Introduction

Today, the organisational space and environment has seen a considerable amount of knowledge accumulated in relation to strategic enablers for enhancing institutional performance. But the real riddle is how you control human nature within the organization and sustain that performance. I the sense, given that organizations are increasingly confronted with them, one cannot help realizing the need to value its human resources and sustain their positive behaviors/attitudes; they are resources of support to perform work well done", to achieve superior levels of performance and make what is expected by the organizations a reality.

Job Complacency, resulting in systematic loss of motivation, lacklustre work engagement and acceptance of mediocrity as optimal performance is hence one of the most pernicious barriers to human capital efficiency for institutions across the spectrum. The explanation of this process is not merely at the individual level, it also refers to the context in which employees work, where negative behaviors frequently result from a lack of fair treatment or appreciation.

From the above standpoint, it appears that Organizational Justice is increasingly recognized as a key value and predominant cause of behavior toward humanity in work place. With its components viz., distributive justice (in terms of rewards and outcomes), procedural justice (procedures affecting decision- making) and interactive justice (interpersonal manner in which an employee is treated by whoever is implementing the decisions/interaction undertaken with employees), organizational justice is not just a rule to be followed but more than that, it carries a psychological leverage on employee performance that builds up trust and commitment between the employee and employer. When people believe that the company’s actions are fair and open, their motivation to disengage or rest on their laurels diminishes, while their desire to give back in a positive way by getting better at what they do and doing more also increases.

Hence, this paper seeks to fill the gap in knowledge about how job resources and demands mediate the effect of organizational justice on reducing the breadth of job complacency at work. By extracting the nature of the impact and interaction among these two key variables, this enquiry aims to offer an integrated analytical model that encourages administrators and decision-makers to develop administrative policies which do not simply attain procedural effectiveness, but also support the value-laden basis needed for employees in staying active in retarding stagnation.

Chapter One: Study Methodology

First: The Research Problem

Although it is widely understood that human resource plays a crucial role towards gaining competitive advantage, recently, many organizations face an internal threat in the form of job complacency among the employees. It is no longer confined to the dimmed enthusiasm, low production efficiency and lack of motivation for development, but also penetrates into the underscoring initiative and resistance to change that eventually results in damage neither being competent in competition nor adaptive to a strategic adaptive organization.

Solutions that meet these are the basics and amongst them can be found organizational justice as one of the key pillars governing the psychological and contractual bond between an employee and his employer. In the same vein, exchange theory also states that an employee’s perception of what is fair (across distributive, procedural and interactional fairness) will carry over into actual behavior in terms of how hard they work for or are committed to their organization.

From this perspective, the research problem can be formulated as a way to answer the question that asks;

What is the qualitative and quantitative contribution of the organizational justice’s dimeensions –as a set or individually- in reducing the job complacency level that results among General Directorate of Education / Nineveh governorate employees?

Second: Importance of the Study

The deterministic significance of this study can be found in the fact that, evidence clearly indicates that organizational justice is no longer an ethical value to be considered alone but a business strategy and engine to accord for minimizing harmful and counter-productive behaviors such as job slack. On a practical level, the investigation is grounded in robust findings on how to use organizational justice principles (i.e., distribution of resources, procedural fairness and interpersonal respect) as a powerful defensive barrier which makes it difficult for employees to engage in behaviors marked by negligence, delay or procrastination. And this allows organizations to adjust their reward and evaluation systems to one that is fair, creates trust, and encourages commitment as opposed to the negative pattern of dissatisfaction which eventually results in job slack.

Theoretically, this study adds to the organizational justice literature by filling a knowledge void and being one of the first studies providing an integrated analytical framework that is able to connect with great accuracy all of organizational justice dimensions to job slack mechanisms. This paves the way for further research in the domain of organizational behavior and administrative psychology.

Third: Objectives of the Study

The principal aim of the research is to examine and verify if dimensions of organizational justice are both preventive in nature and corrective in reducing job slack among employees of the organization under examination. From this general objective, the specific objectives are developed as follows:

1. And specify the magnitude to which employees perceived of the dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactional) in this organization.
2. Measure and establish the frequency of job slack—patterns (absenteeism, lateness, time-wasting, low quality performance of work tasks) among the sample.
3. Examine the relationship between perceived dimensions of organizational justice and job slack behaviors based on the correlations.
4. Evaluate the effect and function of each dimension of organizational justice on minimizing job slack, and identify which has the most significant impact.
5. Propose conclusions and practical recommendations that top management can implement to improve organisational justice, replacing opportunistic behaviours with commitment and – performance..

