TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP, PROCEDURAL JUSTICE, AND EMOTION OF INDONESIA CIVIL STATE APPARATUS: DOES

This study aims to uncover the effect of transformational leadership toward procedural justice and its impact on the positive emotions of the Indonesia Civil State Apparatus (CSA). This study involved respondents which are in Jakarta, Makassar, Palu, and Ambon. As far as we know, the perceptions of transformational leadership and procedural justice in the government environment can be variably different by each employee. Thus, this will tend to affect positive emotions. To prevent the bias response, the Social Desirability Response (SDR) test was conducted. The sample size in this study was 572 respondents. A purposive sampling technique was used to gain respondents. This study gave a piece of evidence that transformational leadership in government agencies could explain and predict procedural justice which is perceived by CSA. Subsequently, procedural justice could affect CSA positive emotions. This study proved that transformational leadership could explain and predict organizational citizenship behavior.


INTRODUCTION
The number showed that civil state apparatus in government organizations tend to experience unfair treatment and dissatisfaction with the leader. Based on the results of our initial interview and research conducted by Strom et al. (2014), Wu et al.(2017), and Budiyanti et al. (2018), when subordinate is not allowed to develop competency as a state civil apparatus, they will feel dissatisfied. Moreover, one example regarding the form of injustice is complaining of civil state apparatus regarding the issuance of regulations on cutting performance benefits when they do not come to work even because of illness.
Overall, based on the preliminary observations, it can be presumed that leadership style has a significant effect on organizational citizenship behavior. As argued by Organ (1990) and Podsakoff et al. (2000) that organizational citizenship behavior, as an example: serious, helpful, and responsible; do the assignment beyond the leader's expectations; involved in any extra activities in the organization, and improving aspects of the work even though it is not obligatory. According to this case, good leadership will affect motivation, commitment, subordinate's involvement, job satisfaction, and subordinate's trust toward the leader. Thus, good and appropriate leadership behavior will predict subordinates' positive perceptions regarding organizational justice (Cropanzano et al., 2002;Susanj and Jakopec, 2012).
As one of leadership style, Transformational behavior is important in a government agency, because the organization operate in high risk-averse work environments where mistakes can inflict unintended harm on the most vulnerable populations, which can result in career-ending outcomes (Van Wart, 2003). According to it, for helping executives to manage organizational and personal risks, they often release their span of control and empower their subordinates to make decisions (Van Wart, 2003). While this leadership strategy could be considered transformational, an unintended consequence is a noticeable loss of managerial accountability (McCracken et al., 2012;Srithongrung, 2011). Wright and Pandey (2010) argued when leaders actively empower their subordinates, it raises concerns in the executive ranks that inappropriate decision-making will occur due to failure, accountability, and job loss. This often cause subordinates to feel procedural unfairness which has an impact on their emotions (Trottier et al., 2008;Wright and Pandey, 2010). Therefore, transformational leadership and procedural justice play an important role in forming positive emotions for civil state apparatus who work in government organizations (Trottier et al., 2008;Wright and Pandey, 2010).
According to the results of the initial interview, organizational injustice perceived by the civil state apparatus will affect negative emotions (Barclay et al., 2005;Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009). Negative emotions, such as anger, shame, hostility, and retaliation, would be formed because of injustice perception (Barclay et al., 2005;Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009). This phenomenon is in line with research which is conducted by Morris and Keltner (2000) and Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). They argued that organizational justice could affect employee emotions, such as delight, angry, and sadness.
The gap of this research is based on research conducted by several researchers such as Susanj and Jakopec (2012), Gillet et al. (2013), and Deschamps et al. (2016). They argued that there is a close relationship between leadership and organizational justice. However, there is a lack of research that linked organizational justice and leadership (Armagan and Erzen, 2015). According to Bass (1995), leadership effectiveness, satisfaction, innovation, quality improvement, performance evaluation both subjectively and objectively and organizational justice could be affected by transformational behavior.
The next gap is regarding emotion as an affection variable. Even though emotions are always discussed in justice theories, there is a still lack of research on organizational justice that accounts for emotions (e.g., Devonish et al., 2012;Barclay and Saldanha, 2015). Likewise, Fambrough and Hart (2008) and Rupp et al (2014) argued, mediating or moderating variables should be stated in the relationship between leadership and emotions. As an example, leader-member exchange and organizational justice. In line with Fambrough and Hart (2008) and Rupp et al (2014), Strom et al. (2014) stated that the formation of employee emotions can be caused by leader characteristics or perceptions of fairness in organizations. Thus, there is a significant correlation between justice and emotions. In line with them, Weiss et al. (1999) argued, emotions could be understood as a special form of the organizational justice evaluation process.
This research concern transformational leadership and procedural justice. The main reason for this is because the civil state apparatus always concerns with transformational leadership which is considered as a capable leadership in providing a sense of justice related to systems and procedures for implementing operational activities in government organizations (Trottier et al., 2008;Wright and Pandey, 2010). As argued by Trottier et al (2008) and Wright and Pandey (2010), further research is needed on transformational leadership and procedural justice that can form positive emotions for civil state apparatus who work in government organizations. Therefore, the objective of this study is to uncover the effect of transformational leadership toward procedural justice and its subsequent impact on positive emotions of Indonesia civil state apparatus.

