Of headlamps and marbles: A motivated perceptual approach to the dynamic and dialectic nature of fairness

Abstract

How do people perceive fairness? Recently, fairness scholars have raised important theoretical questions related to what information is used in fairness perceptions, why this information is emphasized, and how fairness perceptions can change over time. Integrating the Brunswikian lens approach with a motivated cognition perspective, we develop the Motivated Perceptual Approach (MPA) to highlight how people can be motivated to selectively perceive and weight cues to form fairness perceptions that align with their motives. However, these motives can change over time and through interaction with motivated others. By illuminating the dynamic and dialectic processes underlying fairness perceptions, the MPA sheds light on how people's fairness perceptions can be influenced by their own motives as well as socially constructed and negotiated through interactions with motivated others. Practical insights include how to effectively manage fairness perceptions over time and across perspectives. We conclude with a research agenda for advancing the fairness literature. Plain Summary Whether or not people perceive they (or others) have been treated fairly or are treating others fairly at work, has implications for a variety of important outcomes ranging from helping others (when people perceive fairness) to undermining supervisors, making plans to quit or punishing bad actors (when people perceive unfairness). Important questions remain, however, around how people come to these perceptions in the first place. How do they decide what is fair? A long time assumption has been that these perceptions are subjective and motivated; that “fairness is in the eye of the beholder.” Based on this assumption, two people who experience the same event may come away with very different fairness perceptions. This is a crucial insight that helps explain the significant disparities in perceptions of fairness between people. However, as a field, we seem to have strayed from that foundational assumption. In this paper, we revisit this premise to develop an approach describing how people collect and integrate information to inform their fairness perceptions, highlighting the particular role that their motives (what they want to perceive, e.g., that they are fair actors, that they are treated well by important others) shape what information they attend to and use in arriving at their perceptions of fairness. From this perspective we explain how fairness perceptions can change over time, explain and predict differences between perspectives (e.g., managers and employees), and provide guidance for developing practical interventions that can reduce these differences before they become intractable.

Doing justice: Moving from the pain and trauma of injustice to healing

“…When it comes to addressing organizational and societal challenges, we argue that cultivating justice as a value, commitment, and even decision criterion can help provide people with a sense of purpose as well as guidance on how to make go-forward decisions (see Lerner, 1975). Justice can fulfill people's psychological needs (e.g., , motivate them to attend to and uphold justice (e.g., Barclay et al, 2017;Bashshur et al, 2023), and expand their scope of justice to connect them to a broader purpose and more inclusive path forward (e.g., Hafer et al, 2008). Moreover, embedding justice as a value within our systems and processes not only ensures that justice motives are activated but also that they serve as a guiding force in organizational and governmental policies and decision making.…”

“…Further, people can experience predicaments of injustice in which they may experience disagreements about the fairness of themselves and others (Bies, 1987), which can create identity-based tug-of-wars (e.g., Whiteside & Barclay, 2015) and initiate motivated cognitions in which people focus on information cues that can support their positions and ignore those information cues that may detract from it (e.g., Barclay et al, 2017;Bashshur et al, 2023). However, motivated cognition interventions can shed light on how to address these effects to bring people together.…”

“…However, motivated cognition interventions can shed light on how to address these effects to bring people together. For example, activating accuracy motives can encourage people to focus on identifying the facts of the situation whereas engaging in cue elaboration and cue sharing can help build a shared reality that can promote dialogue and a common purpose (e.g., Bashshur et al, 2023;Lyubykh et al, 2022).…”

How does paternalistic leadership affect employee silence in the Chinese context? A mediated three‐way interaction model

“…Interpersonal justice reflects individuals' perception of being treated with dignity, propriety, and respect (Colquitt 2001). Given that justice perceptions are inherently subjective (Bashshur, Barclay and Fortin 2023), when an employee encounters a dilemma related to voice, they collect and integrate information to form their perception of interpersonal justice.…”

“…By conveying the signal that both opinions and the one who raises opinions will be treated fairly and respectfully, benevolent‐authoritarian leaders will promote subordinates' interpersonal justice, which in turn increases employees' confidence and comfort to raise viewpoints, give candid feedback, and point out errors, and feel fewer concerns for negative interpersonal consequences. Because justice perception is also strongly shaped by individual motives (Bashshur, Barclay and Fortin 2023), we thereby expect that the relationship between paternalistic leadership and employee silence via interpersonal justice is stronger for employees with high collective identity.…”