3.2.1 Introduction
How people are treated at work by authorities is likely to impact on the
commitment of these individuals to the organisation, as well as to the type of behaviours that individuals exhibit at work (Smith, Tyler & Huo, 2003). Thus, authorities within a workplace can be described as having a stake in perceptions of fairness. In order to identify whether fair treatment can lead to beneficial outcomes in an organisational context, it is important to establish what makes a procedure seem fair compared to other
types of treatment. Given the potential importance of creating an organisational merger that is perceived as procedurally fair, an overview of the literature underpinning this area is essential in understanding how fairness is created, manipulated and maintained.
3.2.2 An introduction to Distributive and Procedural Justice
Up until the late 1970s, research into theories of justice focused almost exclusively on distributive justice. That is, organisational research focused on how resources in organisations were distributed, and how this distribution affected variables such as job satisfaction and employee morale; however, there was very limited literature focusing on the process of determining this distribution (Greenberg, 1987; Pease et al., 1988). For example, one of the theories prevalent during this early period of justice research was Equity Theory. Equity Theory (Adams, 1965; Walster, Berschied & Walster, 1973) posited that in evaluating benefits provided to them, individuals would also seek to compare what they received with what others received. This comparison is made under the principle of distributive justice, by which, the fairness of a distribution of a resource is linked to how even-handed the distribution of rewards is perceived to be (Homans, 1961). Within this theory, consideration of inputs (defined as something of value that the individual brings to the relationship), outcomes (defined as factors with value or use to the individual), and the nature of the social comparison process are important factors in the evaluation of a distributed reward (Adams, 1965; Morand & Merriman, 2012). These inputs and outcomes are evaluated relative to each other in a ratio, and Equity Theory posits that an individual will compare his or her outcome/input ratio to the outcome/input ratio of another person or group (Adams, 1965; Pritchard, 1969). As a result of this comparison, a fair distribution is perceived when the ratio of the individual’s outcome to input ratio is equal to the outcome/input ratio of the
comparison individual or group; and an unfair distribution occurs when it is perceived the ratio is not equal (Adams, 1965; Morand & Merriman, 2012). Equity Theory is similar to the social-psychological theory of Relative Deprivation (RD) (see Walker & Pettigrew, 1984 for an overview). RD theory states that individuals make comparisons between themselves and other categories (which may include groups, ideals, themselves in the past), with a result that these comparisons may create potentially key feelings of deprivation in terms of desirable states relative to this category (Walker & Pettigrew, 1984).
Equity Theory focused solely on the distributive element of justice, and paid no attention towards the procedures underlying the distribution of the reward. Leventhal (1980, p.28) described the theory as a “unidimensional rather than multidimensional conception of fairness”, and criticised the singular focus of this theory on the final distribution of reward as the sole basis for an individual’s judgement of fairness. In order to understand the concept of fairness in a more complex manner, perceived justice would need to be conceptualised more than in terms of an outcome principal.
Justice research changed focus to procedural justice when Thibaut and Walker (1975) examined the impact of procedures, as opposed to distributive outcomes, within a legal, dispute-resolution context. This research demonstrated that the way in which procedures are carried out is subjectively evaluated by individuals undergoing these procedures as to the perceived fairness of the procedures (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Research on perceived distributive justice is focused on the judgements on the fairness of the outcome. Research on perceived procedural justice, however, is focused on the perception that the process used to decide how the distribution is made is fair or not (Thibaut & Walker, 1975; Walker, Lind & Thibaut, 1979).
Thibaut and Walker (1978) went on to propose a general theory that outlined a framework to assist in developing procedures that are perceived by individuals and group members as procedurally fair. Within this theory, the distribution of “control” within a decision-making context was noted as one of the most significant factors for consideration when designing a procedural system (Thibaut & Walker, 1978). The factor of control was defined by two elements: control over the decision (i.e., how much control a participant has to determine the outcome of the procedure) and control over the process (i.e., control over access to the information used to determine the outcome of a procedure) (Thibaut & Walker, 1978).
The factor of process control was assumed by Thibaut and Walker (1975) to have great utility in increasing perceptions of fairness. The research undertaken by Thibaut and Walker (1975) demonstrated that giving people the opportunity to have their say in a procedure (e.g., presenting evidence in court to support their own case) led to an increased satisfaction with the verdict, even in cases where the verdict was not the outcome that was desired. That is, allowing people voice opportunity in a procedure is likely to increase the perceptions by those people that the manner in which the
distribution of the outcome was decided was procedurally fair. This phenomenon, in which people who are given voice are more likely to perceive that process as fair, is described by Folger, Rosenfield, Grove and Corkran (1979) as the fair process effect. Folger (1987) saw advantage in gaining the benefits of the fair process effect in an organisational setting, arguing for the inclusion of voice input into workplace
performance appraisals as a way of increasing the procedural justice of these processes. More recently, the fair process effect is more likely to be found in uncertain situations (see van Den Bos, 2013) potentially similar to the context of an organisational merger.
Although the initial research into procedural justice was focused on the context of legal disputes, subsequent research in this area demonstrated the applicability of the study of procedural fairness to the organisational realm. For example, a study of approximately 2,800 federal government employees that collected information on their perceptions of a major reform, found that, although both procedural and distributive justice were identified as having important effects on relevant organisational factors, procedural justice made significantly larger contributions to four of these (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). These four organisational factors were: job satisfaction, evaluation of supervisor, conflict/harmony and trust in management (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). The measure of conflict/harmony included statements such as: “There is a lot of conflict amongst people here”, “People will do things behind your back”, “Around here its important to protect yourself or you will be blamed for a problem”, “People are afraid to express their real view to top management” (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987; p. 185). The researchers argued the results from this study suggested procedural justice had greater influence than distributive justice on attitudes and behaviours related to intergroup relations, and individual subjective perceptions (Alexander & Ruderman, 1987). These results suggest procedural fairness may have an effect on attitudes conducive to organic pluralism. In Chapter Two, organic pluralism was described as a state where subgroup members accepted members from other subgroups and where there was no intergroup conflict (Haslam, 2001). These types of attitudes are similar to those described by the harmony measures used by Alexander and Ruderman (1987), suggesting that procedural justice may significantly affect reported levels of organic pluralism.
When people experience fair treatment within a process, and potentially have the opportunity to influence the procedure their benefit, positive perceptions of this process
may be deemed to have a self-interest bias. Within justice research, areas of study may focus on first party involvement (i.e., being personally affected by a process) and/or on third party observers (i.e., observing a process). Research into third party observers of fair and unfair procedures indicate that people identify, and disapprove of, unjust procedures, even when they are not personally affected by them (Cugueró-Escofet, Fortin & Canela, 2014; Hegtvedt, Johnson, Ganem, Waldron, & Brody, 2009). Although research suggests people place more importance on their own experiences of justice (or injustice) than the experiences of others (Lind, Kray & Thompson, 1998; van Prooijen, Ståhl, Eek, van Lange, 2012), fair treatment of self and others appears to be important to people.
Although the study of distributive and procedural justice can be observed as two distinct realms of research focus within justice literature, researchers have sought to explore how these different types of justice relate to each other. In an experimental study that manipulated procedures and distributions (outcomes), Greenberg (1987) posited that the manner in which procedures are undertaken may matter most to participants when they result in lower or negative outcomes. Greenberg (1987) found that his predictions that fair procedures would lead participants to perceive outcomes as relatively fairer were only supported when outcomes were low. That is, when
participants were given medium to high rewards, these were reported as fair, regardless of the procedures used to distribute the rewards (Greenberg, 1987). This aligned with observations of Thibaut and Walker (1975), in that higher (or better) outcomes were perceived by recipients as fairer than lower outcomes. This may be relevant within an organisational merger context, where the outcome of an organisational merger may not be considered a high reward. In addition, as outlined in Chapter Two, in many
within the post-merger superordinate identity may favour one pre-merger subgroup over another. Thus, one subgroup may be more likely to receive a lower outcome than the other subgroup, potentially increasing the relevance of procedural justice to that subgroup.
3.2.3 Summary
Historically, justice research has largely focused on two separate but related aspects of fairness: distributive and procedural processes. Researchers interested in distributive justice focused on how individuals react to decisions on outcomes (e.g., whether the reward given is fair), and researchers who were interested in procedural justice focused on the manner in which decisions are made to distribute the outcome (e.g., the way reward distribution was decided) (see Greenberg & Tyler, 1987).
Although research initially primarily focused on distributive justice, the importance of procedural justice to participants involved in a process emerged as an important research focus within justice research.
Chapter Two outlined that in an organisational merger, members of pre-merger subgroups of different status may desire different and conflicting outcomes of the merger procedure. This, in turn, may have a detrimental effect on perceived fairness by members of the subgroup denied their preferred outcome as part of the merger.
However, within an organisational merger, it may be difficult to ensure that each pre- merger subgroup’s preferred outcome is obtained. As emphasised in Chapter Two, the outcome of an organisational merger may be pre-determined, with little chance available to alter it. As a result of these restrictions within an organisational merger context, focus on distributive justice may be of limited utility and attention could instead be placed upon strategies relating to enhancing procedural justice. In order to
understand the relevance of procedural justice to an organisational merger, this thesis must first clarify the benefits of procedural justice in an intergroup context.