CAMEROON Nsairun Leonard Yuyun

Аннотация

INTRODUCTION As a construct that is best observable in positive psychology, the psychological wellbeing (PWB) of teachers is described as the judgment and satisfaction of an individual with his/her happiness, physical and mental health, and profession (Li, 2021). The psychological well-being of teachers goes beyond the simple absence of setbacks and stressors at work and concerns healthy and functional teachers. In simple terms, psychological wellbeing refers to the capability of teachers to strike a positive and dynamic balance between their resources and professional challenges (Benevene et al., 2020). Emmanuel & Odusanya (2015) opine that the challenge of psychological wellbeing among teachers in most private agencies remains a serious issue that needs urgent attention. This comes as a result of the rigorous work load, pressure, and multiple roles assigned to them in their place of work, a situation that makes them unhappy (Saidu, 2013). According to Bobocel & Holmvall (2001), interactional dimension of justice refers to interpersonal treatment employees receive when decisions are implemented or the treatment which is established while enacting organizational processes. Greenberg (1993) suggested that interactional justice could better be conceptualized in two separate dimensions: interpersonal justice, and informational justice. https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajmei 7 THE USA JOURNALS THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMICS INNOVATIONS (ISSN- 2693-0811) VOLUME 06 ISSUE04 According to Ibrahim (2012), interactional justice deals with “the quality of interpersonal treatment employees received during the enactment of organisational procedures. Interactional justice also focuses on how each individual employee is treated by their supervisors, considering dignity, respect and sufficient explanation, besides the impact on how the employee feels regarding decision-making, considering the close relationship between the employee and his or her immediate manager (Cropanzano, Prehar, and Chen, 2002). Studies have related interactional justice to ethical leadership and trust in the organization, pointing to the importance of building a fair workplace (Xu et al., 2016). Likewise, interactional justice refers to the social aspects in the relations between the people who make decisions and those affected by the decisions (Assmar & Ferreira, 2005). It concerns the fairness of the means by which the procedures are set into practice. The social elements in interactional justice can have twofold aspects: social sensitivity, which refers to the degree to which the manager adopts a dignified and respectful treatment towards people affected by the procedures and distributive decisions (interactional justice); and informational justification, reflecting the provision of information and explanation of decisions (informational justice) (Assmar & Ferreira, 2005). In addition, injustices manifest in various forms in different spatial and temporal contexts. Ostensibly, they appear discrete, but fundamentally they relate to and intersect each other. The Catholic social teaching from a human perspective, stipulates that “every human community, every race and culture is equal in dignity and rights. No person should have their dignity or freedom compromised, nor treated as a commodity or mere recipient of aid. Dignity requires equitable access to quality of life and wellbeing.” Organizations must develop ways to treat their employees so that they are motivated and satisfied; employees must have ways to help their organizations become effective and high performing. This winning combination for interactional justice requires a partnership between the organization and the employees. In work and social relationships, one cannot succeed without the other. To provide people with meaningful work and rewards, organizations need to be successful. And to be successful, organizations need motivated individuals (Herzberg, 1968). The challenge is to design organizations that perform at high levels and treat people in ways that are rewarding and satisfying. To succeed in this mutually beneficial relationship, a virtuous spiral must exist - a relationship that occurs when the organization values its employees, and in return, workers are committed to high performance. Interpersonal justice could lead to PWB, since it promotes a commitment to the exchange partner that would generate positive affect. Indeed, interpersonal justice would promote the quality of the relationship with the superior responsible for the exchange (Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000), and therefore the commitment to this exchange partner. Subsequently, according to social exchange theory, an exchange that engenders a commitment to the person with whom the individual is transacting would lead to more positive affect (Molm et al., 2000). Confirming the phenomenon proposed theoretically, Masterson et al. (2000) report that interactional justice (interp