Fourth: The Hypothetical Study Plan

Figure (1) Hypothetical Study Scheme

Source: Prepared by the Researcher

Fifth: Research Hypotheses

To complete the study methodology, clarify its boundaries and features, and answer its questions, a set of hypotheses are defined as follows:

• H01: There is no statistically significant correlation between overall organizational justice and job slack at a significance level ≥ 0.05.
• H02: There is no statistically significant effect of overall organizational justice on job slack at a significance level ≥ 0.05α.
  • From this hypothesis, the following sub-hypotheses are derived:
• H03: There is no statistically significant effect of distributive justice on job slack at a significance level ≥ 0.05α.
• H04: There is no statistically significant effect of procedural justice on job slack at a significance level ≥ 0.05α.
• H05: There is no statistically significant effect of interactional justice on job slack at a significance level ≥ 0.05α.

Sixth: Research Boundaries

• Spatial Boundaries: The current study covered the General Directorate of Education in Nineveh Governorate, including its departments, divisions, and branches both at the directorate center and across the governorate.
• Temporal Boundaries: The temporal scope extended from the date of registering the research title until the initial submission of the study.
• Human Boundaries: The study sample included employees in senior, middle, and executive management.

Seventh: Data Collection and Analysis Method

The researcher adopted the descriptive-analytical approach by designing a questionnaire and surveying the opinions of (75) employees in the studied organization to diagnose and measure the research variables. Pearson correlation analysis was used to measure the relationship between two variables, followed by multiple linear regression analysis using the Enter method to test the hypotheses of effect, as this analysis is suitable for small samples. It provides indicators that can be analyzed and used to test hypotheses, such as the F-test and T-test, in addition to calculating the explained variance (R²).

For data analysis, the statistical software (SPSS v24) was employed to obtain results through several statistical tools, most notably (frequency distribution tables, percentages, arithmetic mean, standard deviation, and relative importance), as well as measuring correlation and effect relationships between the research variables to test the main hypotheses.

Chapter Two: Theoretical Framework

First: The Concept of Organizational Justice

Researchers studying organizational behavior and human resource development have given the idea of organizational justice a lot of attention. Its purpose is to establish a fair and good workplace culture that aims to match the objectives of the company with those of its employees.

• Shrestha et al. defined organizational justice as the perception of employees that decision-making procedures, resource distribution, and interpersonal interactions are fair, and that the wages and material and moral rewards they receive correspond to the effort and work they perform [1]. The higher the perceived level of justice, the greater the employee’s dedication and tendency to engage in positive behaviors such as motivation, commitment, and job satisfaction, which can improve overall organizational performance.
• Al-Shara’ and Al-Yaqub defined organizational justice as the extent to which employees perceive fairness in its procedural, interactional, and distributive dimensions within the organization, as well as their relationships with managers, colleagues, and the organization as a social system [2].
• Atafi defined organizational justice as what the individual receives directly or indirectly in terms of material and moral returns from the organization in both the workplace and external environment compared to colleagues [3].
• Al-Yaqubi and Al-Sufyani defined organizational justice as the human perception employees feel when fairness and integrity are applied in all organizational procedures, through comparisons at the level of returns for both the individual and the organization [4].
• According to Abu Al-Ghaith, organizational justice is the extent of equality and fairness in rights and responsibilities that represent the relationship between the individual and the organization, strengthening the necessary organizational trust between the two sides [5].
• Ghaderi et al. defined organizational justice as the extent to which managers perceive fairness, equality, and non-discrimination in task distribution and procedures [6]. Employees’ perceptions of fairness or unfairness of outcomes may influence their attitudes toward work and, consequently, their behaviors.
• Terzi et al. noted that organizational justice is reflected in the methods used in decision-making related to resource distribution and the set of social rules and standards that regulate relationships among individuals [7].

