VoiceThread: http://voicethread.com/?#q.b2668050.i14114663.
Organizational justice is used to gauge how fair treatment is perceived by employees, how they react to this treatment, and the impact on the organization (Wikipedia, 2012). In an article by Caza, Barker Caza and Lind (2010), they demonstrate that treating employees fairly is important not only to the well-being of the employee and manager, but also to the success of an organization as a whole. The authors explore three dimensions in organizational justice theory: distributive (decision outcomes and resources focused), procedural (decision-making process focused) and interactive justice (perceived treatment and communications). This theory is important and relevant to management and communications given that it explores human behavior, interactions, and performance in an organization. In this case, the authors highlight the common mistake managers make by focusing on distributive justice while allowing themselves to diminish the importance of providing procedural information and the human element in the interaction and communication with their employees. The authors explain that perceptions of the process of how decision are made, communicated and shared with employees impacts how the manager is perceived. Unfortunately, a negative perception could potentially influence his or her effectiveness in implementing sound policies as well as motivating and leading a team. A role-playing scenario that has been effectively implemented in undergraduate, graduate and executive business classes is fully outlined so other educators in business, psychology, management and communication fields can utilize their work to promote the importance and relevance of organizational justice.
When distributive justice was defined in this article, Taylor’s “soldiering” experience at Wesfield as well as the failure in the Watertown project came to mind because the behavior displayed by the employees evolved from perceived unfairness in the process and failure in communication respectively. When the authors focused on procedural justice, the connection between Fayol’s modern management theory and his advocacy for the importance of a richer management instruction and his introduction of the “gang plank” for effective communication supported the need for a transparent decision making process and a way for communication at different levels. Finally, when the topic of how most managers in complex organizational bureaucracies tend to react emerged in the article, Weber’s work resonated.
Frederick Taylor showed an honest interest in the fair treatment, which is a core principle in organizational justice theory, of employees despite his focus on scientific management (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009). At Midvale Steel Company, Taylor witnessed how employee perceptions of the intentions of management got in the way of maximizing output. He also saw how management’s decisions reinforced “soldiering” when their piece-rate policies changed to the detriment of the employee when output increased (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.124). He advocated for the importance of proper management in order to optimize outcomes and increase initiative by employees. In fact, one of his successful implementations of pay for performance was at the Simonds Rolling Machine Company where his approach contributed to an increase in employee performance and better working conditions with a better “fit” for workers’ abilities and job tasks (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.134). This improvement in output and effective management is important to organizational justice because it shows that management communicated effectively and motivated employees to increase performance and created a win-win situation. Finally, Taylor attributed the failure of the Watertown Arsenal to the fact that the “sentiments of the molders had not been examined nor had they been briefed on the purpose of the time study” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.142) showing a connection with how the communication of decisions as well as the interaction with employees was a key foundation in effectively implementing scientific management. All these examples are tied to three “dimensions of justice outlined by Caza et al. because managers who provide procedural explanation on how and why decisions are made, communicate in meaningful interactions with employees early and often and show concerns for unjust practices tend to be effective managers.
As the father of modern management, Henri Fayol would probably have approved of the attempt of the authors in helping managers “learn” how to be more fair and effective through the role-playing exercise highlighted in the article. Fayol believed that management skills were in many situations more important than technical skills thus the approach of Caza et al. in increasing knowledge about organizational justice as management skill is in line with his interest in having engineering schools provide more “managerial” training. Also, his development of the “principles of management” set important milestones in the formal training of future managers. His principle of “equity” which in his mind evolved “from a combination of kindliness an justice”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220) is related to organizational justice because it aimed at establishing a “basis for dealing with employees and instilling devotion and loyalty”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220). Caza et. al. do not use the word “devotion” but they argue that by treating employees fairly and in a way they perceive as just, managers will not only have an increase in output, but they will be perceived as being fair.
Weber, on the other hand, focused on the enterprises or “bureaucracy” as he prefer to call them. Organizational justice theorists would applaud Weber’s attempt at creating a more just world by highlighting that bureaucracy “was intended to put an end to the exploitation of employees and to ensure equal opportunity and treatment for all” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.230). Nepotism and birth right promotions have no place in Weber’s theory. In fact, they have no place in organizational justice either because this would be a clear blow to procedural justice. Caza et al. and Weber are both in pursuit of this “ideal” world that would benefit both employees and organizations so therefore his early thinking and work is supportive of organizational justice.
In conclusion, it is important to note that good management provides a just environment for employees and when they perceive fair treatment new policies and systems can be implemented. In attempt to illustrate the model outlined by Caza et al. a role playing scenario is included in the following voice thread along with a brief summary at the end: http://voicethread.com/?#q.b2668050.i14114663. Organizational justice theory was coined about 25 years ago (Wikipedia, 2012), but as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the concepts can be connected to some of the work of the the earliest management theorists.
References
Organizational Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2012 from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_justice
Caza, A., Barker Caza B. & Lind, A. (2010). The Missed Promotion: An Exercise Demonstrating the
Importance of Organizational Justice. Journal of Management Education,35(4), 537-563. doi: 10.1177/105256291038187
Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 121-155 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.
Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 212-234 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.
Organizational justice is used to gauge how fair treatment is perceived by employees, how they react to this treatment, and the impact on the organization (Wikipedia, 2012). In an article by Caza, Barker Caza and Lind (2010), they demonstrate that treating employees fairly is important not only to the well-being of the employee and manager, but also to the success of an organization as a whole. The authors explore three dimensions in organizational justice theory: distributive (decision outcomes and resources focused), procedural (decision-making process focused) and interactive justice (perceived treatment and communications). This theory is important and relevant to management and communications given that it explores human behavior, interactions, and performance in an organization. In this case, the authors highlight the common mistake managers make by focusing on distributive justice while allowing themselves to diminish the importance of providing procedural information and the human element in the interaction and communication with their employees. The authors explain that perceptions of the process of how decision are made, communicated and shared with employees impacts how the manager is perceived. Unfortunately, a negative perception could potentially influence his or her effectiveness in implementing sound policies as well as motivating and leading a team. A role-playing scenario that has been effectively implemented in undergraduate, graduate and executive business classes is fully outlined so other educators in business, psychology, management and communication fields can utilize their work to promote the importance and relevance of organizational justice.
When distributive justice was defined in this article, Taylor’s “soldiering” experience at Wesfield as well as the failure in the Watertown project came to mind because the behavior displayed by the employees evolved from perceived unfairness in the process and failure in communication respectively. When the authors focused on procedural justice, the connection between Fayol’s modern management theory and his advocacy for the importance of a richer management instruction and his introduction of the “gang plank” for effective communication supported the need for a transparent decision making process and a way for communication at different levels. Finally, when the topic of how most managers in complex organizational bureaucracies tend to react emerged in the article, Weber’s work resonated.
Frederick Taylor showed an honest interest in the fair treatment, which is a core principle in organizational justice theory, of employees despite his focus on scientific management (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009). At Midvale Steel Company, Taylor witnessed how employee perceptions of the intentions of management got in the way of maximizing output. He also saw how management’s decisions reinforced “soldiering” when their piece-rate policies changed to the detriment of the employee when output increased (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.124). He advocated for the importance of proper management in order to optimize outcomes and increase initiative by employees. In fact, one of his successful implementations of pay for performance was at the Simonds Rolling Machine Company where his approach contributed to an increase in employee performance and better working conditions with a better “fit” for workers’ abilities and job tasks (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.134). This improvement in output and effective management is important to organizational justice because it shows that management communicated effectively and motivated employees to increase performance and created a win-win situation. Finally, Taylor attributed the failure of the Watertown Arsenal to the fact that the “sentiments of the molders had not been examined nor had they been briefed on the purpose of the time study” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.142) showing a connection with how the communication of decisions as well as the interaction with employees was a key foundation in effectively implementing scientific management. All these examples are tied to three “dimensions of justice outlined by Caza et al. because managers who provide procedural explanation on how and why decisions are made, communicate in meaningful interactions with employees early and often and show concerns for unjust practices tend to be effective managers.
As the father of modern management, Henri Fayol would probably have approved of the attempt of the authors in helping managers “learn” how to be more fair and effective through the role-playing exercise highlighted in the article. Fayol believed that management skills were in many situations more important than technical skills thus the approach of Caza et al. in increasing knowledge about organizational justice as management skill is in line with his interest in having engineering schools provide more “managerial” training. Also, his development of the “principles of management” set important milestones in the formal training of future managers. His principle of “equity” which in his mind evolved “from a combination of kindliness an justice”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220) is related to organizational justice because it aimed at establishing a “basis for dealing with employees and instilling devotion and loyalty”(Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.220). Caza et. al. do not use the word “devotion” but they argue that by treating employees fairly and in a way they perceive as just, managers will not only have an increase in output, but they will be perceived as being fair.
Weber, on the other hand, focused on the enterprises or “bureaucracy” as he prefer to call them. Organizational justice theorists would applaud Weber’s attempt at creating a more just world by highlighting that bureaucracy “was intended to put an end to the exploitation of employees and to ensure equal opportunity and treatment for all” (Wren, D., & Bedeian, A., 2009, p.230). Nepotism and birth right promotions have no place in Weber’s theory. In fact, they have no place in organizational justice either because this would be a clear blow to procedural justice. Caza et al. and Weber are both in pursuit of this “ideal” world that would benefit both employees and organizations so therefore his early thinking and work is supportive of organizational justice.