AMBR LITERATURE STUDY Transformational Leadership
A transformational leader is someone whose competencies motivate his/her members and pursue the goals of the organization (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Driving subordinates as individuals and teams to work beyond the status quo, and have a clear vision to make various changes in organizational culture is transformational leader characteristics (Northouse, 2016). Transformational leadership is an activity to influence people so that they like to try to achieve group goals. According to Bass and Riggio (2006), transformational leadership is the activity to affect people for working together to achieve their goals.
Furthermore, also, they define that leadership as a form of domination based on personal abilities that can encourage or invite others to do something, based on acceptance by the group and have special skills that are appropriate for special situations.
According to Bass and Avolio (1993), transformational as a leader has the power to affect subordinates in certain ways. Through transformational leadership, subordinates will feel trusted, valued, loyal and respectful to their leaders. Thus, transformational leadership is a leadership style used by a manager when he wants a group to expand and perform beyond the status quo or achieve an entirely new set of organizational goals. Transformational leadership in principle motivates subordinates to do better than what can be done, in other words, it can increase the confidence or self-confidence of subordinates which will affect performance improvement (Yukl, 2013). Idealized influence, Individualized consideration, Inspirational motivation, and Intellectual stimulation are the dimensions of transformational leadership (Yukl, 2013). Cropanzano et al. (2007; and Cropanzano and Stein (2009) argued procedural justice is related to the perception of fairness of the procedures used for and the process to arrive at a decision. Fair procedures and processes also tend to moderate the impact of negative reactions arising from decisions that result in undesirable outcomes for workers (Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009). The effect of procedural justice is also known as the effect of a fair process (fair process effect) because the perception of the fairness of the process can have an effect in increasing the acceptance of outcomes even when the outcome has undesirable implications (Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009). The factors that are taken into consideration in a person's assessment of the fairness of a particular process or procedure are grouped twofold, namely: structural and social factors. Procedural justice, namely the fairness of the procedures used to determine the outcomes received by workers is a structural aspect of justice (Barclay and Skarlicki, 2009).

Emotion
Emotions are defined as reactions to certain situations by the body . Things that are usually related to a person's (cognitive) thinking activity, namely the nature and intensity of emotions, are due to the result of the perception of the situation .
Emotion is one aspect that has a major influence on human attitudes. This is accompanied by two other aspects, namely the power of thought (cognitive) and psychomotor (conative), usually, emotions are often known as affective aspects, this is from the attitudes determination, which is one of the predispositions of human behavior .