From the above, it is clear that organizational justice represents the individual’s perception and feeling of fairness, equality, and equity with colleagues at work—whether in resource and reward distribution, decision-making processes, or managerial treatment. Organizational justice reflects employees’ perception of the extent to which their rights and contributions are respected in the workplace, which in turn influences their job satisfaction, loyalty, and performance level.

Second : The importance of organizational justice:

Organizational Justice Plays A vital and prominent role in improving the performance of the organization, Being one of the most important Essential Ingredients In-depth human capital The success of modern organizations and their ability to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage no longer depends only on the efficiency of their operations or the quality of their products, but is largely dependent on the culture of fairness and fairness that prevails within their walls. In a dynamic and highly competitive work environment, Organizational justice is not just a recommended ethical value, it has become a strategic necessity that smart organizations cannot ignoreTherefore,The importance of organizational justice in The following...

1. Enhancing the confidence and conviction of employees in the fairness of the decisions made, as procedural and interactive justice is a protective wall against conflicts within the organization, whether this conflict is at the individual or collective level , and this has been confirmed by a study [8].
2. Increasing the job commitment of employees, which pushes them to increase their loyalty and affiliation and work to achieve the goals and values of the organization, when employees feel fair and fair, their emotional commitment to the organization increases, and this pushes them to feel comfortable and reduces their intention to leave work and work hard in order to provide a distinguished performance that serves the organization, and this is confirmed by the study of Zhang & Wu [9].
3. Influencing the organizational behavior of employees, by motivating and motivating them to work more and giving back to the organization by making an extra effort, which is known as organizational citizenship behaviors, and this has been confirmed by a study [10].
4. Employees feel more job satisfaction when they realize that they are treated fairly, and this opens the door to achieving integration among employees and providing a sense of team unity at work, as confirmed by a study [11].
5. Applying organizational justice to all individuals working within the organization facilitates the task of management and leadership of work teams, so it does not need formal or rigorous procedures to confirm the required behavior [12].

Third: Dimensions of Organizational Justice:

Organizational justice is one of the most important variables that govern the relationship between the individual and the organization, as it serves as the ethical and behavioral framework and the overall awareness of the fairness of decisions, transactions and procedures that ensure the integrity of transactions and respect for the rights of individuals within the work environment, and the profound impact of this perception on performance and institutional commitment imposes the need to analyze its core components, so this presentation will deal with a precise analysis of these basic dimensions, which are (distributive justice, procedural justice, and interactive justice) As the main driver of employee behaviors within the organization , which can be explained as follows:

The dimension of distributive justice is represented in the justice of the Employee Outputs, and is related Justice Distributive The results or outputs that an individual obtains from his job in Especially the organization Those outputs related to the distribution of wages Or Benefits In-kind or promotions, This justice is achieved when working individuals feel that the benefits they receive are commensurate with the effort put into comparison With Their peers in the same organization or outside the same organization in similar organizations, the feeling Workers of Injustice Comparison distribution in the followingBeing humiliated by an effort can create some kind of tension in relationships I do not Among the workers With Each other and between the workers and management [13]. While he pointed out Distributive justice is represented in the integrity and fairness of the issuance of decisions and all transactions carried out in the organization, as well as The individual's realization that the effort he has made in his job and the material and moral gains he has received from it are fairly distributed within his expectations that he envisions according to his criteria social and personal standards, and to understand The impact of better distributive justice must be taken into account the importance of economic and social values of work From the point of view of the workers, where The more important economic values are for workers, the greater their sense of distributive fairness will have a significant impact on their behavior, and in cases In which values prevail The sense of distributive fairness is less important in influencing workers' behavior [14].

Procedural justice refers to the formal and fair procedures adopted by the organization in order to reduce bias and errors in decisions made. In other words, it is the perceived fairness of individuals regarding all the procedures used during the decision-making of personnel concerning employees, and thus it is concerned with the procedural processes used by the organization to carry out its various functions, and thus it includes the fairness of the procedures applied and the independence in making decisions and applying them without bias. Al-Issa and Srivastava referred to it as the degree of feeling and mental perception among working people regarding the fairness of the dynamics of the processes used to determine the organizational outputs, the methods used in the decision-making process, and the interaction between the decision maker and the employees who are anticipated to be impacted by the decision that has been made, through which we can determine the outcomes. things are accomplished by workers [15][16]. While Youp & Boudbza summarized that procedural justice is basedon the steps of making a fair decision, procedural issues, job opportunity justice when planning the workforce and disciplinary procedures, in addition to the reward and credibility system, due to its importance in enhancing employees' awareness of this type of justice that contributes to increasing the satisfaction and desire of employees [17]. To take a positive attitude towards management decisions and reduce the level of conflict between the user and the employees.

