational justice are related to work motivation.
2. Work motivation is related to Employees engagement.
3. Work motivation is perceived as high.
4. Number of employees who are from different ranges of age are different.
5. Employees who have possibility to learn new things at work and people who don't perceive
interpersonal justice differently.
6. Employees who work in different positions perceive distributive justice differently.
7. Employees who have previous experience and who have no previous work experience perceive
distributive justice differently.
8. Employees who are from different age groups perceive distributive justice differently.
9. Employees who have opportunity to get promoted and who don’t perceive distributive justice
differently.
10. Employees who have different level of education perceive distributive justice differently.
11. Employees who are male and female perceive informational justice on informational justice
differently.
12. Employees who have different type of welfare perceive interpersonal justice on informational
justice differently.
13. Employees who get and who don’t get along with co-workers perceive interpersonal justice
differently.
14. Employees who work in different type of organization perceive informational justice differently.
15. Employees who receive and don’t receive bonus perceive interpersonal justice differently.
16. Employees who have different level income perceive distributive justice differently.
1.5 Scope of the Research

The method used to conduct this research is by developing questionnaire survey using non-
probability sampling method to collect data from different respondents. The method used to conduct
this research is by developing questionnaire survey using non- probability sampling method to
collect data from different respondents. We are going to distribute 150 questionnaires to full-time
employee. The questionnaires will be divided among all six members in the group whereby each
member is responsible for 25 sets of questionnaires. Moreover, the questionnaire will consist of
three categories set of questions which are personal data on the respondent, general information on
organization, and factors to be considered about work motivation. In conclusion, the research will
focus on determining the behavior and satisfaction of respondents toward work motivation of their
organization.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Motivation
Noe and Schmitt (1986) described motivation to learn as an employees' desire to learn the
content of training. With this perspective, early studies mainly focused on the amount of
learning that trainees acquire during training. More recent research, however, has accepted a
theoretical standpoint that motivation to learn can arise from the employees' view of training
participation (Mathieu and Martineau, 1997). For example, Birdi, Allen, and Warr (1997)
proposed that motivation to learn is most relevant to how much an employee learns during
training, but it has also been used to explain how much employees participate in training
activities. This expanding notion of motivation to learn has helped with the theoretical maturation
of the construct. Noe and Wilk (1993) noted that an employee's motivation to learn is
critical for training effectiveness. Baldwin et a!. (1991) reported that employees' motivation to
learn was linked to actual learning in a training program designed to improve skills for
performance appraisal and feedback. Furthermore, Clark, Dobbins, and Ladd (1993) reported
that perceptions of training utility, training involvement decision, and supervisor's supportive
attitude were significant antecedents for motivation to learn.
2.2 Theory of Motivation:
Organizational justice is concerned with the fair treatment of people in organizations. It is

generally measured in terms of an employee's perception of organizational treatment.
Organizational justice has been conceptualized into three types: distributive justice is
concerned with the fairness of outcomes that people receive; procedural justice is concerned
with the fairness of the formal organizational procedures used in decision making; and
interactional justice refers to the fairness of the treatment that people receive from decision
maker. Employees' justice judgments in an organization have been recognized as a starting
point for important human resource practice that facilitate the functioning of the firm because
they are associated with a variety of individual work attitudes, such as satisfaction (e.g., DeConinck
and Stilwell, 2002) and commitment (e.g., Lowe and Vondanovich, 1995), and individual
behaviors, such as absenteeism (e.g., De Boer, Bakker, Syroit, and Schali, 2000) and
citizenship behavior (e.g., Moorman, 1991; Organ, 1990). In particular, by connecting with
the issues of assessment within an organization, organizational justice as a criterion for
accepting performance appraisal influences employees' future attitudes and behaviors (Erdogan,
2002). In this regard, a positive hypothesis can be drawn between the percetions of justice
and the motivation to participate in training. Hypothesis. Organizational justice perceptions
(distributive, procedural, and interactional)will positively predict employees' motivation to
participate in training.
2.3 Consequence of Motivation:
Training researchers have suggested that the expectation of gaining valued benefits from
training is an important predictor of training participation (Dubin, 1990; Salas, Cannon¬
Bowers, Rhodenizer, and Bowers, 1999; Tharenou, 200I). In particular, Mathieu and Martineu
(1997) suggested that this motivation through expectation is an improved approach to
training motivation as it places training participation into a motivational framework. Also,
further support for this notion is that employees who participate in training and development
events may see their participation as rewarding (Nordhaug, 1989). The perceived training
benefits, which play a role as either extrinsic or intrinsic rewards, will affect employees'
motivation to engage in the training activity. Furthermore, the expectation of usefulness or
value to training may have an influence on knowledge and skills that participants acquire
during the training, as well as their post-training reactions (Clark et al., 1993; Tracey, Hinkin,
Tannenbaum, and Mathieu, 2001). In this way, it is likely that the more job-, career-, and
personal-related benefits that employees feel they can obtain through the training activities,
the greater their degree of motivation to participate in the training activities. Hypothesis. Perceived
benefits of training will positively predict employee's motivation to participate in training.
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
In this chapter, we are mainly emphasized on the type of research, research design, sampling
design, sampling procedure as well as types of questions and level of scales being used in the
questionnaire. In addition, this chapter will also show what methods used in analyzing hypothesis as
well.
3.1 Research Design
The self-administered questionnaire is used in collecting data by using surveys to distribute

paper questionnaires in each company. Therefore, all questions that we use in this project are closed
questions which consisted of fixed-alternative.
Moreover, this research is also using the hypotheses testing to determine the influence of Procedural
Justice, Distributive justice, Interpersonal Justice and Informational Justice towards to each
company employee motivation to Organizational Citizenship Behavior.
3.2 Population, Sampling Technique, and Sample size
In this research, our purpose is to study the work motivation of Employee Engagement. We
decided to collect data from the employees in each company who are the target of the population in
this project. The sampling technique is non-probability sampling. We choose this technique because
it convenience sampling is used to obtain a targeted sample easily and random. Therefore, we just
distributed sets of questionnaires to employee who are working in each company.
For the surveys, we distributed the set of questionnaires to 150 company employees as a sample size
randomly
3.3 Measurement Tool
Question No Type of Data Type of Question Attitude Component
Part I
1 Nominal Single-dichotomy Cognitive
Question
Question
3 Nominal Single-dichotomy Affective
Question
4 Nominal Determinant- Cognitive
choice Question
Question
6 Nominal Single-dichotomy Behavioral
Question
Part ll
1.1 Interval Likert scale Affective
Part III
1 Nominal Single-dichotomy Non-attitude
2 Ordinal Determinant- Non-attitude
choice Question
3 Nominal Determinant- Non-attitude
choice Question
choice Question
choice Question
choice Question
choice Question
choice Question
choice Question
3.4 Data Collection

