perception of fairness in policy implementation - kdb
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
1/28
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS IN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A GHANAIAN
ORGANISATION
Abstract 1:
Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess employee perception of fairness in policyimplementation in the Ghanaian Banking sector and how it affects commitment to work and
relationship with management.
Design/methodology/approach Primary and secondary data were employed in this
study. Primary data was gathered by means of questionnaires. Responses from these
questionnaires have been analyzed and inferences made on the outcomes. Secondary data
is generally based on the theories of Organizational Justice which may be defined as the
study of fairness at work. The theory can be divided into three primary categories:
Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactive Justice.
Findings: The findings indicate that perception of fairness in policy implementation has adirect correlation with performance drivers such as motivation, commitment and job
satisfaction.
Limitations: The limitations of the research lie in the fact that only 100 respondents from
four institutions were considered. Again, there were some inherent limitations in the SPSS
program used.
Practical Implication: The research will lay the ground for discussion about the steps to
eliminate current problems about organizational justice practices in Ghanaian organizations
and will contribute to policy development by these organizations in this regard.
Originality / value: This study is significant in examining the concept of justice as a
universal value in Ghanaian organizations, enabling comparison with similar studies in other
countries; against the background of extensive research in this area, this paper provides
additional knowledge in understanding the perception of fairness in policy implementation in
Ghanaian organizations.
Key words:Organizational justice, Distributive justice, Procedural justice, primary data,
secondary data.
1
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
2/28
CHAPTER 1.0 INTRODUCTION1.1 Background
Organizations have various systems and structures which help them manage effectively
their employees due to the significant role in the achievement of organizational goals and
objectives. Performance appraisal and pay systems are the most common policies in most
organizations. Fairness in the implementation of these policies is therefore central and plays
a critical role in the employees job and should be treated with high importance if
organizations wish to achieve the purpose of instituting these policies. Employees beliefs,
feelings, attitudes, and behaviors towards work, their colleagues and management are
affected greatly by how fairly they perceive they have been treated. Scholars are beginning
to recognize that emotions and moods often wield influence over perceptions and behaviors
in work and non-work domains (Brief & Weiss, 2002). In addition, Researchers have
established that fair treatment leads to positive reactions from people, such as increased job
satisfaction (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992), affection in intimate relationships (Lerner & Mikula,
1994), strategies used in economic transactions (Falk et al., 1999; Desai, 2008),
endorsement of political leaders (Tyler et al., 1985), and so on.
Pay systems are methods of rewarding people for their contribution to the organization.
Ideally, systems should be clear and simple to follow so that workers can easily know how
they are affected. They also provide the bases on which an organisation rewards workers for
their individual contribution, skill and performance.
Pay structures are different - they are used to determine specific pay rates for particular
jobs, usually based on the nature of the job, its content and requirements. A pay structure
provides the framework within which the organisation places the pay rates for its various
jobs or groups of jobs. Pay systems fall into two main categories:
Those where pay does not vary in relation to achievements or performance, (basic ratesystems),
Those where pay, or part pay, does vary in relation to results/profits/performance
(including the acquisition of skills).
2
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
3/28
There are also systems where pay, and any enhancement, is related to the gaining of extra
skills or competencies that can allow a worker to carry out a wider range of work, or work at
a higher level, and provide opportunities for greater job satisfaction.
In many organizations, appraisal results are used either directly or indirectly to help
determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to identify the better
performing employees as well as the poorer performers. The better performers get the
majority of available merit pay increases, bonuses, and promotions while the poorer
performing employees may require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion,
dismissal or decreases in pay.
Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a
subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or
semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed,
with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for
improvement and skills development.
Additionally, for the past century, pay communication policy and restrictions preventing
access to information regarding the level of other employees pay and ability to exchange
personal pay-related information with others (Colella et al., 2007) has been one of the most
controversial, yet under-researched topics in the management sciences (Colella, et al.,
2007; Gely & Bierman, 2003).
It is the employees' perception of the fairness of the reward system, not how satisfied they
are with the rewards, that has the stronger effect on their loyalty to the organization.
Despite this, very little is known about how pay determination affect employees'
satisfaction. Over the last few decades, there have been numerous investigations on how
pay is determined. Since the perceived fairness of pay differentials is an important element
of pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989) and a key ingredient in a successful
compensation system (Milkovich & Newman, 2005), a better understanding of this is very
important to the employee and organization
Others have also noted that pay secrecy may be deleterious at the policy, firm and
individual levels. At the policy level, pay secrecy can have a negative impact on equal
employment opportunity and labor mobility because, in the absence of pay information,
employees may be unable to recognize and assess the magnitude of discriminatory pay
practices, and hence be unable to accurately estimate the possible long-term benefits of
changing jobs (Gely & Bierman, 2003, Edwards, 2005).
3
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
4/28
Pay secrecy can generate perceptions of unfairness which, in the context of equity (Adams,
1963) and expectancy (Vroom, 1964) theories, may hamper employee motivation to
perform. Researchers have developed and practitioners have implemented various changes
to the evaluation criteria, rating instruments, and appraisal procedures in an effort to
improve the accuracy and perceived fairness of the process (Banks & Murphy, 1985). Thewidespread use of performance appraisal can be attributed to the belief by many managers
and human resource professionals that performance appraisal is a critical tool for effective
human resource management and performance improvement (Longenecker & Goff, 1992).
The assumption appears to be that an effectively designed, implemented, and administered
performance appraisal system can provide the organization, the manager, and the
employee with a plethora of benefits (Cascio, 1987; Coens & Jenkins, 2000). In spite of its
widespread use and the attention or resources applied to it, the practice of formal
performance appraisal continues to come under considerable scrutiny and criticism such
that dissatisfaction with the process still abounds and systems are often viewed by
employees as inaccurate and unfair (Church, 1985).
1.2 OBJECTIVE & PURPOSE
The paper will therefore try to investigate how the perception of fairness affects work,
relationship with other colleagues, management and how organizations can make use of this
information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay
determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions.
1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS
The research hypothesis is as follows:
P ( S, C, M)
P = (S, C, M)
Where P: perception of fairness in policy implementation
S: employee satisfaction; C: employee commitment; M: employee motivation
LITERATURE REVIEW
Perception
4
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
5/28
Perception is the process that explains the manner in which information (stimuli) from the
environment around us is selected and organized to provide meaning for the individual.
(Mullins, 2010). Perception can therefore be described as very complex individual process
that yields a unique picture of the world, a picture that may be quite different from reality. In
applying this to organization behavior, an employee responds to situations in terms ofhis/her perceptions. Because perception is largely learned and no one has the same
learnings and experience, then every employee has a unique filter, and the same
situation /stimuli may produce very different reactions and behaviors in organizations.
Because people view things differently in organizations, it is important for policy makers to
be mindful of the outcomes of fairness in their implementation. The Workplace Fairness
Institute defines Workplace Fairness as the harmony of Justice, Efficiency, engagement and
resource sufficiency in workplace conflict management system. Each of these four fairness
quotients: justice, efficiency, engagement and resources consist of a number of elements or
focuses as listed in the table below:
Justice Efficiency Engagement ResourcesAccess
Applicability
Independence
Protection
Support
ProceduresEnforcement
Legal
Interests
Alternatives
Self-Help
Cost
Flexibility
EducationTimelines
Buy-in
Involvement
Human
Facilities
Financial
Improvement
Source: www.workplacefairness.com (workplace fairness institute)
These are the constituent parts of workplace fairness.
Workplace fairness is that commodity most sort after by employees managers and
employees. Where a workplace meets the standards of fairness listed above it will be a
healthier, happier and more productive workplace. This emphasizes the Principles of Three
Dimensions of Organizational Fairness and Justice which comprises Distributive, Procedural
and Interactional.
Distributive fairness, refers to the fairness of the ends achieved or the content of an
organizational decision or action (Colquitt et al. 2001; Greenberg 1990) while Distributive
justice claims that people compare the ratios of their own perceived work outcomes to their
own perceived work inputs with the corresponding ratios of co-workers. Adamss equity
theory (1965).
5
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
6/28
Procedural fairness, on the other hand, refers to the fairness of the means used to reach a
specific distributive end (De Cremer et al. 2010; Greenberg 1990). Thus, in assessing
fairness of a given decision or action, individuals are likely to be examining both distributive
(content) and procedural (process) elements. Also, Procedural justice concerns thefairness of the processes by which a decision is reached. Folger and Cropanzano (1998, p.
26) define procedural justice as fairness issues concerning the methods, mechanisms, and
processes employed to determine outcomes.
Finally, interactional fairness has been shown to be affected by interpersonal justice or the
extent to which individuals feel that they are treated in a manner that is respectful and
dignified during a decision process. In addition, interactional fairness is influenced by
informational justice, which captures the extent to which individuals are provided with in-
formation regarding decisions made, processes used, and actual distributive outcomes
(Colquitt et al 2001).
Recent research has supported the relationship between organizational characteristics, such
as structure and design, and employee fairness perceptions. For example, the level of
centrality and size of an organization have been shown to influence employee perceptions of
distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness (Schninke, Cropanzano, and Rupp 2002).
The four fairness or justice dimensions put into practice
The notion that fairness or justice is comprised of four distinct dimensions has received
empirical support in recent years. Confirmatory factor analysis has demonstrated that the
four dimensions do measure different aspects (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001;
Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Shapiro, Buttner, & Barry, 1994). Though
many studies have been conducted within the area of organizational fairness and justice,
there is still no unified concept of fairness which applies to employee fairness perceptions
relating to the work environment; instead, the concept of fairness is divided into the various
described dimensions (distributive, procedural, interactional / informational and
interpersonal justice). Most empirical studies have therefore utilized differing sets of justice
measures by selecting from among those which represent the dimensions that, at the time,
are believed to be most valid for the phenomenon (Ambrose, 2002; Cohen-Charash &
Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001). Very few studies have attempted to examine organizational
phenomena using all four dimensions, and hardly have any utilized them to study the area
of pay. This seems to indicate that there is still a good amount of disagreement among
researchers on the precise nature of fairness or justice at the workplace, and may
6
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
7/28
furthermore be a consequence of the fact that the area of organizational fairness and justice
does not have an accepted comprehensive theory to turn to (Latham & Pinder, 2005). This
lack of consensus demonstrates that more attention needs to be paid to determining which
work- and pay-related factors are related to the four dimensions of justice, which entails
looking at what consequences individuals perceptions of whether something is just or not,in respect to performance appraisals and pay, may lead to and then exploring what the
conditions are in the work environment that shape these perceptions.
