Introduction

Managing human resources is an important task that must be carried out on an ongoing basis. The reason is partly because human resources are a vital element that can drive organizational growth (Kee & Chung, 2021). One of the important obstacles for organizations is when the company has to lose its best employees or when the company has a high turnover rate. Especially in this increasingly competitive era, the company's urgency to retain talented employees is greater. The goal is to maintain competitive advantage and increase profits (Sahi & Mahajan, 2014). More than that, turnover also incurs significant losses for the company.

(Davidson et al., 2010) divide the costs due to turnover into tangible and intangible costs. Among the forms of tangible costs such as recruitment, training, induction, skill development and employee skills and their quality (Tracey & Hinkin, 2006). There are also intangible costs or hidden costs associated with the loss of skilled labor, namely the emergence of inefficiencies and turnover costs (Lashley & Chaplain, 1999); (Davidson et al., 2010). When the turnover rate is high, one of the impacts is on service quality which is likely to decline (Lynn, 2002); (Davidson et al., 2010). For this reason, it is important for companies to anticipate employee turnover. There is a real-time predictor of actual turnover, namely the intention or desire to move, identifying it can provide an opportunity for the organization to immediately make improvements (Perryer et al., 2010).

Many studies have revealed a negative relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001); (J. A. Colquitt et al., 2001). That is, as stated by (Kee & Chung, 2021) when employees feel they are being treated unfairly, the tendency of employees to leave the organization increases. Organizational fairness is the extent to which employees perceive fairness in workplace procedures, interactions and outcomes (Greenberg & Colquitt, 2013). Employees' perceptions of fairness in the organization are determined by the extent to which employees feel they are valued and treated fairly in return for employee contributions (Greenberg, 1990); (B. K. Choi et al., 2014).

(Moorman, 1993) divides organizational justice into three parts, namely distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice. First, distributive justice is an employee's perception of fairness related to the distribution of results within the organization (J. A. Colquitt, 2001). Second, procedural justice concerns fairness in the decision-making process in organizations (Fields et al., 2000). This relates to decision-making procedures related to wages and the fairness of the work system in general (Khtatbeh et al., 2020). Third, interactional justice refers to the fairness felt by individuals in their organizational interpersonal communication. (J. Colquitt & Greenberg, 2005); (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2019).

When employees feel they are being treated fairly by the organization, this will lead to an increase in civic behavior (OCB: Organizational Citizenship Behavior) (Blakely et al., 2005). OCB is defined as individual behavior that is independent, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system. An employee practices such behavior voluntarily, optional, not mandatory, and at the discretion of the individual. What is meant by "policy" is that the behavior is not an enforceable requirement of a role or job description, that is, a requirement that can be clearly defined from the person's employment contract with the organization; such behavior is more a matter of personal choice so that negligence is not generally understood as a punishment (Organ, 1988). Based on this conceptualization, Organ (1988) formulated five dimensions of OCB known as altruism, conscientiousness, decency, sportsmanship, and civic virtue. The first dimension, altruism, involves a tendency to assist coworkers in solving work-related problems. The second dimension, awareness, refers to the efforts made by employees to do what is right and right for the organization. Courtesy as a third dimension was proposed by (Organ, 1988) and is an employee's behavior to prevent work-related problems. Fourth, sportsmanship, refers to the tolerance of employees when experiencing unsatisfactory conditions at work. The last, civic virtue, is a behavior that shows a willingness to actively participate in the organization. Research on the relationship of organizational justice to OCB is shown by research (Organ & Ryan, 1995) which shows that perceptions of justice are needed for OCB. Consistent results were also found by (Selamat et al., 2017) which supports a significant and positive relationship between organizational justice and OCB.

In his research (Coyne & Ong, 2007) also revealed that employees who have high OCB are more likely to remain loyal and stay in the organization longer. Similar results were also found by several previous studies which found a negative correlation between OCB and the desire to move (Chen et al., 1998); (Coyne & Ong, 2007). Whereas when employees have the desire to move, there are several consequences that are detrimental to the company such as delays, absenteeism, poor performance and decreased productivity (Saraih et al., 2017). Based on the studies above, the researchers decided to use the OCB variable as a mediating variable to examine and analyze the role of the OCB variable as a mediating variable between organizational justice variables and the desire to change jobs. The role of OCB as a mediation is expected to be a novelty in this research model.

With the importance of the impact of turnover on the company, the desire of employees to move remains one of the main topics of interest to be discussed by researchers, scholars and practitioners (Memon et al., 2017). In the academic literature, turnover intention has been commonly used as a measure of anticipated job change (Bigliardi et al., 2005); (Memon et al., 2017). The desire to move (turnover intention) is described by (Price, 2001) as an individual's willingness to resign from an organization voluntarily and permanently. The intended turnover intention tends to reflect the employee's desire to leave the organization in the near future (Zhao et al., 2007); (Saraih et al., 2017). Desire to switch can be measured using a three-item scale developed by (Konovsky, 2000). This includes items such as frequently thinking aabout quitting a job at this organization, if possible, wanting to get a new job and likely looking for work outside this organization over the next year.

