Part 3: Life’s Not Fair
I know the world isn’t fair, but why isn’t it ever unfair in my favor? – Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbs animator
When it comes to any processes for allocating resources over which you preside – from compensation and promotions, to strategic priority setting – you will be scrutinized for “fairness” in very unfair ways. Many people in organizations today expect to get screwed when it comes to an evaluation of their contribution and potential. And are they wrong?
In his recent book, The New Few: Or a Very British Oligarchy, Ferdinand Mount notes that the collapse of the world banking industry has left a legacy of persistent high unemployment in Europe, the UK, and the US and a credit crunch in all of those regions, yet the financial services industry executives who perpetrated the collapse have been immune to the disastrous effects of their own management. Mount notes that between 2000 and 2008 the FTSE All-Share Index fell by 30%, yet cash payments to executives increased 80%. Some chief executives are paid hundreds – and even a thousand times – more than the average pay of their workers. Mount is speaking mostly of the UK, but an American reader can easily transpose to the US economy – the story is the same. Fairness is in short supply.
But just because some companies are unfair and there are numerous examples of executives who have acted badly while holding on to staggering compensation packages, does not mean all companies are bad and all leaders are dishonest. Organizational injustice is in the eye of the beholder, and frequently those that play the “that’s not fair” card lack all the facts. Part of your challenge is there will often be times when you can’t share all the facts, or when subjective factors must also be weighed in your decision-making. For those you lead, you must distinguish the difference between equity and equality at the very outset of your assignment. When people say they want equity, quite often what they are really looking for is equality. In truth though, people are not all equal – not every contribution holds the same value – and it is better to be very clear from the beginning that disproportionate effort, performance, and results will get disproportionate rewards, resources, and opportunities. When executives try to neutralize these differences by creating the appearance of “treating everyone the same,” they often provoke the very anxieties they were trying to allay because people instinctively know such equality to be untrue.
What they really want
Followers want to know the rules, and to know you care when the rules are being broken. If they understand at the outset what the standards are, and how rewards will be distributed, they will recognize there is no capriciousness beneath your decision-making. They also want to know that you understand the realities of the organizational injustices, and will advocate for them – have their back – within the broader system.
One executive we worked with, thinking he was showing empathy, said to a direct report, “I know our bonus structure is messed up, but there’s nothing I can do about it. Let’s work to make the best of it.” Unfortunately, making himself a victim of the process just reduced his credibility with his direct report because he advertised the fact that he felt powerless to advocate for something better. Let those you lead know when you become aware of both systemic injustices as well as episodic ones. When someone in the organization is behaving in ways that undermine, disrespect, or disadvantages those you lead, be very clear and swift in stopping it, no matter who it is. Yes, even if it’s your boss. Resist the impetus to lower your standards of behavior to match the unjust behavior.
Your advocacy on behalf of those feeling its effects sends a powerful message about your standards of organizational justice. Even if you don’t prevail, those you lead will know you defended their dignity and perhaps they will feel they finally received fairness in their favor.