Predicting perceptions of justice
Many of the studies on organizational fairness and justice have shown that it is primarily
factors in the employees surroundings which influence their experiencing of justice (Pfeffer,
1997). This would suggest that an individuals perceptions of justice in respect to the
performance appraisals and pay-setting process are shaped by factors at the workplace,
including those that relate to the interactions between supervisors and employees. Since
ones pay and, thereby, the system it is based on are both of great consequence to most
employees, it is not difficult to accept that ones pay level has a role in how just a pay
system is perceived to be (Greenberg & Lind, 2000). Although, the impact of monetary
rewards in comparison to the effects other work-related factors have on pay attitudes will
probably vary depending on what individuals prioritize. Those of different demographic
groups, for instance, have been found to prioritize different justice issues (Brockner & Adsit,
1986). The degree of pay justice perceived by individuals of certain occupational groups
would likely differ depending on whether, and to what extent, they believe that the pay
system is favorable or unfavorable to them as a member of this group. It has also been
shown that women and men may react in different ways in connection with the pay-setting
process (Kaman & Hartel, 1994; Small, Babcock, Gelfand, & Gettman, 2007). There are also
a number of factors in the work climate that are associated with employees perceptions of
fairness & justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005).
An important aspect of individualized pay setting is that the Employees performance is
evaluated by someone else; the pay-setting supervisor (Pfeffer, 1997). In order for
employees to be able to perform at a level or in a manner which will ultimately lead to a pay
raise, they need not only be aware of which pay criteria are prioritized by their organization
(Daly & Geyer, 1994; Ilgen, Major, & Tower, 1994), but also need to receive regular feedback
from the supervisor on how well their work is progressing. This would allow employees the
opportunity to alter their work efforts if so desired (Schaubroeck et al., 1994). Receiving
clear and sufficient information in connection with pay-related decisions tends to be
important for employees perceptions of justice in respect to the pay-setting process as well
as the pay policies behind it (Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt & Chertkoff, 2002). But if the
7
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
8/28
fulfillment of the expected goals or the previously determined pay criteria is to be a real
possibility for employees, they must have the ability and leverage necessary to pursue them
(Mueller, Iverson, & Jo, 1999), as well as a workload that suits the given work demands
(Hackman & Oldham, 1976).
Consequences of (in) justiceEveryone carries with them their own set of prior experiences, and these experiences affect
our views on what is fair and unfair (Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). Because of this,
different individuals may reach quite different conclusions about the very same outcome.
The various dimensions of fairness and justice have been observed to relate to different
outcomes. Distributive and procedural justice/fairness have, for example, been shown to
have relatively strong positive relations to job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001),
organizational commitment (Ambrose, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001), and pay
satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Low levels of
interpersonal and informational justice have, on the other hand, been found to lead to more
negative outcomes such as withdrawal and other negative reactions (Colquitt et al., 2001;
Greenberg, 1990). Previous studies have observed that unfair treatment is strongly related
to attitudes, emotions, and behavior (e.g., Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005; Colquitt et al.,
2001; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The experiencing of injustice and unfairness can, for example,
bring about any of a number of negative emotions, including disappointment, anger, and
jealousy (Mikula, Scherer, & Athenstaedt, 1998). These reactions, in turn, can prompt
individuals to take some sort of harmful action against the organization (e.g., Greenberg,
1993b; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In a study by Ambrose, Seabright, and Schminke (2002),
for instance, individuals who believed that they had been unjustly treated at work
sometimes sought revenge by engaging in sabotage or stealing. In the earlier literature,
much of the focus is on the effects of insufficient organizational justice; since perceived
injustice leads to much stronger responses than perceived justice appears to (Folger,
Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). For employees, their own financial outcomes and the pay-
setting process are two related areas that tend to raise strong emotions (Pfeffer, 1997).
It has been argued, for example, in discussions on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and
equity theory (Adams, 1965), that the pay distribution process in organizations and the
financial outcome can have an influence on employees work motivation, a notion which has
also received support in more recent studies (Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003). It is highly
likely that a pay-setting process that is believed to be unjust could have a negative effect on
employee motivation. Work motivation can manifest itself in a number of different ways,
such as in the quality of work performance, the amount of effort put into work assignments,
how well instructions are followed, and the degree of cooperation exhibited. Since these are
8
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
9/28
aspects which could typically be taken into account in the pay-related criteria of a pay-
setting process, unmotivated employees may find their future pay raises affected if they do
poorly in respect to these aspects. It is therefore important that individuals maintain their
motivation in order for this type of pay system to work as intended. When there is a lack of
justice regarding the method of pay setting, as with inequitable pay raises or biasedmethods of work performance evaluation, employees may end up becoming more inclined
to quit (Tekleab, Bartol, & Liu, 2005). Insufficient pay justice has also been observed to lead
to health-related consequences in that lower levels of pay justice resulted in greater worry
as well as sleep difficulties among the employees (Greenberg, 2006).
Organisational justice is a significant factor in employee job satisfaction and organisational
effectiveness in schools. In a study conducted by Yaylac (2004, p. 197) on organisational
citizenship behaviours in schools it emerged that participants opinions about organizational
justice in turn influence opinions on organisational citizenship behaviour. In this study there
are statistical relationships between the administrators opinions towards organisational
citizenship and distributive justice (r 0.33), rectificatory justice (r 0.30), procedural
justice (r 0.39) and interactional justice (r 0.34). The respective importance of
organisational justice dimensions on administrators organisational citizenship behaviours
are as follows: procedural, interactional,distributive and rectificatory justice.