1. Distributive Justice :
2. Procedural Justice :
3. Interactive Justice:

The degree to which working people understand the fairness of the treatment they receive when regulatory procedures are applied to them or the rationale behind such procedures is known as interactive justice, and they are beliefs and ideas about the quality of personal treatment they receive from decision-makers when enacting or legislating such measures, and the nature of the method used in dealing with them, represented in the treatment of the subordinate with politeness and respect by the superior, trust and frankness between the boss and the subordinate, andthe president's interest in the interests of the employee, Al-Ammari and Karem et al.. Interactive justice is about providing a clear understanding of fairness in the procedures used to resolve disputes, distributing results, and evaluating working individuals to the extent to which they are treated with respect and dignity by others, including colleagues and managers [18] [19]. While Shalabi et al. pointed out that interactive justice includes two types of justice, namely [20]:

1. Fairness of Personal Relationships: It refers to the extent with respect and appreciation with which the manager treats subordinates and maintains their dignity and respect when applying the procedures and systems followed within the organization.
2. Information Justice: This justice explains the justifications for the decisions taken and the reactions to them by communicating the necessary information about the reasons for the use of these measures and the way to allocate certain outputs in a reliable and reliable manner.

From the above, it is clear that justice is the way in which the administration deals with the recipients of justice, and it is related to the humanitarian aspect and organizational practices between the leadership and the working individuals and their awareness of them, and it is specialized in organizing the process of exchange and interaction between employees, where each party gives its right to the other without procrastination and receives rights from him without fatigue, and that the existence of this justice increases the confidence of the working individuals and raises the level of their commitment to the organization of which they consider themselves a part.

Fourth: The Concept of Job slack:

Understanding the causes and effects of job laxity has become crucial for organizations seeking to enhance productivity and individual accountability in shared work environments, and that analyzing this phenomenon is key to developing effective management strategies that ensure a fair distribution of burdens and enhance a sense of individual responsibility within the organization [21]. Job laxity is those deviations and job irregularities that arise by the working individual during the performance of his job duties and duties, which are mainly related to work, including laziness and unwillingness to work, fraud in order to obtain the highest amount of wage for the least effort, lack of motivation towards strategic development and staying at low levels of performance, continuous evasion and lack of seriousness in work. As for Al-Abri et al., he defined job laxity as the low desire of working individuals, lack of effort in work, laziness, and failure to complete the work at the required level [22]. Failure to respect work deadlines and procrastination in completing tasks; This hinders the organization's achievement of its goals and future plans. While Abu Freih and Al-Jundi pointed out that job slack is It is a growing Business which is required to be accomplished significantly, while No Sufficient time available To complete it, where workers face challenges in carrying out these complex and difficult tasks without a clear mechanism for how to accomplish them, leading to doubling efforts without achieving tangible results [23]. On the other hand, (Al-Atrash focused on the human resource and defined job slack It is the specialized and skilled human elements that are exposed to For attrition and bad Usage, and need protection by the manager i.e. [24]. It directly affects the performance of an organization and has been called laxity in human resources. While Al-Khalidi summarized job laxity as the organization's inability to adapt and adapt to the pressures in the external and internal environment due to negligence and negligence on the part of working individuals in performing their job tasks and duties, as well as the lack of clear work mechanisms for achievement and the absence of optimal use of material and human resources within the organization, which in turn leads to the failure to achieve the desired goals and negatively affect the organization [25].

Based on the above, it can be said that job laxity is a negative behavioral phenomenon represented by the failure of the working individual, regardless of his position and position and at all administrative levels in the organization, laziness and negligence and the resulting failure to achieve the goals of the organization, slowness and lack of optimal investment of resources.

