Bridgewater Review

Volume 33 | Issue 1 Article 4

May-2014 Organizational : A Primer Todd C. Harris Bridgewater State University, [email protected]

Recommended Citation Harris, Todd C. (2014). : A Primer. Bridgewater Review, 33(1), 4-7. Available at: http://vc.bridgew.edu/br_rev/vol33/iss1/4

This item is available as part of Virtual Commons, the open-access institutional repository of Bridgewater State University, Bridgewater, Massachusetts. performance review conducted? Do Organizational Justice: A Primer your immediate manager and other leaders treat you with dignity and Todd C. Harris respect? Have you been given informa- tion about how important organiza- I do not pretend to understand the moral universe; tional decisions were made? Matters the arc is a long one, my eye reaches but little ways; such as these are relevant to organi- zational justice: the study of people’s I cannot calculate the curve and complete the figure perceptions of, and their reactions to, by the experience of sight; I can divine it by conscience. fairness in . And from what I see I am sure it bends towards justice. Organizational Justice: — Theodore Parker, Unitarian Minister and Boston Abolitionist, Fairness Matters “Sermon on Justice and the Conscience” (1853). Why should organizations and the e often think about moral questions as people that lead them care about jus- tice? The most powerful arguments abstract philosophical inquiries that fathom can be distilled into three broad the depths of what it means to be human. categories. The Moral Argument holds W that organizations should strive to do Certainly, moral questions motivated antebellum the right thing as a worthwhile end antislavery advocates, for example, for whom morality unto itself, exclusive of any tangible offered the best argument against the evil of slavery. organizational benefits. The Business Argument holds that treating employees What is true, however, is that every engaged member unfairly adversely impacts their work of society, then and now, must struggle daily with deep attitudes and behaviors, which in turn negatively impact criteria that organi- moral questions. This is no less true for the university zations value, such as sales, customer professor or the corporate manager than it was for satisfaction, safety, , job abolitionists such as Theodore Parker. satisfaction, employee , and other factors directly relevant to busi- Imagine that a college student receives whole. These perceptions, in turn, may ness success. This argument may take a failing grade in a course. The student have a profound effect on what the on added importance as we continue would likely be dissatisfied with the student actually does in response to the to shift toward a service, creative and grade, but could he or she reasonably grade, ranging from quietly accepting innovation-focused economy, one that claim that the grade was unfair? To the grade, complaining to a fellow stu- places a premium on employees who answer this question, we would need dent, challenging the professor, or even are fully committed to their organiza- to take a number of issues into con- withdrawing from school altogether. tions and engaged with their work. The sideration. For example, did the grade Although the above example is drawn Public Argument, which may actually be accurately reflect how the student from the field of education, the same a constituent of the business argument, performed in the course? Were the kinds of issues arise in the workplace. holds that the public is growing increas- scores on tests and other assignments For example, do you feel that your ingly aware and intolerant of unethical computed in an objective, unbiased salary and other benefits equitably corporate behavior. Consumers and manner and summed correctly? Did the reflect your contributions to your investors will support socially responsi- professor treat the student with dignity ? How is your annual ble companies and punish irresponsible and respect throughout the semester? Lastly, was the grading procedure clearly and thoroughly communicated and explained to the student? The Consumers and investors answers to these questions are likely to have a considerable impact on how will support socially responsible the student feels about the grade, the companies and punish professor, and even the school as a irresponsible ones.

4 Bridgewater Review ones. Each of the above arguments is complicated by the fact that what Research has shown that people constitutes “the right thing” is rarely straightforward. Given that philoso- are more willing to accept phers with the intellectual incandes- negative outcomes when the cence of Aristotle, Jeremy Bentham, Immanuel Kant, and John Rawls have outcomes were determined using struggled mightily with the topic of justice, it is understandable if a “typical” fair procedures. manager in an organization has trouble arriving at a satisfactory outcome in justice-related matters. Three Forms of Organizational Justice ORGANIZATIONAL If we return for a moment to the JUSTICE example of the college student who received a failing grade, we see that organizational justice is a multi-faceted concept that takes on a number of forms. The key forms are , , and inter- actional justice. Distributive justice is the form of organizational justice that focuses on employees’ beliefs that they get their fair share of valuable organiza- tional outcomes (e.g. pay, promotions, recognition). For example, as I write DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE this, the final roster for the 2014 Men’s United States Olympic hockey team has just been announced. The twenty- five roster spots would be considered to have been distributed fairly if the best Organizational Justice Model twenty-five players received them. It is important to note that individuals make of what is “fair” with respect to the The second form of organizational assessments of distributive justice not in allocation of rewards. One definition is justice is procedural justice. Whereas dis- isolation but in comparison to others. based on the merit norm, which indicates tributive justice concerns itself with the For example, consider two employees, a situation in which the people who fairness of the “ends” (i.e. did I get my Employee A and Employee B. Both work the hardest or add the most value fair share of the pie?), procedural justice have identical educational backgrounds, to the organization get the greatest considers the fairness of the “means” job titles and responsibilities, are hard rewards. Another definition is based on to those ends (i.e. was the process by workers, and are equally competent the notion of an equality norm, in which which valued outcomes were allocated performers. However, Employee A’s every member of the organization gets done fairly?). Procedural justice occurs annual compensation is ten percent the same share of rewards, regardless of in situations in which individuals feel higher than Employee B’s. Upon effort or levels of contribution. Finally, that they have a “voice” in the making making this discovery, Employee B is the need norm distributes rewards in of decisions, where rules are applied likely to be dissatisfied, and may seek proportion to individual needs. In the consistently, safeguards against bias are to remedy this inequity by working United States, the merit norm is the in place, and the information used in less (i.e. reducing inputs) or asking for a most common foundation for defin- the decision is accurate. Although it is raise (i.e. increasing outcomes) among ing fairness, whereas in other parts of important to use fair procedures always, other strategies. It is important to note the world where a collectivist culture it is especially important to do so when that there are many different definitions prevails (e.g. Asia and Scandinavia), the equality norm is stronger.