In another study on sources of stress in educational management, Pehlivan (1993) found
that unfairness in personnel appraisal and failure to attain outcomes created a high level of
stress in teachers. Injustice in staff assessment was seen as a source of stress at a moderate
level for supervisors and school principals; and at
a high level for teachers. On the other hand, not being able to get the income was a source
of moderate stress for supervisors and high stress for school principals and teachers. As
these results of the foregoing (mainly American) studies reveal, organizational justice is
influential in employees organisational behaviours such as organizational citizenship, job-
related stress, job satisfaction, organisational loyalty, and conflict.
However, no research of this kind has been identified in Turkey. In particular, nothing has
been found that addresses the dimensions of distributive, procedural, interactional and
rectificatory justice. Research has demonstrated that the implementation of merit pay
programs can suffer from a number of barriers related to the performance assessment and
pay allocation that may impede its intended usefulness. Both the subjective nature of
performance appraisals and the use of those appraisals for administrative purposes (such as
pay and promotion) can facilitate different forms of bias in performance appraisal (e.g.
9
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
10/28
Prendergast and Topel, 1996), which results in inaccurate ratings. These biases in
performance appraisal, as well as biased pay allocations, can be viewed as violations of
organizational justice, and/or as forms of organizational politics.
Indeed, research and theory on fairness and politics has identified conditions under whichmerit pay practices are likely to promote hoped-for and unanticipated outcomes. It is
notable, however, that the two lines of literature have developed relatively distinctively, and
only recently have there been attempts to integrate them (Ferris et al.,1995). Subsequent
research has empirically distinguished the constructs by showing that they have somewhat
different antecedents and consequences (Andrews and Kacmar, 2001; Aryee et al., 2004).
Furthermore, some recent research has argued and shown that these constructs interact to
produce outcomes (Byrne, 2005; Harris et al.,2007). This paper draws from these recent
developments and argues that some forms of politics in merit pay systems are more
detrimental than others, and employee
perceptions of politics and fairness are distinctively and interactively associated with the
effectiveness of merit pay systems.
Fairness and Conflict in Organizations
How employees perceive fairness in the implementation of organizational policies can lead
to conflict in the workplace. According to Donais Theory conflict when properly managed
can have a tremendous benefit like serving as a catalyst for healthy competition in the
workplaces, it brings underlying workplace issues into the open to be resolved, it can also
promote a better understanding of differences, it can lead to increased team spirit and
properly managed conflict fosters healthy dialogue which can motivate people to raise
issues, discuss new ideas , finally it can also dissipate anger when brought to the surface
and raise awareness of other peoples needs.
However, the cost of conflict as a result of perceived unfairness far outweighs its values.
It can lead to huge expenses of formal dispute resolution, decreased individual
competence and ineffective working relations, toxic communication, impaired staff and
team development, increased absenteeism, increased resignations and dismissals,
emotionally charged workplaces, tarnished image, decreased productivity and
breakdown in trust of hierarchy. Many of these factors have an effect on the bottom-line
of the companys performance.
METHODOLOGY
Introduction
10
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
11/28
This chapter outlines the methods, models and steps taken to satisfy the objectives of this
research which is to investigate how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship
with other colleagues, management and how organizations can make use of this information
to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination,
performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions. It also containsinformation on the statistical tools used to analyse the collected data. It spells out the
implications of the research design that were directly imposed for the purpose of this
research.
3.2 Sampling Population
The population sample for this research was limited to 100 respondents from some selected
companies in the Banking sector. These individuals were selected from the various
companies and questionnaires administered to them. The companies used include the
following:
The Trust Bank Limited
Merchant Bank Ghana Limited
HFC Bank Limited
UBA Bank Limited
These companies did not have equal representation in terms of the numbers of staff
interviewed and given questionnaires to.
3.3 Method of analysis
In assessing how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with other colleagues,
management and how organizations can make use of this information to be more receptive
and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination, performance appraisals,
pay communication and pay appeal decisions, this research employed the use of
questionnaires where sample questions on the subject area where asked and the responses
from the respondent analysed. This method of was useful as it provided insights into several
important areas, including the respondents knowledge of existing policies in their
organisation, perception of the fairness of the process and respondent thoughts on how
various aspect of the policies can be amended to improve the level of fairness. It also
revealed the possible outcomes the respondents proposed include resignation if theyperceived the systems to be unfair as well as the impact on job satisfaction, motivation and
so on.
In testing the internal validity of items measuring employees perception of fairness,
satisfaction, motivation and commitment the researchers employed Cronbach alpha. An
alpha of 0.70 and above measured consistency of items under a particular section.
