This article was written by former Head of Insights and Acting Head of Insights, Kate Coombs and Olivia Olivarius, and former Senior Behavioural Scientist Rosie Almond.
Our 2021 Future of Workplaces report showed that line managers are experiencing multiple challenges arising from the post-pandemic evolution in working models. Discussions at a roundtable that we convened for our members indicate that many line managers have been faced with making difficult decisions on how to implement organisational policies on flexibility in working locations, hours and work patterns.
As restrictions on movement and mandatory working from home have eased, many organisations want their employees to come together, whether to improve connectedness, innovation, learning or just to provide observable evidence of productivity.
Research suggests that when it comes to returning to the office, there is a mismatch between employee and employer preferences and employees have been complaining of a lack of consultation[1]. Clearly it is a challenge for any organisation to develop a policy that meets the requirements of all teams – one size does not fit all[2]. So how can line managers make decisions that are fair to employees? What should a hybrid working model look like? Who should decide this? What is a fair way of developing this working model? How can managers fairly implement such models? Who decides when people should be in the office? What if some roles do not lend themselves to home working – what flexibility can be offered to those employees? And so on. Global organisations as well as SMEs have been challenged with implementing policies on hybrid working[3]. Why have some organisations found this challenging? Has there been a shift in the business, or did they get their working model wrong and, if so, why?
We believe that help to answer some of these questions lies in the concept of organisational justice, as highlighted in our Future of Workplaces Report. Below, we outline some of the academic evidence around organisational justice and consider how line managers can use these insights to help make decisions that will be more likely to be perceived as just and fair.
Organisational Justice – What is it and why is it important?
Organisational justice refers to employees’ perceptions of social and interpersonal fairness within their workplace[4]. These perceptions influence attitudes and behaviours (including ethical behaviour), which can subsequently impact on organisational outcomes.
Emotional impact of fairness perceptions
Consider a famous experiment involving two capuchin monkeys[5]. The monkeys were engaged in a task that required them to take a rock and return it to their trainer, for which they received a reward. One monkey received a slice of cucumber as a reward, the other monkey received a superior grape, in full view of the other monkey. This resulted in what appears to be extreme frustration and anger in the monkey that received the cucumber reward. The experimenters make a link with humans in relation to inequity aversion (a preference for fairness)[6]. They suggest that the monkey receiving the cucumber (inferior reward) reacted negatively when the other monkey received a grape (superior reward) for the same effort on a task. The monkey receiving the cucumber (inferior reward) eventually stopped complying and rejected the reward by throwing it at the trainer. While this study is not without its critics, the experiment demonstrates the behaviour that inequity can result in, albeit in the animal world. (It is worth noting that humans share approximately 90% of our DNA with monkeys)!
Among humans, research has found that perceptions of unfairness also evoke strong emotional responses that can impact on our behaviour. Participants in a study underwent an fMRI scan while playing a game that was designed to create perceptions of unfairness. The fMRI scans showed that areas of the brain associated with emotion (disgust) were activated when participants were faced with an unfair scenario[7]. This type of emotional response is likely to have implications in terms of negative employee behaviour.
Cost of perceptions of unfairness
A study in the USA estimated that unfairness in the workplace costs US employers $64 billion a year[8]. This figure was based on an estimate of the far-reaching effects that perceptions of unfairness can have in organisations, including people who left their employer because of unfair treatment, the cost of replacing them, the fall in productivity due to disengagement and the fall of productivity of those who chose to ignore the unfair treatment.
Types of organisational justice
There are four types of perceived fairness within organisational settings:
- distributive justice – the perception of the fairness of decision outcomes, such as promotion opportunities, pay, positive performance appraisals etc.
- procedural justice – the perception of fairness within the processes that lead to outcomes, for example performance calibration or procedures for allocating promotional opportunities
- interpersonal justice – the perception (positive or negative) of interpersonal interactions and treatments during the decision-making process
- information justice – relates to the perception of adequacy, reasonableness and honesty of the explanations given to justify a decision
Let’s take a closer look at each type and how perceptions of fairness are formed.
Distributive justice
This type of justice is fostered when outcomes are considered to have equity[9]. People form fairness perceptions based on how their input-to-output compares to those of their colleagues[10]. For example, the perception of rewards and resources being distributed in accordance with the contributions of their recipients. This social comparison is crucial, as we saw in the capuchin monkey example.
A more human example is an experiment that tested the effect of disclosing co-worker pay and effort information to another worker. While co-worker pay information alone had no effect on the worker’s effort, exposure to both pieces of social information (i.e. pay and work effort of the co-worker) influenced the worker’s effort. A high wage was virtually ineffective in terms of improving work effort of the worker if they were matched with a lazy co-worker who was also paid a high wage[11]. The same study found that a highly paid worker’s effort increased if matched with a highly paid co-worker who was hard working. This suggests that worker effort is sensitive to the perception of fairness when pay is equal.
Timeframes are also an important factor in tolerance of favourable / unfavourable outcomes. We have a tendency to accept less favourable outcomes where there is a high trust relationship as we believe that we will gain favourable outcomes over time. Conversely, where there is low trust, we are less likely to accept unfavourable outcomes as we are less confident that we will gain favourable outcomes from the relationship overtime[12].
Procedural justice
This type of justice is fostered by enabling employee voice during decision-making processes (process control), or influence over the outcomes (decision control)[13]. Not unexpectedly, studies have also found that people are more willing to accept a negative outcome if they perceive the process leading to the outcome was in line with a fair process or just principles[14]. For example, consider the process of evaluating jobs under a new pay and grading system. Including staff in the development of the process would more likely improve acceptance of the job evaluation outcome than if the process was contained to a specialised team with no further information available. Fair process criteria include factors such as:
- consistency – principles, policies etc. are applied consistently to everybody
- lack of bias – decisions are made objectively
- accuracy of information – procedures based on accurate information
- correctability – appeals procedures exist to challenge perceived bad decisions
- representation – groups affected by the decision are heard from
- ethicality – the process is ethical[15]
People have a tendency to place less importance on favourable outcomes when procedural fairness is high. Put simply, the effects of what you do depends on how you do it[16]. The perception one has of the trustworthiness of another party helps to explain this phenomenon. Trust is central to any relationship, and one determinant of trust is perceptions of procedural fairness – the more procedural fairness that is perceived, the more likely one is to trust that party[17]. Therefore, if an employer is perceived by employees as trustworthy then, employees are likely to place less importance on favourability of outcomes.
Interpersonal justice
Positive perceptions of interpersonal justice rely on respect and propriety. The decision maker should treat the affected people with politeness, dignity and respect, and should refrain from making improper comments[18]. If people are treated in such a way then this will likely alter people’s reactions to decision procedures and outcomes[19], not to mention better employee relations. In the context of this article, treating matters such as care challenges or wellbeing in a respectful and dignified manner is likely to go a long way to fostering organisational justice.
Informational justice
Informational justice perceptions are formed based on whether the authority figure (e.g. line manager) has clearly outlined the processes and procedures that are going to be followed[20]; has been open and honest[21]; has provided clear articulation of how and why the process has been used; given timely feedback on outcomes and progress; and tailored their communications to the needs of the employee[22].
Positive outcomes associated with organisational justice
These organisational justice insights build a picture of how organisations can shape, develop and implement new working models in a way that is more likely to be perceived as fair and just, and fits the needs of the business and localised teams. However, what evidence is there of desirable outcomes that are associated with organisational justice? Below are some of the evidenced outcomes within academic literature.