The Effect of Transformational Leadership on Procedural Justice
Empower subordinates, giving individual consideration to subordinates and supporting their ideas are the main characteristics of transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1993). Pillai et al (1999) in their research argued that the outcome of organizational decisions could be affected by subordinates' interests because of a transformational leader.
Furthermore, transformational leaders could motivate subordinates to engage in fair exchange relations between them in an organization (Pillai et al., 1999). Therefore, from this point of view, it forms procedural justice. In other words, subordinates have an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process (Pillai et al., 1999).
Moreover, Selznick in his research argued employee agreement regarding psychological contracts is affected by managerial authority (Folger and Bies, 1989). Thus, subordinates are coincident that their activities are managed by the management (Folger and Bies, 1989). In line with Folger and Bies (1989), Song et al. (2012) and Kim and Kim (2015) argued that allocating process of organizational resources to improve employee skills development comes from or is affected by transformational leadership. Thus, the point is, procedural fairness could be formed by implementing decision-making as managerial responsibility and empower subordinates to participate (Pillai et al., 1999). H1: Transformational leadership affect procedural justice perception of Indonesia Civil State Apparatus.
n This study is based on the model developed by Mehrabian and Russell (1974) (see: Namkung and Jang, 2010). They argued that environmental stimuli will affect individual emotions which in turn will affect their response in the form of approach or avoidance (Namkung and Jang, 2010). According to it, Bagozzi (1986) states that stimuli are external to people and consist of various physical elements (Namkung and Jang, 2010). Furthermore, organism refers to internal structures and processes that will subsequently intervene in the relationship between external stimuli in people and displayed behavior or responses (Bagozzi, 1986) (see: Namkung and Jang, 2010). This suggests that the impact of a stimulus on human behavior is mediated by emotion. (Namkung and Jang, 2010).
Subordinates would perceive emotions when they are rewarded for his/her job performance, receives a promotion, or receives gratitude from a colleague. Thus, an emotional experience is one of the organizational justice consequences (Cohen-Charash and Spector, 2001;Barclay et al., 2005;Cassar and Buttigieg, 2015). Other studies conducted by Ledimo (2015) and Budiyanti et al. (2018) argued individual emotions could be predicted by procedural justice. Furthermore, the relationship between perceived organizational justice and actions to take revenge could be mediated by employee emotions (Cassar and Buttigieg, 2015). Cassar and Buttigieg (2015) argued that psychological contracts breach mediate the relationship of organizational justice and emotions. Dzansi (2016) shows that perceived organizational justice affects the quality of services provided by employees. In line with him, Moon (2017) argued that procedural justice could affect positive emotions. Thus, the second hypothesis in this study is: H2: Procedural justice affects positive emotions perception of Indonesia civil state apparatus.
Thus, based on the main objective of this study, the theoretical models proposed in this study are as follow:

Transformational
Leadership Procedural Justice Positive Emotion

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
A questionnaire was developed as a tool for gaining information through survey methods. The questionnaire was developed based on the results from initial interviews which included 100 key respondents. After compiling the questionnaire, content validity (face validity), social desirability response test, and construct validity (convergence and discriminant validity) were conducted. Furthermore, after the validity results were obtained such as our expectations, we conduct the measurement to uncover the effect of transformational leadership toward procedural justice which subsequently affects positive emotions.

Management
Measurement indicators were developed based on previous studies. Those are conducted by Bass and Riggio (2006) and Yukl (2013) for transformational leadership. As a formative construct, transformational leadership consists of four dimensions, namely, Idealized influence (example: "the interests of the organization are considered as important by a leader"); Intellectual stimulation (exp: "subordinates are always encouraged by leader to solve work problems rationally"); Individualized consideration (exp: "Self-development of subordinates is always improved by a leader"), and Inspirational motivation (exp: "optimistic in performing duties and responsibilities is our leader characteristics").
Furthermore, operational definitions of procedural justice is an example: The rules procedure in our organization are always consistent (Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001); Colquitt et al. (2001)), and the last construct is positive emotions (Morris and Keltner (2000) which operational definition is an example: "the leader treat its staff nicely". Likert scales were used as measurement scales ranging from 1 to 7. 1 = Strongly Disagree and 7 = Strongly Agree.

Instruments Testing
Content validity (face validity), convergence validity, and discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2010) were also conducted to confirmed measurement indicators validity. Social Desirability Response (SDR) test was also conducted in this study to convince that respondents fill the questionnaire naturally. In the next step, we conduct construct reliability testing which aims to investigate the consistency of the measurement indicators.  Chin et al. (1995) that the minimum sample size in research when using variance-based SEM is 5 (five) to 10 (ten) times the number of indicators or 10 times the number of parameters which are contained in the research model. Based on our model, there are four parameters. The meaning of parameter in this regard is the number of arrows that are from the independent variable to the dependent variable. Thus the minimum sample size for this study is 4 x 10 = 40 respondents (Chin et al., 1995) Hair et al. (2014 argued the greater the sample size used, the better results would be achieved because it will reduce the sampling error. Thus, the sample size in this study was set as many as 650 respondents. we use survey methods to collect the data. Of 700 questionnaires that are distributed by online survey, only 572 are feasible to further analyze. So, the response rate of this study is 88%.

