The labor aspects can be addressed by segmenting between the core and non-core activity of an organization (Sallaberry et al., 2021). The non-core activity, or administrative activity, is that of operational management to support core activities (Vieira & Vieira, 2003). Santos (2016) highlights that the core activity can be a more bureaucratic or secondary position, as well as the non-core activity, and the top of the administration. The non-core activities are those linked to the administration, in the strict sense, of organizations, while the core activities are the technical activities of organizations (Santos, 2016). Although related to some social functions of public organizations, the secondary and main activities can play different roles, depending on the context. For example, doctors and teachers who carry out the core activity of hospitals and schools, respectively, can act in the non-core activity of a police organization, supporting the health and training of their troops.

The non-core activity is understood as a set of processes and routines for the organization’s maintenance and supply, ensuring the necessary means so that the core activity can be fully carried out (Sallaberry et al., 2021). These activities can be indicated as people management activities, protocols, maintenance of facilities, contracting, and contract management, among others (Balbino & Barbosa, 2018). The positions of servants in the core activity of justice had higher turnover rates than in administrative activities (Sallaberry et al., 2021; Santos, 2016).

In the context of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the core activity is related to the advisory activity, analyzing evidence, researching legislation and jurisprudence, and writing statements, complaints, accusations, and petitions for different purposes in the course of the judicial or extrajudicial process, within the scope of functional exercise (Balbino & Barbosa, 2018; Sallaberry et al., 2021). It is important to highlight that it is not related to a training course or the position held, but to the allocation and performance of specific assignments. Such legal activities described here were qualified for the organization to which the function of defending the legal order, the democratic regime, social and individual interests unavailable in the Brazilian jurisdictional system is constitutionally attributed.

Organizational knowledge is focused on the core activity, overriding managerial knowledge (Fernandes et al., 2007). Vieira and Vieira (2003) highlight the growth of support activities due to structural complexity, undermining the budget of the core activity, denoting bureaucratic inclination due to formal rationality, based on institutionalized rules. The Public Prosecutor’s Office has technicians and analysts, with salary differences, in addition to freely appointed positions - on a commission - who exercises supervision and management with different remuneration - the greater this difference, the closer it is to the organization of the bureaucratic model (Fernandes et al., 2007).

In the justice organizations, there is a difference between the tenure position for stable servers, whose remuneration corresponds to the position disputed in the competition, with their training and attributions, while the supervisory and management positions are distributed at the manager’s discretion, among stable or commissioned servants (of free appointment and dismissal). However, the discussion of the typology of positions should not be restricted to the remuneration structure, being criticized for unfairly leveling differences in quality and performance (Vieira & Vieira, 2003).

Concerning activities, specifically within the scope of the Public Ministry, they can be categorized into purposes of the jurisdictional body (core activity); administrative or non-core activity; and specialized resulting from professional training (Sallaberry et al., 2021). These activities are configured from the performance of different tasks and that can allow the server different perceptions of organizational fairness present in the environment.

The performance of an individual within the scope of their work is related to the achievement of previously planned goals and depends on some factors, such as: (i) individual (motivation towards the objective); (ii) task (knowing how to do it and having the knowledge to do so, that is, a cognitive condition); (iii) context (support of the environment to perform the task) (Coelho Jr. & Borges-Andrade, 2011; Souza, 2016). Furthermore, performance is related to the quality and quantity of work, the resources spent to carry it out (Souza, 2016), and how the organizational environment in which it is provided is perceived. One of the aspects that affect this perception is organizational justice.

Organizational fairness is a representation of the professional environment and has received attention in the field of organizational behavior, with its importance validated in the literature (Abbas & Wu, 2021). It contemplates a set of perceptions about justice in the individual’s relationships with the organization and its members, that is, it contemplates individuals’ perception of the degree of justice with which they are treated by organizational authorities (Akram et al., 2020). It is usually approached in three dimensions: i) distributive; ii) procedural; and iii) interactional (Karkoulian et al., 2016).