- innovation[23] and increased learning behaviour[24]
- organisational trust[25]
- ethical behaviour[26]
- organisational commitment[27]
- work performance[28]
- optimism, resilience and work engagement[29]
- whistleblowing[30]
- technology adoption, diversity, adaptability[31]
- positive interpersonal relations[32]
- reduced turnover intentions[33]
Negative outcomes associated with unjust organisational environments
- workplace disruption, sabotage and vandalism[34]
- increased absenteeism[35]
- moral disengagement (when employees depart from restraint from behaving unethically)[36]
- burnout[37]
- heavy drinking[38]
How can line managers affect employee perceptions of fairness in evolving working models?
When it comes to new working models, creating a climate of fairness is a top priority. By taking insights from the concept of organisational justice, this can support managers to navigate the practical implementation of evolving working models within their teams.
Notes
[1] https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/relations/flexible-working/flexible-hybrid-working-practices#gref
[2] Davis, M.C., Hughes, H.P.N., Rees, S.J., Wu, C., Gritt, E., Collis, C., & Fang, L. (2022) Where is your office today? A research-led guide to effective hybrid working. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
[3] Davis, M.C., Hughes, H.P.N., Rees, S.J., Wu, C., Gritt, E., Collis, C., & Fang, L. (2022) Where is your office today? A research-led guide to effective hybrid working. Leeds, UK: University of Leeds.
[4] Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. The Academy of Management Review, 12(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/257990
[5] Two Monkeys Were Paid Unequally: Excerpt from Frans de Waal’s Ted Talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg
[6] Brosnan, Sarah F. and de Waal, Frans B.M., 2003 Monkeys reject unequal pay. Nature, 425, September 2003
[7] Sanfey, A.G., Rilling, J.K., Aronson, J.A., Nystrom, L.E. and Cohen, J.D., (2003). The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science, 300(5626), pp.1755-1758.
[8] CIPD Research Report – The changing contours of fairness: Can we match individual and organisational perspectives? November 2013
[9] Colquitt J. A (2001) On the Dimensionality of Organisational Justice: A Construction Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 86. No. 3 386-400
[10] Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 267-299). New York: Academic Press.
[11] Gachter S. , Nosenzo D. & Sefton M (2012)The Impact of Social Comparisons on Reciprocity. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics Vol.114, No.4
[12] Brockner J, & Weisenfeld B.M. (1996). An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures. Psychological Bulletin vol 120, No 2 189-208
[13] Colquitt J. A (2001) On the Dimensionality of Organisational Justice: A Construction Validation of a Measure. Journal of Applied Psychology Vol 86. No. 3 386-400
[14] Greenberg, J., (1994).Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(2), p.288.
[15] Leventhal, G.S., 1980. What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange (pp. 27-55). Springer, Boston, MA.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. 1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
[16] Brockner J, & Weisenfeld B.M. (1996). An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures. Psychological Bulletin vol 120, No 2 189-208
[17] Konovsky and Pugh 1994 cited in Brockner J, & Weisenfeld B.M. (1996). An Integrative Framework for Explaining Reactions to Decisions: Interactive Effects of Outcomes and Procedures. Psychological Bulletin vol 120, No 2 189-208
[18] Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, pp.43-55.
[19] Greenberg, J., 1993. Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 54(1), pp.81-103.
[20] Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, pp.43-55.
[21] Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, pp.43-55.
[22] Shapiro, D.L., Buttner, E.H. and Barry, B., (1994) Explanations: What factors enhance their perceived adequacy?. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 58(3), pp.346-368.
[23] Simmers, C. A., & McMurray, A. J. (2019). Organisational justice and managing workplace innovation: How important are formal procedures? International Journal of Innovation Management, 23(03), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1142/s1363919619500269
Pan, X., Chen, M., Hao, Z., & Bi, W. (2018). The effects of organizational justice on positive organizational behavior: Evidence from a large-sample survey and a situational experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02315
[24] Walumbwa, F. O., Cropanzano, R., & Hartnell, C. A. (2009). Organizational justice, voluntary learning behavior, and job performance: A test of the mediating effects of identification and leader-member exchange. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(8), 1103–1126. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.611
[25] Niazi, A. and Hassan, H., (2016) Effect of justice on employee performance in the banking sector of Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 10(3), pp.735-752.