No Hypothesis Statement Statistical Design Responsible
person
H1 Procedural, distributive, interpersonal and Multiple Linear Group
Informational justice are related to work motivation. Regression
H2 Work motivation is related to Employees engagement. Simple Linear Group
Regression
H3 Work motivation is perceived as high. One sample t-test Group
H4 Employees with previous work experience and Independent Group
employees without previous work experience perceive sample T test.
workplace motivation differently.
H5 Employees who have possibility to learn new things at Independent Soe Moe Htut
work and people who don't perceive interpersonal sample t test 5735244
H6 Employees who work in different positions perceive ANOVA Soe Moe Htut
distributive justice differently. 5735244
H7 Employees who have previous experience and who Independent Kawin N.
have no previous work experience perceive distributive sample T test 5811653
H8 Employees who are from different age groups perceive One-way ANOVA Kawin N.
H9 Employees who have opportunity to get promoted and Independent Jedsada T.
who don’t perceive distributive justice differently. sample T test 5812003
H10
Employees who have different level of education One-way ANOVA Jedsada T.
perceive distributive justice differently. 5812003
H11 Employees who are male and female perceive Independent Phitthaya J.
informational justice on informational justice sample T test 5814927
differently.
H12 Employees who have different type of welfare One-way ANOVA Phitthaya J.
perceive interpersonal justice on informational justice 5814927
differently.
H13 Employees who get and who don’t get along with co- Independent Asita K.
workers perceive interpersonal justice differently. sample T test 5818835
H14 Employees who work in different type of organization One-way ANOVA Asita K.
perceive informational justice differently.
5818835
H15 Employees who receive and don’t receive bonus Independent Siwakorn W.
perceive interpersonal justice differently. sample T test 5711416
H16 Employees who have different source income perceive One-way ANOVA Siwakorn W.
There are three parts in the questionnaires as follows: general information, ranking data, and
personal information. The type of all questions are close-ended questions. We use several methods
that include, rating scale, determinant-choice question, and simple-dichotomy question. The length
of time using to collect data is one week by Jedsada T. collected 25 data at CNH Industrial Co.,Ltd .
Soe Moe Htut collected 25 data at Thai Bank Company Ltd and Decathlon company. Asita K.
collected 25 data at Department of land Transport. Kawin N. collected 25 data at The Coffee Brick.
Siwakorn Weerakul collected 25 data at aFter You Public Company Limited. Phitthaya collected 25
data at Mcdonald's company. We distributed all questionnaires to 150 respondents and received that
all answers.
3.5 Data Analysis Plan
Selection of the Statistical Techniques for Hypotheses Testing
3.6 Summary
Chapter 3 consists of research methodology for the research including research design,
population, sampling techniques, sample size, measurement tool, data collection and data analysis
plan. Survey research design is used by giving questionnaires to 150 workers. Also, self-
administered questionnaire is used in collecting data by using paper surveys and non-probability
method was used in selecting the respondents. Our questionnaires consist of three parts: general
information, measuring data, and personal data. Different types of questions with different attitude
(cognitive, affective, and behavioral) were asked to the respondents. Moreover, 16 hypotheses were
set to test the relationship. The details of hypotheses testing will be shown in the next chapter.
CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS
This data analysis and research finding can be divided into two groups which are qualitative and
quantitative data analysis. First, qualitative data analysis is the explanation of data collection or
interview survey comprising of descriptive data analysis and inferential statistical analysis.
Qualitative data analysis such as code structure. To explain, the code structure is understanding of
variables in this report; independent variables, dependent variables, intervening variables and
moderating variables. That means the understanding of organizational justice theory affects
workplace motivation to employee engagement. In this report focusing on nominal variable in
moderating variables.
Quantitative data analysis such as hypothesis testing is related to the inferential statistical analysis
needed to be referred to the objective.
4.1 Sample Profiles

A method of quantitative research that are data collection from employees having different
frequency and percentage in nominal scale variables.
Table 4.1.1: Sample Profile I
Table 4.1.2: Sample Profile II
Table 4.1.3: Sample Profile III
Table 4.1.4: Sample Profile IV

The example of the table is the one-way frequency of employees’ nominal data composing of
gender, age, education and income. Those have different frequency of sample that means different
in number of samples for data collection or survey. From table 4.1.1, most of them are female
having 80% which is more than male having 70%. From table 4.1.2, most of them are people less
than 30 years old having 102 people. From table 4.1.3, The education is sorted by highest to lowest
frequency are bachelor’s degree, below bachelor’s degree and above bachelor’s degree. From table
4.1.4, Income variable is arranged from highest to lowest frequency of employees, between 20000-
50000 equals 82 employees, less than 20000, between 50000-100000 and more than 100000,
respectively.
4.2 Descriptive Information

To describe frequency and percentage of nominal variables.
4.2.1 Frequency Table
Table 4.2.1a: Descriptive Information I
Table 4.2.1b: Descriptive Information II
Table 4.2.1c: Descriptive Information III
Table 4.2.1d: Descriptive Information IV

From the descriptive information tables provided described the frequency and percentage of
employees from intervening variables who are the samples of survey. From table 4.2.1a, 83.33% of
employees has possibilities to learn new things at work. From table 4.2.1b, 60.67% of employees
has previous work experiences with other company. From table 4.2.1c, 73.33% of employees think
they have opportunity to get promoted in the organization they work in the next three years. From
table 4.2.1d, 58% of employees has insurance welfare.
4.2.2 Table Analysis
Table 4.2.2: Table analysis shows possibility of employees to learn by gender