Distributive justice is that related to results or purposes (such as wages, rewards, promotions, profits distributed to workers, and classification obtained in the performance evaluation, among other aspects) (Klein & Colauto, 2020). This approach claims that individuals tend to assess the proportionality between results and the effort required to achieve them, comparing their results with those of others. If the assessment is that there is an equal proportion, there will be feelings of satisfaction and fairness, which will increase satisfaction with the organization and with the work, as well as their intention to remain in the organization. Otherwise, if inequality is perceived, it will lead to negative feelings such as guilt or anger, dissatisfaction with remuneration and promotion, and consequently lower performance (Colquitt et al., 2001; Langevin & Mendoza, 2013).

Procedural justice analyzes the equity between the procedures used in the processes of personnel selection, performance evaluation, decision on employee requests, including regarding remuneration and promotion (Klein & Colauto, 2020). In short, it is related to decision-making processes, that is, to the organizational instruments by which objectives are achieved. In this understanding, Assmar et al. (2005) emphasize the importance of this dimension by pointing out that a situation can be fair if decision procedures are fair, regardless of the results. This procedural fairness in the decision-making process represents how subordinates perceive their superiors when evaluating them (McFarlin & Sweeny, 1992). Procedural justice has a positive relationship with the perception of belonging and participation, although with possible indirect effects on the individual’s performance (Lau & Tan, 2006; Mazzioni et al., 2015; Rengel et al., 2020).

Interactional justice is based on the quality of interpersonal treatment in the organization, or on how management behaves towards the beneficiary of justice (Assmar et al., 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001). It can be observed from two perspectives: (i) interpersonal treatment or the level of equity perceived in the way individuals are treated in the organization; and (ii) focuses on the degree to which the superior provides information and explains/justifies decisions that affect people (Rego, 2002). In synthesis, interactional justice focuses on the interpersonal aspect of organizational practices, such as interpersonal treatment and communication between bosses and subordinates (Klein & Colauto, 2020), and the more positively perceived, the greater tends to be the server’s performance.

In short, distributive justice is associated with individuals’ perception of the results they receive, whereas interactional justice focuses on individuals’ perception about to the communication and interpersonal treatment they obtain from the organization (Akram et al., 2020), and procedural justice is the employees’ reaction to procedural justice. Thus, the directional hypothesis is formulated relating distributive, procedural, and interactional justice to the server’s performance:

Hypothesis 1:Perceptions of (a) distributive, (b) procedural, and (c) interactional justice are positively related to server performance.

Based on the characteristics of each dimension of justice, it is believed that certain aspects can more impactfully affect individual-level variables such as performance. This conjecture is in line with what was suggested by Masterson et al. (2000) that each dimension of justice affects specific organizational outcomes. In this understanding, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 2:Distributive justice is more strongly related to server performance than the other dimensions of organizational fairness and organizational fairness.

The promotion of organizational fairness can have a direct and positive effect on the performance and sustainability of an organization (Karkoulian et al., 2016). In this way, the perceptions of collaborators about organizational fairness can promote desired results, such as increased confidence, organizational citizenship behaviors, organizational commitment, and higher performance (Colquitt et al., 2001). Therefore, it is about not only demanding organizational fairness from officials but also sustaining it throughout the organization (Karkoulian et al., 2016).

The fair treatment of employees/servants is important for organizations as it encourages them to innovate in products, services, and procedures, and is more likely to have positive attitudes and better performance (Matteson et al., 2021). This fair treatment must be equal to everyone, regardless of the type of activity performed (core or non-core) or position held (technician or analyst) (Jang et al., 2021). However, it is believed that the performance of different activities or positions in the same institution results in different perceptions of organizational fairness. In this direction, the third and fourth research hypotheses are presented:

Hypothesis 3:The dimensions of justice (a) distributive, (b) procedural and (c) interactional have different effects on server performance for different types of activity.

Hypothesis 4:The dimensions of justice (a) distributive, (b) procedural and (c) interactional have different effects on the performance of the civil servant for different types of positions.

Based on the literature described in this reference chapter and on the proposed hypotheses, Figure 1 shows the theoretical model of this research.

Figure 1
Conceptual Model of Research

Following the theoretical model and the proposed hypotheses, it is conjectured that the dimensions of organizational fairness positively influence the servant’s performance concerning their tasks. It is proposed that the effects of these relationships are different according to the activities performed and the position held by the server.

The sample consists of 474 public servants of the Federal Public Ministry, from a group of 4,000 employees selected at random. To validate the sample size, the total effect of the three predictor variables (distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactional justice) on the dependent variable (performance) was considered, with the sufficient sample size being previously calculated, using the G*Power software, with a median effect of 0.15 (F2) and a test power of 95 percent, corresponding to a significance level of 5 percent (F test, LMR, SD 0, a priori), which required a minimum sample of more than 119 valid responses (Cohen, 1988; Faul et al., 2009; Hair et al., 2016).

The collection instrument (Table 1) was made available on a virtual platform, with a link sent by email and answered between February 8 and April 15, 2021. The performance and justice variables come from items validated in the international literature, being the object of back-translation procedures to the local language (Brislin, 1970) and pre-test for external validation. The statements were arranged on a five-point Likert scale (with 1 to ‘Totally Disagree’ until 5 to ‘Totally Agree’). The instrument also supported control variables, such as gender, position, age, and time in the organization.

Table 1
Research Instrument

To minimize the bias of the common method (CMB), ethical principles of validity were adopted, such as guaranteeing anonymity, a clear and detailed layout of the constructs and their items, and different weightings of scales to the control variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003).

From the sample of 474 servers, 131 are analysts and 303 technicians, in different activities, with 228 identifying themselves in the exercise of the core activity and 205 in the non-core activity. In each model, 40 server’s commissioners without a stable contract and 41 servers specialized in other thematic activities, self-assessed as “neither core, nor non-core”, were disregarded, as shown in Table 2.

Table 2
Respondent Data

Among the respondents, 51.48 percent are female, and the majority (58.44%) have a postgraduate degree. On average, the experience of respondents in the organization is 12 years and their average age is 43 years. This time working in the Public Ministry is sufficient to ensure that civil servants understand the organizational fairness structure, supporting minimal biases in their responses to the questionnaire.

Data analysis was performed using the technique of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) of Partial Least Squares (PLS). For this, the measurement of the model was evaluated, estimating the convergent validity, the Variance Extracted (AVE), the Composite Reliability, and Cronbach’s Alpha, which presented adequate coefficients (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).

The discriminant validity showed satisfactory indicators in the Fornell-Larcker matrix, as Table 3, with the highest load directed to the corresponding variables, however, the evaluation of cross loads revealed high contributing indicator for more than one variable and others with insufficient loads. Thus, of the 21 indicators of the research instrument (Table 1), only one indicator of the procedural justice variable (PJ5) is excluded.

Table 3
Model Validities

The AVE loads were statistically significant, that is, with values equal or greater than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The Composite Reliability indicator met the borderline values considered adequate, as well as Cronbach’s Alpha. These coefficients signal that the sample is theoretically free of bias and that the data collection instrument used is reliable (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). Furthermore, R2 demonstrates that the model explains 28 percent of the individual’s performance in the tasks performed.

The analysis of the structural model makes it possible to statistically validate the relationships between the constructs and the connections built according to the structure of a path diagram (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). In this evaluation, the criteria of (i) the size and significance of the path coefficients are analyzed; (ii) Pearson’s coefficients of determination (R²) using the Bootstrapping technique; (iii) the Predictive Relevance (Q²) on the blindfolding platform; and the (iv) effect sizes (F²) (Hair Jr. et al., 2016). The VIF ranged from 1.57 to 2.13, lower than the limit of 5 (Hair Jr. et al., 2016), indicating that there is no problem of multicollinearity.

In bootstrapping, subsamples are created with observations taken randomly from the original dataset (with substitution) and then used to estimate the PLS path model. In this case, 5,000 different subsamples were generated, as recommended by Hair Jr et al. (2016), whose results are shown in Table 4.

Table 4
Results of the Relationships Between the Variables

Note: p-value *** <0.01; ** <0.05; * <0.10

The F² indicator assesses whether there is a substantial impact on the dependent construct when an independent construct is omitted, and considering the F² values suggested by Hair Jr. et al. (2016), there is a small effect of the model. The Q² criterion shows how close the empirical model is to its expected prediction, when greater than zero, while a perfect model would be an indicator equal to 1. The Stone-Geisser Q² (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974) is obtained through the procedure blindfolding, which is a sample reuse technique, excluding data points and providing prediction of the original values (Ringle et al., 2015), which was validated in the research for being greater than zero.

Table 4 also reveals the path coefficients, with the research hypotheses tested using t Student test. It is observed that the values of the path coefficients (p-value) are significant at the 1 percent level.