This study was conducted based on previous studies related to organizational justice variables, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and the desire to move. Here are some previous studies related to this research:

1. Yang (2021)

In a study entitled "Occupational stress, distributive justice and turnover intention among public hospital nurses in China: A cross-sectional study" conducted by (Yang et al., 2021). This study aims to examine the mediating role of distributive justice on the relationship between job stress and turnover intention, and the role of regionalism in moderating the relationship between distributive justice and turnover intention. The research method used in this study is quantitative with data collection through a questionnaire survey to 718 respondents who are nurses in Chinese public hospitals.

The results of this study indicate that there is an inverse correlation between challenge stress and intention to move, while hindrance stress is significantly correlated with intention to move. In addition, there is an inverse correlation between distributive justice and turnover intention. The role of the region also has a moderating effect on the relationship between distributive justice and the desire to move.

The similarity of this research with the research that will be conducted by the author lies in the variables of distributive justice and the desire to move. The difference between this research and the research that will be conducted by the author is that in this study, the distributive justice variable is placed as the mediating variable and the variable of desire to move as the dependent variable. The research that will be carried out by the author places the distributive justice variable as the independent variable, the desire to move as the dependent variable and OCB as the mediating variable.

2. Taghrid S. Suifan, Hannah Diab, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah (2017)

In a study entitled ï¿½Does organizational justice affect turnover intention in a developing country? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitmentï¿½ conducted by (Suifan et al., 2017). The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of organizational justice on turnover intention through the mediating effect of organizational commitment and job satisfaction. This study uses a quantitative method with data collection through a survey in the form of a questionnaire to 323 aviation industry employees who work for airlines operating in Jordan. To test the hypothesis, multiple regression analysis was performed.

The results confirm that both organizational commitment and job satisfaction have a mediating effect on the relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention. Meanwhile, job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship, while organizational commitment only has a partial mediating effect. From this study it can also be concluded that organizational justice has a significant negative effect on the desire to move.

The similarity of this research with the research that will be conducted by the author lies in the variables of distributive justice and the desire to move. While the difference lies in the other variables and the selected research object.

3. Hanna Choi and Sujin Shin (2022)

In a study entitled "The Factors That Affect Turnover Intention According to Clinical Experience: A Focus on Organizational Justice and Nursing Core Competency" conducted by (H. Choi & Shin, 2022). The purpose of this study was to investigate organizational justice and nursing core competency as factors that influence the desire to move. The method used in this study is a quantitative method, with the object of research being 153 nurses who work in tertiary hospitals and general hospitals throughout South Korea.

The results of this study showed that for nurses with less than 3 years of clinical experience, lower distributive justice scores (β = -0.47, p < 0.001) were associated with higher turnover intentions. Among nurses with 3 to 6 years of clinical experience, lower interactional justice scores (β = -0.37, p = 0.042) and high core nursing competencies (β = 0.31, p = 0.034) were associated with switching intentions. tall one. Regarding the relationship of organizational justice to the desire to move, in more detail this study reveals that distributive justice has a significant negative effect on the desire of employees to move. Procedural justice and interactional justice also have a negative but not significant effect on the desire to move.

The similarity of this research with the research that will be conducted by the author lies in the variables of distributive justice, procedural justice, interactional justice and turnover intention. While the difference lies in the selected research object.

Table 1. Journal Review The Effect of Distributive Justice on Desire to Change Jobs

No.	Researcher/Title Research/Object Study	Methods & Tools Analysis/Variable Study	Results
1	Tianan Yang, Xuan Jin, Hubin Shi, Yexin Liu, Yuangeng Guo, Yongchuang Gao, Jianwei Deng (2021) Occupational stress, distributive justice and turnover intention among public hospital nurses in China: A cross-sectional studyï¿½ 718 respondents who are nurses in Chinese public hospitals Applied Nursing Research Vol. 61 No. 151481, 2021	Quantitative analysis *Independent* : Distributive Justice (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) *Intervening* : Desire to Move (Singh et al., 1996)	The results of this study confirm that there is an inverse correlation between challenge stress and intention to move, while hindrance stress is significantly correlated with intention to move. In addition, there is an inverse correlation between distributive justice and turnover intention. The role of the region also has a moderating effect on the relationship between distributive justice and the desire to move.
2	Taghrid S. Suifan, Hannah Diab, Ayman Bahjat Abdallah (2017) Does organizational justice affect turnover intention in a developing country? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment 323 aviation industry employees working for airlines operating in Jordan Journal of Management Development Vol. 36 No. 9, 2017	Quantitative analysis *Independent* : Distributive Justice (Niehoff & Moorman, 1993) *Dependent* : Desire to Move (Cammann et al., 1979)	This study confirms that organizational commitment and job satisfaction have a mediating effect on the relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention. Meanwhile, job satisfaction fully mediates the relationship, while organizational commitment only has a partial mediating effect. From this study it can also be concluded that organizational justice has a significant negative effect on the desire to move.
3	Hanna Choi dan Sujin Shin (2022) The Factors That Affect Turnover Intention According to Clinical Experience: A Focus on Organizational Justice and Nursing Core Competency 153 nurses working in tertiary and general hospitals across South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Vol. 19, No. 6	Quantitative analysis *Independent :* Distributive Justice (Moorman, 1991) *Dependent :* Desire to Move (Yeun dan Kim, 2017)	The results of this study indicate that there is a significant negative effect of distributive justice on the desire to move. Procedural justice and interactional justice also have a negative but not significant effect on the desire to move. Nurses with 3 to 6 years of clinical experience had lower interactional justice scores and high core nursing competencies were associated with higher turnover intentions.

