Does Fairness Matter in Organisational Decision Making
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•22 views
Organisational Change can create uncertainty & ambiguity which makes fairness of decision making critical to gaining employee's commitment. This talk takes an evidence-based approach to how to improve employees perception of fair decision making during change.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Does Fairness Matter in Organisational Decision Making
Similar to Does Fairness Matter in Organisational Decision Making (20)
More from ebbnflow
More from ebbnflow (13)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Does Fairness Matter in Organisational Decision Making
- 1. Jan 28, 2021 Presented by Alex Boulting Fair Decision Making Building Organisational Change Capability Talks # 2
- 3. 3 Building Change Capability Talks
- 4. 4 Enhancing organisational change capability UNIQUENESS Drive to flourish DOING – External Perspective BELONGING– Drive to belong BEING – Internal Perspective
- 5. 5 Understanding Fairness COMPLEX SYSTEMS… CAN BE SIMPLIFIED - Strong Score - Voted High Importance - Strong Correlation with weak areas e.g. Leadership & Psychological Safety
- 6. 6 Does fairness matter? Manager Relationships FAIRNESS
- 7. 7 OCCA Introduction UNIQUENESS – (Internal State) Drive to flourish DOING – Acting State BELONGING – (External State) Drive to belong BEING - Sensing State Behaviour is manifested as a decision to act which clearly impacts change momentum & direction. Connects individual intentions, beliefs, emotions & assumptions to action What I Do & How I Do It Habitualised behaviours have a high symbolic impact on change through organisational structures, processes & systems. Connects individual behaviours to an organisation’s purpose. What We Do & How We Do It Social context interprets beliefs & behaviours in relation to others creating wide cultural meaning of change. Connects individual’s identity to organisational culture. Why We Do & What We Experience Cognitive contemplation of how deep the individual’s commitment to change is. Connects to an individual's intentions, beliefs, emotions & assumptions Why I Do & What I Experience
- 9. WHY…? 1 9 Is fairness important in decision making?
- 10. 10 Why so critical to change? Lots of evidence People go the extra mile Balances autonomy & structure Creates inclusive culture Reduces uncertainty & ambiguity
- 12. 12 A popular construct !
- 13. THE DRIVE TO FIT IN Rigidity Integration Interdependence Framework Belonging WIIFUS Planned Inclusion Hierarchical Mechanistic THE DRIVE TO STAND OUT Fluidity Differentiation Self – Interest Freedom Uniqueness WIIFM Emergent Diversity Self-organizing Organic Paradox 1 – Autonomy v Structure
- 14. 14 Going the extra mile “people are motivated to select behaviours that give them the best opportunity to achieve their future goals with respect to work, which often manifests as OCBs” (i) Helping behaviours (ii) Fair & generous (iii) Organizational loyalty (iv) Organizational compliance (v) Individual initiative (vi) Civic duties - participating in activities, volunteering etc (vii)Self-development
- 15. Complexity & Organisational Change Characteristic 5: Spontaneity & Self Order Dynamically Organised (Variable Relationships) Forced Organised (Invariant Relationships) More Structure More Agency Purpose Co-operation Employee Voice Employee Commitment Social Exchange Organisational Justice
- 16. Costs Benefits Individuals in larger groups have less time to engage in relational behaviors focusing time on their tasks and coordinating with others (Muller 2011) Groups can make costly and seemingly avoidable errors when all members focused their thinking on the same assumptions and information Group Think Sharing the responsibility for decisions can mitigate associated distress Stress Reduction People in larger groups tend to reduce effort because responsibility becomes more diffused Groups allow people to be individually identified and/or make a distinct contributions to the ‘system’ Differentiation Groups of people become ‘superminds’ which can learn & adapt more effectively than individuals to complex tasks & make better decisions Collective Intelligence Group Dynamics – A Fine Balance Social Loafing Larger groups share information they have in common rather than information others don’t have. Information Hogging Allows individuals to build social bonds with others which and people want to perform well so others will think well of them Social Facilitation Keeping the balance through: Personal Identity Benevolence & Support Procedural Fairness Satisficing Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Are groups more or less than the sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39. Relational Loss Accountability Indispensability Alignment (Mental Models) Critical Thinking Constructive Criticism Novel insights Differentiation Integration Positive feedback loops Negative feedback loops
- 17. WHAT… 2 17 Is organisational justice / fairness?
