{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03061334483130322, 'fraction_numerical': 0.017193058100679098, 'mean_word_length': 5.180879413724184, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
THE EFFECT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ON CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR EFFECT OF SCHOOL LEADERSHIP AND PROCEDURAL JUSTICE ON CITIZENSHIP BEHAVIOR.”

: Citizenship behavior is one of the most important factors that can support the objectives of organizations, may be influenced by leadership factor or justice felt by a teacher in the school. This research aims to know whether there is a direct effect of school leadership and procedural justice against citizenship power. A causal survey used by selecting 115 teachers in Duren Sawit region, East Jakarta by using Simple Random Sampling (SRS). There were three instruments developed to measure citizenship behavior (32 items) with reliability 0.916, school leadership (43 items) with reliability 0.961 and procedural justice (26 items) with reliability 0.944. Data were analyzed using regression, correlation, and path analysis. The results of the analysis showed that leadership and procedural justice has a direct effect and significantly influencing citizenship behavior of teachers. Procedural justice cannot be said as the best mediating factor between leadership and citizenship behavior. However, it’s important to consider aspects of leadership and justice to improve the teacher's citizenship behavior .


Introduction
School is the place where educational process takes place in which there are individuals who carry out duties and functions of each. As an educational institution, of course schools have ideals that are in line with the goals of National Education. As an organization, schools must be able to make changes and be able to move quickly to improve school quality. According to Munir et all. (2004), individual behavior in groups determines fluency in achieving organizational goals [1]. Based on the statement, it was seen that in order to realize the objectives of the school there was a need for good cooperation from all school members.
Basically, each person in the school has their own duties and responsibilities in order to achieve the objectives of implementing functions within the organization. However, the teacher's poor performance shows the lack of motivation and also the initiative of the teacher in working especially in helping other colleagues. When viewed from the context of the problem it is a mirror of the low citizenship behavior of the teacher. Low Citizenship behavior (CB) will certainly have a negative impact on school effectiveness thus it will be reflected in the productivity and effectiveness of the school.
According to Colquitt et.all (2017) CB is voluntary employee activities but contribute to the organizational by improving the overall quality of setting in which work take place [2]. Furthermore, Robbins (2017) also emphasized that CB is voluntary behavior that is not part of a formal job requirement but can improve the effectiveness of organizational functions [3].
Teachers with high CB can do their tasks and responsibilities well, because they have high commitment and loyalty to the school. Therefore, in terms of work, the teacher will always help other teachers who have difficulty, want to convey interesting ideas to improve the quality of the school, and even use the time as effectively as possible to develop the school. Therefore, CB has several dimensions, namely a) helping, with indicators (1) Helping coworkers; b) courtesy, with indicators: (1) Respecting the opinions of others; c) sportmanship, with indicators: (1) Following the prescribed rules, (2) Carrying out the orders given, (3) not raising problems; 2) organizational, consisting of dimensions: voice, with indicators: (1) providing suggestions for school progress, (2) delivering good things about school; 2) civic virtue, with indicators: (1) participating in school activities, (2) representing schools following activities with other institutions, and 3) boosterism, with indicators: (1) defending schools.
One of the factors that can improve CB is leadership. Leadership is a person's behavior in influencing others, and will have an impact on the achievement of the organization. Robbins and Judge (2013) explained thatleadership is the process of influencing and supporting others to work enthusiastically toward achieving objectives [3]. The same thing was revealed by Colquitt et.all.
(2017) that leadership as activities influence to direct the activities of followers toward goal achievement [2]. In school, the principal acts as a manager who plays a role in the process affecting all stakeholders in the school. In this case the headmaster as the highest leader in the school, must be able to manage all his subordinates in order to work according to the demands and also make the teacher loyal to the school.
Given the magnitude of the influence of leadership in efforts to improve teacher performance, the school leadership style is considered important in increasing CB because of its strategic role in achieving school goals. In this case, Colquit et.all. (2017) illustrated that transformational leadership will directly affect CB employees in the organization [2]. The same thing is also confirmed by Wayne & Hoy (2008) that leaders with transformational leadership styles are more proactive in increasing their followers' awareness of inspiring collective interest, and helping followers to achieve high performance results [4].
School leadership can be measured through dimensions; 1) idealized influence, indicators: (a) convey the vision, mission and goals of the school; 2) inspirational motivation, indicators (a) motivating teachers, (b) inspiring teachers, (c) respecting teacher performance; 3) intellectual stimulation, indicators: (a) stimulating creative teachers, (b) stimulating teachers to develop themselves; 4) individual consideration, indicators: (a) noting the condition of the teacher, (b) listening to complaints/ needs of the teacher; 5) contingent rewards, with indicators: (a) giving awards; 6) management by exception (active), with indicators: (a) control, (b) give corrective action; 7) management by exception (passive), with indicators: (a) giving warnings, (b) performing [195] performance interventions; 8) laissez-faire, with indicators: (a) the teacher determines the way to complete the task, (b) the teacher makes his own decisions.
