Organisational Change can create uncertainty & ambiguity which makes fairness of decision making critical to gaining employee's commitment.
This talk takes an evidence-based approach to how to improve employees perception of fair decision making during change.
4. 4
Enhancing organisational change capability
UNIQUENESS
Drive to flourish
DOING â
External Perspective
BELONGINGâ
Drive to belong
BEING â
Internal Perspective
5. 5
Understanding Fairness
COMPLEX SYSTEMS⌠CAN BE SIMPLIFIED
- Strong Score
- Voted High Importance
- Strong Correlation with
weak areas e.g. Leadership
& Psychological Safety
7. 7
OCCA Introduction
UNIQUENESS â (Internal State)
Drive to flourish
DOING â Acting State
BELONGING â (External State)
Drive to belong
BEING - Sensing State
Behaviour is manifested as
a decision to act which
clearly impacts change
momentum & direction.
Connects individual
intentions, beliefs, emotions
& assumptions
to action
What I Do & How I Do It
Habitualised behaviours
have a high symbolic impact
on change through
organisational structures,
processes & systems.
Connects individual
behaviours to an
organisationâs purpose.
What We Do & How We Do
It
Social context interprets
beliefs & behaviours in
relation to others creating
wide cultural meaning of
change.
Connects individualâs
identity to organisational
culture.
Why We Do & What We
Experience
Cognitive contemplation of
how deep the individualâs
commitment to change is.
Connects to an individual's
intentions, beliefs, emotions
& assumptions
Why I Do & What I
Experience
10. 10
Why so critical to change?
Lots of evidence
People go the extra mile
Balances autonomy & structure
Creates inclusive culture
Reduces uncertainty & ambiguity
13. THE DRIVE TO FIT
IN
Rigidity
Integration
Interdependence
Framework
Belonging
WIIFUS
Planned
Inclusion
Hierarchical
Mechanistic
THE DRIVE TO
STAND OUT
Fluidity
Differentiation
Self â Interest
Freedom
Uniqueness
WIIFM
Emergent
Diversity
Self-organizing
Organic
Paradox 1 â Autonomy v Structure
14. 14
Going the extra mile
âpeople are motivated to select behaviours that give
them the best opportunity to achieve their future goals
with respect to work, which often manifests as OCBsâ
(i) Helping behaviours
(ii) Fair & generous
(iii) Organizational loyalty
(iv) Organizational compliance
(v) Individual initiative
(vi) Civic duties - participating in activities, volunteering
etc
(vii)Self-development
15. Complexity & Organisational Change
Characteristic 5: Spontaneity & Self Order
Dynamically Organised
(Variable Relationships)
Forced Organised
(Invariant Relationships)
More Structure
More Agency Purpose
Co-operation
Employee Voice
Employee Commitment
Social Exchange
Organisational Justice
16. Costs
Benefits
Individuals in larger groups have less time to
engage in relational behaviors focusing time on
their tasks and coordinating with others (Muller
2011)
Groups can make costly and seemingly
avoidable errors when all members focused
their thinking on the same assumptions and
information
Group Think
Sharing the responsibility for decisions can
mitigate associated distress
Stress Reduction
People in larger groups tend to reduce effort
because responsibility becomes more diffused
Groups allow people to be individually identified
and/or make a distinct contributions to the
âsystemâ
Differentiation
Groups of people become âsupermindsâ which
can learn & adapt more effectively than
individuals to complex tasks & make better
decisions
Collective Intelligence
Group Dynamics â A Fine Balance
Social Loafing
Larger groups share information they have in
common rather than information others donât
have.
Information Hogging
Allows individuals to build social bonds with
others which and people want to perform well
so others will think well of them
Social Facilitation
Keeping the balance through:
Personal Identity
Benevolence & Support
Procedural Fairness
Satisficing
Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D. (2016). Are groups more or less than the
sum of their members? The moderating role of individual identification. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 39.
Relational Loss
Accountability
Indispensability
Alignment (Mental Models)
Critical Thinking
Constructive Criticism
Novel insights
Differentiation
Integration
Positive
feedback
loops
Negative
feedback
loops
18. 1960âs 1980sâ 2000âs 2020âs
1970âs 1990âs 2010âs
Gouldner,
1960 (Reciprocity) Social
Exchange Theory â people
help those who help them
perceived fairness of the enactment
and implementation of decisions (Bies
& Moag, 1986)
Organisational Justice becomes
more established after 4 key
metanalysis in 3 years . 3x
increase in research from10 years
before to after 2000
Focus back on social exchange
Working from home
Job security
What is a job?
Focus on perceived fairness of
decision outcomes, especially the
degree to which outcomes are
equitable (Adams, 1965;
Leventhal, 1976)
Fairness fosters a sense of trust on
the part of employees, making them
feel less anxious about engaging in
extra-mile gestures Organ and
Konovsky (1989), e. Moorman (1991),
n, Konovsky and Pugh (1994)
Equity Theory
& Distributive
Justice
Procedural
Justice
Interpersonal &
Interactional
Justice
âContemporaryâ
Social Exchange
Meta Analysis
Meta Analysis
on Social
Exchange &
Fairness
perceived fairness of decision-making
processes and the degree to which
they are consistent, accurate,
unbiased, and open to voice and input
(Leventhal, 1980; Thibaut & Walker,
1975)
Greenburg
1987 Construct
Definition
Focus on organisational
citizen behaviours (OCB),
trust commitment, support
LMX etc.
New Social/
Psychological
Contract?
19. 19
What is fair?
Injustice = People âfeelâ when they give more than they take ?
Is justice socially constructed â an act is just if people perceive it to be?
21. Change Commitment
Organisational Citizen behaviours
Supervisor Satisfaction
4 Ways to be fair
PROCEDURAL - Is the process fair?
DISTRIBUTED
Are outcomes fair?
INTERPERSONAL & INFORMATIONAL - Are people treated fairly? + Are
explanations provided?
Job Satisfaction
Organisational & Change Commitment
Trust in the Organisation
Performance
AGENCY
STRUCTURE
22. 6 layers of fair decision making
What bias checks are in
place to ensure impartial
decision making ?
Bias
Can unfair decision be
changed?
Correctable
Are standards and values
adhered to?
Ethical
Is the change approach
consistently applied?
Consistency
What is the quality of
evidence used to make the
decision ?
Accuracy
Have all interests been
represented ?
Representative
23. Interactional Justice
Treated with dignity with no
recourse to insults or
discourteous behaviour
Respect
Apologies for injustices to
reduce sense of anger
Justification
Information must be
realistic & accurate &
presented in open and
forthright manner
Truthfulness
Questions should never be
âimproperâ or involve
prejudicial elements e.g.
sexism racism
Propriety
24. 24
Our Definition
A process whereby people feel
decision making is consistent
accurate, unbiased, transparent and
outcomes are equitable because their
voice has been heard
26. Fairness
Distributed
Procedural
Interpersonal
Informational
Social Exchange Quality
Trust
Commitment
Organisational Support
Management Support
Emotional Effect
Positive
Negative
Behaviours
Task Performance
Organisational Citizenship Behaviour
Counter Productive Work Behaviour
Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., Rodell, J. B., Long, D. M., Zapata, C. P., Conlon, D. E., & Wesson, M. J.
(2013). Justice at the millennium, a decade later: a meta-analytic test of social exchange and affect-based
perspectives. Journal of applied psychology, 98(2), 199.
Integrated Model Fairness, Social Exchange & Affect
27. 27
Impact on Outcomes
PROCEDURAL
Is the process fair?
DISTRIBUTED
Are outcomes fair?
INFORMATIONAL
Explanations clear?
INTERPERSONAL
Treated fairly ?
Performance
Org & Change
Commitment
Trust in the Org
Performance
Change
Commitment
Organisational
Citizen
Behaviours
Supervisor
Satisfaction
28. Treating people with dignity & respect
Concept Definition
Abusive supervision A supervisor displaying persistent behaviour as well as display of hostile
verbal and non-verbal behaviour, which does not involve physical contact.
Experience of aggression from a supervisor is different from aggression
experienced from someone else.
Bullying Situations where an individual is repeatedly exposed to negative acts, which
occurs over a period of time (e.g. 6 months) and where there is a perceived
power imbalance
Incivility Low intensity deviant behaviour with ambiguous intent to harm the target,
which violates the workplace norms. Behaviour can include discourteous
verbal and non-verbal behaviour
Social undermining Behaviour intended to hinder over time and unable to establish or maintain
positive interpersonal relationships, work-related success and favourable
reputation.
Interpersonal conflict Disagreement between employees over a mutually stressful interaction
29. Whatâs the difference?
Is this bullying? Is this bullying?
Criticising an individualâs work Persistent criticism of an individualâs work
Withholding information from an employee Withholding information from an employee
which affects their performance
Monitoring of work Excessive monitoring of an individualâs
work
Being given a high workload Being exposed to an unmanageable
workload
Being asked to complete work to very tight
deadlines
Being asked to complete work to
unreasonable deadlines
30. Motivation
Internal Competition
Reward Structures
Bureaucracy
Triggers
Restructuring & Crisis
Organisational changes
Changes in management
Bullying
Bullying â treating people with dignity & respect
Ways of Explaining Workplace Bullying: A Review of Enabling, Motivating, and Precipitating Structures and
Processes in the Work Environment Denise Salin 2003
repeated and persistent negative acts
towards one or more individual(s),
which involve a perceived power
imbalance and create a hostile work
environment
Enablers
Perceived power imbalance
Low Perceived Costs
Dissatisfaction & frustration
Weak Leadership
Role Ambiguity
Act as a foundation & filter
Moral Accountability
Abiding by Social Norms
Doing the Right Thing
Fair Decision
Making
31. 31
What is fair enough?