Table 13. Analysis of the Effect of OCB Variables

Code	Statement	Mean	Information
Z1	My attendance at work exceeds my normal working hours	4,30	High
Z2	I didn't take advantage of the extra time the company gave me	3,51	Currently
Z3	I obey company rules and policies even when no one is watching	5,27	Very high
Z4	I feel like the most conscientious employee	4,22	Currently
Z5	I believe the compensation I receive will be commensurate with the contribution I make to the company	4,47	High
Z6	I spend a lot of time complaining about trivial things.	5,07	High
Z7	I always focus on what's wrong, rather than the positives.	4,41	High
Z8	I always exaggerate the problems that exist	5,24	Very high
Z9	I always find fault with what the organization does	3,98	Currently
Z10	I complain to get attention or help	4,97	High
Z11	I attend a meeting that is not mandatory, but is considered important.	3,76	Currently
Z12	I attend functions that are not required, but help the company's image.	3,90	Currently
Z13	I follow changes that occur in the organization.	5,10	High
Z14	I read and follow announcements, memos and various organizational information.	4,90	High
Z15	I take steps to try to prevent problems with other employees.	5,12	High
Z16	I am aware that my behavior affects the work of others.	5,14	High
Z17	I do not abuse what is rightfully someone else's.	5,54	Very high
Z18	I try to avoid creating problems for my coworkers.	5,29	Very high
Z19	I consider the impact my actions have on my co-workers.	5,30	Very high
Z20	I help my co-workers who still can't come to work	4,85	High
Z21	I help my co-workers who have a heavy workload.	4,59	High
Z22	I help with the orientation of new employees even though it is not requested by the company.	4,68	High
Z23	I am willing to help coworkers who have work-related problems.	5,05	High
Z24	I am always ready to lend a helping hand to my co-workers.	5,10	High

Table 18. Cross Loading

`	Distributive Justice	Procedural Justice	Interractional Justice	Turnover Intention	OCB
DJ1	0,938	0,127	0,559	-0,135	0,690
DJ2	0,889	0,160	0,547	-0,192	0,739
DJ3	0,951	0,118	0,561	-0,182	0,704
DJ4	0,893	0,363	0,661	-0,262	0,726
DJ5	0,927	0,158	0,673	-0,103	0,675
PJ1	-0,095	0,814	0,125	-0,490	0,057
PJ2	0,412	0,821	0,691	-0,252	0,565
PJ5	0,01	0,753	0,277	-0,246	0,072
IJ3	0,479	0,489	0,810	-0,109	0,482
IJ6	0,632	0,357	0,901	0,118	0,535
IJ8	0,619	0,436	0,921	0,036	0,550
IJ9	0,613	0,588	0,958	-0,113	0,609
TI1	-0,425	-0,425	-0,321	0,831	-0,716
TI2	0,055	-0,214	0,256	0,818	-0,117
TI3	-0,042	-0,368	0,106	0,884	-0,250
OCB10	0,652	0,216	0,533	-0,233	0,829
OCB5	0,651	0,490	0,666	-0,268	0,780
OCB9	0,538	0,169	0,252	-0,596	0,778

Based on table 21 and table 22, the determination of whether the hypothesis is accepted or rejected is as follows:

a. Hypothesis Testing 1

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between distributive justice and the desire to change jobs have an original sample value of 0.014, t-statistics of 0.065 < 1.65 and p-value of 0.948 > 0.10. This means that there is a positive but not significant effect on the relationship of the distributive justice variable to the desire to change jobs. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 which states that there is a negative effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs is REJECTED.

b. Hypothesis Testing 2

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between procedural justice and the desire to change jobs have an original sample value of -0.497, t-statistics of 1.845 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.066 < 0, 10. This means that there is a significant negative effect on the relationship between procedural justice variables and the desire to change jobs. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 2 which states that there is a negative effect of procedural justice on the desire to change jobs is ACCEPTED.

c. Hypothesis Testing 3

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between interactional justice and the desire to change jobs have an original sample value of 0.646, a t-statistics value of 2.534 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.012 < 0, 10. This means that there is a significant positive effect on the relationship between interactional justice variables and the desire to change jobs. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 3 which states that there is a negative effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs is REJECTED.

d. Hypothesis Testing 4

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coefficient hypothesis test between distributive justice and organizational citizenship behavior have an original sample value of 0.701, a t-statistics value of 5.268 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.000 < 0.10 . This means that there is a significant positive effect on the relationship between distributive justice variables and OCB. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 which states that there is a positive influence on the relationship between distributive justice variables on OCB is ACCEPTED

e. Hypothesis Testing 5

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between procedural justice and organizational citizenship behavior have an original sample value of 0.206, a t-statistics value of 1.760 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.079 < 0.10. . This means that there is a significant positive effect on the relationship between procedural justice variables and OCB. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 1 which states that there is a positive effect of procedural justice on OCB is ACCEPTED.