11
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
12/28
Statistical tool SPSS was applied to the responses obtained to determine whether the
perception of fairness in policy implementation has implication on job motivation,
satisfaction, relationships between employees and above all the bottom line of the
organisation. SPSS is a computer program used for survey authoring and deployment (IBMSPSS Data Collection), data mining (IBM SPSS Modeler), text analytics, statistical analysis,
and collaboration & deployment (batch & automated scoring services). SPSS is among the
most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science. It is used by market
researchers, health researchers, survey companies, government, education researchers,
marketing organizations and others. The original SPSS manual (Nie, Bent & Hull, 1970) has
been described as one of "sociology's most influential books".[4]
In addition to statistical analysis, data management (case selection, file reshaping, creating
derived data) and data documentation (a metadata dictionary is stored in the data file) are
features of the base software. Statistics included in the base software:
Descriptive statistics: Cross tabulation, Frequencies, Descriptive, Explore, Descriptive
Ratio Statistics
Bivariate statistics: Means, t-test, ANOVA, Correlation (bivariate, partial, distances),
Nonparametric tests
Prediction for numerical outcomes: Linear regression
Prediction for identifying groups: Factor analysis, cluster analysis (two-step, K-means,
hierarchical), Discriminant
SPSS offers a user friendliness that most packages are only now catching up to. It is
popular, and though that is certainly not a reason for choosing a statistical package, many
data sets are easily loaded into it and other programs can easily import SPSS files. As of
version 16 and 17 it now is compatible with R and Python (assuming they are installed on
the machine), which can give it the functionality it otherwise lacks or would be too clunky in
its own syntax. On the other hand, for academic use SPSS lags notably behind SAS, R and
even perhaps others that are on the more mathematical rather than statistical side for
modern data analysis (e.g. robust and bootstrapping approaches available easily conductedelsewhere are nonexistent or very difficult to do, basic tests of analytical assumptions are
often not available). Its menu offerings are typically the most basic of an analysis and
sometimes lacking even then, and it makes doing an inappropriate analysis very easy. The
default graphics are poor and not easily customizable to make them better. It is expensive,
sometimes ridiculously so (e.g. many of its add-ons are free elsewhere or part of the base
install for other packages), and even when you do buy you're really only leasing, and its
12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_tabulationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_frequencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonparametrichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminant_analysis_(in_marketing)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statisticshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_sciencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPSS#cite_note-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadatahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_tabulationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_frequencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANOVAhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonparametrichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_regressionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_analysishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discriminant_analysis_(in_marketing) -
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
13/28
license is definitely not user friendly. There are often compatibility issues with prior
versions.
3.4 Limitations:
Every program has its limitations and unfortunately, SPSS is no exception. Variable namesare still limited to 8 characters. If the variable name is longer than 8 characters, and the file
is imported from an external source, the variable names are lost and are renamed var001,
var002, etc. Variable labels do not import, and must be entered through data definitions.
Finally, the output file limits the user's ability to view all of the data in a large correlation
matrix; thus, the matrix needs to printed. This reviewer was unable to determine a way of
decreasing the size of rows so that more data could fit on the screen.
The entire program might be expensive for the casual user because of all of the possible
add-on programs available. The good news is that most statistical analyses are contained in
the base program, and the purchase of additional programs may not be necessary. Many
colleges, universities, hospitals, etc. have special arrangements with SPSS which might alter
the cost for individuals associated with those institutions.
ANALYSIS, DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
4.1 Introduction
This chapter presents qualitative analysis of the data collected from the respondents. A
simple random sample was used to select 90 respondents from two banks in the Greater
Accra metropolis. Response to the questionnaires came from various banks in the capital of
Accra.
4.2 Presentations of Results
Table 4.01, Sample characteristics
Characteristics % of sample Characteristics % of
13
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
14/28
(n=90)
sample
(n=90)
Gender AgeMale 58 20 - 30years 56Females 42 41 - 50years 29
Position 51 - 60years 8Manager 29 0ver 60years 8Supervisor 41Clerk 30
Table 4.01 above shows the sample characteristics of the respondents. The first
characteristics looked at was the gender of the respondents. From the response,
approximately 58 percent were males whilst 42 were females. On their age distribution, 56
percent of the respondents were between 20 to 30 years old, 29 percent were between 41
to 50 years old, 8 percent each were between 51 to 60 years and over 60 years old
respective. With regard to the position in organization, 29 percent were managers in the
various banks, 41 percent were supervisors, whilst 30 percent were clerks.
Table 4.02, Performance Appraisal system
Response Percent Response Percent
Peer Review 6.3% Once a year 12.6%
Appraisal by supervisor 53.4% Semi-annually 26.2%Self Appraisal 23.1% Quarterly 36.9%All the above 17.2% Monthly 24.3%
From table 4.02 the respondents were asked to enumerate the type of performance
appraisal system used in their respective organization. In response, approximately 6 percent
indicated their peer review organizations, 53 percent used appraisal system, 23 percent
used self appraisal system, whilst 17 percent used all the type mentioned by the researcher.
On number of times respondents undergone appraisal approximately 13 percent mentioned
once, 26 percent mentioned semi-annually, 37 percent mentioned quarterly, whilst 24
percent mentioned monthly.
Figure 4.01 Factors influencing determination of pay (%)
14
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
15/28
Figure 4.01 above shows the factors influencing the determination of employees pay. From
the results of the analysis, 43 percent mentioned rank of employees as a factor influenced
pay determination, 31 mentioned qualification, 17 percent mentioned experience 1 percent
age whilst 8 percent said pay determination was on individual basis.
Table 4.03 Test of Consistency
Cronbach's Alpha N of ItemsPerception of Fairness 0.904 15
Job Satisfaction 0.921 9
Motivation 0.468 4
Commitment 0.460 9
In testing the internal validity of items measuring employees perception of fairness,
satisfaction, motivation and commitment the researchers employed Cronbach alpha. An
alpha of 0.70 and above measured consistency of items under a particular section. In this
regard, perception of fairness and job satisfaction shown a high internal consistencies whilstmotivation and commitment shown a low internal consistency. But for academic purposes
the researcher decided to use the items under motivation and commitment.
15
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
16/28
Table 4.04, One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test
Perception of
Fairness
Job
Satisfaction Motivation Commitment
N 90 90 90 90
NormalParameters
Mean 40.97 50.77 10.61 23.3111Std.