From table 4.2.2, 78.75% female and 88.57% male said they have possibility to learn new thing at
work. 21.25% female and 11.43%male said they do not have possibility to learn new things at work.
4.3 Hypotheses Testing
4.3.1 Hypothesis1: Procedural,distributive,interpersonal and Informational justice are related to
work motivation
Table 4.3.1:
From table 4., it shows that F value is 58.09 and P value is less than 0.05 meaning that the null
hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, at least one of the independent variables affected work
motivation.60.52% of variance in workplace motivation can be explained by procedural justice,
interpersonal justice, informational justice and distributive justice. From parameter estimates table
we can see that only informational justice is significantly related to brand image while the rest are
not. Informational justice has highest influence on workplace motivation with a better of 0.40824.
4.3.2 Hypothesis 2: Work motivation is related to Employees engagement.
F value and P value are 293.24 and 0.0001. R square is 0.6646.In parameter estimate table, t score
and p value are 10.88 and 0.0001.
With the P value less than 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, and perceived workplace motivation
is related to employee engagement. 66.46% variances in employee engagement can be explained by
workplace motivation.
4.3.3 Hypothesis 3: Work motivation is perceived as high.
T score and p value are 13.44 and 0.0001. Mean score is 3.6525.
With the p value less than .05, the null hypothesis is rejected. The mean score is higher than the
midpoint. Thus workplace motivation is perceived as high.
4.3.4 Hypothesis 4: Employees with previous work experience and employees without previous
work experience perceive workplace motivation differently.
t Test
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Work motivative scale
Do you have previous work experi N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 59 3.65360.62420.0813 2.2500 5.0000
Yes 91 3.65180.57810.0606 2.2500 5.0000
Diff (1-2) 0.001820.59660.0997
Do you have previous
work experi Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev 95% CL Std Dev
No 3.6536 3.49093.81630.62420.52840.7627
Yes 3.6518 3.53143.77220.57810.50460.6769
Diff (1-2) Pooled 0.00182-0.19520.19890.59660.53570.6733
Diff (1-2) Satterthwaite0.00182-0.19890.2026
Method Variances DF t Value Pr > |t|
Pooled Equal 148 0.020.9855
SatterthwaiteUnequal117.11 0.020.9857
Equality of Variances
Method Num DF Den DF F Value Pr > F
Folded F 58 90 1.170.5079
Generated by the SAS System ('Local', X64_8PRO) on November 27, 2018 at 11:26:28 AM
P value in equality of variances is 0.5079. Mean score of 2 groups are 3.6536 and 3.6518.
First, we look at the equality of variances table, p value is more than 0.05. Then we look at equal
variances, p value is more than 0.05. Thus, the null hypothesis is failed to reject, the employees with
previous work experiences and the employees without previous work experiences perceive work
place motivation not differently.
4.3.5 Hypothesis 5: Employees who have possibility to learn new things at work and employees
who don’t perceive interpersonal justice differently
t Test
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Interpersonal justice
Do you have possibility to learn N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 25 3.5800 0.6682 0.1336 2.5000 4.5000
Yes 125 3.6840 0.7501 0.0671 2.0000 5.0000
Diff (1-2) -0.1040 0.7374 0.1616
Do you have possibility to learn Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev 95% CL Std Dev
No 3.5800 3.30423.8558 0.6682 0.5217 0.9295
Yes 3.6840 3.55123.8168 0.7501 0.6672 0.8567
Diff (1-2) Pooled -0.1040-0.42330.2153 0.7374 0.6621 0.8322
Diff (1-2) Satterthwaite-0.1040-0.40690.1989
Pooled Equal 148 -0.640.5208
SatterthwaiteUnequal 37.166 -0.700.4911
Folded F 124 24 1.260.5222
First we look at equality of variance table, P value is greater than 0.05. Then we look at equal
variances ,P value is greater than .05.Thus null hypothesis is failed to reject. Employees who have
possibility to learn new things at work and people who don’t perceive interpersonal justice not
differently.
4.3.6 Hypothesis 6: Employees who work in different positions perceive distributive justice
differently
One-Way Analysis of Variance

Results
The ANOVA Procedure
Class Level Information

Class Levels Values
Your position 5Business Owner Immediate supervisor Manager Officers/operators Top manager/C
Number of Observations Read150
Number of Observations Used150
Generated by the SAS System ('Local', X64_8HOME) on November 14, 2018 at 11:03:48 PM

Results
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Distributive justice
Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Model 4 8.38327652 2.09581913 3.880.0051
Error 145 78.40672348 0.54073602
Corrected Total149 86.79000000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Distributive justice Mean
0.096593 20.54043 0.735348 3.580000
Source DF Anova SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Your position 48.38327652 2.09581913 3.880.0051
Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Distributive justice
Note: This test controls the Type I comparisonwise error rate, not the experimentwise error rate.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 145
Error Mean Square 0.540736
Harmonic Mean of Cell Sizes7.779961
Note: Cell sizes are not equal.
Number of Means 2 3 4 5
Critical Range .7369.7756.8014.8203
Means with the same letter are not significantly
different.
Duncan Grouping Mean N Your position
A 3.902818Immediate supervisor
A
A 3.687572Officers/operators
A
A 3.423636Manager
A
A 3.340922Business Owner
B 2.2500 2Top manager/CEO
P value indicates that null hypothesis is rejected and at least one group is different than others. From
the Duncan multiple rage test, it is determined that top manager/CEO perceive distributive justice
higher than the rest of the positions.
4.3.7 Hypothesis 7: Employees who have previous experience and employee who don’t have
previous work experience perceive distributive justice differently.
t Test
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Distributive justice
Do you have previous work experi N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 59 3.5169 0.73820.0961 1.5000 5.0000
Yes 91 3.6209 0.78030.0818 1.5000 5.0000
Diff (1-2) -0.10390.76410.1277
Do you have previous
work experi Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev 95% CL Std Dev
No 3.5169 3.3246 3.70930.73820.62490.9021
Yes 3.6209 3.4584 3.78340.78030.68110.9136
Diff (1-2) Pooled -0.1039-0.35630.14840.76410.68610.8623
Pooled Equal 148 -0.81 0.4171
SatterthwaiteUnequal128.88 -0.82 0.4117
Folded F 90 58 1.12 0.6566
Equality of variances: F-score and its p-value: 0.6566, 0.4171

t-score and its p-value: -0.81, 0.4171
Mean score of the 2 groups: 3.5169, 3.6209
P-value more than 0.05 then we look at equal variance, p-value is more than 0.4171. So the variance of two
groups are equal. T-score and its P-value are -0.81 and 0.4171 that P-value is more than 0.05. So, Those the
null hypothesis is not rejected. The score of employee distributive justice of two groups are not significant
different. Hence, there is no different perception on distributive justice between employee who have
experience and who have no experience.
4.3.8 Hypothesis 8: Employee who are from different age groups perceive distributive justice
differently.

Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Class Levels Values
Age 3 30-45 years old 46-60 years old less than 30 years old

Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Model 2 0.03866310 0.01933155 0.03 0.9678
Error 14786.751336900.59014515
Corrected Total14986.79000000
0.00044521.458350.768209 3.580000
Age 2 0.038663100.01933155 0.03 0.9678
Interpretation of the Results

Comparisons of the means: F score and its p-value : 0.03, 0.9678 > 0.05
From this table, F score is 0.03 and P-value is 0.9678, which is more than 0.05 meaning that the null
hypothesis is not rejected. So, the mean score of Distributive justice is no different among three
groups. Meaning that the three group are not significantly different. In conclusion, employees of
different age groups have not perceived distributive justice differently.
4.3.9 Hypothesis 9: Employees who have opportunity to get promoted and who don’t perceive distributive
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Distributive justice
In the next 3 years, do you thin N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 40 3.4000 0.7246 0.1146 1.5000 4.7500
Yes 110 3.6455 0.7695 0.0734 1.5000 5.0000
Diff (1-2) -0.2455 0.7579 0.1399
In the next 3 years, do you thin Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev 95% CL Std Dev
No 3.4000 3.16833.6317 0.7246 0.5935 0.9304
Yes 3.6455 3.50003.7909 0.7695 0.6795 0.8872
Diff (1-2) Pooled -0.2455-0.52200.0311 0.7579 0.6806 0.8553
Pooled Equal 148 -1.75 0.0815
SatterthwaiteUnequal 73.151 -1.80 0.0753
Folded F 109 39 1.13 0.6829
Equality of variances: F-score and its p-value: 0.6829, 0.0815

t-score and its p-value: -1.75, 0.0815
P-value more than 0.05 then we look at equal variance, p-value is more than 0.0815. so the variance
of two groups are equal. T-score and its P-value are -1.75 and 0.0815 that P-value is more than 0.05
so, Those the null hypothesis is not rejected. The score of distributive justice of two groups are not
significant different. Hence, there is no different perception on distributive justice between
employees who have opportunity to get promoted and who don’t.
4.3.10 Hypothesis 10: Employees who have different level of education perceive distributive justice
differently.

Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Class Levels Values
Education 3Above Bachelor's Bachelor's Below Bachelor's

Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Model 2 0.27337862 0.13668931 0.23 0.7930
Error 147 86.51662138 0.58854844
Corrected Total 149 86.79000000
0.003150 21.42930 0.767169 3.580000
Education 2 0.27337862 0.13668931 0.23 0.7930
From this table, F score is 0.23 and P-value is 0.7930, which is more than 0.05 meaning that the
null hypothesis is not rejected. So, the mean score of Distributive justice is no different among
three groups. Meaning that the three group has no significantly different. In conclusion,
Employees who have different level of education do not perceive distributive justice differently.
4.3.11 Hypothesis 11: Employees who are male and female perceive informational justice
differently.
Equality of Variances: F-scores and its p-value: 1.60, .0447
t-score and its p-value: -1.85, .0663
First, we look at the equality of variances table Pr > F is less than 0.05.
Then we look at unequal variances P=.0708. Thus, the hypothesis is not rejected. Employees
who are male and female do not perceive informational justice differently.
4.3.12 Hypothesis 12: Employees who have different type of welfare
perceives interpersonal justice differently.
Comparison of the mean, F score and its P value: .45, .8094>.05
The P value indicates that the null hypothesis is not rejected. Employees who
have different type of welfare do not perceives interpersonal justice
differently.
1
4.3.13 Hypothesis 13: Employees who get and don’t get along with co-workers
perceive interpersonal justice differently.
t Test
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Interpersonal justice
Do you get along with your co-wo N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 26 3.53850.79900.1567 2.0000 4.7500
Yes 124 3.69350.72260.0649 2.0000 5.0000
Diff (1-2) -0.15510.73610.1588
Do you get
along with your
co-wo Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev 95% CL Std Dev
No 3.5385 3.21573.86120.79900.62671.1030
Yes 3.6935 3.56513.82200.72260.64250.8258
Diff (1-2) Pooled -0.1551-0.46880.15870.73610.66090.8307
Pooled Equal 148 -0.980.3303
SatterthwaiteUnequal34.106 -0.910.3669
Folded F 25 123 1.220.4666
According to the table, P value of F in Equity of Variances is equal to 0.4666

which is more than 0.05 meaning that the variances of Employees who get and don’t
get along with co-workers are equal. The P value of t is 0.3303 which is more than
0.05 meaning that the null hypothesis is not rejected. The conclusion would be that
employees who get and don’t get along with co-workers perceived interpersonal
justice not differently.
4.3.14 Hypothesis 14: Employees who work in different type of organization
perceive informational justice differently.
Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Le
vel
Class s Values
Your Bank/Finance Education Family business Government
organiz sector MNEs Private Company Public Company State
ation 8enterprise
Generated by the SAS System ('Local', X64_8HOME) on November 14, 2018 at 9:24:55 P
M

Results
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Informational justice

Model 7 5.479294580.78275637 1.740.1052
Error 14264.040705420.45099088
Corrected Total14969.52000000
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Informational justice Mean
0.07881617.860600.671559 3.760000
Your organization 75.479294580.78275637 1.740.1052
According to the table, F value is 1.74 and P value of F is 0.1052, which is
more than 0.05 meaning that the null hypothesis is not rejected. Therefore, employees
who work in different type of organization do not perceive informational justice
differently.
4.3.15 Hypothesis 15: Employees who receive and don’t receive bonus
perceive interpersonal justice differently.
Independent Sample T- test
t Test
The TTEST Procedure
Variable: Procedural Justice
Does your company have any

bonus N Mean Std Dev Std Err Minimum Maximum
No 333.6537 0.7328 0.1276 2.0000 4.5714
Yes 1173.6264 0.6484 0.0599 2.1429 5.0000
Diff (1-2) 0.0273 0.6676 0.1316
Does your company 95% CL Std
have any bonus Method Mean 95% CL Mean Std Dev Dev
No 3.6537 3.39383.9135 0.7328 0.5893 0.9693
Yes 3.6264 3.50763.7451 0.6484 0.5746 0.7441
Diff (1-2) Pooled 0.0273-0.23270.2873 0.6676 0.5994 0.7533
Diff (1-2) Satterthwaite0.0273-0.25620.3109
Pooled Equal 148 0.210.8359
SatterthwaiteUnequal 47.059 0.190.8472
Folded F 32 116 1.280.3490
From the table above, P-value in the equality of variances is 0.3490, which is more
than 0.05 meaning that the variances of the employees who receive and don’t receive
bonus two group are not different so, we can assume that they are equal. P-value of
equal variances is 0.8359, which is more than 0.05 meaning that the null hypothesis is
not rejected and the mean of employees who receive the bonus is not equal mean of
employees who do not receive the bonus with 3.6264 of employees who receive the
bonus and 3.6537 of employees who do not receive the bonus. The conclusion would
be that employees who receive the bonus have not different perception on work duty
than employees who do not receive the bonus.
4.3.16 Hypothesis 16: Employees who have different level of income perceive
consociations differently.
ANOVA

Results
The ANOVA Procedure

Class Levels Values
Income 420000-50000 50000-100000 less than 20000 more than 100000
Generated by the SAS System ('Local', W32_7PRO) on November 15, 2018 at 1:37:32
PM

Results
The ANOVA Procedure
Dependent Variable: Procedural Justice

Model 3 5.95722781 1.98574260 4.830.0031
Error 146 60.01610552 0.41106922
Corrected Total149 65.97333333
R-Square Coeff Var Root MSE Procedural Justice Mean
0.090298 17.65087 0.641147 3.632381
Income 35.95722781 1.98574260 4.830.0031
PM

