1. 1 Chapter 11 Fairness and Diversity in the Workplace Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

2. 2 Module 1: Fairness Justice & fairness used to characterize an event or an exchange relationship Trust is a belief in how a person or organization will act on some future occasion Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

3. 3 Trust Can be undermined by 1) Unmet expectations; 2) Leader behavior; 3) Technology Extremely hard to rebuild –Negative events are more visible & memorable –Greater weight is given to negative events Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

4. 4 Organizational Justice Includes considerations of organizational procedures, outcomes, & interpersonal interactions Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

5. 5 Types of Justice Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Figure 11.1 Types of Justice

6. 6 Distributive Justice Perceived fairness of allocation of outcomes or rewards to organizational members Definitions of what is “fair” –Merit or equity norm –Need norm –Equality norm Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

7. 7 Procedural Justice Perceived fairness of process by which rewards are distributed Voice: Having possibility of influencing or expressing an objection to a process or outcome Impact on layoffs & self-esteem Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

8. 8 Interactional Justice Sensitivity with which employees are treated; linked to extent to which employee feels respected by employer Consists of a) informational & b) interpersonal justice Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

9. 9 Justice vs. Injustice Injustice, once experienced, leads to: Retaliation Reduced effort Reduced motivation A lasting impact on attitudes, emotions, & behavior Perceptions of justice lead to: Extra effort Feelings of inclusion Feelings of contribution Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

10. 10 Module 2: Practical Implications of Justice Perceptions Performance evaluation –Feelings of fairness more a matter of procedural justice –Feedback process most important determinant of feelings of fairness –Shift from performance measurement to performance management Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

11. 11 Applicant Perceptions of Selection Fairness Research important on applicant reactions to selection procedures –Acceptance/rejection of employment offer –Reputation of organization –Litigation Conclusions based on review of research Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

12. 12 Model of Applicant Decision Making Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Rational economic model Rational psychological model Organizational fit model Negotiation process model Individual differences modelPerson-as-machine Person-as-scientist Person-as-judge

13. 13 The Rejected Applicant Rejection letter should supply plausible reason Wording of rejection letter can enhance feelings of justice Positive characteristics of rejection letters –Indicate respect for applicant –Indicate more than one principle of justice Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

14. 14 Special Case of Affirmative Action EEO Philosophy –All individuals have same opportunity, allowing success to be dictated by merit Affirmative Action –Provides specific mechanisms for reducing under-representation of particular demographic groups Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

15. 15 Affirmative Action (cont’d) Affirmative action programs (AAPs) can take many forms Much emotion surrounds AAPs –Favored vs. unfavored employees Reactions to AAPs Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Duncan Smith/Getty Images

16. 16 Module 3: Diversity What does diversity mean? –Differences in demographic characteristics, values, abilities, interests, & experiences –Diverse workforce = Fact –Multicultural workforce = Goal Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

17. 17 Dynamics of Diversity Relational demography –Relative makeup of various demographic characteristics in particular work groups Tendency for work groups to seek homogeneity rather than diversity –Creates trust –Enhances communication –Increases satisfaction, commitment, & effectiveness Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

18. 18 Dynamics of Diversity (cont’d) Group members appear to value homogeneity because in diverse groups: 1. Others don’t agree with your vision 2. Differences in vision are result of value differences 3. Differences in vision lead to disagreements 4. Differences in expertise lead to disagreement about methods Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

19. 19 Diversity From Work Group Perspective Group heterogeneity often enhances creative efforts by widening approaches to problem-solving Although culturally homogeneous work groups initially perform at higher levels, heterogeneous work groups become more effective over time Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

20. 20 Managing Diversity From the Organizational Perspective Ineffective models for diversity –Assimilation model –Protection model Ideal diversity model –Value model Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. Ryan McVay/Getty Images

21. 21 HR initiatives that support Value Model 1. Recruit specifically with diversity in mind 2. Ensure career development is available for every member of organization 3. Provide diversity training 4. Seek input from diverse group members 5. Provide support & networks for diverse group members 6. Develop connections to cultural groups in community Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

22. 22 Leadership & Diversity Tendency for group homogeneity places greater burden for managing diversity on shoulders of group/team leader –Leaders must remember that each group member is an individual Copyright © The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

23. 23 Permissions Slide 1: McGraw-Hill Education Digital Image Library, Steve Cole/Getty Images, Source Image ID: SO001375, Filename: 57288.JPG Slide 9: McGraw-Hill Education Digital Image Library, PhotoDisc/Getty Images, Source Image ID: BU010583, Filename: 65067.JPG; PhotoDisc/Getty Images, Source Image ID: BU010579, Filename: 65059.JPG Slide 13: Figure 11.2 from Anderson, N., Born, M., & Cunningham-Snell, N. (2001). Recruitment and selection: Applicant perspectives and outcomes. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology, Vol. 1, pp. 200-218; table p. 209, figure p. 213. London: Sage. Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Ltd. Slide 16: McGraw-Hill Education Digital Image Library, Duncan Smith/Getty Images, Source Image ID: AA001269, Filename: 69074.JPG Slide 17: Figure 11.3 from Kravitz, D. A., Klineberg, S. L., Avery, D. R., Nguyen, A. K., Lund, C., & Fu, E. J. (2000). Attitudes toward affirmative action: Correlations with demographic variables and with beliefs about targets, actions and economic effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, p. 598. Used by permission of Bellwether Publishing, Ltd.: www.bellpub.com Slide 22: McGraw-Hill Education Digital Image Library, Ryan McVay/Getty Images, Source Image ID: AA011985, Filename: 75015.JPG