f. Hypothesis Testing 6

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between interactional justice and organizational citizenship behavior have an original sample value of 0.042, t-statistics of 0.242 < 1.65 and p-value of 0.809 > 0.10. This means that there is a positive but not significant effect on the relationship between interactional justice and OCB. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 6 which states that there is a positive influence of interactional justice on OCB is ACCEPTED.

g. Hypothesis Testing 7

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between organizational citizenship behavior and the desire to change jobs have an original sample value of -0.684, a t-statistics value of 3.105 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.002 < 0.10. This means that there is a significant negative effect on the OCB relationship on the desire to change jobs. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 7 which states that there is an effect of OCB on the desire to change jobs is ACCEPTED.

h. Hypothesis Testing 8

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between distributive justice and the desire to change jobs through OCB have an original sample value of -0.480, a t-statistics value of 2.915 > 1.65 and a p-value of 0.004 < 0.10. This means that there is a significant positive effect. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 8 which states that there is a mediating effect of OCB on the relationship of distributive justice to the desire to change jobs is REJECTED.

i. Hypothesis Testing 9

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between procedural justice and the desire to change jobs mediated by OCB has an original sample value of -0.029, a t-statistics value of 0.229 < 1.65 and a p-value value 0.819 > 0.10. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 9 which states that there is a mediating effect on the relationship of procedural justice variables to the desire to change jobs mediated by OCB is REJECTED.

j. Hypothesis Testing 10

Based on the test results summarized in table 4.20, it can be observed that the results of the path coeficient hypothesis test between interactional justice and the desire to change jobs mediated by OCB has an original sample value of -0.141 t-statistics of 1.439 < 1.65 and a p-value of 0.151 > 0.10. So it can be concluded that hypothesis 9 which states that there is a negative effect of interactional justice on the desire to change jobs mediated by OCB is REJECTED.

3. Recapitulation of Hypothesis Results

The following is a recapitulation of research results:

E. Discussion and Discussion

1. Effect of Distributive Justice on Desire to Change Jobs

The results showed that the construct of distributive justice had a positive and insignificant effect on the desire to change jobs. This result contradicts several previous studies (Yang et al., 2021); (Suifan et al., 2017); (H. Choi & Shin, 2022) which stated that there was a significant negative effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs. In the descriptive analysis, the respondents' assessment of the distributive justice variable is in the high category. This means that employees feel they have been treated fairly in terms of distribution of results within the company (salaries, promotions, benefits, etc.). However, even though it has been treated fairly, it does not significantly affect the employee's desire to move or stay in the company. Therefore, based on this study, distributive justice is not a predictor of the desire to change jobs. The results of this study are in line with research (Tourani et al., 2016) which did not find the effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs. The explanation of the results that distributive justice does not have a significant negative effect on the desire to change jobs is because the unfair behavior in the perspective of distributive justice carried out by PT KYBI does not get a negative or destructive response from employees. This is possible because of the religious values in employees that are instilled by PT KYBI, which affect the employee's response to unfair treatment. The perceived injustice is no longer an obstacle in PT KYBI's employees which then raises the desire to give retaliation to the perpetrators or the company. These results are consistent with research conducted by (Palupi, 2019) which is also supported by a previous study by (Beugre, 2005) which emphasizes that there are many possible responses in the face of perceived injustice. The study illustrates that perceived injustice and the resulting anger leads to retaliatory behavior for some but has no effect on others, mostly based on a person's personal values, goals and ethical standards.

2. Effect of Procedural Justice on Desire to Change Jobs

The results showed that the construct of procedural justice has a negative and significant effect on the desire to change jobs. These results are in line with previous research conducted by (Batool & Shah, 2017) which found that distributive justice was negatively related to the desire to change jobs, as well as the mediating effect of work motivation on the relationship. This suggests that if employees working in a company feel there is fairness in the procedures and distribution of rewards, they may not have the intention to switch. In this study, it was found that the level of procedural justice at PT Kayaba Indonesia was high, which led to a decrease in the desire of employees to change jobs.

3. Effect of Interactional Justice on Desire to Change Jobs

The results showed that the construct of interactional justice had a positive and significant effect on the desire to change jobs. This result contradicts previous research (Kee & Chung, 2021) which states that there is a positive effect of interactional injustice on the desire to change jobs. The explanation regarding why interactional justice does not have a significant negative effect on the desire to change jobs is that it is possible that when there is unfair treatment by PT KYBI from the point of view of distributive justice, the reaction caused by PT KYBI employees is not actually returning to bad behavior towards the company. However, employees will tend to calm down and forgive the perpetrator, or formally submit a complaint, or not give any response to the unfair treatment. (Palupi, 2019) citing (Bies., et al. 1997) states that negative psychological reactions do not always lead to destructive behavior. In fact, conditions often occur where employees find constructive ways to cool down or cool themselves after feeling injustice. It is possible that employees will vent their anger on friends or family, or formally submit a complaint, forgive the perpetrator, or not give any response to the unfair treatment.

4. Effect of Distributive Justice on OCB

The results showed that the distributive justice construct had a positive and significant effect on OCB. These results are in line with several previous studies (Saifi & Shahzad, 2017); (Raja et al., 2018). In a fair organization, employees tend to perform better, help others, and be more creative than organizations that are perceived as unfair. Therefore, managers must be careful in implementing policies and procedures because injustice in procedures and distribution of rewards not only has the potential to reduce employee performance but also reduce OCB and employee creativity (King et al., 2018). In this study it was found that the level of distributive justice at PT Kayaba Indonesia was high, it contributed to the increase in employee OCB.

5. Effect of Procedural Justice on OCB

The results showed that the construct of procedural justice had a positive and significant effect on OCB. The high level of procedural fairness at PT Kayaba Indonesia contributes to the increase in employee OCB. These results are in line with previous research conducted by (Fiaz et al., 2018) which proves the positive effect of procedural justice on OCB. Procedural justice means fairness in a process when the decision is made (Konovsky & Cropanzano, 1991). A procedure is said to be fair when it has consistency (consistent at all times and people), emphasis on bias (put aside personal interests), accuracy (availability of accurate information), correct (allows appeals and complaints), representativeness (basic concern for all individuals). represented), and ethics (moral and ethical standards) (Leventhal, 1980).

6. Effect of Interactional Justice on OCB

The results showed that interactional justice had a positive but not significant effect on OCB. These findings contradict the results of previous research conducted by (Farid et al., 2019); (Chan & Lai, 2017) which in their research revealed a significant positive effect of the three dimensions of organizational justice (distributive justice, procedural justice and interactional justice) on OCB. . The explanation of this insignificant result is that it is possible when PT KYBI employees feel fairness from the perspective of interactional justice, it only affects the increase in employee job satisfaction and is not enough to trigger the employee to do OCB. Because OCB is the result of better working relationships and a positive and supportive work environment (Maamari & Messarra, 2012); (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2019). Jehanzeb and Mohanty (2019) also got insignificant results in their research. Employees' perceptions of having fair organizational processes will encourage job satisfaction (Zeinabadi & Salehi, 2011); (Jehanzeb & Mohanty, 2019) and equality (Supriyanto, 2013). But it doesn't always encourage employees to do OCB. This result is also consistent with research by (Rezaiean et al., 2010) and (Batool & Shah, 2017).

7. Effect of OCB on Desire to Change Jobs

The results showed that there was a significant negative effect of OCB on the desire to change jobs. Previous research by (Ouakouak et al., 2019); (Rashid et al., 2018) proved similar results where OCB has a negative and significant relationship to the desire to move. (Ouakouak et al., 2019) in their research emphasize that organizational recognition of employee contributions will be reciprocated with high levels of OCB and thus will reduce employees' intention to leave their organization. This also indicates that employees who have high levels of OCB are less likely to have the desire to move.

8. Effect of Distributive Justice on Desire to Change Jobs through OCB

The results showed that OCB did not show a role as a mediating variable in the relationship between distributive justice and the desire to change jobs. This is shown by the results of the study which were significantly negative. Researchers have not found a study with a model similar to this study. It is hoped that this research can be the basis for studies with the same model in the future. From point 4.5.1 it is also found that the direct relationship between the distributive justice variable and the desire to change jobs also does not show a significant negative result. A significant relationship is only obtained from the partial relationship, namely distributive justice to OCB and OCB to the desire to change jobs.

9. Effect of Procedural Justice on Desire to Change Jobs through OCB

The results showed that OCB did not show a role as a mediating variable in the relationship between procedural justice and the desire to change jobs. This is shown by the results of the study which were negative but not significant. Researchers have not found a study with a model similar to this study. It is hoped that this research can be the basis for studies with the same model in the future. From point 4.5.2 it is found that the direct relationship between the procedural justice variable and the desire to change jobs shows a significantly negative result. However, the relationship becomes insignificant in the indirect effect (via OCB). A significant relationship is only obtained from the partial relationship, namely procedural justice to OCB and OCB to the desire to change jobs.

10. Effect of Interactional Justice on Desire to Change Jobs through OCB

The results showed that OCB did not show a role as a mediating variable in the relationship between interactional justice and the desire to change jobs. This is shown by the results of the study which were negative but not significant. Researchers have not found a study with a model similar to this study. It is hoped that this research can be the basis for studies with the same model in the future. From point 4.5.3 it is also found that the direct relationship between the interactional justice variable and the desire to change jobs does not show a negative result. An insignificant relationship was also obtained from a partial relationship, namely interactional justice for OCB and OCB on the desire to change jobs.

