MZMORALE ZEROthe antithesis of employee engagement
DIRECTIVE 012 / FAIRNESS

PROTECT THE PROCESS

When employees ask how a decision was made, explain that the process is confidential.

Keep criteria, calibration discussions, exceptions and comparative evidence within the decision-making group. Communicate the outcome cleanly and assure everyone that the process was rigorous. Additional explanation may create the impression that a decision can be examined.

Primary: FAIRNESSPOWERFEEDBACK
RATIONALE
A process is easiest to defend when the people affected by it cannot reconstruct it.
SUCCESS INDICATOR
Employees know the outcome, leaders know the rationale, and only one of those groups can identify where the rules changed.
COMMON FAILURE
Publishing relevant criteria in advance, explaining how they were applied, documenting exceptions and providing a credible channel for review or appeal.
STATUS
Canonical / approved

Reconstructed Handbook series.

THE UNFORTUNATE PART

Unfortunately, the research…

Claim

Organizational-justice research distinguishes procedural justice from informational justice. The quality of procedures and the adequacy of explanations are separable dimensions associated with how employees evaluate authorities and organizational outcomes.

Evidence

Justice research supports distinct distributive, procedural, interpersonal and informational dimensions. Meta-analytic evidence links these dimensions with outcomes including job satisfaction, commitment, evaluation of authority, citizenship behavior, withdrawal and performance.

Strength: Strong

Sources

The Directive is satire. The research summary is not. Evidence is stated separately and qualified to the underlying literature rather than treated as proof of the joke.

PREVIOUS

RUN THE ENGAGEMENT SURVEY

NEXT

PUBLISH THE VALUES