The analysis process required the identification of multigroup relationships (MGA), in which there is an a priori variable to define the comparable groups (Bido & Silva, 2019), whose results are shown in Table 4. This evaluation seeks to: (i) show that the measurement model is invariant (or equivalent) between groups, in the sense that the same construct is measured equally in different groups (Millsap, 2011); (ii) assess whether the relationships between the constructs vary depending on the group (Hair Jr. et al, 2016).

The results obtained partially corroborate the hypotheses proposed in the direction of the research. From the set of organizational fairness dimensions, only distributive justice and interactional justice were significant concerning task performance, that is, for a better performance of the individual, he internalizes the perception of the distribution of benefits and the esteem of interactions in organizations.

In the development of the first hypothesis, the indication that distributive justice influences task performance was statistically corroborated (H1a: β=0.162; p.<0.001). These findings reveal a positive relationship, similar to Klein and Colauto (2020), that is, better rewards (remuneration, benefits, and aids) reflect higher performance. This denotes a sense of equality, satisfaction, and justice, which in the opposite direction is also valid, with a lower sense of justice, there is less satisfaction and belonging and, therefore, lower performance (Colquitt et al., 2001; Langevin & Mendoza, 2013).

The hypothesis that interactional justice influences task performance was statistically supported (H1b: β=0.11; p.=0.044). Thus, in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, there is an association between the perception of interpersonal treatment among the members or received from the superiors with the tasks as suggested by the theory (Assmar et al., 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001; Rego, 2002). This positive relationship denotes that the better and more positive the treatment relationship between its members, the greater and better the performance of their tasks will be (Klein & Colauto, 2020).

The relationship between procedural fairness and task performance was shown to have no statistical significance (H1c: β=0.071; p.<0.144). Therefore, the perception of equity in the procedures used in the selection, evaluation, and decision processes (focus on the process) (Klein & Colauto, 2020), showed no association with the performance of servers. This dispersion in relationships may be related to the fact that some civil servants work closer to decision-making levels, while others work in distant structures in the administrative chain, denoting the possibility that they are dependent on intermediate, moderating, and mediating conditions, following the indication of Lau and Tan (2006).

The second hypothesis was confirmed, revealing that distributive justice is more strongly related to the performance of the server’s task than the other perceptions of organizational fairness (H2: β=0.162; p.<0.001). In addition to supporting findings from previous studies (Masterson et al., 2000), it highlights the utilitarian aspect, as the distribution of benefits is the main element of organizational fairness to motivate the individual.

Sectioning the activity performed, the third hypothesis finds that the proposition of the relationship between distributive justice and performance is valid only in the exercise of the core activity (H3a: non-core β=0.049; p.<0.278 | core β=0.245; p.<0.001). These relationships indicate greater sensitivity of the servants in the jurisdictional area to the allocation of remuneration benefits, and this appetite for positions with a greater number of benefits makes the group with the highest rate of turnover (Sallaberry et al., 2021).

In contrast, the association of interactional justice with task performance was significant only in the non-core activity (H3b: non-core β=0.225; p.<0.001 | core β=0.123; p.<0.101). This evidence denotes appreciation, mainly, of the relationships between individuals, their colleagues, and bosses, for a more community and efficient environment, which escapes the bureaucratic stereotype traditionally attributed to this group (Vieira & Vieira, 2003).

The stratification of the analysis between procedural fairness and task performance, as in H1c, did not reveal a statistically significant association (H3c: non-core β=0.07; p.<0.217 | core β=0.042; p.<0.339). This reinforces a relative perception of procedural equality about the decision-making process, even though other sample cuts or mediating and moderating factors can affect different perceptions of procedural justice in the organization.

Professionals in support or non-core activities perceive the quality of interpersonal treatment and this contributes to the performance of their tasks, while servants in the judicial area conceive the justice of the results achieved, affecting their performance. This may be due to the idiosyncrasies of the core activity, which instructs processes for judgment, that is, the performance of servers is even more essential for the organization to achieve its purposes.

