Fairness is defined differently by everyone individually and therefore totally subjective. It's similar to one's man's trash is another man's treasure, so good luck with fairness.

I think what is most important in business, from a Human Resources point of view, is consistency. Consistency in business means you treat everyone the same, no favoritism, no discrimination, no harassment, pay for performance- not gender etc. Kind of like someone’s definition of fairness.

As an HR professional, I am always consistent. It. keeps the Company and me out of trouble. If we do it for one, we do it for all. Conversely, if we don’t do it for one, don’t even think about doing it. If we decide to change the policy, then everyone benefits, or not.

It may not make everyone happy, but everyone knows he or she will be treated in a consistent and legal manner.

posted June 5, 2008

I'm going with the unpopular vote here... fairness will sink you. Well, not completely true, but I suppose it depends on how you define "fair". If you define it as "treat an employee as they deserve to be treated, keeping in mind what they've accomplished" then perhaps you can be fair. If it means "spend an equal amount of time with each employee, spend an equal amount on training, etc", then not a chance! Of course, this is politically incorrect, but I've always found that spending more time and money on the star players is what will lift the whole team, and the company.

In many respects, it's similar to professional sports... the stars get the most money and the most playing time, and it's on their shoulders that the championship is won or lost. The others play a large role, but the stars make the difference.

Somewhere, in corporations we bought into the concept that anyone can become an all star with a fair shot. Now I do believe that people can accomplish great things given the right environment, but to think the environment that I'm managing is going to be right for everyone is... well, lets just say it's optimistic. Not even considering the environment, some people are going to have a greater aptitude in one field over another. So... am I going to be fair and treat the person who busts their ass every day but just doesn't get it the same as the person who works hard and is a natural... not a chance. I'm going to work with and nurture the natural because their growth potential is so much larger. Not only is their growth potential larger, but at the end of the day, that's the person I want to keep motivated and sticking with my team. I'll give the person busting their ass the respect they deserve, and I'll certainly give them a glowing reference should they go into a position more suited for them or hire them in another role, but I'm not going to pretend they're something they're not and I'm not going to use a lot of my time that can be put to greater use.

A book that does a great job describing this, and doesn't sound as harsh as I is "First Break All The Rules".

A clip from the review of it:
"The greatest managers in the world seem to have little in common. They differ in sex, age, and race. They employ vastly different styles and focus on different goals. Yet despite their differences, great managers share one common trait: They do not hesitate to break virtually every rule held sacred by conventional wisdom. They do not believe that, with enough training, a person can achieve anything he sets his mind to. They do not try to help people overcome their weaknesses. They consistently disregard the golden rule. And, yes, they even play favorites."

Doesn't really sound fair does it?

This brings a potentially interesting experiment to mind for the next networking dinner I attend... start two conversations, the first on fairness in the workplace. My guess is that 90% of the people there will think it's a good idea.. The 2nd, fast tracking leaders to fill in the gap of the aging population. Again, I'd guess that 90% of the people will think it's a good idea, yet fast tracking is the personification of unfairly favoring an individual.

Links:

• http://books.google.com/books?id=yL74HQAACAAJ&dq=%22first+break+all+the+rul...

posted June 5, 2008

Fairness in the workplace is not determined by some external moral code, that is why the workplace appears to be unfair.

Fairness is defined by the CEO.

posted June 5, 2008

Fairness is integral to a good society and civilization. Fairness is therefore integral to a good work place.

For example, an ineffecient lamp will use up the electricity to produce more heat but less light. Similarly the absence of fairness in the work place will lead to people watching their backs, formation of cliques and will lay the foundation of politics. This in turn will tax the performers and will not guarantee rightful recognition of achievements.

To summarize, fairness is key to a successful workplace.

posted June 5, 2008

Fairness is a matter of perception, what you think is unfair I may think is fair. In the end it all depends on who the beneficiary is.

posted June 5, 2008

Fairness is important but can be subjective. In order to ensure that decisions are fair you would need quantifiable objectives.

posted June 5, 2008

I think fairness is a tough thing to measure. I absolutly believe that different employees should be treated differently based on the value they bring to the company. I believe that there is a baseline that everyone be treated with respect and a degree of compasion.

However I also believe that when a lot of people complain about what's fair vs not fair, they are comparing the privilages they have vs the privilages someone else has. In my opinion, everyone is NOT entitled to everything. For example, as a manager, there are people who have worked for me that I would allow the privilage of working from home, and others I would not (epecially if they have given me reason to believe they can not be trusted not to goof off - or they don't have a suitable location to work from)

So long as privilages are granted based soley on performance and not based on personal relationships or any other discriminatory practice I concider that fair. And I would also note that if performance degrades, then privilages should be revoked because allowing someone to keep a perk after they've stopped earning creates an bad situation.

posted June 5, 2008

It's a strange question given the heirarchical model found in most businesses. The higher you go, the fairer it gets. The bottom is always stormy and that's why the attorneys are getting rich.

posted June 5, 2008

Hi Anthony

Fairness at workplace is as important as fairness in the society we live in. Challenge is differntiating between fairness and equality. Let me explain with an example - when we board a flight business class and first class passengers are invited first followed by economy class/other categories. Is it fair? Everyone has paid for their seats, so why a differential treatment. Is it treating all passengers equally......certainly not one could agrue? Such dilemmas are faced at the workplace as well and cordial relations sustain on fairness rather than equality.

Sincerely,
Gaurav

posted June 5, 2008

Hello Anthony,

This is a very good question. Fairness and unfairness can have large effects in organisation (and other areas, of course). It's also more or less a focal point in on of my favourite Organizational Science subjects: the "Workplace Deviance Theory" (WDT).
This is however oriented at consequences of the unfair treatment of a supervisor toward his/her employees, not on unfairness among people on "the same level".

Nevertheless, I think it''s a very interesting area of research. So this LinkedIn awnser will be me, reciting some theory from one of my interest fields. :)

I'd like to start of by setting aside the (also valid) discussion on "fair" and "equal" here, because my (simplified) standpoint is that "fairness" is subjective and harder to grasp than it's more objective mirror "equality". In other words and still simplified: fairness is in a large part how we feel about equality. This is also more or less the way I feel (some)questionaires and theories in WDT approach this matter.

To go a bit into the WDT itself:
WDT is strongly focused on the employee's perception of being -in some measure and form- abused by his/her supervisor. It argues that -as in a economic market- this is a social exchange market, and the abusive behaviour generates a (behavioural) response.

WDT shows strong effects, for instance in that abusive supervision not only starts retalliatory behaviour towards the supervisor / organisation, but also new abusive behaviour from the employee toward his/her co-workers.

A lot of more recent research has gone into finding mediating / moderating variables that intensify or weaken the relationship between percieved abuse <--> payback/payforward. Also, more precise forms of "equality" and "fairness" are researched. This is however (I'm sad to say) much to detailed for this awnser.
Interesting articles on this are from Karl Aquino, Stefan Thau, B.J. Tepper, Robinson & Bennett, and Lind & Van den Bos.

If you'd like to know more (details), you're more than welcome to contact me.

posted June 5, 2008

Hi Anthony,

To have a successful business, you need to have a fair business. which means with no fairness, your workplace will collapse in away or another. At the best cases, it will never reach its optimum level and will always be limited.

To have a fair business, you need to be fair with people. you need to be fair with both the employees and the customers. only this way you can ensure a successful business for the long long term.

For me it's a simple equation, no fairness, no success!

posted June 5, 2008