Deciding whether we have been treated fairly in our relations with others can be quite tricky. First, we rarely have all the information needed to make such a judgment accurately. Second, even if we did , perceived fairness is in the of the beholder, so is subjects in group settings indicates that, in general, we make these judgments by focusing on three distinct aspects or rules.
The first, known as distributive justice (fairness), involved the outcomes we and others receive. According to the equity rule, available rewards should be divided among group members in accordance with their contributions: the more they provide in terms of effort, experience, skills, and other contributions to the group, the more they should receive. For example, we expect people with more seniority in a group or organization to receive higher salaries than beginners; similarly, we expect people who have made major contributions toward reaching the group’s goals to receive greater rewards than people who have contributed little. In short, we often judge fairness in terms of the ratio between the contributions group members have provided and the rewards they receive. We expect this ratio to be approximately the same for all members, and to extent it is not, we perceive that distributive justice has been violated and that unfairness exists.
While people are concerned with the outcomes they receive, this far from the entire story where judgments of fairness are concerned. In addition, people are also interested in fairness of the procedures through which rewards have been distributed----what is known as procedural justice. We base our judgments about it on factors such as: (1) the extent to which the procedures are applied in the same manner to all people; (2) there are opportunities for correcting any errors in distributions; (3) decision makers avoid being influenced by their own self-interest; and (4) the extent to which decisions are made in a manner compatible with the ethical and moral values held by the people affected.
Evidence that such factors really do influence our judgments concerning procedural justice has been obtained in many studies. For instance, in one investigation, when people received authorities as holding attitudes that are biased against them, and when they believed they lack “voice” (e.g., cannot complain or won’t be listened to), the more they report procedural injustice.
We also judge fairness in terms of the way information about outcomes and procedures is given to us. This is known as transactional justice, and two factors seem to play a key role in our judgments about it: the extent which we are given clear and rational reasons for why rewards were divided as they were, and the courtesy or respect with which were informed about these divisions.
In sum, we judge fairness in several different ways --- in terms of the rewards we have received (distributive justice), the procedures used to reach these divisions (procedural justice), and the style in which we are informed about these divisions (transactional justice). All three forms of justice can have strong effects on our behavior.
In many situations in which we ask the question “ Am I being treated fairly?” we do not have sufficient information about the outcomes or procedures used to clearly apply rules of distributive and procedural justice. We don’t know exactly what rewards other have received (e.g., their salaries), and we might not know all the procedures or whether they were consistently followed when distributing rewards to group members. What do we do in such situations? Social psychologists have revealed that we treat our feelings as a source of information and base our judgments on them, reasoning “If I feel good, this must be fair,” or “If I feel bad, this must be unfair.”
Reactions to Perceived Unfairness: Tactics for Dealing with Injustice
What do people do when they feel that they have been treated unfairly? As you probably know from your own experience, there are many options. First, if unfairness centers on rewards (distributive justice), people may focus on changing the balance between their contributions and their outcomes. For example, we may reduce our contributions or demand larger rewards. Employees who feel that they are being underpaid may do less on the job or request more benefits. If these tactics fail, they may protest, join a union and go on strike, or, ultimately, quit and look for another job.
When unfairness centers on procedures (procedural justice) or a lack of courteous treatment by the people who determine reward divisions (transactional justice), rather than on rewards themselves, people may adopt different tactics. Procedures can be harder to change than outcomes because they go on behind “closed doors” and may differ from announced policies in many ways. Similarly, changing the negative attitudes that lie behind insensitive treatment by bosses is a difficult, if not impossible, task. As a result, individuals who feel that they have been treated unfairly in these ways often turn to more covert (hidden) techniques for “evening the score” the evidence suggests that such feelings of unfairness lie behind many instances of employee theft and sabotage.
By: Kelif Abdi Sh. Mohamoud
Chairman of examination Office of Gollis University
Founder of Somaliland Heritage Center
MSW (Specialist of Community Development)