Deviation 9.82 14.002 2.582 6.58675Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 0.648 0.855 1.853 1.439Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) 0.796 0.457 0.062 0.082
In addition to validity of data another condition for carrying out a parametric test is that data
must be normally distributed. The researchers once again employed Kolmogorov-Smimov
test to conclude if total scores for perception of fairness, job satisfaction, motivation, and
commitment were normally distributed. A p-value > 0.05 indicates data was normally
distributed. Clearly total scores for perception of fairness, job satisfaction, motivation, and
commitment were normally distributed.
Table 4.05, Correlation Matrix
Mean Std. D 1 2 3 4
1 Perception of Fairness 41.0 9.8 1
2 Job Satisfaction 50.8 14.0 .554** 1
3 Motivation 10.6 2.6 0.143 0.204 1
4 Commitment 23.3 6.6 .368** .250* 0.064 1**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Table 4.0 above shows a correlation matrix consisting average, standard deviation and
Pearson correlation coefficients for score on perception of fairness, job satisfaction,
motivation, and commitment. From the results of the analysis, there was a significant
positive relationship with scores on perceived fairness between job satisfaction, and
commitment; (r(90) = 0.554, p-value < 0.05) and (r(90) = 0.368, p-value < 0.05)
respectively. However not signification correlation exist between perception of fairness and
employee motivation; (r(90) = 0.143, p-value < 0.05). There was also significant weak
correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment; (r (90) = 0.316, p-
value = 0.05). The above results suggested that higher perception of fairness in
organizations sampled leads to higher job satisfaction and commitment. Conversely lower
perception of fairness may lead to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
16
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
17/28
Table 4.06 Independent sample t-test
Male Female
Mean Std. D Mean Std. D P-value
T-
Statistics
Perception of Fairness 40.4 9.89 41.74 9.79 0.528 -0.634
Job Satisfaction 49.92 13.6 51.92 14.62 0.507 -0.666
An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare scores on perceived fairness, and
job satisfaction against gender of respondents and the results of the analysis displayed in
table 4.04 above. There was no significant difference in the scores on perceived fairness for
males (M = 40.40, SD = 9.89) and scores for females (M = 41.74, SD = 9.79) perceived
fairness; (t (90) = -.634, p > 0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in scores on
job satisfaction for males (M = 49.92, SD = 13.6) and females (M = 51.92, SD = 14.62), job
satisfaction; t (90) = -0.666, p > 0.05). The results shown that, differences in perceived
fairness levels experienced by respondent were not significant for males and females. Hence
male and females on the average had similar perception of fairness in their organizations. In
addition job satisfaction was also not significant across gender of the respondents. From the
results the researcher can conclude with a high level of confidence that, job satisfaction did
not differ significantly for males and females.
Table 4.07 Analysis of Variance Table (ANOVA)
Age group
Job Satisfaction
Motivatio
n Commitment
Mean
P-
value F Mean
P-
value F Mean P-value F20 - 30years
50.16 0.226 1.48 11.46 0.001 5.787 22.72 0.153
1.8
441 - 50years 54.35 9.62 25.5751 - 60years 42.29 10.57 20.140ver 60years 50.29 8.29 22.28
To explore the analysis further the researcher employed one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) find out if differences exist in scores on job satisfaction, employee motivation and
organizational commitment across the four age groups. Scores on job satisfaction and
organizational commitment were not significantly different across the age groups; job
satisfaction F(3, 86) = 1.48,p > 0.05, and organizational commitment F(3, 86) = 1.80,p >
17
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
18/28
0.05. On the other hand job motivation was significantly different across the age groups; F
(3, 86) = 5.79, p < 0.05. in conclusion the researchers can say that age groups provided
above did not influence employees job satisfaction and organizational commitment. That is
employers may be providing the level of condition of service for the respondents regardless
of the age, which lead to similar level of satisfaction experienced culminating into similarorganizational commitment. This is evident from table 4.03 above job satisfaction and
organizational commitment correlated positively. However differences exist in levels of
employee motivation across the age groups. it clear from the analysis that the highest
motivated cohort was respondents who were between 20 and 30 years old with a mean
score of 11.46, followed by respondent who were between 51 and 60 years old also with a
mean of 10.57, whilst the least, motivated cohort was respondents who were over 60 years
old.
Table 4.08, ANOVA
Job Satisfaction
Motivatio
n Commitment
Position Mean
P-
value F Mean
P-
value F Mean P-value FManager
48.62 0.483
0.73
3 10.42 0.829
0.18
8 22.42 0.04
3.35
1Superviso
r 52.81 10.57 25.35
Clerk 50.04 10.85 21.37
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used once again to test if differences exist in
scores on job satisfaction, employee motivation and organizational commitment, across the
three levels of positions held in an organization. Scores on job satisfaction and employee
motivation was not significantly different across the position in an organization; job
satisfaction F (2, 88) = 0.483, p > 0.05) and employee motivation F(2, 88) = 0.829, p >
0.05), whilst organizational commitment was significantly different across position in an
organization. Hence the researchers can conclude that position held in organization
influence organizational commitment. From the average scores supervisors have the highestaverage score on organization commitment. The reason might be the sensitive role they
played in an organization.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The study sought to investigate the perception of fairness of policy implementation in a
Ghanaian organisation and how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with
18
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
19/28
other colleagues and management. It also sought to investigate how organizations can
make use of this information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR
policies of pay determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal
decisions. To perform this analysis, a sample of 100 respondents from some selected
companies in the Banking sector were selected and statistical tools and SPSS was employedon their responses to questionnaires. The study established that respondents had a general
knowledge of how pay improved motivation, job satisfaction and performance of the
companies. Perception of fairness and job satisfaction shown a high internal consistencies
whilst motivation and commitment shown a low internal consistency. But for academic
purposes the researcher decided to use the items under motivation and commitment. A
larger number of respondents acknowledge that the way they perceive fair or equity had a
direct correlation with their performance and would not even mind leaving the organization
just to serve as a means of correcting any perception of unfairness.