May 2014 5 the outcomes involved are unfavora- ble. Let us return for a moment to the classroom. A student who receives an “A” as a final course grade would be inclined to simply accept the grade without asking too many questions. If, on the other hand, the grade was an “F,” then the student would likely have much more interest in the procedures by which this final grade was calcu- lated. This is known as the “fair process effect.” Research has shown that people are more willing to accept negative outcomes when the outcomes were determined using fair procedures. In my pre-academic career as a man- agement consultant, I often observed that companies, especially those based in the United States, paid less than full attention to the issue of procedural justice. My research finds that some managers and other organizational leaders believe that they are “better” at procedural justice than they truly are, resulting in a disconnect between their perceptions and those of their employ- ees. For example, I suspect that most of us would rate ourselves highly on a survey item that measures how well we treat others with dignity and respect. However, if our employees were asked the same question, would they rate us as highly on this dimension as we rate ourselves? The research says no. Exec Comparing Two Employees (Credit: Tim Teebken) Managers may have the intent to treat others respectfully, but are not well the realm of organizational justice, Alternatively, some managers wrongly attuned to how those intentions perceptions matter more than any believe that tangible benefits (i.e. are being viewed by others. Within objective reality. distributive justice) are more important to employees than being treated with decency and respect. This phenomenon often happens when a company con- Employees who believe that they ducts a downsizing or other large-scale layoff, during which company execu- have been treated with a high tives concern themselves more with the size of severance packages and the con- level of interactional justice tend tinuation of health insurance benefits (distributive justice) than with being to be good organizational citizens, transparent about how the lay-off deci- going “above and beyond” to sions (e.g. who stays? who goes? why?) were made (i.e. procedural justice). assist others even when they do not have to.

6 Bridgewater Review The final form of organization justice good organizational citizens, going important for organizational leaders to is interactional justice. Individuals make “above and beyond” to assist others be more visible, not less, during times determinations about fairness not only even when they do not have to. of organizational challenge. on the basis of outcomes received and As with procedural justice, I have often the procedures used to determine Suggestions to Improve observed companies struggle with those outcomes, but also in terms of Organizational Justice the concept of interactional justice. how these outcomes and procedures Unwittingly, sometimes corporate How can a company build a culture are explained. This is interactional policies and guidelines hinder inter- that honors organizational justice? justice, which manifests itself in to two actional justice. A company’s legal Compensating employees fairly and in forms. The first is informational justice, department or human resources depart- accordance with prevailing market con- which can be defined as the amount ment may discourage managers from ditions improves the distributive justice and quality of information provided fully explaining their decisions on the of a workplace. In this vein, compensa- to explain outcomes and procedures. grounds that the disclosure of infor- tion could include non-wage-based Sharing lots of accurate information benefits such as health insurance or flexible work schedules. Compensating employees in proportion to their Although emotionally taxing, contributions to the organization also enhances distributive justice. Giving it is vitally important for employees a genuine voice in organiza- tional decisions and being transparent organizational leaders to be more about how organizational decisions are made both facilitate procedural justice. visible, not less, during times Finally, explaining decisions thor- oughly with accurate and timely infor- of organizational challenge. mation and ensuring that managers treat everyone with dignity, respect and professionalism extend interactional mation may make the company more justice. It is important for senior execu- helps employees to perceive that deci- vulnerable to lawsuits. They reason tives and other organizational leaders sions were made in a careful, thought- that the less said the better. While legal to make all forms of organizational ful and unbiased manner. The second is considerations regarding what to com- justice a top priority and to personally interpersonal justice, which can be defined municate, when, and how certainly model it in all of their communications as the level of respect and professional- need to be taken into account, in my and interactions. When the people at ism accorded to all employees. Imagine experience organizations often err on the top of the organizational pyramid a long-time and loyal employee who the side of withholding information involve employees in critical decisions, found out she had been fired only when when being more open and transparent make themselves available for authentic she went to her doctor and was told that would actually be more beneficial. two-way dialogue, explain why deci- she no longer had health insurance, or a sions are made and what alternatives team of senior executives from the U.S. Another reason why managers often were considered, and treat employee relieved of their duties via email while struggle with interactional justice is the concerns with dignity and respect, the on a business trip in China, stranded all-too-human desire to avoid or mini- organization will be morally healthier. with no way to get home. Imagine a mize uncomfortable situations. When a college football coach pulled off of the manager has to communicate bad news, team bus and fired in front of the whole such as laying off an employee, he or team. These would be all examples she has to wrestle with a litany of nega- of an egregious lack of interpersonal tive emotions such as anxiety, guilt, and justice, which we understand to be the fear. In lieu of addressing these emo- degree of dignity and respect shown tions, some managers find it prefer- someone while explaining outcomes able to avoid the issue and the people and procedures. Employees who believe impacted by it altogether. Although that they have been treated with a high emotionally taxing, it is vitally level of interactional justice tend to be Todd C. Harris is Assistant Professor in the Department of Management.

May 2014 7