Paper Example on Managing Organizational Behavior

Introduction

Procedural fairness tends to mainly protect the legal rights and the legitimate expectations of the employees. It is particularly concerned with nature or mode at which a particular decision is made by the management or those in charge of the junior employees in an organization. Procedural fairness recommends that the workers in an organization or company should be actively involved in the decision-making process to ensure that the best and most fair decision formulated. For example, the worker should be offered a chance to reply to the specific allegations or air their opinion on a particular issue (Rottman, 2007). Also, the workers should be given access to the relevant information concerning the case such as a description of the probable decision so that the affected workers can make the appropriate reply to the situation (MacCoun, 2005). In most cases, the organizations do not involve their workers in the making decisions process thus affecting the employee's commitment and motivation towards achieving the expected goals.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

An example of a case where I was influenced by the decision the management staffs in a company I was working for decided that every employee in the production department was to work for extra two hours on a daily basis and also considered Saturday was a normal working day. The management also decided that no allowance was to be allocated for the extra working hours or day. The company's management came up with the decision following the company's continuous underperformance and failure to meet the expected production rate. The decision made was not consistent since it only affected the workers in the production department. The decision did not affect the other management staff in charge of production, for example, the supervisors. This decision affected me despite being one of the most active workers and committed to carrying out my delegated duties in the organization. The rendered decision strictly ensured that each employee worked for the allocated extra hours through discouraging any incidence of absenteeism among the workers and through the introduction of a system that monitored the exact time that every worker arrived and left the company premises. The company's top management decided to ensure the employees worked for extra hours with no allowance without actively considering the opinion of the workers. They mainly acted upon their interest of intending to increase the company's performance and production rate to maintain the countries competitiveness in the market. The management chose not to allocate not allowance since they thought that the employees in charge of production were the cause of the reduced organization performance

Procedural Fairness Criteria

The procedural fairness criteria tend to assess how the set decisions were formulated based on various factors such as consistency, the accuracy of the information, merit, correctability and advance notice (Ambrose & Arnaud 2005). Considering the acceptable procedural fairness criteria of the, the managements final decision and the process of formulating the decision was not fair a tall to the those affected; this is because both the process and the decision did not consider various factors that include. First, consistency, this refers to the generation of decision that targets all the workers equally in an organization. In this case, the decision was not consistent since it only targeted only the employees who were actively involved in the production process. The decision did not include the management staffs in charge of production such as the supervisors. The decision should have been focused on the entire organization workforce that is the supervisors, management staff, and the junior workers to ensure a quick improvement in the company's performance and productivity.

Secondly, the decision created also was not based on accurate information. The management did not bother to link up with the workers to identify the actual cause of reduced productivity and performance. If those in charge of setting the decision took, time to assess the cause they would at least have come up with a fairer plan that does not affect specific employees. The accurate information would only have been obtained if the decision makers consultative meeting with the employees. Thirdly, correctability, this is a situation whereby those affected by the decision have the opportunity to appeal for the decision (van et al. 2006). The decision made by the company's management was considered final, since saw that was the only convenient way of handling the problem despite them not consulting the employees affected. We were not allowed to appeal for a change of the decision made instead we were forced to abide by it. Providing a chance to appeal would have helped to generate a better solution that was not oppressing the workers. For example, if the management allowed us to appeal the decision, they would have come up with a better decision such as increasing the number of employees in the production department (Luo, 2008). Fourth, an advance notice did not precede the declaration of the final opinion by the senior management. Advance notice would have helped the workers to be well informed of the situation at hand, therefore offering them the chance to air their views on the best measure to take. Advance notice would have enabled us as the workers to make necessary changes in various areas to minimize the risk of tough decisions.

Effects of the Decision on Me and the Workers Regarding Perception and Attitude About the Work and Performance

The decision affected my perception towards the company's work and performance since I was able to note that the management staff in charge of making decisions had minimal trust on their junior employees thus opting not to involve them in the decision making process. The management views the workers as subjects who are there to take orders not to make decisions. Lack of trust among both parties made me change my perception towards work and ability of the organization to attain the expected company's performance (Brockner & Wiesenfeld 2005). The decision also affected my attitude toward work by reducing the motivation towards the achievement of the set goals. Forcing strict measures on someone without his or her own will diminishes the motivation towards achieving the expected performance. Motivation also tends to be lost in case the management does not consider the opinions of the workers (Lau & Moser 2008). The decision also affected my attitude towards work through minimizing the commitment towards work. Enforcing the decision among workers tends to make them much relaxed at work, thus making the workers take more time for them to attain the set objectives.

What Could and Should Have Been Done Differently to Enhance Perceptions of Procedural and Outcome Fairness?

The outcome fairness and the procedural perception would have been altered or changed through actively involving the workers in the decision-making process. For example, the workers can be called upon to give some of the reasons that are making them not to attain the expected level of productivity (Hollander & Tyler 2008). Consulting the employees would have been a clear indication that the management trusts their employees thus deciding to involve them in the decision making process. The workers may also be involved in creating a better plan that that will help handle the issue without forcing the workers to work in a specific manner. The outcome and procedural fairness may also be enhanced by providing evidence that supports a particular decision. Each decision made by the management should be based on a specific reason; this will also help the employees to understand the reason for taking certain choices.

What Lesson(s) Will You Take From This Podcast and the Class That Will Inform the Way You Work as a Manager?

The main lesson I obtain from and the class is that as a manager I should ensure that the workers are actively involved in making the organization decision for example through requesting for their opinion in case of a particular challenge and also actively involving them in the decision planning process. Active involvement of the management and the junior employees helps to ensure outcome fairness to the parties affected. It also helps to improve the level of trust, motivation, and commitment towards achieving the organizational goals.

References

Ambrose, M. L., & Arnaud, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct?.

Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2005). How, when, and why does outcome favorability interact with procedural fairness?.

HollanderBlumoff, R., & Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice in negotiation: Procedural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law & Social Inquiry, 33(2), 473-500.

Luo, Y. (2008). Procedural fairness and interfirm cooperation in strategic alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 29(1), 27-46.

Lau, C. M., & Moser, A. (2008). Behavioral effects of nonfinancial performance measures: The role of procedural fairness. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 20(2), 55-71.

MacCoun, R. J. (2005). Voice, control, and belonging: The double-edged sword of procedural fairness. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci., 1, 171-201.

Rottman, D. B. (2007). Adhere to procedural fairness in the justice system. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(4), 835-842.

Van den Bos, K., Heuven, E., Burger, E., & Van Veldhuizen, M. F. (2006). Uncertainty management after reorganizations: The ameliorative effect of outcome fairness on job uncertainty. Revue internationale de psychologie sociale, 19(1), 145-156.