Conclussion

OCB of employees has a significantly negative relationship to the desire of employees to change jobs from PT Kayaba Indonesia. OCB of employees does not mediate the relationship of distributive justice to the desire of employees to change jobs at PT Karyaba Indonesia. Employee OCB does not mediate the relationship of procedural justice to the employee's desire to change jobs at PT Kayaba Indonesia. OCB of employees does not mediate the relationship of interactional justice to the desire of employees to change jobs PT Kayaba Indonesia

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Batool, S., & Shah, M. (2017). Impact of Organizational Justice on Turnover Intention-the Mediating Role of Employee Motivation. JL & Socï¿½y, 48, 17. Google Scholar

Bigliardi, B., Petroni, A., & Dormio, A. I. (2005). Organizational socialization, career aspirations and turnover intentions among design engineers. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(6), 424ï¿½441. https://doi.org/10.1108/01437730510617645. Google Scholar

Blakely, G. L., Andrews, M. C., & Moorman, R. H. (2005). The moderating effects of equity sensitivity on the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20(2), 259ï¿½273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-005-8263-3. Google Scholar

Chan, S. H. J., & Lai, H. Y. I. (2017). Understanding the link between communication satisfaction, perceived justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Business Research, 70, 214ï¿½223. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.017. Google Scholar

Chen, X.-P., Hui, C., & Sego, D. J. (1998). The role of organizational citizenship behavior in turnover: Conceptualization and preliminary tests of key hypotheses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 922ï¿½931. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.83.6.922. Google Scholar

Choi, B. K., Moon, H. K., Ko, W., & Kim, K. M. (2014). A cross-sectional study of the relationships between organizational justices and OCB: Roles of organizational identification and psychological contracts. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 35(6), 530ï¿½554. https://doi.org/10.1108/lodj-08-2012-0103. Google Scholar

Choi, H., & Shin, S. (2022). The Factors That Affect Turnover Intention According to Clinical Experience: A Focus on Organizational Justice and Nursing Core Competency. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(6), 3515. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19063515. Google Scholar

Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(2), 278ï¿½321. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2958. Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386ï¿½400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.386. Google Scholar

Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425ï¿½445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425. Google Scholar

Colquitt, J., & Greenberg, J. (2005). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Google Scholar

Coyne, I., & Ong, T. (2007). Organizational citizenship behaviour and turnover intention: A cross-cultural study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 18(6), 1085ï¿½1097. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190701321831. Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications. Google Scholar

Davidson, M. C. G., Timo, N., & Wang, Y. (2010). How much does labour turnover cost? A case study of Australian four‐and five‐star hotels. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 22(4), 451ï¿½466. https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011042686. Google Scholar

Farh, J.-L., Earley, P. C., & Lin, S.-C. (1997). Impetus for action: A cultural analysis of justice and organizational citizenship behavior in Chinese society. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 421ï¿½444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393733. Google Scholar

Farid, T., Iqbal, S., Jawahar, I. M., Ma, J., & Khan, M. K. (2019). The interactive effects of justice perceptions and Islamic work ethic in predicting citizenship behaviors and work engagement. Asian Business & Management, 18(1), 31ï¿½50. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-018-00049-9. Google Scholar

Fiaz, M., Ikram, A., Su, Q., & Ali, N. (2018). How to save the saviors?: Relationship between organizational justice and citizenship behavior. The Journal of Developing Areas, 52(1), 45ï¿½58. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2018.0003. Google Scholar

Fields, D., Pang, M., & Chiu, C. (2000). Distributive and procedural justice as predictors of employee outcomes in Hong Kong. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21(5), 547ï¿½562. https://doi.org/10.1002/1099-1379(200008)21:5<547::AID-JOB41>3.0.CO;2-I. Google Scholar

Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational Justice: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399ï¿½432. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639001600208. Google Scholar

Greenberg, J., & Colquitt, J. A. (2013). Handbook of Organizational Justice. Psychology Press. Google Scholar

Jehanzeb, K., & Mohanty, J. (2019). The mediating role of organizational commitment between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior: Power distance as moderator. Personnel Review, 49(2), 445ï¿½468. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2018-0327. Google Scholar

Kee, D. M. H., & Chung, K. S. (2021). Perceived Organizational Injustice, Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Turnover Intention: A Study of MNCs in Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Society, 22(2), 1047ï¿½1065. https://doi.org/10.33736/ijbs.3781.2021. Google Scholar

Khtatbeh, M. M., Mahomed, A. S. B., bin Ab Rahman, S., & Mohamed, R. (2020). The mediating role of procedural justice on the relationship between job analysis and employee performance in Jordan Industrial Estates. Heliyon, 6(10), e04973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04973. Google Scholar

Konovsky, M. A. (2000). Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3), 489ï¿½511. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600306. Google Scholar

Konovsky, M. A., & Cropanzano, R. (1991). Perceived fairness of employee drug testing as a predictor of employee attitudes and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 698ï¿½707. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.5.698. Google Scholar

Lashley, C., & Chaplain, A. (1999). Labour turnover: hidden problemï¿½hidden costs. Hospitality Review, 1(1), 49ï¿½54. Google Scholar

Lee, C., Pillutla, M., & Law, K. S. (2000). Power-distance, gender and organizational justice. Journal of Management, 26(4), 685ï¿½704. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600405. Google Scholar

Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange (pp. 27ï¿½55). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-3087-5_2. Google Scholar

Lynn, M. (2002). Turnoverï¿½s relationships with sales, tips and service across restaurants in a chain. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 21(4), 443ï¿½447. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0278-4319(02)00026-9. Google Scholar

Maamari, B. E., & Messarra, L. C. (2012). An empirical study of the relationship between organizational climate and organizational citizenship behavior. European Journal of Management, 12(3), 165ï¿½174. Google Scholar

Maier, N. R. F. (1965). Psychology in Industry. Cambridge: The Riverside Press. Google Scholar

