Ethics thoughtpieces

Fairness
In the English language the definitions of “fairness” and “justice” are very similar but are not identical –
something like fraternal (non-identical) twins.
Fairness
Justice’s Fraternal Twin
Frank J. Navran
© 2012 Navran Associates

In the English language the definitions of “fairness” and “justice” are very similar but are not identical –
something like fraternal (non-identical) twins.
Justice is often about overriding principles and fairness is more commonly about how those principles are
applied to a specific set of circumstances or a particular situation. Just as philosophy is about overriding
principles and ethics is about how those principles are applied.
When it comes to how we expect to be treated and how others expect us to treat them, there is broad
agreement that “fairness” should be the standard for addressing those situations. The fairness question is
often raised when people differ over how they believe a situation should be addressed/resolved, or when
decisions are being made regarding the distribution of benefits and burdens.
In the world of organizations those in the ethics field who do not have legal training more often lean
towards “fairness” as a dominant organizational value. For many with a legal background “justice” is often
the term of choice. In this paper we will focus on “fairness” but do not be surprised when some of what is
presented could apply to “justice” as well. Like a Venn diagram, the overlap can be significant even
though the two concepts are “non-identical”.
Defining Fairness
In an organizational context, fairness usually comes down to applying the same rules, standards and
criteria in similar situations. The purpose is to reduce the role of bias in one’s decision making, thus
“leveling the playing field”.
Consider the example of selecting a supplier or vendor. Typically, when there is an “open” bid, where we
are soliciting products or services from several potential suppliers, we tell those potential suppliers what
we need, what criteria we will apply to evaluating their bids and any other pertinent details they might
need to know when calculating their offers, (e.g., timing, quantities, locations(s)…). We may have an
“impartial” party evaluate the bids and make recommendations regarding the top two or three bidders. To
further increase the “fairness” some organizations employ a “blind” process, where any identifiers
regarding who is submitting which bid is redacted before the bids are reviewed, evaluated and the
recommendation(s) submitted – typical a ranking of the most preferred two or three bidders.
The final step is for the “decision maker” (very often the person responsible for using the product/service
being solicited) to offer an opinion regarding the top bids and/or make the final recommendation/decision.
This process injects a degree of objectivity into the selection process. That suggests an increased level of
fairness, since an effort being is made to significantly reduce any role such might otherwise play.
One of the other most visible examples of fairness in organizations has to do with supervisory behavior.
Fairness is this context comes down to applying the same rules, standards and selection criteria, given
similar situations. Here the situations typically involve working conditions, the assignment of tasks,
evaluation of performance, payment for that performance, and how people are generally treated in the
workplace. They may also include considerations of tenure/seniority based on the expectation that the
more experienced employees are likely to be more efficient and make fewer mistakes. Thus, they may be
entitled to higher levels of compensation for performing the same tasks as junior employees of the same
level/title.
Criteria for such treatment can typically be found in internal documents regarding how work is to be
performed, such as policies and procedures, and specific performance expectations regarding both
processes (how the task is to be performed) and expected outcomes (what constitutes the successful
completion of the task, what that success will produce, how long it will take, how much it will cost….).
This is not a one-sided set of expectations. Employees also have expectations. In unionized
environments, those standards are typically laid out in the “working agreement” or “contract”, and
management may be subject to grievance proceedings if the agreement is believed to have been
violated. In non-union environments, the expectation of fairness is often a matter of “trust” that
management will be fair, without the protection of a contract, per. se., where trust can be understood as
the “residue of promises fulfilled”.
Finally, it should be understood that fairness is not a guarantee of a “desired” set of standards. It merely
describes a “consistent” set of standards. In one organization where I was involved, employees
consistently referred to the unit manager as a “spherical SOB”. When I first heard this expression I was
confused. I knew what an SOB was, but was confused by the “spherical” reference. They explained. A
sphere is the only object in solid geometry that looks exactly the same from whatever angle or direction it
is observed. This manager was, in their words, “an SOB no matter how you looked at him.” Thus, he was
a “spherical SOB”. He met one of the technical criteria for being fair because he was consistent, but was
universally held in low esteem for his conduct.
¬
Presumptive Fairness
Fairness is the default position in organizations. That is not the case regarding all values. For example,
while typically respect for a position is presumed, respect for the individual holding that position must be
earned.
In organizations, however, fairness is the presumptive starting point and is expected to be a “steady-
state”. While in our discussion of respect we note that there can be varying level of respect in an
organization and it can still function well, there is no such latitude regarding fairness. As hard as I have
tried I cannot identify and organizational situation where fairness is optional, inappropriate or
unnecessary.