In conclusion, it is important to note that good management provides a just environment for employees and when they perceive fair treatment new policies and systems can be implemented. In attempt to illustrate the model outlined by Caza et al. a role playing scenario is included in the following voice thread along with a brief summary at the end: http://voicethread.com/?#q.b2668050.i14114663. Organizational justice theory was coined about 25 years ago (Wikipedia, 2012), but as demonstrated in the previous paragraphs, the concepts can be connected to some of the work of the the earliest management theorists.
References
Organizational Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved January 29, 2012 from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_justice
Caza, A., Barker Caza B. & Lind, A. (2010). The Missed Promotion: An Exercise Demonstrating the
Importance of Organizational Justice. Journal of Management Education,35(4), 537-563. doi: 10.1177/105256291038187
Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 121-155 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.
Wren, D., & Bedeian, A. (2009) The Advent of Scientific Management. In Johnson, L. & Dosi, C. M. (Eds.), The Evolution of Management Thought pp. 212-234 (Six Edition). New Jersey: George Hoffman.
Interesting post, Adriana. I tried opening your VoiceThread but I think it may be set to private. Take a look and see if you need to change the settings.
ReplyDeleteYou explain that these early theorists were concerned with justice, but the unions still opposed many of their measures. Why do you think that is? Did they not view these new policies as ones that promote organizational justice?
Hi
ReplyDeleteAdriana,
Like your use of Voicethread audio. Where Taylor may have seen soldiering on Chris' position, Fayolism might be the way to address the issue of promotion with Chris, correct?
This was the question that baffled Taylor until his final days. In his1895 ASME paper Taylor stated that “labor unions ...have rendered a great service not only to their members, but to the world, in shortening the hours of labor and in modifying the hardships and improving the conditions of wage-workers” (Wren & Bedeian, p.128-129). He did not like the fact that unions tended to stymie initiative by paying similar wages to all members. This does not mean, however, that he was against everything a union did, because at Simmonds Rolling Machine Company he did something that unions would have valued by decreasing work hours, increasing breaks and providing higher pay while increasing production. You know someone is “effective” when he is getting attacked from multiple sides, unions did not like the implementation of his scientific management and gave them a united advocacy issue. He also felt that the “rank and file” employees were more amenable to scientific management than “union “leaders” and that if all understood the “mutuality of interests” the conflict would disappear (Wren & Bedeian, p.150).
ReplyDeleteThe reason why I think that, even with the hiccups with the unions, Taylor’s concepts aligned with organizational justice evolves from my understanding that he valued the importance of communicating the process to employees, treating them fairly, and then expecting the highest output from them. What I think happened is that he and his followers did not anticipate the “political” implications associated with rolling out scientific management, the power of unions and the need for early outreach to their leaders. The bias and power of union supporters was evident in the congressional hearing that began in October 1911 (Wren & Bedeian, p.1143-146) and Taylor did not know how to deal with the pressure. This is why “he considered his inability to convince labor to accept scientific management to be his greatest failure” (Wren & Bedeian, p.152).
The unions did feel threatened and in some cases they were right because those who used scientific management incorrectly or as Taylor would argue “short-circuited his methods” proved their point. However, bringing this conversation to the real world and what we know about unions. Based on personal/professional experience, I have observed that sometimes the unions fight against good causes. For instance, one of my colleagues is a former superintendent and we have had conversations about teacher unions and how hard it’s been to make policy changes that would benefit students without union opposition. Sometimes, you can propose sound policy or that benefit some of the lowest performing students and those policies do not go through because of unions. They tend to shield some “low performers” who are not necessarily helping our kids - especially in low-income areas.
As for Fayol, I feel that he was concerned about employee-management relations and he understood that a harmonious relationship led to success. In his principle of subordination of individual interests to the general interest (Wren & Bedeian, p.218) he proposes relinquishing individual rights for the common good of an organization. This is the same motto that unions tend to have today, so it’s interesting that Fayol is the one that coined this principle. However, he also includes a principle of “equity” which leads me to believe that he was concerned about the fair treatment of employees which is a core concept in organizational justice.
Finally, Weber’s career orientation characteristic was in the interest of employees and probably in line with unions and the impersonality one also aimed to protect employees “from arbitrary actions of their superiors” (Wren & Bedeian, p.231-232). Protection and just treatment of employees with a career path or orientation seems to be in line with procedural and interpersonal justice.
Thanks, this response exercise has allowed me to think more deeply about the readings.