Justice and fairness in the workplace: a trajectory for managing diversity

• Date: 18 June 2018
• Published date: 18 June 2018
• Pages: 470-490
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0105
• Author: Pradeepa Dahanayake,Diana Rajendran,Christopher Selvarajah,Glenda Ballantyne
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity, equality, inclusion

Justice and fairness in the

workplace: a trajectory for

managing diversity

Pradeepa Dahanayake

Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology,

Melbourne, Australia

Diana Rajendran

Department of Management, Swinburne University of Technology,

Melbourne, Australia

Christopher Selvarajah

Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology,

Melbourne, Australia, and

Glenda Ballantyne

Department of Sociology, Swinburne University of Technology,

Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to argue that diversity management (DM) interventions, underpinned

by principles of justice and fairness, create a powerful force that drives sustainable outcomes. Further, the

authors argue that justice and fairness should be embedded at the core of DM.

Design/methodology/approach –A qualitative case study methodology was used to ascertain how four

organizations approached critical issues regarding diversity. Justice and fairness principles were used as a

framework to evaluate each organization’s DM interventions. Different approaches adopted by the case study

organizations were compared using a cross-case analysis.

Findings –Justice and fairness principles provide a useful framework to evaluate DM interventions.

The findings show that justice and fairness principles have an effect across the continuum of DM, including

identifying dimensions of diversity, executing DM programs and realizing outcomes of DM.

Research limitations/implications –The current study is limited to four case studies using

qualitative methods.

Practical implications –The findings demonstrate the importance of integrating justice and fairness

benchmarks when implementing DM programs.

Originality/value –The findings shed light on the link between DM and justice and fairness, an area

lacking empirical studies. It also presents a new area for empirical enquiry—the application of social justice

principles in evaluating organizational interventions in DM.

Keywords Social justice, Diversity management, Organizational justice, Equality, Business case,

Moral case

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

Organizational justice research has proliferated during the past several decades (Greenberg

and Colquitt, 2013). Similarly, given the heterogeneity of the contemporary workforce, there

is a rich body of research in diversity management (DM). However, while each of the two

streams of research has continued to grow, there seems little interconnectedness between

the two (Choi and Rainey, 2014). In the absence of empirical research, examining

organizational interventions aimed at managing workforce diversity within a justice and

fairness framework, the integration of justice and fairness and DM remains a matter of

conjecture. Our research aims to help address this gap by investigating the association

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 37 No. 5, 2018

pp. 470-490

© Emerald PublishingLimited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-11-2016-0105

Received 29 November 2016

Revised 5 June 2017

Accepted 17 July 2017

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-7149.htm

470

EDI

37,5

between DM practices and principles of justice and fairness in four Australian

organizations. In this context, we pose the question:

RQ1. How does justice and fairness integrate with the phenomenon of DM in

organizations?

The research is guided by a conceptual framework derived from justice and fairness

literature, which suggests that justice and fairness should be integral determinants of DM.

In line with Choi and Rainey (2014), we argue that a managerial approach embedding justice

and fairness would enable organizations to build the required culture and climate to

effectively manage workforce diversity.

We begin with an overview of the organizational justice literature, followed by a review

of justice and fairness and DM literature. The research methodology is then articulated,

followed by the findings. Finally, we present the conclusion and implications of our study.

Justice and fairness in the workplace

The term “organizational justice”was coined by Greenberg (1987) (Colquitt, 2001; Tan,

2014), who considered theories of justice through which organizational phenomena could be

examined. Organizational justice is a strong enabler, motivating employees to achieve

organizational goals, through the establishment of conducive employee-employer

relationships (Greenberg and Colquitt, 2013). According to Greenberg (1987),

organizational justice is the employee’s perception of being treated fairly. Such

perceptions impact employee attitudes and behaviors and are manifested through

organizational commitment, trust and satisfaction (Tan, 2014). Tan (2014) argued that

fairness in organizational policies, payments and benefits is relevant to organizational

justice. For Al-Zu’bi (2010), organizational justice is a term relevant to the work environment

where the role of justice in the workplace is upheld. Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin (2014) noted

that the terms justice and fairness are used interchangeably in most organizational justice

research. Four categories of workplace justice and fairness exist under the umbrella term

“organizational justice”: fairness of outcomes (distributive justice); procedures (procedural

justice); interpersonal treatment (interpersonal justice); and information (informational

justice) (Cugueró-Escofet and Fortin, 2014).

Distributive justice (the fair distribution of outcomes) is consistent with the principles of

equity or equality (Colquitt, 2001; Rifai, 2005). For Tan (2014), distributive justice concerns

perceptionsof fair distribution of gains in accordancewith the value of the contribution made

by employees.For Al-Zu’bi (2010), it is the perceived fairnessof the outcome an employee gets

from the organization. Procedural justice, however, concerns the justice or fairness of the

processes thatlead to outcomes (Leventhal, 1980),and how employees perceive thefairness of

rules and proceduresused in a process (Nabatchi et al., 2007).Here, the emphasis is on process

rather thanoutcome, informed by the proceduralemphasis in the legal system(Colquitt, 2001).

Consequently, the term “interactional justice”arose, with fairness defined by the quality of

interpersonal treatment in implementing organizational procedures (Bies and Moag, 1986).

Interactional justice emphasizes treating employees with dignity, sensitivity and respect

(Al-Zu’bi, 2010), with clear rationales for decisions (Colquitt, 2001). Mikula et al. (1990)

suggestedthat perceived injusticesare not restricted to distributionalor procedural issues, but

are largely impacted by the way employees are treated during interactions and encounters.

Interactionaljustice was subsequently dividedinto two categories: the respectand sensitivity

aspects of interactional justice comprise the interpersonal facet of distributive justice

(Greenberg, 1993); the explanation of the rationale of interactional justice comprises the

interpersonal facet of procedural justice (Colquitt, 2001). Despite lack of consensusregarding

that division (Al-Zu’bi, 2010), researchers including Colquitt (2001) recognize it and adopt a

four-structure approach to organizational justice.

471

Justice and

fairness in the

workplace