Data Analysis
Variance-based SEM is used for data analysis and SMART PLS as software. The main reason for using variance-based SEM, because of two constructs with formative indicators, namely transformational leadership and procedural justice. MacKenzie et al. (2005) argued we must notice when using SEM for measuring constructs with formative indicators. This is because many researchers made the mistake of treating formative constructs such as reflective constructs, such as transformational leadership and procedural justice (MacKenzie et al., 2005). Thus, the appropriate SEM used in this measurement is a covariance-based SEM (PLS-SEM). Furthermore, Hair et al (2011), argued that PLS-SEM can be used for measuring both formative and reflective constructs. above IDR 10,000,000 0 0 Table 1 showed the characteristic of the respondents in this study. Moreover, we conducted the Socially Desirable Response (SDR) test with the non-paired sample, for five constructs in this study. This test is carried out by distributed questionnaires to civil state apparatus who lived in Jakarta (30 people) and Makassar (30 people). Those who lived in Jakarta received questionnaires with direct questions and others in Makassar were given the questionnaires with indirect questions. By using SPSS with non-parametric statistics, the Mann Whitney test, results show the p-value of each indicator more than 0.05 which means that the two samples (non-paired) come from populations with similar average (mean) or expectations. In other words, the average of respondents' answers from those samples is similar. For more details, it can be seen in Table 2. The AVE value of positive emotional construct is 0.586 (more than 0.5) which indicates a good convergence validity (Hair et al., 2014) (see Table 3). AVE values could be seen only for one construct, namely positive emotional. This is because of the construct with reflective indicators. For constructs with formative indicators (transformational leadership and procedural justice), AVE value does not provide any information. Furthermore, the construct reliability values are only owned by the one with reflective indicators, namely positive emotions. The measurement of construct reliability in this study uses Cronbach Alpha (α) and Composite Reliability. Cronbach alpha value is 0.811. As argued by Nunnally (1978) and Kaplan and Saccuzzo (1982) that a good α value for each construct used in basic research is 0.70 to 0.80. However, according to Baumgartner and Homburg (1996), Composite Reliability is favourable to use for estimating the internal consistency. Based on Table 3, its value is above 0.6. Thus, the construct reliability used in this study is considered good. Overall, based on Table 3, the results of convergence validity and internal consistency especially for reflective constructs (positive emotions) in this study are good. This is indicated by the AVE value for the construct, which is above 0.5, which means the convergence validity is good.

