Justice - PowerPoint

Document Sample
Justice - PowerPoint Powered By Docstoc
					Moral and organisational
 psychology of justice
Klaus Helkama, University of Helsinki
 Universidade de Coimbra, May 21,
               2009
Justice as the Queen of Virtues
• Cappella degli Scrovegni (Padova; Giotto)
• ”weighs, coordinates and eliminates
  chaos”
• At the bottom: hunting scene and market
  scene 
  – When Justice reigns, people can relax and
    enjoy themselves
Justice as the
  Queen of
   Virtues
 The moral and organisational
psychology of justice (contents)
• Justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional
• Principles of distributive justice: equity, equality, need
• Principles of procedural justice (Leventhal): consistency,
  representativeness, correctability, bias suppression,
  accuracy of information, ethicality
   – Their use in moral judgments
• Justice in organisations
   – Consequences of just and unjust leadership
• Where does the explanatory power of justice come
  from?
   Example: New land – how to
            distribute?
  Lake Höytiäinen (Finland, 1859)
• The surface of the lake was lowered by 9 meters 
   – 16 000 hectars of new, fertile land
Höytiäinen 1997
        Distributive justice (DJ)
•   Equity: to all according to their contribution
•   Equality: to everybody the same
•   Need: to each according to her/his needs
•   Weekly pocket money?
•   Morton Deutsch: types of social relations
    – Equity: hierarchical, task-oriented,
      competitive, formal (economic organisations)
    – Equality: egalitarian, cooperative, informal
    – Need: socio-emotional ( focus on care)
Procedural justice (PJ;Leventhal
             1980)
• 6 principles
• Consistency: the procedure should be
  applied consistently across persons and
  across time (asking one colleague but not
  another)
• Bias suppression: no vested interest or
  partiality (political opinions influence
  decision-making)
          Procedural justice
• Accuracy of information: decisions based
  on accurate information or expert opinion
  (reading exam answers carelessly)
• Correctability: provision for correcting bad
  decisions (possible to complain about
  assessments)
         Procedural justice
• Representativeness: those affected on the
  decision should have influence on the
  decision (”voice”: no say on personnel
  selection)
• Ethicality: no deception, bribing, spying
  etc. (employer evesdropping employees’
  meeting, house manager not telling about
  bad condition of the house)
         Empirical research
• Lind & Tyler (1988) The social psychology
  of procedural justice:
• Procedural justice is important in all kinds
  of social relationships, both task-oriented
  and socio-emotional
• Procedural justice is often more important
  than distributive justice
 Development of moral judgment
and use of procedural justice rules
• Kohlberg: 5 stages of moral judgment (mj)
• Design: Kohlberg Moral Judgment
  Interview (hypothetical dilemmas scored
  100-500 (100= stage 1,…, 500=stage 5) +
  real-life dilemma(s)
• How do respondents at different stages of
  mj use procedural justice rules?
• - Some rules more likely at higher stages?
• - More rules used at higher stages?
 Moral judgment development and
     procedural justice rules
• Shop stewards (n=42)   • Physicians (n=28)
• MMS (moral maturity
  score 100-500)
• Bias suppression       • Bias suppression
• Users Non-users        • Users     Non-users
• 377 (9)    340 (33)*   • 355 (7)   315 (21)*
• Ethicality
• 359 (27) 327 (15)**    • (Helkama & Ikonen 1996)
• High MMSmore rules
    Moral judgment development &
                PJ
• Colby & Kohlberg Moral Judgment Scoring
  Manual (1987): Looking at the ”match
  examples”
• Bias suppression and consistency
  occurred more frequently at higher stages
•   (Myyry & Helkama, Social Justice Res. 2002)
   Moral judgment development & PJ
• Participants in a professional ethics course
  (n=41)
• Hypothetical (affirmative action) & real-life
  (personal dilemma) – both scored for Kohlberg
  stage & proc. justice rules
• All justice rules used more frequently in real-life
  dilemmas (except consistency)
• High scorers on Kohlberg MJ used bias
  suppression more than low scorers (86 vs 60%)

• (Myyry & Helkama, Social Justice Research 2002)
       Moral judgment & justice
• Use of bias suppression consistently associated with
  higher stages of moral judgment development
• Why? Because it represents the ”moral point of view”
  (impartial, disinterested, trying to take all points of view
  into consideration)
• Open questions: - Is the number of justice rules used in
  problem-solving really related to MJ development (only 1
  study out of 4)?
    Organisational psychology
• Distributive justice (DJ): pay in relation to
  responsibility; further training
  opportunities; advancement
• Procedural justice (PJ): how decisions are
  made; how my boss makes decisions
• Interactional justice (IJ): how I am treated
  (with respect, honestly, boss is sensitive to
  my needs, shows concern for my rights)
          Consequences of justice
• Less job strain:
• Justice = all kinds of perceived justice (DJ,
  PJ, IJ; Moorman)
• Health care personnel (n=500)
• Effects of job autonomy on job strain were
  mediated by justice
•   Elovainio, Kivimäki & Helkama, J. Applied Psychology 2001
          Consequences of justice
• If your boss is fair, you have 30% less
  chance to die in heart attack
• 5-year follow-up of 1000 British civil
  servants
• Just leadershipless chronic stress
•   Kivimäki & al., J. Internal Medicine, 2005
       Consequences of justice
• If you are a hotel manager, your
  customers are more satisfied when you
  are fair:
• 4500 employees, 800 departments, 100
  hotels, PJ, IJ
• Guest service satisfaction (hotel level) &
  PJ, r=. 25*, & IJ , r =.28**
• Path: PJ & IJcommitment better
  service (Simons & Roberson, J. Applied Psychology, 2003)
    Why is justice (psychologically)
              important?
• Reduces uncertainty (van den Bos & Lind Adv. Exp.Soc.
  Psychol, 2002)

• Increases trustworthiness of authorities
  (Relational model, Tyler & Lind, Adv, Exp. Soc. Psychol., 1992)

• Leads to pride and respect identification
  with the group (Group engagement model, Tyler & Blader, Pers.
  Soc. Psych. Review, 2003)

• Giotto (1320) was right!
          Current new directions
• Identity (ingroup-outgroup) (Wenzel, Eur. Rev. Soc.
  Psychol., 2004)

• Höytiäinen: ingroup clear-cut
• But: forming new farms (land ownership)
  not legally regulated (lasted until 1955)
• Forest owners’ perceptions of justice and
  power in Finnish forest policy (Vainio & al.,
  submitted)

• Actors: government, forest industry, nature
  conservationists, forest owners
      New principles of PJ?
• Speed of decision-making
• Openness of decision-making
• Non-coercion
                          Uncertainty
 Uncertainty about one’s his status in a group:
 just procedures tell me that I’m a valuable member of the group.
 In an organization that is felt to be just, members identify more strongly with
    the organisation than in an unjust organisation (Olkkonen & Lipponen
    2006).
• Hakonen & Lipponen (2008):
• in virtual teams with a large geographic dispersion and infrequent face-to-
    face contacts -->, uncertainty higher  justice more important for the
    identification with the team.
• 300 members of 39 virtual teams:
• No relationship between justice and team identification was found for teams
    in which members worked only in a few locations and which often had face-
    to-face meetings,
• For teams the members of which worked in many locations (in some teams
    there were as many as 13 different locations) and rare face-to-face
    meetings, a strong association was found between the degree of perceived
    justice in decision-making and identification with the team. Thus, uncertainty
    moderated the relation of perceived justice and identification.
          Decision-maker: ingroup or
             outgroup member?
•   Huo & Tyler (2001):
•    the decisions of an ingroup authority assessed more in terms of their
    procedural fairness
•   whereas those by an outgroup authority were evaluated from the point of
    view of their favourability to the respondents.
•   More than 300 civil servants to describe a recent conflict situation in job and
    how the superior had resolved the conflict. Ingroup and outgroup were
    operationalized in terms of ethnic group: if the superior belonged to the
    same ethnic group as the respondent he was ingroup member, otherwise
    an outgroup member.
•   Ingroup authorities are expected to follow principles of procedural justice,
    outgroup authorities may use unjust procedures as long as they are to my
    advantage.
•   In a similar way, in a conflict with an ingroup member, fair procedures are
    felt to be much more important than in a conflict with an outgroup member,
    where it is the outcome that counts, irrespective of fairness.
How to decide on the procedures of
        decision-making?
•   . In democratic nation states, these basic principles are defined in the constitution, which supposedly reflects the
    opinion of the vast majority of population (or at least to be changed requires a larger than usual majority of votes in
    the Parliament).The constitution determines who has the right to decide on what, for instance, what are the
    questions that the inhabitants of a certain region or municipality can decide through their representative organs,
    such as the price of the local bus or railway ticket, as opposed to questions to be decided at the national level.
    While the questions and decision-making rules at present tend to meet smoothly in Europe, except in Northern
    Italy and Spain and some other places, one issue that remains open worldwide is the right of indigenous peoples
    to own the land they have been using since time immemorial. Indians living in Amazonian rain forests in Brazil as
    well as the Sami people living in Finnish Lapland are examples of such groups.
•
•   The events in a small Sami village in Finnish Lapland in the spring 2005 are an example of surprising
    consequences that may take place when principles of justice and social identities clash. This village, Nellim, has
    less than 200 inhabitants but over the past decade the number of tourists has increased so that now, the yearly
    number of tourists per inhabitant is more that ten. Tourists are attracted by the intact wild nature. Preserving the
    wilderness is in the interest of those local people who are employed by the tourism. It is also in the interest of
    those people who get their livelihood from the traditional Sami trade of reindeer management, for the pasture of
    their reindeers. However, one part of the local people work in forestry, and the economic use, selling the raw
    material of the local large forests, not their preservation in an intact state, serves their interests. Thus, the
    economic interests of those three groups are opposed, the tourism people and the reindeer managers want the
    wilderness to be preserved, the forestry people it to be used for logging operations.
•   A basic problem for the people in Nellim is that the land around the village is not owned by them but by the Finnish
    state, through the National Board of Forestry, a business enterprise. In social identity terms, the constellation is
    “we – the people of Nellim” vs. “they – the masters/gentlemen from the south”. The people of Nellim felt that they
    had no power over their own affairs, the decisions are made in the capital by members of the outgroup. The
    conflict between tourism and reindeer people vs. forestry people was felt to be subordinate to the conflict between
    north and south.
      Greenpeace, National Board of
       Forestry & the Sami people
•   In March 2005, a global actor entered the small Lapland village. Greenpeace wanted to call international attention
    to the way the logging operations were destroying the possibility of reindeer managers to pursue their traditional
    trade and way of life. Greenpeace established a “Forest Rescue Station” in the wood near the village and invited
    German TV to report on what was happening. This situation offered also a good opportunity for a doctoral student
    in geography who had been studying the conflict on land use in Nellim for some years to come back and interview
    local people. Her doctoral thesis (Riipinen 2008) allows the social psychological reconstruction of the events.
•   From the viewpoint of a purely economic self-interest, we could expect reindeer managers and tourism people to
    identify with Greenpeace and forestry people with National Board of Forestry, which promoted their interests,
    respectively. However, things were not so simple. While the prior common opinion on land use had been fairly
    close to that advocated by Greenpeace, the village people were not delighted by its appearance. On the contrary,
    it was generally felt that reindeer managers had broken an ingroup norm in inviting the global actor to bustle
    around. Greenpeace was held to be an even more remote outgroup than were the “people from the south”
    represented by the National Board of Forestry. According to the observations of the researcher, allying with the
    out-outgroup, Greenpeace, led to the exclusion of reindeer managers from the local ingroup. They were not invited
    to the village festival after Greenpeace had left, and were apparently not welcome to the only shop and coffee bar
    in the village any more. – Somewhat like the proverbial quarrelling married couple which get united against an
    intruder who takes the part of the husband or wife, the village people acted as if maintaining ingroup identity were
    more important than “justice” achieved by means of an outgroup. To understand procedural justice it is necessary
    to consider social identity as well.
•   The Sami people’s right to maintain their language and culture is guaranteed in the Finnish constitution. The
    villagers strongly felt that the principles of representativeness and correctability in the decisions that concern them
    were not realized – their voice not heard in Helsinki. The Finnish constitution also states that the state must
    promote the opportunities of individuals to participate in the decision-making that concerns them and the
    opportunities to participate in the decision-making concerning their living environment. These constitutional tasks
    have not been very efficiently carried out in Lapland. Eventually, the state decided to resume logging operations in
    Nellim in the spring 2007. Economic power prevailed over the constitutional rights of the Sami minority to maintain
    their culture and make decisions regarding their living environment. For the decision-makers in the capital, the
    Sami people in Nellim were an outgroup, whose rights did not count.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:60
posted:2/14/2010
language:English
pages:27