Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

[O]ur questions toparticipantsincluded measuresof three motivesthat we expectedmight explain whyauthorities andsubordinates differin their fairnessand satisfactionjudgments....voice their opinion and concernsabout the proposedchanges before deciding on acourse of action (the opportunityto “voice” one’s viewsbefore a decision is made hasbeen clearly established as animportant procedural fairnessconcern 26 and has been linkedto perceptions of respectfultreatment 27 ).Participants in the highthreat condition learned thatthe increased costs were sufficientlylarge to pose a threatto the company’s survival,whereas participants in the low threat condition learned thatthe increased costs were moderate and not a serious threat tothe company’s survival. Participants assigned to the high voicecondition learned that that the CFO had decided to meet withthem prior to making his decision, whereas participantsassigned to the low voice condition learned that the CFO haddecided not to meet with them prior to making his decision.Because this study was designed to examine why these variablesaffect authorities and subordinates differently, our questionsto participants included measures of three motives thatwe expected might explain why authorities and subordinatesdiffer in their fairness and satisfaction judgments: protectingthe company’s welfare, demonstrating a concern for the welfareof individual employees, and treating the employees withrespect.Several results of this study are noteworthy. First, the findingsof this study replicated those of Heuer et al. 28 Among participantswho adopted the perspective of the CFO, there wasvirtually no effect of voice on procedural fairness judgments,but voice did affect the procedural fairness judgments of participantsin the role of the decision recipient, or employee.Further, perceptions of procedural fairness more stronglyinfluenced the satisfaction of decision recipients than decisionmakers.Second, our prediction that a concern with protecting thegroup’s welfare would be more important for decision makersthan decision recipients was supported for both proceduralfairness and satisfaction judgments. Thus, the findings of thisstudy extend the findings of Heuer et al 29 by pointing toauthorities’ motivation to protect the group as at least one reasonfor their greater concern with outcomes than with procedures.Finally, two of our predictions were not supported. We predictedthat the employees’ fairness and satisfaction judgmentswould be more favorably influenced than the authorities’ judgmentsby evidence that the authority had demonstrated a concernfor the welfare of individual employees and had beenrespectful. In fact, concern for individuals’ welfare was moreimportant among the decision makers, and respect was equallyimportant for decision makers and decision recipients. Whileadditional research is necessary before we can speak authoritativelyabout these effects, we offer the following speculation:We suspect that in this study, a concern for employee welfaremight have mattered more to the authorities because they donot view this concern as a symbol of group standing (as it ischaracterized by the group value theory), but rather as a pragmaticconcern for protecting the individual employee’s economicwelfare (protecting their job). We think this interpretationis consistent with the general pattern of findings throughoutour studies. Secondly, we propose that respect was equallyimportant for fairness and satisfaction among authorities andsubordinates because our analysis tested its influence whilecontrolling for the effect of the CFO’s course of action on thecompany’s welfare. Essentially, we propose that once theauthority’s concern for protecting the group is controlled for,there is no tension between treating employees respectfullyand protecting the group’s welfare; respectful treatment—acommunication that the subordinate is valued by the group—is seen as desirable by both decision makers and decisionrecipients.In sum, this study replicated and extended the findings ofHeuer et al, 30 demonstrating that voice is less important for thefairness judgments of authorities, and fairness is less importantfor the satisfaction of authorities. But the findings of this studyalso supported the prediction that authorities are more concernedwith instrumental motives related to protecting thegroup and its members. It therefore appears that authorities arefocused on using procedures that they feel will protect thegroup, rather than trying to communicate a relational messageto the group’s members. However, the relational message is notunimportant to authorities – in essence, when concerns aboutprotecting the group are taken into account, there was no differencebetween authorities and subordinates in the importancethey placed on respectful treatment. As long as the decisionmakers felt that they were protecting the decision recipients’and the group’s welfare, they were as concerned as decisionrecipients were about decision recipients being treatedrespectfully.The findings of this study indicate that increased concernwith group protection is one feature that differentiates decisionmakers and decision recipients, and more strongly influencesthe fairness and satisfaction judgments of decision makers.This finding is important because it begins to illuminate whydecision makers and decision recipients reason differently26. THIBAUT & WALKER, supra note 3; Gerald S. Leventhal, WhatShould Be Done With Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Studyof Fairness in Social Relationships, in SOCIAL EXCHANGE: ADVANCESIN THEORY AND RESEARCH 27 (Kenneth J. Gergen, et al. eds., 1980);John Thibaut & Laurens Walker, A Theory of Procedure, 66 CALIF.L. REV. 541(1978).27. LIND &TYLER, supra note 6; Tyler, supra note 22.28. Heuer et al., supra note 13.29. Id.30. Id.31. Id.68 Court Review - Volume 44