Developing a procedurally Just performance appraisal process
When organizations make decisions about people, such as whom to hire or promote, appraisal ratings or merit raise to give, or how important that the decisions are seen as fair and just. Research has shown that at least two aspects of justice influence employees'' job satisfaction and organizational commitment and both must be considered in organization decisions.
Thefirst type is distributive justice, or the perceived fairness of particular outcomes. It has to do with the distribution of rewards and punishments across people. Distributive justice would exist if employees agreed that the best person had been chosen for a promotion, that the punishment fit the crime in a discipline case, or that the size of merit raises accurately reflected true differences in performance across the people involved. Distributive justice is specific to particular decision. We might agree that one promotion decision was fair, but that is no guarantee that we will think the next one is fair. This is because distributive justice doesn't include evaluation of the fairness of the merit or process by which the decision was made. The latter is called procedural justice. Presumably, a just policy or procedure should help assure equitable outcomes every time, whereas single instance of distributive justice could occur by chance, favoritism or some other unfair process.
What makes an allocation procedure just following are six rules for procedural justice? Following are six rules for procedural justice
· Consistency Rule: allocation procedures should be consistent across persons and over time
· Bias Suppression Rule: personal self interest in the allocation process should be prevented;
· Accuracy Rule: decisions must be based on accurate information
· Correctability Rule: Opportunities must exist to enable decisions to be modified: