Procedural Justice: Gender Perception of Fairness in Job Promotion - Assignment Example

Procedural Justice: Gender Perception of Fairness in Job Promotion Introduction As the distinction between the traditional roles of men & women in society become blurrier with each generation, ideas of what is supposedly fair treatment becomes more defined for each sex, respectively. In a predominantly male profession, women have, literally and figuratively, had their day in court just to be recognized by society as trustworthy and competent enough to be part of the judicial system. Based on a table which reflects the results of a study done in Australia, it has been found out that the proportion of women in the legal profession declines as one moves up the professional hierarchy. (Schultz, U. and Shaw, G., 2003) On the other hand, male applicants were up to four times as likely as women to suffer differential treatment when seeking jobs in accountancy and computer programming, according to researchers who submitted hundreds of pairs of fake CVs to employers – offering identical qualifications and experience, but alternating male and female names. (Hinsliff, G. 2006) When the bosses are female, men often feel their female colleagues have a better chance at advancement because women commonly “stick together”. As Thibaut and Walker said, “Satisfaction with resolution of disputes depends on procedural justice as well as distributive justice.” (Professor, 2009) The purpose of this study is to test how the IVs (gender and voice) interact together to measure procedural fairness in a situation/scenario where employees are assessed and due for a promotion. A study such as this is important because if procedural practice isn’t available to its own advocates then the satisfaction Thibaut and Walker describe might be even less unattainable for the common people. Several studies have been done on gender bias, such as that in performance evaluation processes. (Castilla, E.J., 2007) Others have worked on distributive and procedural justice with regards to organizational justice and effectiveness. (Sarsfield-Baldwin, L., 1996) In addition, Coleman (Summer 2001) has written on gender bias in the courtroom environment. On the other hand, while some studies have focused on the effect of voice in dispute resolution, others have concentrated on voice in relation to restorative justice. As found by one study, “fairness judgments are enhanced by the opportunity to voice opinions even when there is no chance of influencing the decision.” (MacCoun, R. 2005) Given all these literature, it is noteworthy that they all lacked in directing their studies, even partly, to how the participants, according to gender, perceived procedures and judgments coming from the opposite sex with or without an opportunity to speak one’s mind. There hasn’t been a study made on voice in relation to gender or the combined effect of both on the perception of fairness in procedural justice. In this study, it is hypothesized that a) the participants, regardless of gender, will measure fairness to be lower were the lawyer in the scenario is female; b) that participants will measure procedural fairness to be higher where the lawyers in the scenario are given voice, and c) that the effect of one IV (gender) on procedural fairness (DV) depends on the condition of the other IV (voice) being considered. These are important to know because in a legal firm and in the business world there always comes a time when employees get promoted. It would be enlightening to see how decisions pertaining to promotions are made, if voice and gender play a part and how. Knowing these makes employees understand why decisions on promotions were made as such. Also, it is hoped that employers gain insight on how their employees view the fairness of promotion procedures. Consequently, any misunderstanding arising from a promotion or unfair practices may be realized and, if possible, be brought to the attention of the management. Method a. Design The study’s aim is to measure the affect of gender (Independent variable 1) and voice (Independent variable 2) on procedural fairness (Dependent variable). Manipulation checks will be placed at the beginning of the questionnaire. For example, “As I read this story, I realized that the lawyer was a) a female or b) a male.” For the purpose of this study, the first independent variable, gender of the lawyers in the story, will be defined as a) male and b) female. The second independent variable, voice, will be defined as a) high voice, meaning the lawyer is given opportunity to explain his/her contributions to the company while b) low voice, is when the senior partners automatically enlighten a lawyer of his/her assessment without letting the latter speak up. With a Cronbach value of .9, the questionnaire involved 10 items on procedural justice measure that were based on suggestions in the literature related to procedural justice, frequency of evaluation, supervisor’s knowledge of subordinate’s performance and trust. I adopted a five-item distributive justice scale based on previous works (Curry, Wakefield, Price, & Mueller, 