Justice, Fairness, and Diversity PDF

Justice, fairness and diversity Most of the conflicts that appear in organizations can be explained by someone who feels being treatet unfairly. Justice Concerns Example: Two apes are in a cage. One gets a grape Fairness concerns are ubiquitous (allgegenwärtig) Psychological Theories of justice T...

Justice, fairness and diversity Most of the conflicts that appear in organizations can be explained by someone who feels being treatet unfairly. Justice Concerns Example: Two apes are in a cage. One gets a grape Fairness concerns are ubiquitous (allgegenwärtig) Psychological Theories of justice Theory of relative deprivation Relative deprivation theory argues that – when making justice judgments – humans compare their standing against a relevant peer group. Two individuals who are factually equally off may feel different degrees of deprivation (Entbehrung) relative to their comparison standard. Social comparisons and satisfaction with bonus Bonus assignements in a team (high peer group) Theories of distributional justice What do you think? Michael’s and Kate’s mother asks the two if they want to help her bake some cookies. Michael declines the offer and prefers to play video games instead. Kate helps her mother throughout the entire process of baking 6 cookies. In the end, the mother gives all cookies to Kate. Michael is furious and calls his mother «unfair». What do you think? The equity principle (Equity theory) Adams (1965) Humans evaluate the outcomes of distributions as fair, if the relationship between inputs and outputs are congruent with each other. They compare their own input/output quotient to that of other people. Negative deviations from the equity principle lead to anger, positive deviations lead to guilt. Humans are motivated to reduce this tension. Underprivileged persons react with reduced effort, overprivileged persons react with increased effort Gift exchange in the light of equity theory - Positive reciprocity in the gift-exchange paradigm is theoretically backed by equity theory. If agents receive high wages, their response to equity-rule violations is increased effort as they are motivated to reduce the guilt-inducing tension between receiving too much output relative to their input. What do you think? The siblings Michael and Kate receive 6 cookies from their mother. What do you think is a fair split between the two? The equality principle According the equality principle, every affected person receives an equal share in order to achieve justice. What do you think? Michael and Kate are out playing all day. They come home tired and starving. Michael is three years old and Kate is eight. Their mother has three cookies. She gives one to Michael and two to Kate. Is this fair? The need principle In order to achieve justice, according the need principle, every affected person receives as much as s/he needs. What do you think? Michael’s and Kate’s mother asks the two if they want to help her bake some cookies. Both agree. Shortly after starting the process, Michael becomes ill and his mother suggests that he sleeps a bit. When Michael wakes up three hours later, the mother gives three cookies to Michael and three cookies to Kate. Kate is furious arguing that Michael did not help at all and should not receive any cookies. What do you think? -> Kate is argumenting with the equity theory, while Michael is argumenting that he had no fault in getting sick What drives people’s choices (descriptively)? -> Exam!!! - The choice of the «right» justice principle depends on the nature of the relationship between the involved parties. o The equity principle dominates in cooperative relationships of economic interaction. o The equality principle dominates when the maintenance of a social relationship is at stake. It would be ridicolous to do things after the equity principle here-> A couples orders a wine -> they calculate how much each one drank and claculate with that how much each has to pay -> ridiculous > in a couple, because of the social relationship they go with the equality principle o The need principle typically dominated in domains of human development and personal wellbeing. -> When his wife is sick, sebastian helps her and gives her everything she needs Debates around elements of the welfare state typically center around conflicts about which distributional justice rule to follow. A problem even if people agree about the “right” principle... An important source of justice conflicts is the incongruent perception about the nature of the relationship as this defines the appropriate justice principle Reasons underlying wrong perception - Overconfidence -> overconfidence in how good we are able to do a taks -> his wife thinks he cannot vacuume so she need to do it again after he did it Representativness -> when making a judgement about a task is representive of their character Partitioning of tasks -> in a traditional marriage, where the wife is at home with the children and the husband is at work. Those are just two tasks, but each one knows that in his task there are 1000000 tasks included Etc. Conflict resolution often follows compromises that involve a mix of several criteria of distributional justice. - Equity, equality, and need are all tried to reached a little bit Example: Welfare state o Welfare payment is 1000 Monetary Units (MU) ▪ Need o Minimum wage is set in a way that the monthly salary is above 1000 Mus ▪ Equity requires that low-earners have more than non-workers o Equal pay rule ▪ Guarantees that similar jobs have identical pay (regardless of performance) Procedural justice What do you think? - Christopher and John are sitting next to each other in the office. Both are doing an excellent job and their boss is equally happy with the two. One day, John learns that Christopher makes 2’000 CHF more per month than John. He is furious and confronts his boss. His boss declines to give John a raise. Is this fair? - Christopher is extremely happy at his job. One day, he is approached via Linked-in and is offered a new job that comes with a 2’000 CHF pay raise. When he tells his boss about the offer, his boss quickly matches the salary, because he fears that Christopher may leave the company. His colleague John does not receive a raise. Would you think this is fair? -> it’s very hard to maintain fairness - Christopher and John both work hard every day. In the end of the year, both are entitled to a bonus. According to their work, each should receive a bonus of 5’000 CHF. The boss calls the two in the office and says: Each of you, please flip a coin. If you end up with heads, I will pay you 5’000 CHF as a bonus. Christopher and John both flip the coin, both end up with heads, and receive the bonus as a consequence. Not fair, because people also care about the how the decisions are made Besides outcomes, people deeply care about how decisions are made. This domain is referred to as procedural justice. „Procedural justice has its origins in legal research, but is increasingly used to explain just procedures in the work place.“ Six rules of procedural justice by Leventhal (1980) - Consistence -> if two people mark question one true both get the points Impartiality -> i should not correct the exam of my own brother Accuracy Correctability -> all of us have the opportunity to come to the „prüfungseinsicht“ Representativeness -> Anyting that happens this year should also happen the next year Ethicality Four conditions of procedural justice by Tyler (2000) - The opportunity to be heard (voice) The neutrality of all decision makers The trust in the motives of the decision makers The dignified and respectful treatment of all affected parties Important: o Conflict resolution regarding procedural justice does not happen by compromising on the criteria. Typically, procedures are seen as fairer, the more principles are followed. «Voice» is a paramount idea in procedural justice. Informational and interpersonal justice Informational justice describes the quality and quantity of information that affected parties receive from the decision makers. It defines the respectful, friendly, and dignified treatment of the affected parties by the decision maker. -> not giving wrong informations Why is justice important? Justice motive theory People have a fundamental motive to live in a world in which people receive what they are entitled to. But researchers are disputing whether justice is an «ultimate» motive. Social exchange theory – an instrumental view on justice Justice concerns help us establish welfare maximizing equilibria. For instance, applying rules of distributional and procedural justice can ensure that people maximize their joint utility. If blue doesn’t reciprocate the trust, it would be considered unfair Social identity theory – a relational view on justice Justice is important because from the treatment i receive, i decide how i interfer in a social group - People care about justice because they infer their status within a social group based on the treatment and outcomes they receive. - Just treatment signals self-relevant information about the place in the group. - Unfair treatment threatens people’s social identity as a member of the group. Injustice Justice as uncertainty avoidance - Many people are particularly averse to uncertainty. Justice is seen as a tool to escape uncertainty. Just treatment creates a predictability in social exchanges Negative consequences of injustice: Sabotage may occur - “We study sabotage in repeated tournaments in a controlled laboratory experiment and observe that effort and sabotage are higher for higher wage spreads.” “Strong tournament incentives based on relative performance are likely to impede cooperative activities like helping each other because this deteriorates one’s relative position.”