[26] Pan, X., Chen, M., Hao, Z., & Bi, W. (2018). The effects of organizational justice on positive organizational behavior: Evidence from a large-sample survey and a situational experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02315
[27] Pan, X., Chen, M., Hao, Z., & Bi, W. (2018). The effects of organizational justice on positive organizational behavior: Evidence from a large-sample survey and a situational experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02315
Keyvanar, M., Shahpouri, S. and Oreyzi, H.R. (2014) Relationship among organizational justice, work engagement and positive organizational behavior of nurses via mediation of their personal career goals. Iran Journal of Nursing, 27(88), pp.22-33.
[28] Pan, X., Chen, M., Hao, Z., & Bi, W. (2018). The effects of organizational justice on positive organizational behavior: Evidence from a large-sample survey and a situational experiment. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02315
[29] Keyvanar, M., Shahpouri, S. and Oreyzi, H.R. (2014) Relationship among organizational justice, work engagement and positive organizational behavior of nurses via mediation of their personal career goals. Iran Journal of Nursing, 27(88), pp.22-33.
[30] Seifert, D.L., Sweeney, J.T., Joireman, J. and Thornton, J.M., (2010) The influence of organizational justice on accountant whistleblowing. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(7), pp.707-717.
[31] McParland, J.L., Gasteen, A. and Steultjens, M., (2020) The role of perceived organisational justice in the experience of pain among male and female employees. Journal of Health Psychology, 27(4), pp.847-857.
[32] Kray, L.J. and Lind, E.A., (2002) The injustices of others: Social reports and the integration of others’ experiences in organizational justice judgments. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 89(1), pp.906-924.
[33] Vaamonde, J.D., Omar, A. and Salessi, S., (2018) From organizational justice perceptions to turnover intentions: The mediating effects of burnout and job satisfaction. Europe’s journal of psychology, 14(3), p.554.
[34] Ambrose, M.L., Seabright, M.A. and Schminke, M., (2002) Sabotage in the workplace: The role of organizational injustice. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 89(1), pp.947-965.
[35] Mingzheng, W., Xiaoling, S., Xubo, F. and Youshan, L., (2014) Moral identity as a moderator of the effects of organizational injustice on counterproductive work behavior among Chinese public servants. Public Personnel Management, 43(3), pp.314-324.
[36] Beunza, D., (2019) Taking the Floor. In Taking the Floor. Princeton University Press.
[40] Elci M, Erdilek Karabey M & Akyuz B (2015). Investigating the Mediating Effect of Ethical Climate on Organiastional Justice and Burnout: A Study on Financial Sector. Social and Behavioural Sciences 207 587-597
[37] Kouvonen, A., Kivimäki, M., Elovainio, M., Väänänen, A., De Vogli, R., Heponiemi, T., Linna, A., Pentti, J. and Vahtera, J., (2008) Low organisational justice and heavy drinking: a prospective cohort study. Occupational and environmental medicine, 65(1), pp.44-50.
[38] Greenberg, J. and Folger, R., (1983). Procedural justice, participation, and the fair process effect in groups and organizations. In Basic group processes (pp. 235-256). Springer, New York, NY.
Bies, R.J. and Moag, J.F. (1986) Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. Research on negotiation in organizations, 1, pp.43-55.
Leventhal, G.S., (1980) What should be done with equity theory? In Social exchange (pp. 27-55). Springer, Boston, MA.
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Bobocel, D.R. and Farrell, A.C., (1996) Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(1), p.22.
Greenberg, J., (1990) Looking fair vs being fair-managing impressions of organizational justice. Research in organizational behavior, 12, pp.111-157.
Greenberg, J., (1993) Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 54(1), pp.81-103.
Greenberg, J., (1994) Using socially fair treatment to promote acceptance of a work site smoking ban. Journal of Applied psychology, 79(2), p.288.
