Procedural Justice
According to Tyler (333), procedural justice is the notion that fair processes in dispute resolution result in equitable outcomes. It, therefore, concerns itself majorly with the transparency and fairness of the decision-making and implementation processes. For justice to be considered procedural, certain conditions have to be met. First, there has to be consistency. This implies that the same situation should be dealt with in the same way. Punishment or reward for the same mistake, committed by two different people should be the same and not dependent on the offender. Same cases should be treated alike. Also, the individuals involved in the process of conflict resolution should be unbiased and neutral. The two parties in conflict should have unwavering confidence that the arbitrator does not lean on either side. Further, if there are any other people directly affected by the decision made, they should also be involved and given a hearing. Involving them not only increase the trust in both the process and outcome, but also serves to reinforce the voice of weaker parties or those unable to clearly express themselves. Finally, the implementation process needs to be transparent, and the decision-making process devoid of deception or secrecy (Tyler 333).
An Example of Procedural Justice
I have been in a situation where procedural justice was used. At my former workplace, a colleague of mine had for long been at loggerheads with her supervisor. More often than not, she arrived at work later than the reporting time but usually finished her daily tasks even if that meant staying later than everybody else to complete her workload. She also claimed that was being sexually harassed by her supervisor and as a result, stopped reporting to him and went directly to the general supervisor instead. The supervisor felt that he was being belittled and overlooked and confronted the general supervisor as to why he would accept these reports instead of referring the lady back to him (the supervisor) for purposes of protocol observance (Brafman and Rom 120). He also kept issuing the lady with warnings because of her constant lateness.
Resolving the Conflict
The manager got word of these wrangles and decided to settle it since it had begun to affect their performance in the workplace. He called both of them, together with the general manager and gave each of them a chance to express themselves. He explained that he called them in together so that each of them would have a chance to hear what the other said and thus could respond to the allegations, instead of talking to each of them separately. The supervisor explained that he had lateness issues with the lady, and further expressed his displeasure at being overlooked and not reported to. In her defense, the lady said that she completed all her tasks within the day and even worked late hours to ensure this was done. The lady then explained that she was not comfortable with dealing with her supervisor directly because he harassed her sexually. She was asked to provide proof of this, and she produced text messages in which he had expressed his interest in her as well as a call log showing numerous calls made to her. The manager then called other colleagues and interrogated them on whether they had observed any untoward gesture between the lady and her supervisor (Brafman and Rom 120). He then asked her friends if they had heard any complaints from her concerning the supervisor.
The supervisor admitted to his expression of interest but defended himself saying that it did not amount to sexual harassment. The manager then asked the lady her reasons for not arriving at work on time, and she explained that she lived far from her workplace and often encountered traffic. The manager explained to her that she had to come to work in time, just like her colleagues because it was the policy and he even went ahead to calculate with her the time taken from her place to work. If she left half an hour earlier, she would be at work in good time. They agreed that she would arrive early and in case she delays, she would notify her supervisor in good time and later compensate for that time. He also talked to her supervisor and said that much it had been determined that it was not sexual harassment; he needed to stop because it was making her uncomfortable and affecting her at work. The lady was told to start reporting to him again, but if she received any text or call from her supervisor that made her uncomfortable, she was permitted to go straight to the manager and report this. They were both asked if the decisions made were okay with them or if they had any more input or complaint.
Both the supervisor and my colleague left the manager's office satisfied that they had been given a fairing hearing, and justice had been served without leaning on either side. Moreover, even other colleagues were involved to determine if they had made any observations. The whole process was fair and transparent and involved all of them. They were later given a chance to appeal the decision made, but they were both satisfied with the outcome. From that, I learned that the fairness of the outcome is dependent on the fairness of the process used to reach that outcome. I also learnt that it is necessary to engage employs during grievance resolution. It gives them a feeling of inclusion when they are allowed to state their grievances for themselves rather than just talk to the supervisor and later summon the employee to issue a decision already made.
Group Dynamics
Ori and Rom Brafman (150) introduce us to the concept of group dynamics and the vital role played by all individuals of a group according to a study conducted by a family therapist, David Kantor. In any group, there are initiators; who are often the one who come up with new ideas as well as blockers; who critique and raise questions about these ideas. There are also supporters; who mostly never incorporate their opinions and instead just side with the initiator or blocker, and observers; who take neither side but also do not voice their opinions. They may, however, comment on obvious things that will not change the outcome of decision-making. I have always been much of a blocker and in other instances, a supporter. I enjoy looking at every situation from different angles and carefully considering each alternative before settling on one. I sometimes also find myself supporting the initiator, or blocker if I concur with the ideas they have presented. The consequence of being a blocker is that it introduces valuable opinion and makes people stop and consider other options and not just align themselves with the initial plan or idea. In many cases, decisions have been altered because of a blocker who introduced a critical angle to the situation and this is of great help. At one time at my workplace, we decided to hold a student mentorship workshop, and the general idea was to invite high-end motivators to attract student participation (Brafman and Rom 120). Everybody seemed to agree with this until I questioned the cost of bringing these motivators on board and noting that it would inevitably affect the fees students were charged to attend the workshop. High charges would make only a few students attend. After this observation, the initial decision was revisited, and the speakers changed. Being a perpetual blocker though, others may sometimes dismiss your idea thinking that it's out of habit that you oppose.
Work Cited
Brafman, Ori, and Rom Brafman. Sway: The irresistible pull of irrational behavior. Crown Business, 2008.
Tyler, Tom R. "Conditions leading to value-expressive effects in judgments of procedural justice: A test of four models." Journal of personality and social psychology 52.2 (1987): 333.