Fifth: Forms of Job slack:

Effective HR performance is the primary driver of an organization's success and ability to achieve its strategic goals. In contrast to ideal performance, job slack emerges as a silent behavioral threat that threatens work efficiency and reduces productivity, andthat management practices often fail to address this phenomenon effectively And that Due to the confusion of its multiple forms. If Complacency is dealt with Career It is often seen as a single behavioral phenomenon, when in fact it manifests itself in different dimensions, each of which requires a different management response. Inefficiencies can be temporal (e.g. wasting time or extending tasks), behavioral/exertional (e.g., doing minimum requirements), or even cognitive/creative (e.g., resisting learning or not actively participating in problem-solving) From this point of view, it is possible Classifying forms of job slack within a comprehensive framework that takes into account their temporal, behavioral, and cognitive dimensions It has also been addressed by many researchers, which can be summarized as follows [25][26][27]:

1. Employed individuals evade or postpone their work to another time.
2. Widespread apathy, delays among working individuals , lack of sincerity and effort at work.
3. Lack of desire to be present in the workplace and lack of awareness of the importance of the work they do.
4. Lack of interest in the work assigned to them by their superiors in the organization, despite its importance and necessity for others.
5. Not being present at the workplace for long periods without an acceptable and reasonable justification and excuse.
6. Neglected , redundant and untapped capabilities and competencies with relatively little work in a long period of time.
7. Ignorance of job tasks and duties and the organization's lack of interest in training and qualifying working personnel to perform these duties properly.
8. Resistance of working individuals to learn and professional excellence, and lack of effective participation in solving problems they face at work and making decisions that would achieve the organization's goals.
9. The manager's incompetence and possession of inappropriate qualifications that qualify him for the position he occupies.
10. The presence of a large number of employees who occupy recurring administrative positions.
11. Loss of respect for the boss by subordinates and lack of importance when assigning them to job duties

Sixth: Causes of Job slack:

Job laxity is a negative phenomenon that affects the efficiency of organizational performance and hinders the achievement of organizational goals, and this laxity does not occur suddenly, but there are many causes and variables that lead to laxity in different forms and recipes, and among these reasons, we can mention the following [28]:

While he pointed out Moller to two main reasons for job laxity, which are Lack of regulation and guidance Effective Employees' efforts and lack of plans Inside the system Administrative This leads to To laxity and not Testimony Who is it Efforts From their side, Increase About This is a waste of time and not optimal use For HR lack coordination For the set goals Who is it before the institution, which in turn works on the shortcomings in achieving these goals [29].

On the other hand, Sharfman et al. have mentioned other causes of job slack, which can be represented as follows [30].

• The availability of an unsuitable work environment, the high number of work pressures exerted on the workers, and the absenceof self-control.
• Poor distribution of work, lack of optimal investment of capabilities, and lack of mobilization of human resources to complete the work.
• Lack of attention to capabilities, competence and appropriate training to raise the efficiency of employees and take into account job specialization .
• The absence of annual plans and neglect of their implementation in light of the lack of appropriate strategic visions for work.
• The deteriorating financial situation and the disproportionate per capita income of workers to their standard of living.
• Negligence in investing time and choosing the right time to complete the job.
• The absence of appropriate legal legislation, which will lead to the spread of violations, negligence, and job laxity.
• Lack of systems, decisions, and controls that guide employees and guide their behavior towards effective performance.
• Poor communication between different levels of management in the organization.
• Job instability and arbitrary actions by management in transfer and disciplinary procedures.
• The inability of workers to meet basic physiological needs through their jobs.
• Lack of proper recognition and this in turn weakens the desire to accomplish and motivation to work.
• Lack of clarity of goals at the senior leadership and executive leadership levels.
• Lack of clear definition of responsibility and centralization of administrative work.

Result and discussion

The third axis

( (( The practical aspect of the research ))

First: Description and Diagnosis of the Individuals Studied

The study sample was characterized according to the data provided by its members through their answers to the first part (general data) of the questionnaire form, as shown in Table (1) below:

Table ( 1 ) General Data

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample

Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the questionnaire form N=75

Second: Description and Diagnosis of Study Variables

The results shown in Table (2) indicate that the arithmetic mean of the sample members' answers about organizational justice ranged between (3.69-4.02), with a total arithmetic mean of (3).83) with relative importance (76.6) at a very high evaluation level, and at a standard deviation level of (0.76), which indicates that all the answers to the special dimensions represented by the study variable (organizational justice) were higher than the hypothetical arithmetic mean of (3) in terms of the probability value (P-value) accompanying the value of (t).) calculated which all amounted to (0.000) which is less than (0.05) and the same result confirms the calculated value of (t) which all appeared to be greater than the tabular value (1.96). At the level of sub-dimensions, it came in the first place after (procedural justice) in terms of the relative importance of the variable (organizational justice) in terms of the value of the arithmetic mean, which reached (4.02) and a standard deviation of (0.80).) with a relative importance of (81.40%), (Interactive Justice) came next, with an arithmetic mean of 3.83, a standard deviation of 0.75, and a relative importance of 76.60%; (Distributive Justice) came in third and last, with an arithmetic mean of 3.69, a standard deviation of 0.78, and a relative importance of 73.80%.

Table (2) Summary of the relative importance of the organizational justice variable

Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the outputs of the (SPSS V.26) program n=75

1. Descriptive Analysis of the Organizational Justice Variable
2. Descriptive Analysis of the Job slack Variable

The results shown in Table (3) indicate that the arithmetic mean of the responses of the sample members to the variable of job laxity of the employees came with a total arithmetic mean of (3.88), and this reflects a high awareness by the researchers of the concept of organizational justice in its dimensions (distributive, procedural, interactive) and indicates that the organization adopts clear standards in the distribution of tasks, and this enhances the employee's sense of fairness and equality, while the relative importance reached (77). 6% at a high level of evaluation, which indicates that organizational justice occupies a large space in the organization's environment, while the standard deviation was (0.71), which indicates that there is a great consistency in the performance of the sample members and a convergence in their views towards the fairness of the procedures followed. These results indicate that all the answers represented by the study variable (job slack) were higher than the hypothetical arithmetic mean (3).) in terms of the probability value (P-value) accompanying the calculated value of (t), which all amounted to (0.000), which is less than (0.05), and the same result confirms the calculated value of (t), all of whose values appeared to be greater than the tabular value (1.96).These results indicate that employees' perception of justice at a high level (3.88) and relative importance (77.6%) acts as a self-monitoring tool, and serves as a safety valve against job laxity, as the high level of justice raises the cost of laxity for the employee (whether morally or functionally), which pushes the staff towards self-discipline and upgrading job performance to levels commensurate with the size of fairness which is provided by the organization, which pushes it to make the utmost effort to reduce the phenomenon of job laxity.

Table 3 : Summary of the relative importance of the job slack variable

Source: Prepared by the researcher based on the outputs of the (SPSS V.26) program n=75

Third: Testing the Hypotheses of the Correlation

The correlation coefficient reached (0.615) at the level of (0.05), which is a strong positive value that indicates the strength of the relationship between the two variables to confirm what the study highlighted in its theoretical aspect and supports this result that the more the management of the research organization is interested in adopting the dimensions of organizational justice, the results of Table (4) test the first main hypothesis represented by the correlation hypothesis. The more this lessens the occurrence of job slack, the more the alternative hypothesis—that organizational justice and job slack are correlated—is accepted and the nothingness hypothesis is rejected..

Table 4: The Correlation between Organizational Justice and Job slack

DV → Dependent Variable, IV → Independent Variable

Source: prepared by the researcher based on the results of the (SPSS).

Fourth: Analysis of the Impact Relationship

The first main hypothesis: There is no significant effect of organizational justice on job slack

1. In terms of the regression coefficient (β), which reached (1.040), and the probability value (P-value), which reached (0.010), which is less than (0.05), Table (5) and Figure (2) demonstrate the existence of a direct effect of organizational justice on job slack. The same result shows the critical value (C.R.), which amounted to (8.824), which is greater than the tabular (tTab) value of (1.96). This leads us to reject the nothingness hypothesis and embrace the alternative theory that organizational justice has a direct and ethically important impact on job slack..
2. The determination coefficient (R-square) value indicates that (52%) of the changes in (job slack) are attributable to (organizational justice), with the remaining percentage (48%) being attributed to other variables not included in the regression model. In other words, we can say that (52%) of the changes in job laxity are explained by (organizational justice)..