Fairness is a given. There can be no exceptions. That is a baseline assumption. But there is a
complication with fairness that other values may not share. Interestingly, fairness, unlike some of the
other values we discuss in this series, is not an “absolute”. Honesty can be evaluated. If I telling you the
truth or if I am lying can be objectively tested against some standard. Fairness, in nearly every case, is a
judgment call. It is measured against a variable scale that each of us calibrates according to a unique,
internal standard. There is no “fairness” scale in the Bureau of Weights and Measures against which we
can evaluate the fairness of one’s decisions or actions. Yet we presume that fairness is in play.
We are expected to be fair and we should be able to expect that those we are dealing with will be fair as
well. The problem is that, lacking any objective measure of what is or isn’t fair, disagreements abound.
“That’s not fair” is a common plea when your scale and mine disagree. From a leadership perspective,
the best we can hope for may be “consistency”. For example, as your supervisor I may be more harsh or
more lenient in my dealings with you and others that your previous supervisor. Either position can be
accepted IF I apply the same standard to everyone I deal with – similar degrees of harshness or leniency
in similar situations for all.
Consistency of behavior is one example of a reasonable standard of fairness. I am playing by an
internally consistent set of rules – internally consistent in that I apply the same standard to all cases –
even when it is different from the standards applied by others in similar cases. It is not unlike the teachers
we had in school - some were “easy” graders and some were “hard” graders. Once we knew the
standards, we knew what to expect and so long as the rule didn’t change unexpectedly, the standards
was deemed fair. Perhaps not the same standard as my predecessor applied, or the same standard my
successor will apply, but the same standard that I consistently apply.
This is unlike other values, such as “honesty”. Honesty can be objectively measured. A truth is a truth and
a lie is a lie. In fairness, the measure is subjective - is the action “within bounds” and is the actor
consistent, from case to case?
Teaching Others What Fairness Means To Us
Since fairness is presumed, we might think that we do not have to teach it. That would be naive. Fairness
is still contextual. Fairness may not look the same in different situations. The value is a constant but the
behaviors that represent that value can vary. As leaders, it becomes our responsibility to teach those we
lead how fairness plays out in our sphere of influence. Two simple examples, work assignments and
performance evaluations, can illustrate this point.
I may assign work on a pure rotational basis or on a random basis, believing that whichever of those two I
choose guarantees fairness. I might also make an effort to best match the task at hand to the specific
skills and/or knowledge of the person I select. Or conversely, I may assign tasks to people based on skills
and abilities they need to develop. The key is not consistency in assignments, but rather consistency in
that my purpose for making those choices has some logic or rationale. Does everyone get an opportunity
to develop new skills? Does everyone get an opportunity to demonstrate his or her mastery of skills
already well developed?
If we borrow from political philosophy we can recall “From each, according to his ability. To each,
according to his needs”. While credited to Karl Marx it is actually better illustrated in the Israeli Kibbutz, or
communal farm, of the mid 20th century. “Work is a value in and of itself, the concept of the dignity of
labor elevating the most menial job, with no special status, material or otherwise, attached to any
task.” This was a shared experience where everyone was of “equal worth” even though various jobs
required varying skills, and bore varying levels of responsibility and impact.
It will come as no surprise that in our organizations we teach fairness by both what we say and what we
do. And, yes, it requires both. It is not enough to “be fair”. We also have to talk about fairness, why it
matters and what it looks like.
Modeling Fairness
Modeling anything begins with how we behave. As leaders it becomes our obligation to teach others what
we mean by fairness, and what we expect of them in this regard. The most powerful teaching tool at our
disposal is our own behavior. If we want others to be fair in their dealings with us and others, we begin by
being fair both with them and with any others with whom we deal that they might be aware of – in others
words, with everyone. The key to modeling farness is both our individual actions and the sum total of
those actions… how we deal with each person and how we deal with people in general. This is a value
that is hard to compartmentalize.
And, it must be noted, that perceptions of fairness are essentially independent of our organizational
position or authority. Nor, ought it reflect how we are treated by those above us in the chain of
command. Even if we are being treated unfairly, that does no give us liberty to let that lack of fairness to
flow down to those we lead. As with many other values, it may be more difficult to treat others as we wish
to be treated when our wish is not fulfilled regarding how those above us in the hierarchy treat us. But
leaders do not use that as an excuse. If we want to build a culture that values fairness, it starts with us
being an exemplar of what we want in those we lead, irrespective of how others may treat us.