Memon, M. A., Sallaeh, R., Baharom, M. N. R., Nordin, S. M., & Ting, H. (2017). The relationship between training satisfaction, organisational citizenship behaviour, and turnover intention: A PLS-SEM approach. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 4(3), 267ï¿½290. https://doi.org/10.1108/joepp-03-2017-0025. Google Scholar

Moorman, R. H. (1993). The influence of cognitive and affective based job satisfaction measures on the relationship between satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior. Human Relations, 46(6), 759ï¿½776. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600604. Google Scholar

Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome. Lexington books/DC heath and com. Google Scholar

Organ, D. W., & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta‐analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. Personnel Psychology, 48(4), 775ï¿½802. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x. Google Scholar

Ouakouak, M. L., Arya, B., & Zaitouni, M. (2019). Corporate social responsibility and intention to quit: Mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 69(3), 447ï¿½465. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijppm-02-2019-0087. Google Scholar

Perryer, C., Jordan, C., Firns, I., & Travaglione, A. (2010). Predicting turnover intentions: The interactive effects of organizational commitment and perceived organizational support. Management Research Review, 33(9), 911ï¿½923. https://doi.org/10.1108/01409171011070323. Google Scholar

Price, J. L. (2001). Reflections on the determinants of voluntary turnover. International Journal of Manpower, 22(7), 600ï¿½624. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000006233. Google Scholar

Raja, U., Sheikh, R. A., Abbas, M., & Bouckenooghe, D. (2018). Do procedures really matter when rewards are more important? A Pakistani perspective on the effects of distributive and procedural justice on employee behaviors. European Review of Applied Psychology, 68(2), 79ï¿½88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2018.03.001. Google Scholar

Rashid, A., Gul, F., & Khalid, G. K. (2018). Internal corporate social responsibility and intention to quit: The mediating role of organizational citizenship behavior. NUML International Journal of Business & Management, 13(1), 79ï¿½95. Google Scholar

Rezaiean, A., Givi, M. E., Givi, H. E., & Nasrabadi, M. B. (2010). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: The mediating role of organizational commitment, satisfaction and trust. Research Journal of Business Management, 4(2), 112ï¿½120. Google Scholar

Sahi, G. K., & Mahajan, R. (2014). Employeesï¿½ organisational commitment and its impact on their actual turnover behaviour through behavioural intentions. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 26(4), 621ï¿½646. https://doi.org/10.1108/apjml-01-2014-0015. Google Scholar

Saifi, I. A., & Shahzad, K. (2017). The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behavior. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(1), 126ï¿½146. Google Scholar

Samani, M. A., Ismail, N., Leman, Z., & Zulkifli, N. (2019). Development of a conceptual model for risk-based quality management system. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 30(5ï¿½6), 483ï¿½498. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2017.1310617. Google Scholar

Saraih, U. N., Aris, A. Z. Z., Karim, K. M., Samah, I. H. A., Saï¿½aban, S., & Mutalib, S. A. (2017). Relationships between organizational commitment, OCB, organizational justice and turnover intention: Evidence from educational institution in Malaysia. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research, 6(2), 64. Google Scholar

Selamat, N., Nordin, N., & Fook, C. Y. (2017). Organisational justice and organisational citizenship behaviour: Evidence from a developing country. Global Business and Management Research, 9(1s), 383ï¿½392. Google Scholar

Suifan, T. S., Diab, H., & Abdallah, A. B. (2017). Does organizational justice affect turnover-intention in a developing country? The mediating role of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Journal of Management Development, 36(9), 1137ï¿½1148. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-02-2017-0048. Google Schola r

Supriyanto, A. S. (2013). Role of procedural justice, organizational commitment and job satisfaction on job performance: The mediating effects of organizational citizenship behavior. International Journal of Business and Management, 8(15), 57ï¿½67. Google Scholar

Tourani, S., Khosravizadeh, O., Omrani, A., Sokhanvar, M., Kakemam, E., & Najafi, B. (2016). The relationship between organizational justice and turnover intention of hospital nurses in Iran. Materia Socio-Medica, 28(3), 358ï¿½362. https://doi.org/10.5455/msm.2016.28.205-209. Google Scholar

Tracey, J. B., & Hinkin, T. R. (2006). The costs of employee turnover: When the devil is in the details. New York: Cornell University, School of Hotel Administration, The Center For Hospitality Research. Google Scholar

Yang, T., Jin, X., Shi, H., Liu, Y., Guo, Y., Gao, Y., & Deng, J. (2021). Occupational stress, distributive justice and turnover intention among public hospital nurses in China: A cross-sectional study. Applied Nursing Research, 61, 151481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnr.2021.151481. Google Scholar

Zeinabadi, H., & Salehi, K. (2011). Role of procedural justice, trust, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment in Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) of teachers: Proposing a modified social exchange model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 29, 1472ï¿½1481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.387. Google Scholar

Zhao, H. A. O., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work‐related outcomes: a meta‐analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60(3), 647ï¿½680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00087.x. Google Scholar

Jurnal Syntax Transformation	Vol. 3 No. 11 November 2022
p-ISSN : 2722-7782 e-ISSN : 2722-5356	Social Science

