Making Just Decisions in an Organization - Coursework Example

Organizational Justice Location January 5th Making Just decisions in an organization Organizations in recent years have had their managers make astounding numbers of poor calls in relation to decisions to invest or decisions affecting other employees in the organization. It is important for both managers and employees in an organization to make decisions that are morally good because they have an impact in the organization in one way or another. Most decision makers use a hybrid of behavioural, rational and practical approach in making their day-to-day decisions in organizations (Griffin and Moorhead 2011, p215). It is the duty of a leader in an organization to conduct business activities in an ethical manner to every employee of the company for both business and legal reasons. It is, therefore, important for all managers to understand their ethical obligations in order to be able to meet the expectations of organizations as well as develop behaviours that are appropriate for all. Having a good standard for judging right from wrong in an organization will entail acting in a fair and honest way towards an individual as well as making decisions towards a group. A manager who makes fair judgment will do activities like having a competition that is fair and honest, avoiding acts of deception, misrepresentation, and above all, acting within the law. For a manager to act justly, he has to read the codes of conduct of an organization first, this entails understanding all the words that are used in the code of conduct putting in mind both the spirit and intended meanings of the words. After understanding the codes of conduct, it is important to ensure that all the employees understand the codes of conduct, and in case of any misunderstanding, explanations are given to the employees. A manager who acts consistently with the codes of conduct is able to provide a foundation of trust in the organization, and there will be a good relationship with the employees at the work place. Becoming organizational members means we surrender some of our autonomy so that others can control us (Clegg, Kornberger and Pitsis 2008, p.252). The goal of a manager is to elaborate to the employees meaning of good ethical judgments and encourage all employees to bring forward any acts that they think is not appropriate. The result of these is that an organization will be able to monitor behaviours that are unethical before it gets out of control and stop it at the right time. Day-to-day decisions involve issues that are ethical from considerations of reasons for promotion, decision to discipline a particular employee fairly to treating other individuals in an organization. Treating employees in a just manner also involves tolerating behaviours of an individual that you would not tolerate in others and a manager must ensure he is able to handle all of these actions. Rational decision-making will assume the decision maker is well informed of organizational goals and the alternatives that are available (Denhardt 2010, p.82). There are times when being ethical will not answer the certain issues being confronted in an organization such as having an ethical line and legal conduct that can, in most times, are blurred. For instance, if a manager finds documents that have information about the products of his competitor, the illegal part would be if the manager steals it from the competitor’s premise. However, if the document is found in the streets, ethics allows the manager to use the information assuming an individual might have dropped the document by accident. For an organization to have justice, it is important, therefore, to offer training that involves more than just reviewing the rules of the company. Some behaviour is not acceptable in one organization, but is acceptable in another and vice versa, and it, therefore, does not mean that the behaviour should be tolerated at the company leaving the other company. The organization should be able to set standards that every individual present there should adhere to the standards. Therefore, a manager should have good ideas of how to behave and communicate to other employees because this will be based on to which other members of the organization will judge the manager. If managers make just decisions and require the same from the employees, the manager represents the organization in a good manner, and it means the employees will be able to put their trust in the manager. Hence, the best way to attract and retain good employees in an organization is by respecting all those people in the organization that you interact with every day. Benefits of organizational justice to management and employees There are many benefits organizations can get by ensuring there is justice between managers and employees. Companies that have managers that are fair are far more effective in their operations as compared to those that do not (Greenberg and Colquitt 2005, p504). Some of the common benefits will include commitment and trust at the work place the performance at the job will be improved among others. Managing justice in an organization will involve activities such as downsizing, performance appraisal, and the systems of reward and conflict resolution methods. An organization that ensures there is justice has its employees have the will to become vulnerable at any time to any other party based of the components that are involved in justice which entail having interaction at the work place, distribution and also procedures put in place in an organization. Trust overlaps with just perceptions because it develops over time being a result of just treatment while in the organization (Casas 2007, p.25). Therefore, justice will build trust and commitment amongst managers and employees in the organization. For instance, there is an association that is present between having perception of justice procedure and having trust in an organization, which can be as high as sixty percent. In a similar way, employees who are treated justly will be more committed to their managers and will dedicate all their time and work with all their effort. Job performance in an organization involves the duties that are assigned by an organizational authority, which is usually evaluated during the process of performance appraisal. In an environment, that justice is present; there can be good predictions in the effectiveness in which employees are discharging their duties. Effects of justice are, therefore, strongest in real life activities because having fairness in an organization will lead to an interpersonal relationship that is strong. For example, a supervisor who treats his subordinates with justice in an interactional way will be able to build a high quality relationship that will eventually motivate employees hence having a high performance in their job duties. A supervisor who will worry a lot about pay of the employee and the process will be expensive in the end and time consuming in the organization. Organizational citizenship behaviour goes beyond work duties, and this can only be witnessed by employees who are treated justly in their work place. Such employees comply