AVE Cronbach alpha Composite Reliability
Positive Emotion 0.581642 0.765787 0.846720 the validity of formative constructs in this study (procedural justice and transformational leadership) is proved through a bootstrapping process on the Smart PLS program. The results are based on the outer weight output in Table 4. If there are indicators of these formative constructs with a T-statistic value > 1.96 (pvalue < 0.05), then it is a significant construct. Therefore, the construct doesn't meet the construct validity test criteria (Jogiyanto and Abdillah, 2009 Table 4, the outer weight output, T-statistic value for formative construct indicators is > 1.96 (T-table) or p-value < 0.05. it could be concluded the formative construct in this research (procedural justice and transformational leadership) can be used in further structural model testing. The goodness of fit model in this study is explained in Figure 2. The R-square value for each endogenous variable (procedural and positive emotion) in the model produced by SMART PLS. The R-Square value shows the ability of the independent variables in explaining the variance of the dependent variables. The results of this study indicate that transformational leadership could explain the 81.30% variance of procedural justice and 0.565% o variance of positive emotional explained by procedural justice.
As argued by Chin (1998) and Höck and Ringle (2006), the R-square value categories consist of strongly, moderately, and weakly. The R-square value of 0.67 is categorized as strong, 0.33 as moderate, and 0.19 as weak. Thus, the overall research model shows that transformational leadership has a strong ability to explain procedural justice and procedural justice has a strong ability to explain positive emotions.
Furthermore, the value of f square (effect size) shows the magnitude effect of the predictor on the criterion. Effect size values can be grouped into three categories: weak (0.02), moderate (0.15), and strong (0.35) (Kock, 2013;Hair et al., 2013). The effect size value below 0.02 indicates that the effect of the predictor variable is very weak from a practical perspective even though it has a significant p-value. The results show the effect size of transformational leadership on procedural justice is 0.813 and procedural justice on positive emotions is 0.492.
The effect size value of transformational leadership on procedural justice is classified as a large effect size group as well as the procedural justice on positive emotions. Thus, from a practical perspective, transformational leadership has an important role to influence procedural justice, as well as procedural justice toward positive emotions.
Moreover, for the predictive validity model, we used Q-square (usually also called the Stone-Geisser coefficient) as a non-parametric measure obtained through the blindfolding algorithm as argued by Solihin and Ratmono (2013). Models with predictive validity should have Q-square values greater than zero (Solihin and Ratmono, 2013). The results show that this model research has a good predictive validity because the Q-square value is above zero. Overall, the Goodness of Fit (GoF) index of this research model is calculated based on the formula proposed by    Table 5 shows SEM estimation and hypothesis testing results. All research hypotheses are supported because the value of Critical Ratio (CR) or t is statistically significant, and has an expected direction as stated in the hypothesis, namely positive direction. The recommended CR value in SEM analysis is more than 1.96 (Garson, 2016) which means a good level of significance. Overall, the leadership perception model can explain and predict organizational justice and organizational justice can explain and predict the positive emotions of civil servants in Jakarta, Makassar, Palu, and Ambon.
The first hypothesis that Transformational leadership has a positive effect on procedural justice perceived by civil state apparatus is supported. This study is consistent with the results of research conducted by Tyler (1986). He argued that procedural fairness has an important role in evaluating the leadership process which in this case is transformational leadership. In this study, transformational leadership could explain and predict perceptions of procedural fairness by 81.30% (R2 = 0.813).
One important aspect of transformational leadership is that the leader could encourage subordinates to go beyond their interests to achieve the goals of the larger group collectively (group, organization, or country) (Bass & Riggio, 2006). This concept is following procedural justice, that leaders can increase welfare and group solidarity in the long term (Yukl, 2013;Northouse, 2016). Such transformational leaders could promote procedural justice.
Hypotheses 2 in this study that procedural justice has a positive effect on the positive emotions of civil state apparatus are also supported. This study is also generally in line with the results of research which conducted by Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001). They argued that organizational justice could explain and predict the employee's emotions in an organization. This study shows, the procedural fairness perceived by civil state apparatus in Jakarta, Makassar, Palu, and Ambon could explain and predict they're positive emotions by 56.50% (R2 = 0.565).
Indonesia civil state apparatus would see procedural fairness if it should meet the following criteria. This is an  (Budiyanti et al., 2018). As another aspect of civil state apparatus justice perception, procedural justice seems to be a basic requirement. The violation of procedural fairness would elicit negative emotions (Budiyanti et al., 2018).

CONCLUSION
The model in this study tested using the research background of civil state apparatus which considered as representatives of Indonesia regions, namely Ambon (Eastern Indonesia Region), Palu and Makassar (Central Indonesia Region), and Jakarta (Western Indonesia Region). We use a variety of literature that is integrated to produce a model that connects transformational leadership with procedural justice.
Overall, the results indicate that among civil state apparatus there is a significant relationship between transformational leadership and procedural. Based on the phenomena and our literature review, there is still a lack of empirical testing regarding relationships. Hence, this study supported the view that transformational leadership could have a different effect on organizational justice which is perceived by subordinates based on social exchange relations. Social exchanges occur because of the involvement of individual trust in the relationship regarding their obligations in the long run. Transformational leadership is closely related to perceptions of organizational justice, namely procedural justice. The policies and procedures implemented by the leadership mostly determine the formation of justice perceptions that affect employee emotion.
The effect of procedural justice toward positive emotions, this because positive emotions are often something that results from extraordinary leadership, such as transformational, charismatic, and visionary leadership. Generally, employees in an organization will disappoint and be angry when they received an inappropriate award and feel guilty when they are overrated. Emotions are an important part of organizational life, provide characteristics, and inform processes in organizations. Emotions also have a role in individual communication relating to the main problems in social life. Overall, this study showed the emotional role consequently in the relationship between transformational leadership and procedural justice by Indonesia civil state apparatus.
This study only included respondents in four cities, namely: Ambon, Jakarta, Makassar, and Palu. For further research, it would be better to involve respondents who are located in the whole of Indonesia regions, to generalize the research results properly. This research only looked into the relationship between transformational leadership, procedural justice, and emotions of civil state apparatus. Future research should develop this research for other variables including transactional leadership, distributive and interactional justice which affect positive and negative emotions. Therefore, the result of this study can be generalized, it is comprehensively systematic and theoretic, random, and controllable for understanding and explaining a phenomenon regarding Indonesia civil state apparatus.