- 18. 1960’s 1980s’ 2000’s 2020’s 1970’s 1990’s 2010’s Gouldner, 1960 (Reciprocity) Social Exchange Theory – people help those who help them perceived fairness of the enactment and implementation of decisions (Bies & Moag, 1986) Organisational Justice becomes more established after 4 key metanalysis in 3 years . 3x increase in research from10 years before to after 2000 Focus back on social exchange Working from home Job security What is a job? Focus on perceived fairness of decision outcomes, especially the degree to which outcomes are equitable (Adams, 1965; Leventhal, 1976) Fairness fosters a sense of trust on the part of employees, making them feel less anxious about engaging in extra-mile gestures Organ and Konovsky (1989), e. Moorman (1991), n, Konovsky and Pugh (1994) Equity Theory & Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Interpersonal & Interactional Justice ‘Contemporary’ Social Exchange Meta Analysis Meta Analysis on Social Exchange & Fairness perceived fairness of decision-making processes and the degree to which they are consistent, accurate, unbiased, and open to voice and input (Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker, 1975) Greenburg 1987 Construct Definition Focus on organisational citizen behaviours (OCB), trust commitment, support LMX etc. New Social/ Psychological Contract?
- 19. 19 What is fair? Injustice = People ‘feel’ when they give more than they take ? Is justice socially constructed – an act is just if people perceive it to be?
- 20. 20 Does fairness matter? Manager Relationships FAIRNESS
- 21. Change Commitment Organisational Citizen behaviours Supervisor Satisfaction 4 Ways to be fair PROCEDURAL - Is the process fair? DISTRIBUTED Are outcomes fair? INTERPERSONAL & INFORMATIONAL - Are people treated fairly? + Are explanations provided? Job Satisfaction Organisational & Change Commitment Trust in the Organisation Performance AGENCY STRUCTURE
- 22. 6 layers of fair decision making What bias checks are in place to ensure impartial decision making ? Bias Can unfair decision be changed? Correctable Are standards and values adhered to? Ethical Is the change approach consistently applied? Consistency What is the quality of evidence used to make the decision ? Accuracy Have all interests been represented ? Representative
- 23. Interactional Justice Treated with dignity with no recourse to insults or discourteous behaviour Respect Apologies for injustices to reduce sense of anger Justification Information must be realistic & accurate & presented in open and forthright manner Truthfulness Questions should never be ‘improper’ or involve prejudicial elements e.g. sexism racism Propriety
- 24. 24 Our Definition A process whereby people feel decision making is consistent accurate, unbiased, transparent and outcomes are equitable because their voice has been heard
- 26. Fairness Distributed Procedural Interpersonal Informational Social Exchange Quality Trust Commitment Organisational Support Management Support Emotional Effect Positive Negative Behaviours Task Performance Organisational Citizenship Behaviour Counter Productive Work Behaviour Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J. (2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based perspectives. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 199. Integrated Model Fairness, Social Exchange & Affect
- 27. 27 Impact on Outcomes PROCEDURAL Is the process fair? DISTRIBUTED Are outcomes fair? INFORMATIONAL Explanations clear? INTERPERSONAL Treated fairly ? Performance Org & Change Commitment Trust in the Org Performance Change Commitment Organisational Citizen Behaviours Supervisor Satisfaction
- 28. Treating people with dignity & respect Concept Definition Abusive supervision A supervisor displaying persistent behaviour as well as display of hostile verbal and non-verbal behaviour, which does not involve physical contact. Experience of aggression from a supervisor is different from aggression experienced from someone else. Bullying Situations where an individual is repeatedly exposed to negative acts, which occurs over a period of time (e.g. 6 months) and where there is a perceived power imbalance Incivility Low intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target, which violates the workplace norms. Behaviour can include discourteous verbal and non-verbal behaviour Social undermining Behaviour intended to hinder over time and unable to establish or maintain positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success and favourable reputation. Interpersonal conflict Disagreement between employees over a mutually stressful interaction
- 29. What’s the difference? Is this bullying? Is this bullying? Criticising an individual’s work Persistent criticism of an individual’s work Withholding information from an employee Withholding information from an employee which affects their performance Monitoring of work Excessive monitoring of an individual’s work Being given a high workload Being exposed to an unmanageable workload Being asked to complete work to very tight deadlines Being asked to complete work to unreasonable deadlines
- 30. Motivation Internal Competition Reward Structures Bureaucracy Triggers Restructuring & Crisis Organisational changes Changes in management Bullying Bullying – treating people with dignity & respect Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and Processes in the Work Environment Denise Salin 2003 repeated and persistent negative acts towards one or more individual(s), which involve a perceived power imbalance and create a hostile work environment Enablers Perceived power imbalance Low Perceived Costs Dissatisfaction & frustration Weak Leadership Role Ambiguity Act as a foundation & filter Moral Accountability Abiding by Social Norms Doing the Right Thing Fair Decision Making
- 31. 31 What is fair enough? People may consider multiple types of fairness when assessing change. For instance, employee may be more willing to accept “unfair” change outcomes if they result from a fair process which has been explained sincerely
- 32. 32 Giving People Voice More than just a tool for communicating Psychological safety is the bedrock of creating voice Clarity on channels & message Values that build sustainable culture pf voice Helps to give better understanding of minority group perspectives Definition = “ability of employees to express their views, opinions, concerns and suggestions, and for these efforts to influence decisions at work.’