1986). Each participant will be randomly assigned to one of the four conditions. b. Participants Forty participants will be asked to read a story and answer a proceeding questionnaire. Repeat invitation emails will be sent once a week for two succeeding weeks as some of the invitees may not their check their email accounts on a regular basis or may just have missed the first e-mail. Invitations to participate in the study will be sent to 25 females and 25 males, all at a legal age to be employed, who are family and friends of the researcher (myself). c. Materials In the story, the characters’ gender and freedom to speak their mind will be manipulated in an attempt to measure the opinion of fairness. It is about four young and bright attorneys in a law firm and the results of their assessment interview. All of them up for promotion, the story shows each lawyer’s interview with the all-male senior partners. Please refer to Appendix A for the complete story. The questionnaire is designed to invoke a reaction from the participants regarding the procedure for each interview which was conducted and the decision of the senior partners. Please refer to Appendix B for the complete questionnaire. d. Procedure All the participants will be sent an email asking inviting them to join the study. Please refer to Appendix C for the text of the invitation email. Participants will be directed to Psychsurveys.org where there will be a consent form which they will have to complete, guidelines, the experimental materials, and a debriefing form. Please refer to Appendix D for the consent form and Appendix E for the debriefing form, respectively. The participants are to read a story where they have been randomly assigned to a condition and complete the questionnaire that follows. It would take them 10-15 minutes to complete the survey. Appendix A – Story Condition I (Role: Female; Voice: High) Four lawyers in a law firm, all up for promotion, are interviewed by senior partners. All have contributed to the growth of the company and are given yearly performance evaluations. The senior partners are all male and had founded the illustrious firm 25 years ago. Malinda, a female lawyer, has been with the company for 5 years, often works overtime and brings her work home. The company pays her $80K yearly. During her interview, the senior partners explained that her performance didn’t satisfy the requirement for the associate position. They allow her to explain her contributions to the company but inform her that there will be no changes in her status and pay. The other three lawyers received compensation adjustments and a promise of a higher position. All of the lawyers continue to stay with the firm. Condition II (Role: Female; Voice: Low) Four lawyers in a law firm, all up for promotion, are interviewed by senior partners. All have contributed to the growth of the company and are given yearly performance evaluations. The senior partners are all male and had founded the illustrious firm 25 years ago. Malinda, a female lawyer, has been with the company for 5 years, often works overtime and brings her work home. The company pays her $80K yearly. During her interview, the senior partners explained that her performance didn’t satisfy the requirement for the associate position. They don’t allow her to explain her contributions to the company and inform her that there will be no changes in her status and pay. The other three lawyers received compensation adjustments and a promise of a higher position. All of the lawyers continue to stay with the firm. Condition III (Role: Male; Voice: High) Four lawyers in a law firm, all up for promotion, are interviewed by senior partners. All have contributed to the growth of the company and are given yearly performance evaluations. The senior partners are all male and had founded the illustrious firm 25 years ago. Frank, a male lawyer, has been with the company for 5 years, often works overtime and brings his work home. The company pays him $80K yearly. During his interview, the senior partners explained that his performance didn’t satisfy the requirement for the associate position. They allow him to explain his contributions to the company but inform him that there will be no changes in his status and pay. The other three lawyers received compensation adjustments and a promise of a higher position. All of the lawyers continue to stay with the firm. Condition IV (Role: Male; Voice: Low) Four lawyers in a law firm, all up for promotion, are interviewed by senior partners. All have contributed to the growth of the company and are given yearly performance evaluations. The senior partners are all male and had founded the illustrious firm 25 years ago. Frank, a male lawyer, has been with the company for 5 years, often works overtime and brings his work home. The company pays him $80K yearly. During him interview, the senior partners explained that his performance didn’t satisfy the requirement for the associate position. They don’t allow him to explain his contributions to the company and inform him that there will be no changes in his status and pay. The other three lawyers received compensation adjustments and a promise of a higher position. All of the lawyers continue to stay with the firm. Appendix B – Questionnaire Please answer the following questions. Check the circle that corresponds to your answer. As I read this story, I realized that the lawyer was (check one circle): O A female lawyer, 5 years on the job O A male lawyer, 5 years on the job In the assessment interview, the lawyer: (check one circle): O was given the opportunity to defend their hard work O was not given a chance to defend their hard work The following items refer to the decisions that the senior partners made regarding each lawyer. Now, please indicate the extent to which you agree with each of the following items on a scale from 1 (mostly unfair) to 5 (mostly fair). 1. How much do the lawyer’s feel that the last performance rating was free from bias? 1 2 3 4 5 2. How much input do the partners ask for during the appraisal process? 1 2 3 4 5 3. How much do the senior partners sit down and discuss with the lawyer the results of his/her performance evaluation? 1 2 3 4 5 4. How often does the performance appraisal process at the firm result in specifications of new goals? 1 2 3 4 5 5. How much opportunity is the lawyer given to express his/her feelings when his/her performance is evaluated? 1 2 3 4 5 6. How competent do you feel the partners are to evaluate the lawyer? 1 2 3 4 5 7. How familiar are the partners with the details and responsibilities that the job entails? 1 2 3 4 5 8. To what extent does the lawyer have confidence and trust in the senior partners regarding his/her general fairness? 1 2 3 4 5 9. How much does the lawyer trust the senior partners to accurately assess his/her performance? 1 2 3 4 5 10. How much guidance do the senior partners give the lawyer about how to improve his/her performance? 1 2 3 4 5 Appendix C – Recruitment Email Dear _______ I am inviting you to participate in a study that I am conducting for a university class. If you decide to participate in the study, you will be asked to read a short story and answer some questions about it. I expect that it will take you 10-15 minutes to complete this study. All of your data will be kept confidential by me, and your responses will not be shown to anyone else. After you have completed the study, you will be directed to a debriefing page where the purpose of the study will be fully explained. If you have any questions about the study, you may email me at _________________ Your participation is entirely voluntary and you will not be treated any differently if you decide not to participate. However, if you are willing to participate, it would help me with my class assignment. If you are willing to participate, please click on the link: [link to study] With kind regards, Appendix D - Informed Consent Page Project Title and Purpose The title of this project is “Assessment of Lawyers Due for a Promotion” The purpose is to examine the assessment procedures of lawyers who are due for a promotion. Investigator(s) Primary Researcher: _____________, Criminology Student. Faculty Supervisor: ____________, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Criminology, Justice & Policy Studies. Eligibility In order to participate, you must be at least 18 years of age and have the ability to give informed consent to participate in this project. Overall Description of Participation Participation involves reading a short story and completing a brief questionnaire online. The questionnaire should take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. I have made every effort and will continue to make every effort to avoid the imposition of psychological harm and discomfort and to protect your privacy. If you have any questions about this research before, during or after your participation, you may email me at ________________. The survey system allows you to temporarily discontinue your participation and resume at a later time if necessary. Risks and Benefits of Participation There are no foreseeable risks involved in this project. Although you will receive no personal benefits for your participation, your efforts will assist me in meeting my degree requirements. Voluntary Participation The decision to participate in this study is completely up to you. You may discontinue your participation in this study at any time without penalty. You may also request to have the data from your session withdrawn from future analyses. You will not be treated any differently if you decide not to participate in the study or if you stop once you have started. If at any point you decide that you would not like your data included in this study, please send this request to me at (_______________) and I will honor your request. Anonymity and Confidentiality All data collected by me will be kept confidential. I will not tell anyone whether or not you participated, and I will not share your individual responses with anyone. The report of this study will include grouped data (for example, range of scores, average scores, correlations between scores) and not individual profiles. Please check this box if