Answer	Score
Strongly Agree (SA)	6
Agree (A)	5
Simply Agree (SiA)	4
Disagree (D)	3
Disagree (D)	2
Strongly Disagree (SD)	1

Category	Frequency	Percentage
Man	46	77,96%
Woman	13	22,04%
Total	59	100%

Category	Frequency	Percentage
21-30 years old	12	20,34%
31-40 years old	21	35,59%
41-55 years old	26	44,07%
Total	59	100%

Category	Frequency	Percentage
Senior High School	5	8,48%
Diploma/Bachelor	29	49,15%
Bachelor degree)	25	42,37%
Total	59	100%

Characteristics	Dominant Characteristics	Frequency	Percentage
Gender	Man	46 people	77,96%
Age	41-55 years old	26 people	44,07%
last education	Diploma/Bachelor	29 people	49,15%
Length of work	> 10 years	42 people	71,19%

Interval	Category
1,00 ï¿½ 1,82	Very low
1,83 ï¿½ 2,65	Low
2,66 ï¿½ 3,48	Not high enough
3,49 ï¿½ 4,31	Currently
4,32 ï¿½ 5,14	Tall
5,15 ï¿½ 6,00	Very high

Kode	Statement	Mean	Information
Y1	I often think about quitting my job at PT Kayaba Indonesia	2,85	Not high enough
Y2	If possible, I would like to get a new job	3,20	Not high enough
Y3	Most likely I will look for a job outside of PT Kayaba Indonesia next year	2,25	Low

Code	Variable	Mean	Information
X1	Distributive Justice	4.58	High
X2	Procedural Justice	4.82	High
X3	Interactional Justice	4.73	High
Y	Desire to Change Jobs	2.77	Not high enough
Z	Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)	4.74	High

Variable	Kode	Loading Factor
Distributive Justice	X11	0,939
	X12	0,889
	X13	0,951
	X14	0,893
	X15	0,927
Procedural Justice	X21	0,814
	X22	0,821
	X25	0,753
Interactional Justice	X33	0,810
	X36	0,901
	X38	0,921
	X39	0,958
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)	Y5	0,780
	Y9	0,778
	Y10	0,829
Desire to Change Jobs	Z1	0,831
	Z2	0,818
	Z3	0,884

Variabel	AVE
Distributive Justice	0,846
Procedural Justice	0,634
Interractional Justice	0,808
Turnover Intention	0,714
Organizational Citizenship Behavior	0,634

	Distributive Justice	Procedural Justice	Interactional Justice	OCB	Desire to Change Jobs
Distributive Justice	0.920
Procedural Justice	0.205	0.797
Interactional Justice	0.653	0.523	0.899
OCB	-0.193	-0.411	-0.020	0.845
Desire to Change Jobs	0.771	0.372	0.608	-0.465	0.796

Variable	Cronbachï¿½s Alpha	Rho-A	Composite Reliability	Average Variance Extracted (AVE
Distributive Justice	0.954	0.955	0.965	0.846
Procedural Justice	0.741	0.788	0.839	0.634
Interactional Justice	0.920	0.929	0.944	0.808
OCB	0.802	0.815	0.882	0.714
Desire to Change Jobs	0.711	0.709	0.838	0.634

	R Square	Adjusted R Square
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)	0.643	0.623
Desire to Change Jobs	0.507	0.47

	Original Sample	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics (\|O/STDEV\|)	P Values
Distributive Justice -> Willingness to Change Jobs	0.014	0.038	0.221	0.063	0.950
Distributive Justice -> OCB	0.701	0.682	0.118	5.930	0.000
Procedural Justice -> Willingness to Change Jobs	-0.497	-0.353	0.288	1.725	0.085
Procedural Justice -> OCB	0.206	0.240	0.110	1.871	0.062
Interactional Justice -> Willingness to Change Jobs	0.646	0.504	0.244	2.646	0.008
Interactional Justice -> OCB	0.042	0.010	0.158	0.266	0.790
OCB -> Desire to Change Jobs	-0.648	-0.712	0.230	2.979	0.003

Code	Statement	Mean	Information
X21	My boss is neutral in decision making	4.74	High
X22	My boss listens to other people's opinions before making a decision	4.74	High
X23	My supervisor collects appropriate information related to the topic for decision making	5.12	High
X24	My supervisor provides me with additional information when needed	5.12	High
X25	My boss applies decisions to all employees consistently	4.81	High
X26	I have the right to refuse or accept the decision	4.39	High

Hypothesis		Information
H1	There is a negative effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs	REJECTED
H2	There is a negative effect of procedural justice on the desire to change jobs	ACCEPTED
H3	There is a negative effect of interactional justice on the desire to change jobs	REJECTED
H4	There is a positive influence of distributive justice on OCB	ACCEPTED
H5	There is a positive effect of procedural justice on OCB	ACCEPTED
H6	There is a positive effect of interactional justice on OCB	REJECTED
H7	There is a negative effect of OCB on the desire to change jobs	ACCEPTED
H8	OCB can mediate the effect of distributive justice on the desire to change jobs	REJECTED
H9	OCB can mediate the effect of procedural justice on the desire to change jobs	REJECTED
H10	OCB can mediate the effect of interactional justice on the desire to change jobs	REJECTED