well with work policies, usually behave in an altrusting way towards their colleagues and are able to show conscientious in their job. It is important to note that most employees tailor citizenship behaviours, and they dolly them to their managers and colleagues who treat them in a just way while withholding this behaviour to those who do not treat them with justice. For instance, an employee employed on a temporary basis and at the same time, he is employed on a contract basis in another company. An employee will demonstrate citizenship behaviours in a company that practices fair procedures while he will become a contingent employee in an organization that offers just processes from the contract made between the two. Procedural justice that the employee receives does nothing to boost citizenship behaviour amongst employees; therefore, for an organization to have justice work for its benefit, it has to enhance justice first. Employees who are inspired by justice in their work organizations demonstrate organizational citizenship behaviour towards their company, and they will sound similar to the company’s customer service. Customer service will be seen in the way they are able to listen to the needs of the customers. Hence organizational citizenship behaviour usually spills to customers who will eventually have the feeling of being treated appropriately and in the end; they yield customer loyalty and satisfaction. An organization’s identity with its stakeholders is usually defined; by the way, the organization enhances justice. It he organization espouses justice as a core value in the management philosophy, enacting it through consistent management practices, it will be able to build a culture where justice is practiced and hence have a system-wide commitment that is valuable and unique to both the employees and customers. This will translate the organization to a competitive level that is high and not easily attainable by other competitors. Ethical dilemmas that arise from attempting to treat all people equally. It is a difficult task satisfying legal requirements in an organization and at the same time do operations in an ethical manner. Managers are required to supply their own yardsticks in order to ensure ethics rub in an organization. There is a difference in the way people will define ethical decisions made in an organization; hence, a manager is required to employ ethical core values in making decisions in order to arrive at the right ethical decision. A manager has the responsibility of ensuring there is an equal opportunity during the consideration of candidates to be hired in an organization or those that are to be promoted in an ethical and legal manner. For instance, it is unethical for a manager to make a decision based on other factors that are not related to the ability to perform the task and the willingness of employees to perform the task. Making decisions based on race or even if a manger introduces any form of influence at the work place and it has nothing to do with the task at hand, such an influence will be detrimental to justice at the work place. Fairness is another characteristic that is essential at the work place and some of its key components are paying equally for a specific task done to all employees, praising and criticizing employees in an equal way and in similar situations and also managers having to distribute non-monetary rewards to employees in an equal way to those deserving the rewards. Legal implications are present if employees are treated in a manner that suggests there is no justice, and this is unethical. It is difficult to apply fair treatment in such situations and, therefore, managers are advised to apply written guidelines especially in elements of reward, employee evaluation and also compensation. An organization that has enhanced high ethical standards has its employees taking responsibility for the various actions they have taken. A manager should, therefore, not assign blame to the employees but focus on finding solutions in order to avoid repeating the same mistake. In an event, that there is a complaint or an employee is realizes an action taken does not bear fruits, it is important to focus on the ways in which the employee contributed to the mistake and find solutions that could be done to eradicate the problem. The role of the manager in such a situation is to lead the way by providing good examples and try to come to a consensus in where things went wrong and how to come out of such a situation. It is a challenging situation when the legal counsel is reviewing decisions that have legal consequences and ethical decisions are of a personal nature. In order to determine the right decision, it is important for a manager to use both authority test and public scrutiny test. The manager will then have to identify a person in the organization whose judgment is respected and get an answer from that person on the actions the person would do. The manager can alternatively go ahead and ask the person’s opinion on his judgments. In employing public scrutiny test, the manager will ask himself whether he would be comfortable defending his decision in public, but overall, it is essential to use the company’s code of ethics. Core concepts and assumptions of organizational justice Individuals who are in a relationship where they exchange commodities usually expect returns based on the amount of investment they make (Duyar 2012, p.225). Employees working in an organization usually examine justice in the allocation of processes, and this is referred to as procedural justice, interactional justice and justice of outcomes, which is known as distributive justice. Distributive justice has to do with outcomes that some employees get while others do not get; thus, it is the reality that in an organization, not all workers are treated alike, and the outcomes witnessed at the work place are usually differentiated. Employees are, therefore, concerned with the fact that they will receive their just share at the work place or not. Regardless of the definition of distributive justice, employees in an organization have a mechanism they used to compare justice hence know what they expect to get (Landy and Conte 2009, p.503). Most times in an organization, justice is usually distributed well when a qualified individual is promoted, and at times, there is no distribution of justice when advancement is given to an individual who has political relationship to senior management. Justice of the procedure involves the means used in allocating outcomes, not being specific to the outcomes themselves. This type of justice will establish principles that will specify and govern roles of those participating in decision-making process in an organization. Just process; therefore, should be applied consistently to all employees without biasness, in an accurate manner and in a manner that is consistent to the ethical norms. It is also important to note that just procedures are able to mitigate ill effects of outcomes that are not favourable to employees. Hence, it is injustice for a manager to offer judgment based on just hearing but rather review admissible evidence that is present and not personal