Justice and Trust Week 5

Organizational Justice Definition: Fair treatment from an organization or its members Direct link to employees’ emotions Anger Stress Direct link to employees’ attitudes Affective Organizational Commitment Job Satisfaction Predicts employees’ behaviors Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Counterproductive Workplace Behaviors

Organizational Justice Take a minute to write a paragraph about the most unfair thing that happened to you (or someone you know) at work. Be as specific as possible Pick a topic you are comfortable sharing

1. Distributive Justice Perceived fairness of outcomes relative to our contributions and the outcomes and contributions of others Cognitive and affective reaction based on: Equality theory Fair IF everyone receives identical outcomes Need theory Fair IF everyone receives the outcomes they require Equity theory Fair IF everyone’s outcomes are proportional to their inputs

Distributive Justice Under-reward inequity May try to reduce effort e.g., reduce effort, take more breaks, be late or absent, etc. May try to increase rewards e.g., ask for raise, union or legal action, theft May act on the comparison other Tell counterpart to do more work Switch comparison other Exit

Distributive Justice Over-reward inequity (less common) May try to increase effort e.g., work harder, do more difficult tasks, take on leadership role May act on the comparison other Tell counterpart to do less work Not likely to try to reduce rewards Perceptual change Cognitive dissonance: if I’m being rewarded, then I must deserve it!

2. Procedural Justice The fairness of the policies and procedures used to decide the distribution of resources May be more important than distributive justice People believe that they should have a say in decision processes, and that these processes should be predictable

Procedural Justice 1. Policies and procedures are applied consistently e.g., don’t make exceptions or start over with each new case 2. Decision-maker is unbiased e.g., allow participants to choose arbitrator 3. Complete and accurate information is used e.g., allow respondents to check their files before the proceedings begin 4. A correction or appeal mechanism is available Shows that the decision-maker is accountable 5. Policies and procedures gather information from and take into account all affected groups Listen to all sides 6. Policies and procedures conform to prevailing ethical standards (e.g., Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms)

3. Interactional Justice How the decision maker treats employees during the process Sometimes referred to as “interpersonal justice” Treated rudely, ignored, humiliated vs. Treated with courtesy and respect

4. Informational Justice Perceived quality of the explanations provided to employees, regarding why procedures were used in a particular way, or why outcomes were distributed in a certain way (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter & Ng, 2001) “transparency”: are employees told what is going on? Or are they the last to know? Layoffs, organizational changes, etc.

Group Activity Divide into groups of 4-6 people Refer to your examples of injustice Decide which types of injustice are evident in each person’s example Choose your best example to report to the class

Trust Positive expectations about another party’s intentions and actions in risky situations Occurs when you believe that another party will not adversely affect you in situations where you are vulnerable Necessary for organizational performance: Knowledge sharing, interpersonal helping, etc. Working quickly How have you decided whether to trust a coworker or boss?

Why do we trust someone? Ability or competence Benevolence Does this person know what s/he is doing? Does this person have the skills to make good decisions? Benevolence Will this person act in his or her own self-interest? Does this person care about my wellbeing? Integrity or character Will this person do what s/he says s/he will? Do I agree with his or her values?

Why do we trust someone? Propensity to trust “Swift” trust Affects the initial level of trust in a stranger Trust will change over time “Swift” trust Professionals in predictable roles Team context see who trusts who Trust is fragile and difficult to rebuild

Build Trust Be trustworthy Discuss values Avoid over-control Wait Water cooler conversations are helpful Avoid over-control “micro-managing” is not helpful Encourage interdependency Give partners a chance to demonstrate trustworthiness Wait 2 years

Mini case: Beckerman Form a group of 4 or so Read the email from Keith Zakheim Rate the organizational justice and trustworthiness that has been expressed. What would be a better approach?

Goals Gone Wild What was the main contribution of the pair of articles? Which article did you agree with more? Why? Were there any statements in either article that you disagreed with? What else should have been addressed? What is your overall assessment?