Unfavourable decisions: what a manager's explanations can change
A refused training request, an unwanted assignment or a restricted pay budget can put the reporting relationship under strain. The useful question is specific: can an explanation preserve a sense of fairness when the decision remains unfavourable?
What the literature establishes
Jason A. Colquitt (2001, Journal of Applied Psychology) provides evidence supporting a measure that distinguishes four dimensions of organisational justice: distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational. The outcome, the decision-making process, the respect shown and the quality of explanations are therefore not interchangeable. Attributing all dissatisfaction to the decision itself is insufficient when trying to understand a difficulty with one's manager.
What an explanation can change
Jerald Greenberg (1990, Journal of Applied Psychology) studied employee theft in the context of a temporary pay reduction. The increase in theft was smaller when the announcement included a thorough explanation delivered with sensitivity to employees' circumstances. This finding suggests that the way an unfavourable decision is presented can influence reactions without changing its material substance.
The premature conclusion
It would be tempting to conclude that explaining a refusal well is enough to make it fair. These studies do not support that conclusion: an explanation corrects neither an inequitable allocation nor an arbitrary procedure. Understanding the reasons for a decision and agreeing with it remain two different things. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
Validating a justice measure does not establish that an explanatory conversation alone improves a reporting relationship. The pay study concerns a particular situation and theft behaviours, not the full range of reactions to an individual refusal. Nor does it allow the effect of the information provided to be neatly separated from that of the consideration expressed.
A practical check in Lausanne
As part of SHR's « Construire une relation efficace avec son manager » programme, an exercise could be offered in Lausanne, in a medtech company, a higher education institution, an international sports organisation or a scale-up in the Lake Geneva region: after an unfavourable decision, write down the stated criterion and the constraint cited, then ask the manager to check that understanding. Over four weeks, record the proportion of decisions reviewed for which both elements have been made explicit and confirmed, noting separately whether disagreement persists. This indicator checks shared understanding, not the fairness of the decision or the overall quality of the relationship. The record should contain no personal data or confidential information about third parties. To go further: explore the Building an Effective Relationship with Your Manager training in Lausanne, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Building an Effective Relationship with Your Manager in Lausanne
- building an effective relationship with your manager
- Lausanne
- research
- training lausanne