The separation between groups guided the fourth hypothesis, through the job typology variable (analysts and technicians). The distributive justice and performance showed a relationship only between technicians (H4a: analyst β=0.079; p.<0.235 | technician β=0.104; p.<0.072). This can be explained by the remuneration distinctions between the positions, for example, both in the legal area and in the administrative area, the technician is located at the base of the remuneration structure of the organization, and seems to be more sensitive to the perception of distributive justice than the analysts’ servers.

Between interactional fairness and inverted task performance in position typologies, significantly only for analysts (H4b: analyst β= 0.348; p.<0.001 | β=0.088; p.<0.138). These findings reflect the internal management connections of the organization (Fernandes et al., 2007), reinforcing the evidence of the importance of the non-core activity (H3b), even though management posts are allocated (distributively) to members of any type of position, in principle, based on efficiency and meritocracy.

The distinction of job typology proves to be relevant to explain the relationship between perceptions of procedural justice and task performance, rejected to hypothesis from the general group (H1c) and for the different activity groups (H3c). The influence of procedural justice denotes consistency to elucidate the performance of the task in the group of servants who occupy technical positions (H4c: analyst β=0.004; p.<0.489 | technician β=0.14; p.<0.042), characterizing the importance attributed to the evaluation and decision processes (Klein & Colauto, 2020). The different perceptions of civil servants contribute to the bodies being able to motivate their employees through the promotion of organizational fairness in a broad way and with reinforcement for the different segments. Therefore, fair treatment elevates perceptions of fairness, acceptance of decisions and elicits positive reactions from employees.

The results allow us to understand that, in the employees’ perception, the fair distribution of financial rewards and other work-related rewards, as well as the equity in the communication of decisions in the organization, contribute to the good development of their activities. On the other hand, the fairness of the procedures used in organizational decision-making is not very relevant as organizational support for the performance of duties, except for technicians.

Therefore, it would be necessary to develop strategies that raise the perception of justice regarding the procedures adopted for the distribution of tasks and decisions. One possibility is to explain more frequently to servants the criteria used in appointments and mechanisms they can use when they judge unfair decisions, including performance and operational evaluations and goal setting.

Other management strategies can be adopted to improve perceptions of justice, given that remuneration is derived from legislation that governs the structure of positions and remuneration in the organization, as well as the existence of segregation of administrative activities, and the complexities of the functions of analysts and technicians. These actions may involve compensatory compensation through gratified functions for its members, training for knowledge development, and management of the quality of interpersonal relationships, among others, seeking to encourage the use of prior communications by superiors concerning rewards, decision-making, and providing feedback.

The effort to develop such procedures will make employees feel confident and valued at work. This will promote the employees’ self-esteem in the workplace and a sense of belonging to the organization which will provide an increase in the performance of their activities. This better performance of the server reflects the improvement of the organization’s performance and, consequently, of the provision of jurisdictional public service to society, which is why it should not be treated as a problem of the server’s quality of life, but as a strategic instrument of public policy.

About the theoretical implications, it contributes to the literature by emphasizing the relations of organizational fairness and task performance with public servants in the judicial field and allowing the discussion in new contexts. In addition, it generates reflections about the perceptions of the servers on the theoretical variables. While the confirmed hypotheses follow the theoretical proposition of seminal and empirical studies, the rejection of the proposed relationships denotes contexts and potential variables that sterilize such relationships, that is, situations that invalidate the traditional theoretical proposition and can give rise to new variables for the literature, as is the case of the typologies of activities (core and non-core) and positions (analyst and technician), in addition to revealing specificities of the field of administration of justice.

In the development of this research, some limitations were identified. One of them concerns the focus given to public servants in a single organization, which in a way makes it impossible to generalize the results to other contexts, thus requiring parsimony in inferences. Another limitation concerns the fact that the data were collected through a closed questionnaire and treated quantitatively, requiring potential qualitative triangulations, such as interviews, for greater depth in the interpretations.

Based on the proposed model, the results obtained and the limitations evidenced, some possibilities for future studies are observed. First, it is recommended to address other factors of justice, such as social justice. A second possibility is to consider the potential relationships between organizational fairness and other variables related to the server’s work, such as effectiveness and/or tasks, satisfaction, commitment, organizational identification, and engagement. In this direction, it is suggested to carry out studies with servants of other public organizations and State structures. Another factor is that although demographic factors were collected, not all had their effects tested. A mixed method approach, analyzing quantitative and qualitative data would also provide a greater depth of understanding of the research field.