People may consider multiple
types of fairness when assessing
change.
For instance, employee may be
more willing to accept âunfairâ
change outcomes if they result
from a fair process which has
been explained sincerely
32. 32
Giving People Voice
More than just a tool for
communicating
Psychological safety is the bedrock
of creating voice
Clarity on channels & message
Values that build sustainable culture
pf voice
Helps to give better understanding of
minority group perspectives
Definition = âability of employees
to express their views, opinions,
concerns and suggestions, and
for these efforts to influence
decisions at work.â
33. 33
Takeaways for practice -1
Process
⢠Is the decision making
process transparent?
⢠Are decision open to input
and correctable?
⢠Do you seek diversity of
opinion when making
decisions?
Outcome
⢠Are resources distributed
fairly within the team?
⢠Are outcomes seen to be
equitable?
⢠Are people treated
according to their needs?
Information
⢠Is it clear why & how
decision are made? Is
relevant info shared?
⢠Do people feel they have
âvoiceâ within the team?
⢠Do people feel treated
with dignity & respect?
34. 34
Takeaways for Practice 2
CONSIDER YOUR
CONTEXT
MAKE TRADE-
OFFS MINDFULLY
DONâT ASSUME;
COMMUNICATE!
FOLLOW THE
GOLDEN RULE
35. 35
Distributed decision making
COMPLY
⢠High Impact
⢠High Risk- one
way
⢠Certainty
⢠No alternatives
⢠Clear causation
⢠Data Rich
⢠Simple system
⢠âTellâ
⢠Message Framing
⢠Central decision
⢠e.g. Financial
CONSULT
⢠Medium Impact
⢠Medium Risk
⢠Uncertainty
⢠Few alternatives
⢠Resources
⢠Scenario based
⢠âSell & Tellâ
⢠Discuss
implications
⢠Delegated Decision
⢠e.g. PM meetings
CO-CREATE
⢠Uncertain Impact
⢠Low risk â two way
⢠Ambiguity
⢠Unknown
alternatives
⢠Unclear outcomes
⢠Data Poor
⢠Complex system
⢠Participation
⢠Understand
Context
⢠Distributed Decision
⢠e.g. Behaviours
36. Would Could Should
A model to correct fairness perceptions?
Dr Iain Coyne - Senior Lecturer in
Organisational Psychology
37. Fair Decision Making
6 reasons to be evidence-based
Clarity & robustness of decision-making
allows organisations to quickly respond to
external challenges
.
AGILITY 01
as it creates a process to
understand & interrogate
decision-making
CONFIDENCE 06
because decision-making
processes have integrity &
gravitas
TRUST 02
Creates transparency &
objectivity around decision-
making
FAIRNESS 05
clear decision-making
structures creates efficacy,
agency & autonomy
EMPOWERMENT 03
to organisational values such as respect &
fairness
CONGRUENCE 04
38. Process
⢠Being personally invested in the
process
⢠Holding managers to account for
following the process
⢠Calling out others behaviours when
process is not followed
⢠Use of accurate information to
make decisions
⢠Conscious of bias in decision
making
Outcome
â˘People are personally invested
outcomes
â˘Outcomes reflect effort put into
the work
â˘People feel that are appropriately
rewarded and recognised
â˘People feel outcomes can be
justified
Information
â˘Speaking out particularly when
consulted
⢠Communicating openly and candidly
⢠Asking for and offering feedback
⢠People are polite and sincere
⢠Explanations are seen to be
thorough
⢠People donât say inappropriate
things
Above the
line
behaviours
Below the
line
behaviours
Silence
Rule
Breaking
No
Trust
Poor
Relationships
Poor
Decisions
What will I see?
Blame
39. 39
Conclusion
Not complex
Just âsound managerial practiceâ
Unlikely to be harmful albeit might be unsuccessful
Promote intention to be fair
Potentially make a big impact on change success, preserving dignity and humaneness
40. AND ...
Thank you!
from Alex
Boulting
Owner | ebbnflow
+44 7562570000
alex@ebbnflow.co.u
k
www.ebbnflow.co.u
k
Stay tuned and check our newest videos on YouTube: