Change management: can an unfavourable decision be fair?
A reorganisation may remove a responsibility, shift a workload or alter career prospects without affecting everyone adversely in the same way. The management question is precise: how can the fairness of a change decision be assessed when its consequences are unfavourable to some teams?
What the literature establishes
Jason Colquitt (2001, Journal of Applied Psychology) provides evidence supporting a measure that distinguishes four dimensions of organisational justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational. These concern, respectively, allocated outcomes, decision-making rules, respectful treatment and the explanations provided. When examining a change, simply asking whether a decision seems “fair” therefore risks conflating different judgements.
Outcomes and procedures tell different stories
Robert Folger and Mary Konovsky (1989, Academy of Management Journal) studied reactions to pay raise decisions. Distributive justice was more closely associated with satisfaction with the raise, while procedural justice was more closely associated with trust in the supervisor and organisational commitment. This distinction suggests that a judgement about what one receives does not capture the entire judgement about those making the decision.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that a well-managed procedure is enough to secure acceptance of a loss. These studies do not support that conclusion: distinguishing several dimensions of justice does not mean that they automatically compensate for one another. Explaining a job elimination respectfully makes neither its consequences favourable nor their distribution necessarily fair. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
The pay raise study is not an experiment in reorganisation, and validating a questionnaire does not establish the effectiveness of an intervention. These studies therefore cannot promise that a better procedure will generate support for a particular change. In practice, an overall satisfaction score is also insufficient: it does not indicate whether allocation criteria, opportunities for review or explanations need revising.
A practical check in Berne
As part of SHR’s “Conduite du changement” programme, one possible exercise is to examine a reassignment decision in a Berne-based organisation in federal administration, public health, telecommunications or precision manufacturing. For each reassignment within the chosen scope, check for three documented elements: the criterion applied, an explanation accessible to the person concerned and an identified route for review. Calculating the proportion of decisions that include all three elements, then repeating the assessment after gaps have been addressed, provides a verifiable measure of process traceability. This check measures neither perceived fairness nor support; it verifies that the stated procedure leaves records that can be examined. To go further: explore the Change Leadership training in Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Change Leadership in Bern
- change leadership
- Bern
- research
- training bern