Expecting Fairness
Being a exemplar means the we “go first”. We set the tone, provide the model and communicate the
expectation of fairness. But this is a much harder principle to instill if you live in the “do as I say, not as I
do” world. And, while being an example may be necessary, it is not sufficient. Fairness calls for active
leadership. And that starts with being clear regarding what we expect from others as it pertains to
fairness. We have an obligation to communicate what we expect, why we expect it, what it looks like and
why it matters. The “why it matters” conversation usually includes, but may not be limited to the costs,
benefits, rewards and/or consequences of the perceived fairness of one’s actions and decisions and any
predictable consequences those decisions might generate.
Simple example: I have an employee whom I believe has treated a customer unfairly – in this example,
not offered an exchange of a defective product, based on a technicality in our written warranty. The
customer may have used the product in a way other than it’s expressed purpose, but the customer’s
behavior is not uncommon, and in most other cases does not create the problem this customer has
experienced. It is a “gray area” and the employees chose to deny the customer. A gray area, such as this,
requires a decision that is informed by the relevant facts, rules, policies, outcomes/result and values, such
as fairness.
It is crucial to note that, as is typically the case regarding values, fairness applies both to how we expect
to be treated and how others expect us to treat them. Fairness can be a difficult concept to extend to
others if you do not believe you are being treated fairly. But being fair is also one of the “burdens of
leadership”. Leaders do not have the luxury of simply being conduits for either direct orders from above or
the less direct influences of the culture from above when it violates their core values. The “what goes
around comes around” argument does not apply to our leadership decisions, no matter how we are
treated by those who “lead” us. Ethical leaders are more than mere conduits for how they are treated by
others. They base how they treat others on what is right – not what is commonplace or what has been
done to them.

Leaders are expected to be fair in how they treat those they lead. Followers are expected to do a “fair
day’s work for a fair day’s pay” – but fairness towards those they follow is rarely discussed. That does not
mean it is a non-issue. Rather, it means that it is an issue on which most leaders and followers are largely
(and unfortunately) silent because they perceive fairness as “power-dependent” and they confuse
organizational authority with power.
It is our contention that fairness flows both up and down the chain of command with facility. Leaders set
the tone and there is a pre-existing expectation of fairness in most organizations. But there is also the
case to be made that it is reasonable for a “fair” leader to expect reciprocity – they have a right to expect
those they lead to be fair towards them.
The concept of reciprocal fairness might seem less obvious that reciprocal aspect of other values like
honesty or respect. In my own experience as a manager, building an atmosphere of mutual respect with
those reporting to me empowered those supervisors to “respectfully” tell me when I was about to do
something stupid. They could have stood by and let me fail. But, they chose to point out potential
consequences of a decision I was putting forward that my inexperience in the field did not allow me to
see. They chose to “save my bacon” because I had earned their respect and loyalty. And, so they told
me, it was the fact that I acknowledged that they knew more about their work than I did, and feely
admitted that to them, that motivated then to come to my aid.
I also found that building a sense of obligation towards reciprocal fairness strengthened the work group
and my relationships with those I led. Mutual respect was not enough. I had to build a culture where there
was an equally strong expectation of mutual fairness.
Expecting Versus Deserving Fairness From Those We Lead
It is one thing to expect fairness from those we lead. It is another to deserve it! Fairness from those we
lead is earned. Simply stated, it is the natural result of demonstrating fairness towards others. As with
many other aspects of leadership, the fairness we are shown is a reflection of the fairness we
demonstrate. We, as leaders, set the tone. If we want fairness towards us to be the norm, then fairness
towards others has to be our norm.
But silently expecting fairness is not enough. We have to talk about it. And, while it is crucial that
articulate our expectations, it can be more important that we model what we want. If we want fairness
towards us (and everyone else they deal with) to be their norm, first it had to be our norm in dealing with
them and everyone else we deal with. We have to demonstrate, at a minimum, that we hold ourselves to
the same standard we demand of others if that standard is to deemed fair.
Conceptually, the idea of reciprocity as a precondition to mutual fairness is simple enough. In practice,
however, simple does not always prove to be easy. Creating a culture of mutual fairness can be
challenging.
As leaders we are expected to set the tone. Do as I say and not as I do is not an effective leadership
approach to develop a fairness culture. It want fairness to be “their” norm, first they have believe that it is
“our” norm. We get what we teach by example. what we teach by our example. All of the research
confirms that when there is a conflict between what we say and how we act, our actions will speak louder
than our words. We also need to recognize that many times we are communicating and educating even
when we are not intending to do so. Our employees take every opportunity to divine what it is that we
truly want of them and how best they can meet our needs and expectations. After all, in the organizational
context, what we say, think and do has a direct impact on their success
Rewarding Fairness
Semantics counts. Some believe that we, as leaders, are supposed to be “fair”. Fairness is a precondition
to being a “leader” rather than a despot. It is another aspect of culture - the shared understanding of how
things work around here. And as leaders there may be an expectation that that we will “shape” our
definition of fairness to best serve our function and the people performing the work we do. Some of the
most critical aspects of fairness manifest in how we assign work, reward success and address individual
shortcomings. The base level of fairness is equal treatment – as demonstrated in unionized work forces
where everyone doing the same work to the same level gets the same pay. Same position with the same
seniority yields same reward. The same shortcomings or failures yield the same corrective or disciplinary
response.
In other, perhaps more subtle and/or sophisticated systems, fairness may be characterized by treating
different people differently. One example of this variant of fairness is demonstrated on the Israeli
communal farm – the Kibbutz – where the standard of fairness is: “From each according to his ability. To
each according to his need.”
How we manifest fairness may be less important than the fact that we do so and do it based on a visible
and consistent set of standards, that those working under us are willing to accept and support.
Why Bother?
If for no other reason, we have to pay attention to both the subjective and objective measures of fairness
in the organizations we lead because those we lead expect it, demand and deserve it. It is a universal
expectation for how we ought to be treated. And that expectation has merit. In a free society we are
entitled to expect, to demand, that we be treated fairly. A review of the history of work, especially since
the industrial revolution, reveals that the drive to attain fairness in the workplace has been a central
theme. Fairness is not a “union conspiracy”. Rather, it is a manifestation of a basic human principle and
need. Fairness, in whatever form may be “societally” appropriate, is a “universal” value.
Accidental Fairness?
Accidental fairness sounds like an absurd strategy. “Let’s just do whatever seems right at the moment
and see if it turns out to be fair, or at least, let’s see if we can convince those under us that it is fair”. That
strategy may work in some cases but it is not a reliable approach, especially in large and/or complex
organizational systems. The alternative to accidental fairness is deliberative fairness: fairness as an
integral aspect of one’s overall leadership strategy.
The evidence strongly suggests that, absent deliberate leadership effort, fairness suffers. That means
that as leaders, we have an affirmative obligation to promise, model, encourage and reward fairness so
that it becomes just another “given” – another aspect of the shared understanding of how we do things
around her – part of our organizational culture.
That means we must make fairness a visible and deliberate part of how we lead. We must hold fairness
up as an ideal. We must encourage, model and reward it every day – in our every decision and every
action. We need to expect it from those we lead. We need to measure it and reward it. And, when it is not
present, we need to act to address that absence. If we do less than that, then fairness will be a
“sometime” thing and that, by definition, is unfair.
Conclusion
As noted in other articles in this series, changing the culture to reflect our core values takes effort. It is
hard work. But it isn’t a budget “line item” that needs approval. It is simply a choice we make.
The benefits, on the other hand, are innumerable. They are measured in morale, efficiencies, motivation,
communication, personal pride and self-esteem, productivity, quality, safety… just about every measure
of success that exists in an organizational context.
Why so many have not chosen to apply this lesson escapes me. The power of being values-driven is no
secret. It is not magic. We see it, know it and yet so many choose to ignore it as a management and
leadership tool. For some it is ignorance. They just do not recognize the inherent power of creating an
organizational culture built on commitment to a set of core values. For others it is an ego thing. Why
should I have to change? I’m the boss. They should change to meet my needs, not the other way around.
It may also be a matter of personal confidence or insecurity. If I am confident, I will demonstrate fairness
in my dealings with those I lead to others first. If I lack confidence, I will avoid extending my self, fearing
that it might be seen as a sign of weakness or might make me vulnerable in some way. The reality is that
nothing could be further from the truth.
Leadership means going first. Waiting for the other to go first is a losing proposition. The risks leading
fairly are intangibles. The only real risk is to our egos. The rewards of fair leadership are both intangible
and tangible. The rewards feed both our egos and our bottom line.
There are no viable arguments to support anyone in a leadership position being less than fair in all of their
business dealings, or in expecting or accepting any less from others. Fairness facilitates improved
communication and builds commitment, self-confidence, self-esteem, group cohesion, information and
resource sharing and a sense of purpose and enthusiasm for success. And those characteristics in a
work force feed the bottom line. Which of those benefits of fairness in the workplace are you willing to do
without?