Being fair is costly for bosses

[nancylebov]

The abstract:

Bosses who are fair make their workers happier and their companies more productive, but in the end may be burning themselves out. The study found that the act of carefully monitoring the fairness of workplace decisions wears down supervisors mentally and emotionally. "Managers who are mentally fatigued are more prone to making mistakes and it is more difficult for them to control deviant or counterproductive impulses," the lead author said.

As is annoyingly common, there's no mention of the size of the effect, nor the variation in it.

The original article's abstract (the article itself is behind a paywall):

The justice literature has paid considerable attention to the beneficial effects of fair behaviors for recipients of such behaviors. It is possible, however, that exhibiting fair behaviors may come at a cost for actors. In this article, we integrate ego depletion theory with organizational justice research in order to examine the consequences of justice behaviors for actors. We used an experience-sampling method in a sample of managerial employees to examine the relations of performing procedural justice and interpersonal justice behaviors with subsequent changes in actors’ regulatory resources. Our results indicate that procedural justice behaviors are draining, whereas interpersonal justice behaviors are replenishing for actors. Depletion, in turn, adversely affected the performance of citizenship behavior, and depletion mediated relations of justice behavior with citizenship. Furthermore, 2 traits that impact self-regulatory skills—extraversion and neuroticism—moderated the replenishing effects of engaging in interpersonal justice behaviors. We conclude by discussing implications and avenues for future research.

It might mean that administering rules wears people out, but actually talking with people about their concerns and encouraging solutions doesn't wear them out, but I'm guessing. What do you think? Anyone know how to get past the paywall?

Original link thanks to andrewducker.

Comments

[green_knight]

People who work in backstabbing environments, or people who need to keep track which lie they told whom, or who to butter up in order to advance *also* get stressed and burnt out. And quite often, or so it seems to me, people who work in unfair organisations not only dole out nasty behaviour, they're at the (perceived?) receiving end of it - the promotion they did not get, the last minute workload or problem employee that gets dumped on them instead of on someone else.

I don't think that there's necessarily a causation involved in 'managers who try to be fair' and 'managers who burn out.

[siderea]

Yeah, this has me scratching my head. I'm wondering what sort of "fair" they're talking about. This sentence, "Our results indicate that procedural justice behaviors are draining, whereas interpersonal justice behaviors are replenishing for actors." indicates something crucial, and I have no idea what. Apparently the "fairness" in the sense used in the SciDaily article at least, if not the actual research, refers to "procedural justice behaviors" but not "interpersonal justice behaviors", whatever those might be.

ETA: Here we are.

ETA2: Here we go. From the research:

Procedural justice refers to the perceived fairness of how decisions are made and outcomes are determined (i.e., the fairness of “means” rather than “ends”; Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Leventhal (1980) identified six rules that exemplify fair procedures: accuracy (i.e., decisions are based on accurate information), bias suppression (i.e., self-interest is kept in check), consistency (i.e., procedures are consistently applied across people and time), correctability (i.e., there are opportunities to appeal or alter decisions), ethicality (i.e., decisions and allocations are consistent with prevailing moral standards), and representativeness (i.e., all stakeholders are involved in the process). Thus, procedural justice behaviors are rule-bound activities that require close monitoring and appraisal of work procedures and policies. In order to cultivate perceptions of procedural fairness, then, actors must exhibit behaviors that conform to these rules. However, doing so may come at the cost of depleting actors’ regulatory resources (Muraven, 2012).

[...]

Interpersonal justice refers to the perceived fairness of the interpersonal treatment that is shown to others when procedures are implemented and outcomes are allocated (Bies, 2001). Bies and Moag (1986) identified two rules that govern interpersonal fairness: respect (i.e., being sincere and showing dignity) and propriety (i.e., using appropriate, nonprejudicial language), and actors are viewed as interpersonally fair to the extent that their behavior typifies these rules.

ETA3: I have to say, I have no objections to this finding. Robert's Rules of Order don't implement themselves, elections don't run themselves, ballots don't mail themselves out to everyone, memos don't write themselves. These things are all work, and if that's news to anyone, they've been taking advantage of other people's labor.

[nancylebov]

The angle that I found upsetting was the idea that unfair bosses are engaged is rational self-protection. This has no relevance to whether it's true, of course.

It probably makes sense to study fair bosses who are taking the least damage from it.