Largely respondents perceive the various policy implementations as fair with the
organisations having some appeal mechanism in place to discuss the various irregularities
that may result in the implementation process. This we believe may be as a result of the
sample size chosen since most banks are good policies on human resources.
The results of the analysis served to verify the hypothesis that the perception of fairness in
policy implementation has a direct relationship with the commitment, motivation and job
satisfaction which have direct and positive relationship with organisational performance and
goal achievement. From the analysis, the perception of fairness drive productivity andperformance through the above factors and this was in line with existing literature on the
subject matter.
The following were some of the limitations encountered during the analysis of the
performance of the companies. In measuring performance, the influence of managerial
competencies, high calibre employees and organisational policies were ignored due to the
fact that human capital cannot be measured quantitatively. In addition, SPSS analysis has its
inherent limitations. Finally, an equal number of companies could not be selected from the
various sectors within the economy to enable a fair view of the perception across a wider
sample size.
5.2 Conclusions
19
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
20/28
With reference to the above discussion and analysis of the perception of fairness in the
implementation of policy in Ghanaian organisation, the following conclusions can be
inferred:
There is a positive relationship between the perception of fairness of policy implementation
on employee commitment, motivation and job satisfaction. Employees are likely to bedemotivated, unsatisfied and uncommitted in environment where the perception of fairness
is low. This may lead to poor performance and high turnover. The perception can however
be influenced by some other factors including the role and position of the individual
employee in the organisation.
5.3 Recommendations
The findings of the study indicate that organisational justice and fairness has great
advantages to companies in terms of their profitability and future growth potentials. Efforts
must therefore be directed at encouraging the following:
1. Communication
Information on organizational policies is made available and understandable, policy
forms are in plain and simple language, employees are provided with information they
need, and are treated with courtesy.
2. Facilities and Services
Other means of communication should be available, the office responsible for
implementation is easily accessible, organizational environment is safe and healthy, and
employes privacy is observed.
3. Decision Procedures
Decision makers have a chance to give information and evidence to support their stance,
decisions are done within a reasonable amount of time, and reasons for the decisions are
explained.
4. Appeal, Review, and Complaint Procedures
People are told immediately of any existing appeal or review, complaints procedures are
clearly defined, and solicitation of ideas from the employee to improve services.
5. Organizational Issues
Staffs are given clear titles for the role that they assume in the organization, agencies
consider if reorganization would amplify the quality of service, and inter-agency
cooperation is nurtured.
6. Agency Review and Planning
20
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
21/28
Employee participation in program planning is encouraged, explanation is provided from
the beginning about how decision-making process is reached, and provision of data
needed to evaluate and improve performance is archived.
All the above would further enhance the perception of fairness in the organization which
would boost the performance and profitability of the organization though motivated,committed and satisfied employees.
REFERENCES:
Bobinski D. (2006), The Hidden Costs of Conflict, http://www.hodu.com/conflict-
cost.shtml
Cram J. A. and MacWilliams R. K., The Cost of Conflict in the Workplace,
http://www.crambyriver.com/coc.html [25 January 2011].
Slaikeu K. A. and Hasson R. H. (1998), Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to
Design a System for Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, xii.
Pearson C. & Porath C. (2009), The Cost of Bad Behaviour. New York:
Hart R., McDonald J., Rock S. (2004),The Mind-Body Connection: Workplace Conflict,
Stress & the Risk of Injury, EHSToday, The Magazine for Environment, Health and
Safety Leaders, 29 July 2004
Dana D., The Dana Measure of Financial Cost of Organizational Conflict, 2001,
Alberta Ombudsman Administrative Fairness Guidelines Web Page.
http://www.ombudsman.ab.ca/natural-justice.php
Allesandra, T. & OConnor, M.J. (1996). The platinum rule: Discover the four basic
business personalities and how they can lead you to success. Victoria, Canada:
Warner Business Books.
Anastaplo, G. (1983). Aristotle on law and morality. 3 Windsor (Ontario) Yearbook of
Access to Justice. 458-464.
Buch, K. (2010). The role of fairness in the workplace.
http://blogs.managementconcepts.com/lm/leadership/2010/06/the-role-of-fairness-in-
the-workplace
Constitutional Rights Foundation (2008), Bill of Rights in Action 24, (2).
http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-2-c-the-development-of-
confucianism-in-ancient-china.html
Dunford, J. (2010). Review of the childrens commissioner (England). Presented to
Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty.
21
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
22/28
Fowlie, F. (2008). A blueprint for the evaluation of an ombudsmans office: A case
study of the iCANN office of the ombudsman.
Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarse, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of
ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 367-388.
Heslin, P.A. (1998). Negotiating effectively: The role of fairness. Journal of St. James
Ethics Society.
Rawls, J. (Second Edition, May 2001).Justice as fairness:
Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups andOrganizations. in AL. Berkowitz And E. Walter (Eds.) Advances In Experimental SocialPsychology , (Vol. 9, 91-131).