you are at least 18 years of age. Please check this box if you have read and understood the description of the study, and you agree to participate voluntarily. [Note: Participants should not be allowed to continue beyond this point if they do not check both boxes above.] Appendix E: Debriefing Page Thank you for completing this study. The purpose of this study was to examine how participants – males and females - perceive fairness in procedures when the players are male. You just read a story about a bright lawyer working in a law firm under all-male senior partners. The lawyer was due for a promotion and the story describes the lawyer’s interview with the senior partners who own the firm. There were in fact four different versions of this story, in which I manipulated certain features. Those features were the gender of the lawyer in the story you read and the whether the lawyer was allowed a chance to speak of his/her contributions towards the company during the assessment interview. People read that the main lawyer in their story was either a male or a female. People reading the story were also told that senior partners of the firm when conducting the assessment interview either allowed the lawyer to express their contributions towards the company during the procedure, or prevented the lawyer from doing so. I manipulated these variables so that I could examine their effects on the way participants – males and females – identify fairness in procedural and distributive fairness when those in authority who are making the decisions are males. I expected to find that male and female participants may have different perceptions of fairness regarding the resolutions decided on by their male superiors regardless of whether or not the lawyer in the story read was given the opportunity to speak or not. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMPLETING THIS STUDY. BY PARTICIPATING, YOU HAVE HELPED ME FULFILL A CLASS ASSIGNMENT PERTAINING TO FEMALE PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS IN DECISION-MAKING PROCEDURES. Bibliography Bares, A. (2008, August 04). Heads Up: U.S. House Passes Paycheck Fairness Act. Message posted to http://compforce.typepad.com/compensation_force/2008/08/heads-up-us-hou.html Bravo, E. (2009). Paycheck Fairness? Let’s Hope We See It Soon. Retrieved on September 27, 2009 from http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm?aid=4080 Castilla, E. J. (2007). "Pay for Performance? Race and Gender Bias in Performance Evaluation Processes" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, TBA, New York, New York City Online . 2009-05-24 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p183795_index.html Childs, R. A., (1990). Gender Bias and Fairness. ERIC Digest. Retrieved on September 26, 2009 from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9218/gender.htm Coleman, S.W. III. (Summer 2001). Gender bias task force: Comments on courtroom environment. Washington and Lee Law Review. Retrieved on September 23, 2009 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3655/is_200107/ai_n8955682/?tag=content;col1 Curry, J. P., Wakefield, D. S., Price, J. L., Mueller, C. W. (1986). On the causal ordering of job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 847-858. Feather, N.T. (2003). Distinguishing between deservingness and entitlement: earned outcomes versus lawful outcomes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 367-385. Hinsliff, G. (2006). Bias against men in the workplace. TheObserver. Retrieved on October 5, 2009 from http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jan/22/discriminationatwork.workandcareers Professor. (2009) The Psychology of Justice. Lecture. Judicial Council Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness with the assistance of the County Bar Association Gender Equity Committee. (1996) Guidelines for Judicial Officers. Avoiding the Appearance of Bias. San Francisco, CA: Judicial Advisory Committee on Access and Fairness Kearney, R.C., Sellers, H. (1996). Sex on the docket: reports of state task forces on gender bias. Public Administration Review, Vol. 56, Lambert, E.G. (2005). The Impact of Distributive and Procedural Justice on Social Service Workers. Social Justice Research, 18, 411-427. MacCoun, R.J. (2005). Voice, control and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 171-201. Okimoto, T., Tyler, R. (2007). Is Compensation Enough? Relational Concerns in Responding to Unintended Inequity. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 10(3), 399-420. Sarsfield-Baldwin, Linda J. (June 22, 1996). Distributive and procedural justice as related to satisfaction and commitment. SAM Advancemed Management Journal. Retrieved on September 23, 2009 from http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/employee-development/584822-1.html Schultz, U., Shaw, G. (June 2003). Women in the World’s Legal Professions. United Kingdom: Hart Publishing The Patriot Ledger. (May 29, 2008). OUR OPINION: Working toward fairness. Message posted to http://www.patriotledger.com/business/x1878563430/OUR-OPINION-Working-toward-fairness Read More