Results
The ANOVA Procedure
Duncan's Multiple Range Test for Procedural Justice
Note: This test controls the Type I comparisonwise error rate, not the experimentwise er
ror rate.
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 146
Error Mean Square 0.411069
Harmonic Mean of Cell Sizes20.43028
Note: Cell sizes are not equal.
Number of Means 2 3 4
Critical Range .3965.4173.4312
Means with the same letter are not significantly
different.
Duncan Grouping Mean N Income
A 4.4127 9more than 100000
B 3.6216 37less than 20000

B
B 3.5801 8220000-50000
B
B 3.5260 2250000-100000
PM
From the table above, F score is 4.83 and P-value is 0.0031 which is less than 0.05
meaning that the null hypothesis is rejected, and the conclusion would be that at least
one group is different from others. From Duncan grouping, the table shows employees
who perceive income more than 100000baht have perceive conscientiousness higher
than employees who have income less than 20000baht , 20000-50000 baht and 50000-
100000baht.
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusion
Hypotheses can be summarized into these points.
 Only informational justice is significantly related to brand image while the rest
are not. Informational justice has highest influence on workplace motivation.
 Workplace motivation is related to employee engagement.
 The mean score is higher than the midpoint.Thus workplace motivation is
perceived as high.
 the employees with previous work experiences and the employees without
previous work experiences perceive workplace motivation not differently.
 Employees who have possibility to learn new things at work and people who
don’t perceive interpersonal justice not differently.
 top manager/CEO perceive distributive justice higher than the rest of the
positions.
 there is no different perception on distributive justice between employee who
have experience and who have no experience.
 employees of different age groups have not perceive distributive justice
differently.
 There is no different perception on distributive justice between employees
who have opportunity to get promoted and who don’t
 Employees who have different level of education do not perceive distributive
 Employees who are male and female do not perceive informational justice
differently.
 Employees who have different type of welfare do not perceives interpersonal
 employees who get and don’t get along with co-workers perceived
interpersonal justice not differently.
 employees who work in different type of organization do not perceive
informational justice differently.
 employees who receive the bonus have not different perception on work duty
than employees who do not receive the bonus.
 employees who perceive income more than 100000 baht have perceive
conscientiousness higher than employees who have income less than 20000
baht , 20000-50000 baht and 50000-100000 baht.
Limitation
When we do this research, we conducted the questionnaires in 7 companies overall.So
the data does not have high accuracy to conclude overall.
When we are doing the survey, there are some questionnaires filled out incomplete
and some are filled out not clear. For some people take questionnaires and take days
to give back to us. So we have to wait till we get all the questionnaires to do
hypothesis.
These are much all limitation that we had to face during our research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
https://emeraldinsight.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090591111168348
APPENDIX
QUESTIONNIARE
Survey on [Employee Engagement]
(แบบสอบถามความผูกพันของพนักงาน)
We are Assumption University students studying

MGT3940 Business Research Methodology in semester
1/2018. Any information you will give to us will be kept
confidential. Thank you for cooperation.
(พวกเราเป็ นนักศึกษามหาวิทยาลัยอัสสัมชัญกาลังศึกษาในวิชา MGT3940
ระเบียบวิธีวจิ ยั ทางธุรกิจ ภาคเรียนที่
1/2561ข้อมูลทีค ่ ณ
ุ ให้จะถูกเก็บเป็ นความลับ ขอบคุณทีใ่ ห้ความร่วมมือ)
Please make a ✓in the box that most corresponding to yourself and your opinion
่ งหมาย ✓ในช่องทีส่ อดคล้องกับตัวคุณและความคิดเห็นของคุณมากทีส่ ด
(เขียนเครือ ุ )
1. Do you have possibility to learn new things at work?

(คุณมีความสามารถทีจ่ ะเรียนรูส้ งิ่ ใหม่ๆในทีท
่ างานได้หรือไม่)
☐ Yes(ใช่) ☐ No(ไม่)
2. Do you have previous work experience with other companies?

(คุณเคยมีประสบการณ์ การทางานจากบริษท
ั อืน
่ หรือไม่)
3. In the next 3 years, do you think you have opportunity to get promoted in this
organization?
(ใน 3 ปี คุณคิดว่าคุณมีโอกาสได้รบั การเลือ
่ นตาแหน่ งในองค์กรนี้หรือไม่?)
4. Type of welfare
(สวัสดิการทีบ
่ ริษทั จัดหาให้)
☐ Insurance (ประกันภัย)
☐ Medicine (ยารักษาโรค)
☐ Housing (ทีอ ่ ยูอ
่ าศัย)
☐ Food (อาหาร)
☐ Transportation (การเดินทาง)
☐ Others, specify (อืน่ ๆ โปรดระบุ)___________
5. Do you get along with your co-workers?

(คุณเข้ากับเพือ
่ นร่วมงานของคุณได้หรือไม่)
6. Does your company have any bonus program?

(บริษท
ั ของคุณมีเงินโบนัสหรือไม่)
Please specify your opinion on the following statements by marking ✓ in the
space that is closest to your opinion
(เขียนเครือ
่ งหมาย✓ในช่องทีส่ อดคล้องกับตัวคุณและความคิดเห็นของคุณมากทีส่ ุ
ด)
Level of Opinion
Factors to be considered
→
Organizational Justice Theory
“Procedural justice”
The following items refer to the procedure used to arrive at your (outcome). To what extent
(เมือ่ คิดถึงขัน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านจริงทีจ่ ะทาให้งานของท่านบรรลุผลสาเร็จ
ท่านคิดว่าขัน ้ ตอนการทางานเหล่านัน ้ มีอทิ ธิพลต่อท่านเพียงใด) [Note:1-5; 1= a
small extent; 5 = a large extent][1 = น้อยทีสุ่ ด; 5 = มากทีสุ่ ด]

1 Have you been able to express your views and feelings 5 4 3 2 1
during those procedures?
ท่านสามารถแสดงความเห็นและความรูส้ ก
ึ ของท่านในระห
ว่างการปฏิบตั งิ านได้
2 Have you had influence over the outcome arrived at those
procedures? 55 5 4 3 2 1
ท่านมีอท
ิ ธิพลเหนือผลลัพธ์ทจี่ ะได้เมือ่ ผ่านขัน
้ ตอนการ
ทางานเหล่านัน้
3 Have those procedures been applied consistently? 5 4 3 2 1
มีการปฏิบตั ต
ิ ามขัน
้ ตอนเหล่านัน
้ อย่างสม่าเสมอ
4 Have those procedures been free of bias? 5 4 3 2 1
มีการปฏิบตั ต
ิ ามขัน
้ ตอนเหล่านัน
้ โดยปราศจากอคติก?
5 Have those procedures been based on accurate 5 4 3 2 1
information?
ขัน ้ บนพืน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านถูกกาหนดขึน ้ ฐานข้อมูลที่
ถูกต้อง
6 Have you been able to appeal the outcome arrived at by 5 4 3 2 1
those procedures?
ท่านมีโอกาสได้เห็นผลลัพธ์ทจี่ ะได้เมือ่ ผ่านขัน
้ ตอนการท
างานเหล่านัน
้ มาก่อน
7 Have those procedures upheld ethical and moral standards? 5 4 3 2 1
ขัน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านเป็ นไปตามมาตรฐานจริยธรรมและ
ศีลธรรม
“Distributive justice”
The following items refer to your outcome. To what extent:
(เมือ่ คิดถึงผลลัพธ์ทไี่ ด้จากการปฏิบตั งิ าน ท่านคิดว่าผลลัพธ์นน
้ ั มีอท
ิ ธิพลต่อท่านเพียงใด)
1 Does your outcome reflect the effort you have put into your 5 4 3 2 1
work?
ผลลัพธ์ทไี่ ด้สามารถสะท้อนถึงความพยายามในการทางา
นของท่าน
2 Is your outcome appropriate for the work you have 5 4 3 2 1
completed?
ผลลัพธ์ทไี่ ด้เหมาะสมกับเนื้องานทีท
่ า่ นต้องทา
3 Does your outcome reflect what you have contributed to the 5 4 3 2 1
organization?
ผลลัพธ์ทไี่ ด้สามารถสะท้อนถึงสิง่ ทีท
่ า่ นมีทม
ุ่ เทให้กบั องค์
กร
4 Is your outcome justified, given your performance? 5 4 3 2 1
ผลลัพธ์ทไี่ ด้เหมาะสมกับผลงานของท่าน
-
“Interpersonal Justice”
The following items refer to the authority figure who enacted the procedure. To what extent:
(เมือ่ คิดถึงเจ้าหน้าทีผ
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจในการควบคุมการทางานให้เป็ นไปตามขัน
้ ตอน ท่านคิดว่า )
[Note:1-5; 1= a small ex tent; 5= a large
extent][1 = น้อยทีสุ่ ด; 5 = มากทีสุ่ ด]
1 Has he/she treated you in a polite manner? 5 4 3 2 1
เจ้าหน้าทีผ
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจปฏิบตั ต
ิ อ
่ ท่านอย่างสุภาพ
2 Has he/she treated you with dignity? 5 4 3 2 1
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจปฏิบตั ก
ิ บั ท่านอย่างสมศักท์ศรี
3 Has he/she treated you with respect? 5 4 3 2 1
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจปฏิบตั ก
ิ บั ท่านอย่างให้เกียรติ
4 Has he/she refrained from improper remarks or comments? 5 4 3 2 1
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจไม่มก
ี ารแสดงความคิดเห็นทีไ่ ม่เหมา
ะสมแต่อย่างใด
Informational Justice
The following items refer to the authority figure who enacted the procedure. To what extent:
(เมือ่ คิดถึงเจ้าหน้าทีผ
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจในการควบคุมการทางานให้เป็ นไปตามขัน
้ ตอน ท่านคิดว่า )
[Note:1-5; 1= a small extent; 5 = a large extent][1 = น้อยทีสุ่ ด; 5 = มากทีสุ่ ด]
1 Has he/she been candid in his/her communications with 5 4 3 2 1
you?
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจสือ่ สารกับท่านอย่างตรงไปตรงมา
2 Has he/she explained the procedure thoroughly? 5 4 3 2 1
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจได้อธิบายขัน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านอย่าง
ละเอียด
3 Were his/her explanations regarding the procedures 5 4 3 2 1
reasonable?
่ ูม
้ อ
ี านาจได้ให้เหตุผลการปฏิบตั งิ านตามขัน
้ ตอ
นอย่างเพียงพอ
4 Has he/she communicated details in a timely manner? 5 4 3 2 1
ขัน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านใช้เวลาในการอธิบายรายละเอียดอ
ย่างเหมาะสม
5 Has he/she seemed to tailor his/her communications to 5 4 3 2 1
individuals' specific needs?
ขัน
้ ตอนการปฏิบตั งิ านเลือกใช้วธิ ีการสือ่ สารทีเ่ หมาะกับท่
าน
“Work motivation scale”