- 33. 33 Takeaways for practice -1 Process • Is the decision making process transparent? • Are decision open to input and correctable? • Do you seek diversity of opinion when making decisions? Outcome • Are resources distributed fairly within the team? • Are outcomes seen to be equitable? • Are people treated according to their needs? Information • Is it clear why & how decision are made? Is relevant info shared? • Do people feel they have ‘voice’ within the team? • Do people feel treated with dignity & respect?
- 34. 34 Takeaways for Practice 2 CONSIDER YOUR CONTEXT MAKE TRADE- OFFS MINDFULLY DON’T ASSUME; COMMUNICATE! FOLLOW THE GOLDEN RULE
- 35. 35 Distributed decision making COMPLY • High Impact • High Risk- one way • Certainty • No alternatives • Clear causation • Data Rich • Simple system • “Tell” • Message Framing • Central decision • e.g. Financial CONSULT • Medium Impact • Medium Risk • Uncertainty • Few alternatives • Resources • Scenario based • “Sell & Tell” • Discuss implications • Delegated Decision • e.g. PM meetings CO-CREATE • Uncertain Impact • Low risk – two way • Ambiguity • Unknown alternatives • Unclear outcomes • Data Poor • Complex system • Participation • Understand Context • Distributed Decision • e.g. Behaviours
- 36. Would Could Should A model to correct fairness perceptions? Dr Iain Coyne - Senior Lecturer in Organisational Psychology
- 37. Fair Decision Making 6 reasons to be evidence-based Clarity & robustness of decision-making allows organisations to quickly respond to external challenges . AGILITY 01 as it creates a process to understand & interrogate decision-making CONFIDENCE 06 because decision-making processes have integrity & gravitas TRUST 02 Creates transparency & objectivity around decision- making FAIRNESS 05 clear decision-making structures creates efficacy, agency & autonomy EMPOWERMENT 03 to organisational values such as respect & fairness CONGRUENCE 04
- 38. Process • Being personally invested in the process • Holding managers to account for following the process • Calling out others behaviours when process is not followed • Use of accurate information to make decisions • Conscious of bias in decision making Outcome •People are personally invested outcomes •Outcomes reflect effort put into the work •People feel that are appropriately rewarded and recognised •People feel outcomes can be justified Information •Speaking out particularly when consulted • Communicating openly and candidly • Asking for and offering feedback • People are polite and sincere • Explanations are seen to be thorough • People don’t say inappropriate things Above the line behaviours Below the line behaviours Silence Rule Breaking No Trust Poor Relationships Poor Decisions What will I see? Blame
- 39. 39 Conclusion Not complex Just ‘sound managerial practice’ Unlikely to be harmful albeit might be unsuccessful Promote intention to be fair Potentially make a big impact on change success, preserving dignity and humaneness
- 40. AND ... Thank you! from Alex Boulting Owner | ebbnflow +44 7562570000 alex@ebbnflow.co.u k www.ebbnflow.co.u k Stay tuned and check our newest videos on YouTube: