Leventhal (1976a) proposed a theory of procedural justice judgements that provides six criteria for ensuring procedural fairness. Similarly, Bakhshi et al. (2009:146) formulated six procedural criteria. These authors claimed that procedural justice could be promoted by ensuring that decisions (1) are based on accurate information, (2) are applied consistently over time and across people, (3) provide an opportunity for all concerned to voice opinions during decision making, (4) are appealing, (5) are not personally biased on the part of the decision makers, and (6) are made in a moral and ethical manner. To ensure that procedural justice prevails within an organisation, decision makers should take into account the following guidelines:
Firstly, decisions should be based on accurate information. Accurate information can be linked to fairness perceptions – adequate information and feedback in relation to decisions made must be provided in order to promote honesty, transparency, consistency, bias suppression, and equity (Williamson & Williams 2011:62). Weller (2009:110) claimed that lack of explanation for decisions adopted is often regarded by employees as unfair, generating resentment towards management and towards the decision taken.
Secondly, managers need to ensure that decisions are applied consistently across people. Hoy and Tarter (2004:25) maintained that authenticity and procedural justice should guide consistency. Building on this, Hoy and DiPaola (2007:294) suggested that the application of rules, regulations, and policies should be fair, visible, and consistent, yet flexible enough to take account of individual needs and extraordinary circumstances. A just process is one that is applied consistently to all, free from bias, accurate, i representative of relevant stakeholders, and correctable and consistent with ethical norms (Cropanzano, Bowen & Gilliland 2007:38). This implies, from an HRM perspective, that employees will show greater company loyalty if they perceive HRM processes as just.
Thirdly, it is imperative that employees participate in decisions that concern them (Baldwin 2006:2; Weller 2009:110; Feldman & Tyler 2011:4; Coetzee,2005:215; Poole 2007:730). For example, Weller (2009:110) claimed that participation balances power between the employee and the employer. On the other hand, Baldwin (2006:2) is of the view that employees’ perceptions of procedural justice are likely to be enhanced if they are given opportunities to present information and voice their concerns before decisions are taken. Feldman and Tyler (2011:4) maintained that employees that are provided with opportunities to participate and to voice their concerns regarding decisions that impact on their workplace, have been found to be more rule-adherent. Employees perceive that procedures should allow them to feel that they have participated in developments that affect them (Coetzee 2005:215). Poole (2007:730) asserted that employees are more likely to perceive a decision to be unfair if they feel that they did not have sufficient voice.
Fourthly, employees should be given the right of appeal if they are dissatisfied with the outcome of decisions taken that affect them. This is an important part of most decision- making processes, as it allows employees to challenge decisions that are perceived as wrong or detrimental to their interests (Weller 2009:110).
Fifthly, with regard to avoidance of personal bias in decision-making, Luo (2007:646) stated that because procedural justice can be influenced by organisational systems or processes, it is imperative for managers to put in place systems that ensure good work relationships, trust, and social harmony between work units.
Sixthly, decision makers need to ensure that decisions are made in a moral and ethical manner. Decision-making in organisations needs to be guided by laws, regulations, and policies. Weller (2009:110) suggested that procedural justice requires that hearings be conducted before an impartial person or panel. For hearings in the workplace conducted by supervisors, senior managers, and panels, this requirement necessitates prior training, to understand the role of fairness and ethics sufficiently. Failure to follow the mentioned guidelines could have detrimental consequences to the organisation. Nowakowski and Conlon (2005:5) and Esterhuizen and Martins (2008:67), for example, stated that when a decision, procedure, or interaction is seen as inappropriate, employees will usually experience a fairness violation. One can deduce from the previous statements that employee participation in decision making is prudent, as it could minimise disputes on how decisions were arrived at, particularly decisions that lead to unfavourable outcomes. Whatever the result of the decision, good or bad, people will always take ownership of the decision if they were involved in the decision-making process. This is confirmed by Weller (2009:109), who asserted that if an employee receives an unfavourable outcome but believes that the decision- making process was fair, the employee will be less likely to challenge the process. Weller (2009:109) cautioned, however, that people, no matter how involved they were in the decision-making process, might still be unhappy with the outcome of the process. In such instances, the employee should be given the right to appeal. This author regards the right to appeal as being an important part of the decision-making process, as it allows employees to challenge decisions that are perceived as wrong or detrimental to their interests. HRM in any organisation, including municipalities, could
promote organisational effectiveness through procedural justice. Perceptions of unfairness could result in counterproductive behaviours, which could be detrimental to the organisation. The following section deals with HRM practices and procedural justice.