The following statements ask about "Why do you or why would you put efforts in your
current jobs?," please rate how much these reasons are true for you by giving the score from
"1" (very little; "2" (Little); *3” (Moderate); "4"(Strong) and "5" (Very strong)
(ข้อความต่อไปนี้ถามว่า"เพราะเหตุใดคุณ(จึง)พยายามทางานในตาแหน่ งปัจจุบ ันของคุ
ณ?" โปรดให้คะแนนว่าเหตุผลเหล่านี้เป็ นจริงสาหรับคุณโดยการให้คะแนนจาก "1"
(น้อยมาก; "2" (น้อย); *3” (ปานกลาง); "4"(มาก) and "5" (อย่างมาก))
You put efforts in your current jobs…
ท่านทุม
่ เททางาน....
1 to get others’ approval. (e.g, Supervisor, colleagues, 5 4 3 2 1
family, clients ...)
เพือ่ ทีจ่ ะได้รบั การยอมรับจากผูอ
้ น
ื่ เช่นผูบ
้ ังคับบัญชา
เพือ
่ นร่วมงาน ครอบครัวลูกค้า และอืน ่ ๆ
2 because people around me will respect me more. 5 4 3 2 1
้
เพราะคนรอบข้างจะยอมรับทานมากขึน
3 to avoid being criticized by others. 5 4 3 2 1
เพือ
่ หลีกเลีย่ งการถูกวิพากษ์ วจิ ารณ์ ในเชิงลบจากคนอืน
่
4 because my employer/supervisor will reward me 5 4 3 2 1
financially only if I put enough effort in my job.
เพราะท่านจะได้รบั ผลตอบแทนจากนายจ้าง
หรือหัวหน้างาน หากท่านทุม
่ เททางานเพียงพอ.
5 because my employer/supervisor offer me greater job 5 4 3 2 1
security if I put enough effort in my job.
เพราะงานของท่านจะมัน ้ หากท่านทุม
่ คงขึน ่ เททางานเพีย
งพอ
6 because I risk losing my job if I don't put enough effort in 5 4 3 2 1
it.
เพราะท่านอาจเสีย่ งทีจ่ ะต้องตกงานได้หากไม่ทม
ุ่ เททางา
นให้เพียงพอ
7 because I have to prove to myself that I can. 5 4 3 2 1
เพราะท่านต้องพิสจู น์ตวั เองว่าท่านมีความสามารถ
8 because it makes me feel proud of myself. 5 4 3 2 1
เพราะเป็ นสิง่ ทีท
่ าให้ทา่ นรูส้ ก
ึ ภาคภูมใิ จในตัวเอง
9 because otherwise I will feel ashamed of myself. 5 4 3 2 1
เพราะท่านจะรูส้ ก
ึ ละอายแก่ใจหากไม่ได้ทม
ุ่ เททางาน
10 because otherwise I will feel bad about myself. 5 4 3 2 1
เพราะท่านจะรูส้ ก
ึ ไม่ดีกบั ตัวเอง
ถ้าไม่ได้ทม
ุ่ เททางานให้เพียงพอ
11 because I personally consider it important to put efforts in 5 4 3 2 1
this job. Identified regulation.
เพราะท่านคิดว่าการทุม
่ เททางานเป็ นการบ่งชี้ถงึ ตัวตนข
องท่าน
12 because putting efforts in this job aligns with my personal 5 4 3 2 1
values.
เพราะการทุม
่ เทในการทางานสอดคล้องกับคานิยมส่วนตั
วของท่าน
13 because putting efforts in this job has personal significance 5 4 3 2 1
to me.
เพราะการทุม
่ เทในการทางานมีความสาคัญกับท่าน
14 because I have fun doing my job. 5 4 3 2 1
เพราะงานทีท
่ าน่ าสนุก
15 because what I do in my work is exciting. 5 4 3 2 1
่ าน่ าตืน
่ เต้น
16 because the work I do is interesting. 5 4 3 2 1
่ าน่ าสนใจ
“Employee Engagement”
please rate how much these reasons are true for you by giving the score from "1" (Strongly
disagree; "2" (disagree); *3” (Neutral); "4"(agree) and "5" (strongly agree)
โปรดให้คะแนนว่าเหตุผลเหล่านี้เป็ นจริงสาหรับคุณโดยการให้คะแนนจาก "1" (น้อยมาก;
"2" (น้อย); *3” (ปานกลาง); "4"(มาก) and "5" (อย่างมาก))
“Engagement Opinions”
1 You are confident you can meet your work goals. 5 4 3 2 1
ท่านมั่นใจว่าท่านสามารถบรรลุเป้ าหมายในการทางานไ
ด้
2 You are determined to accomplish your work goals. 5 4 3 2 1
ท่านมุง่ มั่นทีจ่ ะบรรลุเป้ าหมายการทางานของท่าน
3 You have a clear understanding of your organization's 5 4 3 2 1
vision/mission.
ท่านเข้าใจในวิส ัยทัศน์ /
ภารกิจขององค์กรของท่านอย่างชัดเจน
4 You are highly motivated by your work goals. 5 4 3 2 1
เป้ าหมายในการทางานทาให้ทา่ นมีแรงจูงใจทีจ่ ะทางาน
5 While at work, you are almost always completely focused
on your work projects.
ในระหว่างทีท
่ างานท่านมุง่ ความสนใจไปทีง่ านของท่าน
5 4 3 2 1
แทบจะตลอดเวลา
6 You are provided with the resources to do your job well. 5 4 3 2 1
ท่านมีทรัพยากรเพียงพอทีจ่ ะสามารถทางานได้ดี
7 You frequently feel that you are putting all my effort into 5 4 3 2 1
your work.
บ่อยครัง้ ทีท
่ า่ นรูส้ ก
ึ ว่าท่านทุม
่ เทความพลังงานทัง้ หมดทีม
่ ี
ในการทางาน
8 You have passion and excitement about your work. 5 4 3 2 1
้ ชอบและตืน
ท่านขึน ่ เต้นกับงานของท่าน
9 You are often so wrapped up in your work that hours go by 5 4 3 2 1
like minutes.
ท่านมักรูส้ ก
ึ เวลาผ่านไปเร็วมากเวลาทางาน
10 You enjoy volunteering for activities beyond your job 5 4 3 2 1
requirements.
ท่านชอบอาสาสาหรับกิจกรรมนอกเหนือจากงานในหน้า
ทีร่ บั ผิดชอบของท่าน
11 You feel completely plugged in at work, like you are 5 4 3 2 1
always on full power.
เวลาทางานท่านรูส้ ก
ึ ตัวเองมีอานาจเต็มทีท
่ จี่ ะทางานให้ส
าเร็จ
“Engagement Behaviors”
1 In your organization, employees are encouraged to take 5 4 3 2 1
action when they see a problem or opportunity.
พนักงานในองค์กรของท่านสามารถจัดการกับปัญหาหรื
อโอกาสทีเ่ ข้ามาได้ดว้ ยตนเอง
2 Your colleagues quickly adapt to challenging or crisis 5 4 3 2 1
situations.
เพือ
่ นร่วมงานของท่านสามารถปรับตัวกับสถานการณ์ ที่
ท้าทายหรือวิกฤติได้อย่าง รวดเร็ว
3 Your work group never gives up despite difficulties. 5 4 3 2 1
ทีมของท่านไม่เคยยอมแพ้แม้จะเจอปัญหา
4 Employees in your organization deal very well with 5 4 3 2 1
unpredictable or changing work situations.
พนักงานในองค์กรของท่านสามารถจัดการกับการเปลีย่
นแปลงหรือสถานการณ์ ทไี่ ม่ได้คาดไว้ได้ดี
5 In your work group, we are constantly looking out to see 5 4 3 2 1
what challenge is coming next.
ทีมของท่านมักองหาสิง่ ทีท
่ า้ ทายใหม่ๆอยูเ่ สมอ
6 The people in your work group are always flexible in 5 4 3 2 1
expanding the scope of their work.
ทีมของท่านมีความยืดหยุน
่ โดยสามารถขยายขอบเขตกา
รทางานให้เหมาะกับ สถานการณ์ เสมอ
7 Others in your organization view unexpected 5 4 3 2 1
responsibilities as an opportunity to succeed at something
new.
คนในองค์กรของท่านมองว่าการทีต ่ อ
้ งรับผิดชอบงานทีไ่
ม่ได้คาดคิดไว้เป็ นโอกาสทีจ่ ะ นามาซึง่ ความสาเร็จ
8 Other people in your organization often volunteer for new 5 4 3 2 1
projects Society for Human Resource Management.
คนในองค์กรของท่านมักอาสาทาโครงการทีเ่ พิง่ เข้ามาใ
หม่เสมอ
Personal Data (ข้อมูลส่วนตว)
ั
1. Gender (เพศ)
☐ Male (ชาย) ☐ Female (หญิง)
2. Age (อายุ)
☐ < 30 years old (น้อยกว่า 30 ปี ) ☐ 30-45 years old (ระหว่าง 30 ถึง 45
ปี )
☐ 46-60 years old (ระหว่าง 45 ถึง 60 ปี ) ☐ > 60 years old (มากกว่า 60ปี )
3. Education (การศึกษาสูงสุด)
☐ Below Bachelor's ☐ Bachelor's ☐ Above Bachelor's
(ต่ากว่าปริญญาตรี) (ปริญญาตรี)
(สูงกว่าปริญญาตรี)
4. Income [including salary, wages, extra/overtime payments, commissions, and other forms
of payment from the organization.] (รายได้โดยรวมทีไ ่ ด้จากองค์กร เช่น [เงินเดือน
ค่าจ้าง ค่าล่วงเวลา คอมมิชชั่น งานพิเศษ ฯลฯ)
☐ < 20,000 ☐ 20,000-50,000 ☐ 50,000-100,000 ☐ >100,000
5. Type of Business (ประเภทธุรกิจของบริษท
ั /องค์กรทีท
่ า่ นทางาน)
☐ Finance and Banking (การเงิน การธนาคาร)
☐ Advertising, Marketing Communication
(การตลาด/ประชาสัมพั
นธ์)
☐ FMCG/Wholesale/Retail Trade (สินค้าอุปโภค บริโภค)
☐ Food/Agriculture (อาหาร/การเกษตร)
☐ Jewelry and Craft related (เครือ
่ งประดับ ทอง
เพชรพลอย)
☐ Garment, Leather, and Fashion Apparels (เสือ
้ ผ้า เครือ
่ งหนัง)
☐ Computer & IT (คอมพิวเตอร์/
ข้อมูสารสนเทศ)
☐ Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain
(ขนส่ง/โลจิสติกส์/ซัพพ
ลายเชน)
☐ Construction/Real Estate
(ก่อสร้าง/อสังหาริมทรัพ
ย์)
☐ Educational Services/ Business Consultancy
(การศึกษา/บริษท
ั ทีป
่ รึก
ษา/บริษท
ั วิจยั )
☐ Hospital and Health Services
(โรงพยาบาล/คลินิค/ร้า
นขายยา)
☐ Insurance
(ประกันภัย/ประกันชีวต
ิ
)
☐ Hospitality and other related services such as hotel, airlines, etc.
(โรงแรม ร้านอาหาร สายการบิน และงานบริการอืน
่ ๆ)
☐ Manufacturing/ Industrials (e.g. Automotive, machinery, petrochemicals, etc)
(โรงงานอุตสาหกรรม)
☐ Others, specify _____________ (อืน
่ ๆ ระบุ
_________________
6. Work tenure with this current organization
(ระยะเวลาทีท่ า่ นทางานในบริษท ั /องค์กรนี้)
☐ < 5 years (น้อยกว่า 5ปี ) ☐ 5-10
years(ระหว่าง 5 ถึง 10 ปี )
☐ 11-20 years (ระหว่าง 11ปี ถึง 20 ปี ) ☐ > 20 years(มากกว่า 20 ปี )
7. Your position (ตาแหน่ งงานของท่านในบริษท

ั /องค์กรนี้)
☐ Officers/operators (พนักงาน/เจ้าหน้าที)่
☐ Immediate supervisor (ผูบ้ ริหารระดับต้น)
☐ Manager (ผูบ ้ ริหารระดับกลาง)
☐ Top manager/CEO (ผูบ ้ ริหารระดับสูง /CEO)
☐ Business Owner (เจ้าของกิจการ)
่ ๆ ระบุ ______________________)
8. Your organization (ลักษณะองค์กรของท่าน)

☐ Government sector (หน่ วยงานของรัฐ)
☐ State enterprise (หน่ วยงานรัฐวิสาหกิจ)
☐ Education (สถาบันการศึกษา)
☐ Bank/Finance (ธนาคาร/สถาบันการเงิน)
☐ Public Company (บริษทั มหาชน)
☐ Private Company (บริษท ั เอกชน)
☐ Family business (บริษท ั เอกชนซึง่ เป็ นธุรกิจครอบครัว)
☐ MNEs (บริษท ั ต่างประเทศ)
☐ Joint Venture (บริษท ั ร่วมทุนระหว่างประเทศ)
่ ๆ ระบุ ______________________)
9. Overall employees [including all types of employees]

(จานวนพนักงานทุกประเภทรวมทัง้ พนักงานรายวัน)
☐ < 50 ☐ 50-100 ☐ 101-500 ☐ > 500
10. Living Style (ลักษณะการอยูอ

่ าศัย)
☐ Individual or with roommate (เช่าหรือซื้อบ้าน คอนโด อพาร์ตเม้นต์ อยูเ่ องหรืออยูก
่ บั เพือ
่ น)
☐ With family (อยูก
่ บั ครอบครัว)
11. Major transportation method (วิธีการเดินทางหลักทีใ่ ช้เป็ นประจา)
☐ Private car (รถส่วนตัว) ☐ Public
transportation (ขนส่งสาธารณะ)
12. Transportation time (ระยะเวลาในการเดินทาง)
☐ About 1 hour or less (ประมาณ 1 ชั่วโมงหรือน้อยกว่านัน
้ ) ☐ More than 1 hour (มากกว่า 1
ชั่วโมง)
----------Thank you----------

BR Report Before Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BR Report Before Final

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BR Report Before Final

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Business Research Report

How does organizational justice theory affect workplace motivation to Employee

Group 3 Organizational Justice Theory SECTION 417

1. 5711416 Siwakorn Weerakul

Mr. Sumit Sharma

A Final Report for MGT 3940: Business Research Methodology

Martin de Tours School of Management and Economics

5735244 Soe Moe Htut

5812003 Jedsada Thianthong

5811653 Kawin Ninwalaikun

5814927 Phitthaya Joempraditwong

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

CHAPTER 4: DATA ANALYSIS

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

1.1 Background of the Study

1.2 Statement of Problem

1.3 Significance of the Research

1.5 Scope of the Research

2.2 Theory of Motivation:

Organizational justice is concerned with the fair treatment of people in organizations. It is

2.3 Consequence of Motivation:

3.1 Research Design

The self-administered questionnaire is used in collecting data by using surveys to distribute

3.2 Population, Sampling Technique, and Sample size

3.3 Measurement Tool

Question No Type of Data Type of Question Attitude Component

3.4 Data Collection

3.5 Data Analysis Plan

Selection of the Statistical Techniques for Hypotheses Testing

4.1 Sample Profiles

Table 4.1.1: Sample Profile I

Table 4.1.2: Sample Profile II

Table 4.1.3: Sample Profile III

Table 4.1.4: Sample Profile IV

4.2 Descriptive Information

Table 4.2.1a: Descriptive Information I

Table 4.2.1b: Descriptive Information II

Table 4.2.1c: Descriptive Information III

Table 4.2.1d: Descriptive Information IV

Table 4.2.2: Table analysis shows possibility of employees to learn by gender

Variable: Work motivative scale

The TTEST Procedure

Variable: Interpersonal justice

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Class Level Information

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Dependent Variable: Distributive justice

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F

Note: Cell sizes are not equal.

B 2.2500 2Top manager/CEO

Variable: Distributive justice

Equality of variances: F-score and its p-value: 0.6566, 0.4171

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Class Level Information

One-Way Analysis of Variance

Dependent Variable: Distributive justice

Source DF Sum of Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F