attacks at the work place. The workers should be given an opportunity to explain their own interpretation of events inclusive of misunderstanding where appropriate. When there is a strong employee support for decision-making, procedural justice will be less important to an individual in an organization (Ferrell, Fraedrich and Ferrell 2010, p.164). The way in which a person in a workplace treats others is basically interactional justice and one can be interactional just by sharing information at the work place and at the same time avoiding remarks that are rude and cruel. Interactional justice has both information justice and interpersonal justice where information justice entails an employee being truthful by providing justifications that are adequate when things are not good. Because motivation in an organization cannot be measured, its effects are usually witnessed by changes in behaviour (Kozlowski 2012, p.537). The respect and dignity that an employee in an organization gives another is interpersonal justice, and both are of high importance in the running of an organization. A manager should have accurate standards when making judgments based on evidence and necessary steps should be taken including training in order to improve accuracy of judgment and ensure there is no political influence. Strengths and weaknesses of organizational justice If organizational managers are able to act in a fair manger based on individual characteristics, the organization will be well served to select best characteristics from its employees (Gilliland, 2005 p79). A well-designed system in an organization that promotes justice is able to profit employees by the satisfaction that they have been treated fairly as well as the organization thereby maintaining challenges that may occur from the staff while at the same time reap the benefits gained by being an employee of choice in a company. Despite these benefits, the relationship can be exploitive, and this can be so when the employee judges only the favourable outcomes he receives to what they have given to the organization. Employees act based on the perceptions they have and not on reality itself; hence, it is important to understand how perception of politics is able to influence fairness in an organization (Vigoda-Gadot and Drory 2006, p.123). The rational side of organizational justice is that both the organization and the employee develop a relationship that is characterized by a dimension that is rational. Individuals would like to have a feeling that the organization treats them in a just manner (Mathis and Jackson 2010, p510). The employee is able to bring both competencies and effort, and in the end, he will receive both material outcome and self-esteem, not forgetting a sense of belonging with the organization. However, in this relationship, the employee might feel fear of being rejected when he runs the risk of getting a negative identity in the event that he is excluded, and this would diminish the employee’s aspect of self, otherwise known as the social dilemma. Therefore, in order to implement justice in an organization successfully, it is essential to have a fit between managers’ just practices and values present of the culture that exists (Beugre 2007, p.147). Implementing organizational justice ensures the workers have a healthy life and well-being in the way they develop control in their work, having support socially including rewards. Despite these, it has become difficult to prove whether the employees prefer fair rational benefits to favourable benefits because one feels he deserves to receive the benefits once he joins a specific group. The more the gate in a channel of communication in an organization, the message will most likely pass slowly and be changed (Stojkovic, Klofas and Kalinich 2011, p.98). An employee might, therefore, show and interactive effect or preference effect giving importance to benefits accruing from fair rational and not favourable benefits. Conclusion Absence of organizational justice will most likely give the organization many problems by provoking relationships, lowering performance and eventually harming morale of the employees. When justice is enhanced in an organization, it will basically act as a buffer thereby allowing employees to build and maintain trust at all times because it is inevitable to note that things do not always go the way we want them to go. Where there is the benefit of justice, the attitudes examined are referenced to the supervisor and the organization as a whole (Barling and Cooper 2008, p.80). Availability of justice in an organization will provide the organization with opportunities to reap benefits such as employee commitment thus having a competitive age over other competitors. Justice should be put in place in an organization during the process of hiring, management of conflict, laying-off of staffs, carrying out performance appraisal, and reward system. All these tasks involve risks of designating some employees to become winners while others will become losers and, therefore, organizational justice will help managers in making decisions that are good in a smooth way. Besides this, it is always right to use power in accordance with normative principles that are able to respect the dignity of all employees in an organization. Reference Barling, J. and Cooper, C. 2008. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Behavior: Volume One: Micro Approaches. London, UK: Sage Publications. Beugre C. 2007. A Cultural Perspective of Organizational Justice (Hc). Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. Casas A. 2007. Human Resources professional’s Justice and Organizational justice. Miami, USA: ProQuest. Clegg, S. Kornberger, M. Pitsis, T. 2008. Managing and Organizations, London: Sage. Denhardt R. 2010. Theories of Public Organization. Boston, USA: Wadsworth. Duyar I. 2012. Discretionary Behavior and Performance in Education: The Missing Link in Educational organizations: The Missing Links in Educational leadership and Management. Bingley, UK: Emerald. Ferrell O. C, Fraedrich J. and Ferrell L. 2010. Business Ethics: Ethical Decision Making and Cases. Ohio, USA: Southwestern Cengage. Gilliland S. 2005. What Motivates Fairness in Organizations? Charlotte, North Carolina: Information Age Publishing. books.google.co.ke/books?isbn=1593114389 Greenberg J. and Colquitt J. 2005. Handbook of Organizational Justice. New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Griffin R and Moorhead G. 2011. Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, New York: Southwestern Cengage. Kozlowski S. 2012. The oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. Landy F. and Conte J. 2009. Work in The 21st Century: An Introduction to Industrial and Organizational Psychology. California, USA: Wiley-Blackwell. Mathis R. and Jackson J. 2010. Human Resource Management. Ohio: Southwestern Cengage. Stojkovic Stan Klofas John and David K. 2011. Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management. California, USA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Vigoda-Gadot E. and Drory A. 2006. Handbook of Organizational Politics. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Read More