Behavior in the teacher basically cannot only grow from the leadership style of the principal, but also can grow from feelings to fair treatment given by the principal to his subordinates. There are several types of justice, namely distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice. Of the four types of justice, procedural justice is considered the best because in procedural justice employees can consider the process that leads to the results obtained. In this case, Colquitt (2017) explained that procedural justice reflects the perceived fairness of decision making processes [2]. This is supported by Armstrong (2009), thatprocedural justice refers to the ways in which managerial decisions are made and personnel procedures are managed [5].
Justice is an important factor that can affect one's CB. This is consistent with what revealed by McShane &Glinow (2018) that fair behavior by superiors can increase one's emotions and motivation [6]. Other than that, George & Jones (2008) also suggestedwhen subordinates trust their leaders this can increase members' perceptions of procedural justice, which in turn, can lead employees to engage in OCB that can also raise performance [7].
Because procedural justice is a person's feelings towards the behavior of others who treat the person fairly with regard to decision-making procedures, then to measure it can be done by looking at: There is fair treatment of the teacher, There is consistency in applying assessment rules and procedures, There is openness in decision making, There is a basis for accurate information in making decisions, the consideration of the needs of all groups, and the existence of a revised decision that is not in accordance with the conditions of the school.
Based on the above, the writing of this research aims to find out (1) does school leadership has a direct effect on citizenship behavior ?; (2) does procedural justice has a direct effect on citizenship behavior ?; (3) does school leadership have a direct effect on procedural justice ?; does school leadership have an indirect influence on citizenship behavior through procedural justice?.In this research, procedural justice was used as an intervening variable because in reality the justice felt by someone in the organization was always associated with the performance shown by that person.

Materials and Methods
This research is a quantitative study using a survey method. The research aims to find the influence of school leadership and procedural justice to citizenship behavior. Path analysis is used to test the direct and indirect influence of the variables research. The research involved 115 teachers in Duren Sawit region, East Jakarta as respondents, with a composition of 20 teachers used as samples of instrument trials and 93 teachers selected as research samples using Simple Random Sampling (SRS). The developed instrument was then tested for the validity of the items using pearson product moment (ppm) and calculated reliability using Cronbach Alpha using SPSS 23.
The instrument for measuring citizenship behavior consisted of 32 item statements, measured using the CB scale with a score of 5-4-3-2-1 (always, often, occasionally, seldom, never) with reliability of 0.916. The instrument for measuring school leadership consisted of 43 item statements, measured using a leadership scale with a score of 5-4-3-2-1 (always, often,  [196] occasionally, seldom, never) with reliability of 0.961. The instrument for measuring procedural justice consists of 26 item statements, measured using a justice scale with a score of 5-4-3-2-1 (strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree, strongly disagree) with reliability of 0.944. The data were analyzed using regression, correlation and path analysis.

Results and Discussions
The data from the research based on the instruments that have been filled by 93 teachers of Senior High School in Duren Sawit region, East Jakarta, are processed using descriptive statistics and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics werepresented in the form of minimum scores, maximum scores, mean, median, mode, standard deviation and variance of each variable used.   The next step, the data was processed by using inferential statistics. The research used Komolgorov-Smirnov Testfor checking the normality and Bartlett Test for checking homogenity. Based on the results of these tests, it was known that the data were normally distributed and the group has a homogeneous variance at the significant level α = 0.05. Then, we used test of the hypothesis. Previously, we needed to know in advance the regression model of pairs of variables X1X3, X2X3, and X1X2. Then tested the significance of the regression model, and also need to know its linearity using the F test in the ANOVA table. Based on the table above it can be seen that the results of the test of significance and linearity of the regression model X3= 94,065 + 0.238X₁; X3 = 105.752 + 0.212X2; X2 = 37,682 + 0.521X1 significant and the shape of the relationship was linear at the significant level α = 0.05.
Based on ANOVA tables 1, 2 and 3, empirical models can be made as follows: The result of this research showed that (1) school leadership has a direct effect and significant on citizenship behavior with phi31 = 0.437, using t-test, tcal = 4.634 more than ttab = 1.986; (2) procedural justice has a direct effect and significant on citizenship behavior with phi21 = 0.322,using t-test, tcal = 3.249 more than ttab = 1.986; (3) school leadership has a direct effect and significant on procerual justice with phi21 = 0,628. using t-test, tcal = 7,690 more than ttab = 1.986. (4) On the basis of the empirical model in Figure 1, it was known that the path coefficient between X1X2 and X2X3 were 0.322 and 0.628, this result was then the basis for determining the indirect effect of X1 on X3 through X2 so that phi31,2 was obtained by 0.202, using a partial t-test , tcal = 1.957 is less than ttab = 1.987 which means that the indirect effect was not significant at the significant level α = 0.05.
The results of the first hypothesis test showed that there was a significant direct effect between school leadership on citizenship behavior, so that it was proven that leadership could influence the citizenship behavior of teachers. This was in accordance with the research conducted by Domengues et.all (2012) on employees that leadership that develops employee professionalism is more effective in increasing citizenship behavior through individual perceived responsibility for constructive changes that occur within the organization [8].
Citizenship behavior is one of the important behaviors that must exist within the teacher to improve school goals. The more transformational the principal in leading his subordinates (in this case the teacher), the headmaster is increasingly inspiring and motivating his teacher to work. As revealed by Jha (2014) that transformational leadership can improve positive quality of the behavior of subordinates [9]. The behavior referred to in the CB concept shows how employee performance works beyond the task at hand, helps others to work to pay attention to the personal and professionalism of other employees.
The results of the second hypothesis test showed that there was a significant direct effect between procedural justice on citizenship behavior, so that it was proven that procedural justice could influence the citizenship behavior of teachers. This is consistent with the research conducted by Karriker & Margaret (2007) that perceptions of justice carried out by the system within the organization will have an impact on OCBO [10]. This was also confirmed by Shan et al. (2015) who stated that procedural justice had a positive impact on employee job performance [11]. In this study, it was stated that justice felt by employees was due to the rewards received by these employees. In this case, clear communication and involvement of employees in the decisionmaking process is very important because someone's performance will be good if consistent and fair in applying the rules and giving rewards to those employees [12].
Basically, there are three dimensions of justice; namely distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice [2]. But in this case, procedural justice has its own advantages because, in procedural justice, this process is applied consistently to all, free from bias, accurate, representing relevant stakeholders, can be corrected, and consistent with ethical norms [13]. So that the results obtained from the teachers are fair and will certainly reduce the adverse influence that is not favorable on the results obtained. In this case, it is also said that the decisionmaking process which is considered fair, will increase teacher loyalty and simultaneously the teacher will work better for the sake of the school.
The results of the third hypothesis test show there was a significant direct effect between school leadership on procedural justice. So from this it was proven that leadership carried out by the principal can influence the fair perception felt by the teacher in the procedures carried out by the principal and the system in the school. This was revealed by Wiesenfeld et.all (2000) that leadership can be placed in various levels within the organization, so that procedural justice plays a considerable role at various levels of management [14]. The same thing is also stated by Cremer (2006) said that transformational leadership style carried out by superiors can provide good conditions for employees due to procedural justice that applies in the organization and given by their superiors [15].
In the school, procedural justice carried out by school management as well as by school principals acting as leaders in schools is considered very important. So the principal feels that efforts need to be made to emphasize justice in their daily interactions in school. This happens because a sense of fairness that is felt by the teacher will determine the attitudes and movements towards their leaders and the school they occupy.
The results of the fourth hypothesis test showed that there was no significant indirect effect between school leadership on citizenship behavior through procedural justice. Even though the previous hypothesis of procedural justice on citizenship behavior and school leadership on procedural justice both influenced each variable and the results were significant, the indirect effect of leadership on citizenship behavior through procedural justice stated that there were no significant indirect influences. Therefore, it can be said that procedural justice is not a mediating factor that is good for leadership and citizenship behavior. This result is a new discovery in this study, so that to increase the teacher's citizenship behavior can be done through the leadership style of the boss (in this case the headmaster) conducted by superiors to subordinates and other variables can be intermediary variables to increase citizenship behavior.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Based on these findings, it could be concluded that school leadership and procedural justice must be considered to build the teacher's citizenship behavior. This was because school leadership had a significant direct effect on citizenship behavior and procedural justice had a significant direct effect on citizenship behavior. In addition, school leadership also had a significant direct effect on citizenship behavior. But procedural justice was not a good mediating factor for citizenship behavior and school leadership. Empirically, school leadership, procedural justice and citizenship behavior must be considered to improve teacher performance in schools. Because good school leadership and procedural justice will increase citizenship behavior so as to provide benefits for the school.
Based on the results of the research, suggestions can be considered as follows: 1) For other researchers who are interested in the same problem, can conduct this research by involving many samples and adding other variables; 2) this research can also be used as the basis for further research using different analytical techniques.