Table (5) Results of the Impact of Organizational Justice on Job slack

Tabular value (tTab=1.96)

Source: Prepared by the researcher in light of the results of statistical analysis using AMOS V24 software n=75

Figure (2) The Impact of Organizational Justice on Job slack

Source: Prepared by the researcher in light of the results of statistical analysis using AMOS V24 software n=75

The second main hypothesis: There is no significant effect of the dimensions of organizational justice alone on job slack .

1. Table (6) and Figure (3) show the effect of the dimensions of organizational justice individually represented by [(distributive justice), (procedural justice), and (reactive justice)] in terms of the value of the regression coefficient (β) which reached [(0.41), (0.50), and (0.43)] for each dimension respectively, and this effect is significant in terms of the probability value (P-value). It reached [(0.020), (0.034), and (0.025)] respectively, which is less than (0.05), and the same result indicates the critical value (C.R.), which was [(4.66), (6.02), and (5.66)] respectively, which is greater than the tabular (tTab) value of (1.96). This leads us to reject the hypothesis of nothingness and accept the alternative hypothesis that there is an effect of the dimensions of organizational justice alone in job slack, and this effect is directly significant and morally significant.
2. The results show that the dimension of (procedural justice) came in the first place in terms of the strength of the effect on job laxity through the standard regression coefficient where its value reached (0.63),and in the second place came after (distributive justice) in terms of the value of the standard regression coefficient where it reached (0.60) and in the third and last place came after (reactive justice) in terms of the strength of the effect on (job slack). in terms of the value of the standard regression coefficient which reached (0.58).
3. The value of the determination coefficient (R-square) shows that (53%) of the changes in (job slack) are caused by the dimensions of (organizational justice) and the remaining percentage of (47%) is attributed to other variables that were not included in the regression model, in other words, we can say that the dimensions of organizational justice explain (53%) of the changes in job slack.

Table (6) Results of the Impact of Organizational Justice Dimensions on Job slack

Tabular value (tTab=1.96)

Source: Prepared by the researcher in light of the results of statistical analysis using AMOS V24 software n=75

Figure (3) The Impact of Organizational Justice Dimensions on Job slack

Source: Prepared by the researcher in light of the results of statistical analysis using AMOS V24 software n=75

The Fourth Axis

Conclusions and Suggestions

First: Conclusions

1. The theoretical review showed that the centrality of organizational justice is not just administrative procedures, but rather a "psychological contract" between the employee and the organization, so whenever the employee feels that the balance of justice is imbalanced, he subconsciously resorts to laxity as a mechanism to compensate for the injustice.
2. Organizational justice in its dimensions (distributive, procedural, interactive) is a central value and a fundamental determinant of ethical behavior, and it establishes a reciprocal relationship based on trust between the employee and the organization.
3. A review of the theoretical literature has shown that job laxity is a "silent organizational disease", i.e., laxity is not just simple negligence but a state of false satisfaction that makes the employee content with minimal performance, which in turn leads to the erosion of the organization's creative abilities over time.
4. The theoretical framework concluded that job slack is not just laziness, but rather a negative phenomenon that may be temporal (time wasted), behavioral (minimal achievement), or cognitive (learning resistance)
5. The practical results of the study proved that there is a correlation and significant effect between the dimensions of organizational justice (distributive, procedural, and interactive) in reducing the phenomenon of job slackness. This means that the higher the level of employees' perception of justice, the lower the practices of job laxity.
6. The practical results showed that job slack in the directorate is not due to the employee's personality traits, but rather is a defensive response to an environment that may sometimes lack a fair distribution of tasks and rewards.

Second: Proposals

1. Promote distributive justice by reviewing remuneration and resource distribution policies to ensure that they are fully proportional to the effort put in by employees.
2. Consolidating information transparency and building a culture of psychological safety through interactive justice and providing effective communication channels that enable employees to present their ideas without fear of failure, this enhances trust and openness between the employee and the organization and transforms the work environment from an executive environment to a creative environment.
3. Develop incentive systems and reduce cognitive laxity by linking rewards and promotions to professional development and effective participation in solving work problems.
4. Improve the physical work environment and job enrichment, give employees broader powers, address the causes of laxity, and ensure the sustainability of positive performance.
5. Activating training and rehabilitation programs and awareness workshops by designing training programs that raise the efficiency of employees and define their responsibilities accurately, and this in turn is reflected in confronting the phenomenon of ignorance of tasks.