comments on the justice model from a leadership perspective

8/6/2019 Comments on the Justice Model From a Leadership Perspective

1/5

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2007, 56(4), 663666

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00314.x

Blackwell Publishing LtdOxford, UKAPPSApplied Psychology0269-994X International Association for Applied Psychology, 2007XXXOriginal ArticlesCOMMENTARYCHEMERS

Commentary

Comments on the Justice Model from a

Leadership Perspective

Martin M. Chemers*

University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

INTRODUCTION

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Professor

Komakis presentation of a performance appraisal process (i.e. the Justice

Model) designed to reduce demographic biases in evaluation, promotion,

and development of organisational leaders. I do not consider myself to be

an expert in the area of performance appraisal, so I approach this paper

from another perspective.

It was more than 40 years ago that I began doing research on leadershipand organisational effectiveness when I entered Fred Fiedlers laboratory

at the University of Illinois as a new graduate student. During the last

25 years, I have held a range of academic administrative posts, beginning

with department chair and progressing through dean, vice-chancellor, and

chancellor roles. I have had a considerable amount of time to think about

and study the role of leadership in organisational justice and fairness, and I

have been compelled to wrestle with the same issues as an administrator.

Of one thing I am firmly convinced. Fair and effective practice in pursuit

of organisational diversity is more than a moral demand. It is a matter oforganisational success and national survival. No organisation or nation can

be successful within the context of global competitiveness if it limits its pool

of leadership talent to a third of its population (i.e. males from the dominant

social class or ethnic group). When Branch Rickey and the Brooklyn

Dodgers broke the color barrier in major league baseball by hiring Jackie

Robinson in 1949, it didnt take long for every other team in the majors to

recognise that they couldnt be successful by ceding all the talent in the

Negro leagues to the Dodgers. The lesson is still true. Organisational


2/5

664 CHEMERS

justice is a boon which manifests in more talented and more motivated

employees which, in turn, influences all the bottom lines.

A second belief which I hold with equal certainty is that any organisational

goalwhether diversity, safety, or productivityrequires (1) top-down

organisational support, (2) careful measurement and tracking, and (3)

recognition and sanctions for goal attainment or failure. It is in this spirit

that I find much to praise in Professor Komakis efforts. The Justice Model

is based on careful legal analysis, comprehensive research findings, and

organisational best practices. In the paragraphs which follow, I will

highlight what I think are the strongest features of her approach and offer

some caveats or cautions that I hope are constructive.

GOOD THEORY AND PRACTICE

The Critical Role of Measurement

Komaki makes the very tenable argument that careful measurement of bona

fide occupational qualifications is the sine qua non of good performance

appraisal systems. I see two aspects to the issue of measurement. First, as

Komaki stresses, the measurement of employee performance must be valid.

She is on firm ground when she stresses the role of interrater agreement.

Observation must be reliable to be valid.

I have concerns about two potential contaminants that arent protected

against by high interrater reliability. If raters share a common bias, such as

racial prejudice (e.g. stereotypes about intelligence or personality), they

might arrive at similar conclusions reflecting their initial assumptions rather

than valid observation. A second source of contamination is the impact of

influential gatekeepers. Managers do not always have the opportunity for

comprehensive observation of all employees for whom they have evaluation

responsibilities. For example, a high-level manager might depend for

information on subordinates from a trusted assistant, and ratings might

reflect the biases of the influence agent.

The Justice Model doesnt ignore these types of problems and proposes

some safeguards, such as extensive rater training and comparison of

ratings across multiple raters. These techniques are warranted and work

best when raters are actually striving for accuracy and dont carry deeply

held assumptions about the targetsuch as might be the case in secret

shopper type ratings in retail businesses. Komaki also highlights what

can be learned from subordinates ratings of their satisfaction with the

appraisal process. I think that both of these protections are useful, but

not sufficient The use of multiple observers is not always possible and


3/5

COMMENTARY 665

A potential solution might be to develop procedures to compare an

organisations managers on their evaluation and treatment of subordinates.

It might be the case that a manager gives poor ratings to or fails to develop

a particular subordinate, because of the subordinates actual shortcomings.

In the long run, however, managers who have a poor record for the

development of underrepresented subordinates will show up in comparison

with peers. A related approach is one that makes the development of

subordinate talent (whether minority or not) one of the acknowledged

responsibilities of each manager. Thus, the managers own performance

evaluation depends to a degree on how well the manager develops the talent

of the people who report to him or her. In an extensive field experiment on

the effectiveness of leadership training and organisation development on

safety in underground mining (Chemers, Bell, and Fiedler, 1981), we found

that making safety enhancing behaviors a central factor in foremens

performance evaluations had a powerful effect on improvement of leaders

safety-oriented behavior and accident rates. Whether the goal is safety or

fairness, focusing on and rewarding performance is an effective change

strategy.

The Centrality of Goal-setting

My previous point fits well with Komakis strong argument in favor of

accountability. The literature is very clear on the positive benefits of

clear and challenging goals. Goals draw attention to and reflect the

organisations commitment and expectations. In the mining safety study

described above, accident-reduction goals set by upper management also

enhanced employee attention with positive results.

However, in the mining study, like many other studies involving behavior

modification approaches, the behaviors that were being influenced were dis-

crete, frequent, and observable (e.g. whether miners used the proper safety

equipment; or in retail sales whether an employee said thank you at appro-

priate times). In the area of career development, the critical behaviors may

be infrequent and the effects hard to observe or categorise (e.g. helpful

mentoring, timely support and encouragement, developmental job assign-

ments, etc.). The answer to this dilemma may be in the development of

proximal goals, targeting managerial behaviors that occur more frequently

or by making appropriate actions more visible. Managers, for example,

might be required to report on subordinate career development actions as

part of regular performance appraisals. Subordinate satisfaction measures

might be included as part of a multiple source (i.e. 360 degree) evaluation

procedure The most important feature of any goal-setting intervention is


4/5

666 CHEMERS

The Value of Communication

One of the features of the Justice Model that I find most impressive is the

emphasis on communications training as part of the performance appraisalprocess. I have rarely met a manager who didnt fear and loathe the

opportunity to do performance appraisals of subordinates. That

reluctance can be exacerbated in situations of ethnic or gender differences

between rater and target. Communication training is an effective adjunct to

the other aspects of the Justice Model.

By including performance appraisal processes and career development

and diversity issues as part of each managers training and development, the

organisation again signals its commitment and expectations about fairness.

A FINAL COMMENT

I would like to thank Judi Komaki for taking up this challenge. The

problem is an important one that has proved resistant to change. It is clear

that the legal system is not sufficient to achieve the necessary outcomes. The

Justice Model is not perfect, but if an organisation applies it with the same

dedication and commitment reserved for affecting the bottom line, it can be

a powerful tool for achieving change. The organisations that apply it, their

employees, shareholders, and customers and society at large will all bebeneficiaries.

REFERENCES

Chemers, M.M., Bell, C.H., & Fiedler, F.E. (1981). Two approaches to organization

development for mine safety. Proceedings of TRAM III: Training resources

applied to mining. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.

Komaki, J.L. (2007). Daring to dream: Promoting social and economic justice at

work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(4), 624662.


5/5

comments on the justice model from a leadership perspective

Documents