Acceptance of a difficult decision: what procedure changes
Managers sometimes have to allocate resources without being able to satisfy every team. The useful question is specific: does allowing those affected to express their views make the allocation seem fairer, even when they do not hold decision-making authority?
What the literature establishes
E. Allan Lind, Ruth Kanfer and P. Christopher Earley (1990, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) experimentally examined how opportunities to express one's views affect judgements of procedural justice. Their findings indicate that this opportunity matters not only because it can influence the outcome: speaking after a decision can also improve perceived fairness. Being heard and having decision-making authority are therefore not equivalent.
Procedure as a reference point under uncertainty
Kees van den Bos, E. Allan Lind, Riël Vermunt and Henk A. M. Wilke (1997, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology) examined how people evaluate their outcome when they do not know what others received. In their experiments, information about procedural fairness then plays a particularly important role in evaluating the outcome received. Procedure thus provides a reference point when comparing how people have been treated remains difficult.
The premature conclusion
One might conclude that consultation is all it takes to secure acceptance of a decision. However, these studies concern fairness judgements and outcome evaluations, not a guarantee of lasting support or better resource allocation. A well-regarded procedure can accompany a technically poor decision; it does not remove the need to examine arguments or explain constraints. (our executive and employee training programmes)
What the evidence cannot promise
These experiments isolate mechanisms in controlled settings, far removed from some repeated and heavily constrained organisational decisions. They cannot quantify the effect of consultation in a public body or business in Berne. In practice, a genuine opportunity to contribute must also be distinguished from an ambiguous invitation suggesting that everything remains negotiable.
A practical check in Berne
Within SHR's decision-making programme, an exercise applicable in Berne would involve documenting a real allocation decision: case prioritisation in the federal administration, resource allocation in public health, telecoms maintenance or production capacity in precision manufacturing. Before deciding, the manager would clarify what remains open, collect comments from the teams concerned and record the response to each in a note accessible to authorised people. The measure would be the proportion of comments receiving a reasoned response, supplemented after the decision by two separate questions: “Were you able to put forward your arguments?” and “Is the outcome favourable to you?”. This record would check whether listening is traceable and distinguish two perceptions, without by itself demonstrating a better decision. To go further: explore the Decision-making training in Bern in the canton of Bern, or browse our executive and employee training programmes in Switzerland.
In pictures: Decision-making in Bern
- decision-making
- Bern
- research
- training bern