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What Should Be Done With Equity Theory? In Gergen, K. J.,
Greenberg, M.S., and Willis, R. H. (Eds.) Social Exchange
Advances In Theory And Research, . 27-55. NY: Plenum.
Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and the
Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, R. (1990). Voice, Control and Procedural Justice:
Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Concerns In Fairness Judgments. Journal Of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology Of Procedural Justice. NY,
Plenum.
Locker, A.H. and Teel, K.S. (1988). Assessment: Appraisal Trends. Personnel Journal,
67, 139-145.
Longenecker, C.O. and Goff, S.J. (1992). Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A
Matter of Perspective. Advanced Management Journal. 57, 2, 18-23.
Longenecker, C.O. Gioria, D.A. and Sims, H.P. (1987). Behind the Mask: The Politics of
Employee Performance Appraisal. Academy Of Management Executive, 1, 183-193.
Internet Research through search engines ( google)
APPENDIX I - QUESTIONNAIRE
PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS IN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A GHANAIANORGANISATION
Questionnaire
Section A
Please specify the following:
1. Name of organization .
22
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
23/28
2. Year you joined organization
3. Your rank 4. Age
20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60
5. Sex
6. Male Female
7. Which of the following influences the determination of your pay?
Rank
Qualification
Experience
Age
On individual basis
Other [please specify]..
8. Do you know who determines your pay?
Yes No
9. If you answered yes to question 8; then tell us who and do think the approach is fair?
.
.
.
Section B
On a scale of 1-5, please indicate by ticking ( ) the level to which you agree or
disagree with the following statements when it comes to your perception of
fairness in policy implementation in your organization.
1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair
How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization?
23
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
24/28
1. Determining the pay for your job
1 2 3 4 5
2. Determining pay raises
1 2 3 4 5 5
3. How your pay raises are determined
1 2 3 4 5 5
4. Determining the pay for your job relative to higher and lower level jobs than yours.
1 2 3 4 5 5
5. The frequency of pay raises
1 2 3 4 5
1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair
How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization?
6. Communicating pay policies and procedures
7. Communicating pay issues of concern to you
8. Answering questions about how your pay is determined
Section C
1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Indifferent, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly
Agree
In administering the pay plan, your supervisor:
1. Represents your pay interest with upper management
2. Is concerned about the amount of money that you receive
3. Backs you up when he/she feels that you have legitimate complaints about your pay
4. Is concerned that your work group gets its fair share of the pay budget.
24
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
25/28
5. Is frank and candid with you about pay issues.
6. Is honest and ethical in dealing with you about your pay
7. Is truthful and honest about pay issues that affect you.
8. Applies the same standards to everyone when making pay decisions.
Section D
1=Not at all accurate 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very
Accurate
Have you had the opportunity to express your opinion with management about?
1. The way pay is allocated within the organization
2. The pay for your job
3. Your pay raises
4. Your benefit package
In administering the pay plan, your supervisor:
5. Allows you to express opinions about pay decisions
6. Gets your input before making a recommendation about your pay raise.
1=Not at all accurate 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very
Accurate
In administering the pay plan, your supervisor:
7. Answers questions about your pay and benefits
8. Answers your questions about your pay and benefits procedures
9. Lets you know about changes in pay procedures which may affect your pay.
10. Explains the reason(s) for the size of your pay raise.
1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair
How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization?
1. Appealing pay decisions
2. Resolving disagreements about your pay.
Section E
What type of performance appraisal is used in your organization?
25
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
26/28
Peer Review
Appraisal by Supervisor
Self Appraisal
All of the above
Other [please specify]
How many times do you undergo appraisal?
Once a year
Semi-annually
Quarterly
Monthly
1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair
How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization?
3. Gathering information used to evaluate your performance
4. Evaluating your performance
5. Appealing performance evaluations
Section F
1=Not at all accurate 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very
Accurate
In administering the pay plan, your supervisor:
11. Becomes familiar with your performance before evaluating it
12. Uses relevant information to appraise your performance.
13. Obtains accurate information to appraise your performance
14. Uses consistent standards when evaluating your performance.
15. Frequently observes your performance
16. Explains the reason for your performance appraisal
17. Considers your complaints about performance appraisals.
Section G
26
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
27/28
1=Not at all accurate 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very
Accurate
In administering the pay plan, your supervisor:
18. Allows personal motives or bias to influence performance appraisal ratings
19. Is influenced by things that should not be considered in his/her pay decisions.
20. Shows a real interest in trying to be fair in his/her pay decisions
21. Does not show favoritism in his or her pay decisions
Section H
1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Agree 4=Strongly Agree
1. You were involved in setting the performance expectations for the review period.
2. Performance expectations were reviewed as and when necessary.
3. The supervisor considered the important aspects or your work when rating you.
4. The supervisor rated you on how well you did your job not on his or her personal
opinion of you.
5. The supervisor treated you with consideration when giving you your performance
appraisal results
6. The supervisor who evaluated you showed concern for your rights as an employee.
1=Not at all 2=A little bit not fair 3=Satisfactory 4=Very Much
7. Overall, how hard did the supervisor who rated your performance try to be fair to
you?
8. Overall, how fairly were you treated by the supervisor who rated your performance?
9. Overall, do you think policies relating to pay and performance appraisal is fair in your
organization?
What will be your next line of action if you think the policies are not fair?
Fight for reforms
Resign
Leave when I find a new job
27
-
8/3/2019 Perception of Fairness in Policy Implementation - Kdb
28/28
I will stay
I will stay but my work output will be reduced.
Other [please specify]