What does this insidious psychosocial hazard look like in practice? And how can it be addressed? An employment lawyer offers guidelines for HR.
When we think of psychosocial risks in the workplace, we might conjure high (or low) workload, stressful management styles or a lack of role clarity. Poor organisational justice rarely comes to mind, yet it’s recognised as a formal psychosocial hazard in Safe Work Australia’s Model Code of Practice.
Snow Legal Director Will Snow believes the topic causes confusion because organisational justice is, by its nature, difficult to define.
“Justice is about fairness, and ‘fair’ looks different to different people,” he says. “It’s also subjectively experienced and so very difficult to pin down on a page or in a process. It can feel like wrestling smoke when you’re trying to get your head around it.”
Poor organisational justice could involve passing over a high-performing employee for a bonus or promotion while rewarding a colleague with lesser performance, or imposing harsh penalties on an employee for a minor policy breach while ignoring identical behaviour in others, says Snow.
Like other psychosocial hazards, there’s no standardised measure for poor organisational justice. However, the risks associated with the behaviour are easier to quantify.
“The main operational risk is staff attrition,” says Snow. “Simply put, an employer making decisions that are rightly perceived to be unfair will lose staff.”
In extreme circumstances, which lead to poor mental health outcomes, for example, there’s a risk of prosecution by a safety regulator.
“Unreasonable management action can also open the door to a successful worker’s compensation claim, if poor organisational justice results in an employee suffering a mental illness,” says Snow.
There is no such thing as ‘perfect’ organisational justice, Snow notes.
“Like other psychosocial hazards, it’s about those things within the employer’s control that can be reasonably managed. There are no absolutes.”
But organisations that lack a mature understanding of the concept are more likely to fall foul of regulators, he says.
“Safety regulators define poor organisational justice as repeated actions leading to obvious and avoidable bad impacts. Being aware of those impacts occurring is the key to mitigating risk.”
Three pillars of organisational justice
“In basic terms, organisational justice is the fair and equitable treatment of all employees,” says Snow.
To explain what that means in practice, Safe Work Australia defines three pillars of organisational justice:
- Procedural justice (aka. process fairness)
What it means: “Procedural justice is about the process of decision-making,” says Snow.
Transparency, consistency and a lack of bias in decision-making that affects employees supports good procedural justice.
What poor procedural justice can look like: Poor procedural justice often manifests when managers reprimand employees, says Snow.
“A poor outcome might arise when an employee is given a warning about issues that have not previously been brought to their attention, or when a manager identifies an issue based on obviously incomplete information or assumptions.”
How HR can fix it: “Procedural justice thrives when an organisation’s employee-management processes are fair, consistent and robust,” says Snow.
HR should develop these processes and ensure managers understand them.
“In the case of assessing apparent misconduct, the process should involve checks to ensure managers have sought out and weighed all the relevant information and, crucially, that the employee’s response is considered,” says Snow.
“Safety regulators define poor organisational justice as repeated actions leading to obvious and avoidable bad impacts. Being aware of those impacts occurring is the key to mitigating risk.” – Will Snow, Director, Snow Legal.
- Distributive justice (aka. outcome fairness)
What it means: “While procedural justice is about the decision-making process itself, distributive justice is about how rewards and penalties are ultimately distributed,” says Snow.
The fair application of workloads and rewards (such as bonuses) are examples of good distributive justice.
What poor distributive justice can look like: Applying different standards of behaviour to different employees is a prime example of poor distributive justice, says Snow.
“A poor outcome would be if a warning is given to an employee, but others – including leaders – engage in the same behaviour without consequence. The behaviour that led to one employee being warned might be tacitly or overtly encouraged in others.”
How HR can fix it: Ensuring policies and processes relating to bonuses, shift allocation and other discretionary actions are understood by, and available to, all staff helps create accountability at all levels, says Snow.
“The same also applies for disciplinary issues,” he adds. “Well-understood guidelines and a highly visible code of conduct can encourage the fair distribution of penalties.”
- Interactional/Informational justice (aka. relational fairness)
What it means: “At a practical level, this means providing clear and accurate explanations to employees about organisational changes and decisions, and also listening to them,” says Snow. “Put simply, it means treating staff with respect and honesty.”
What poor interactional justice can look like: “The classic case is the ‘mushrooming’ of employees: keeping them in the dark about events or decisions that might affect them or the organisation more broadly,” says Snow.
Dismissing employee feedback and delivering bad news via generic emails without context are two other examples of poor interactional justice.
How HR can fix it: “Creating a culture of consultation with employees and embedding the obligation to consult in managerial processes can deliver better outcomes,” says Snow. “If a change is coming, it should be signalled in advance and, where possible, employee feedback should be sought and considered.”
“Good organisational justice equals good HR.” – Will Snow, Director, Snow Legal.
Guiding principles of organisational justice
Snow highlights three more actions HR can take now to improve the overall state of organisational justice in their organisations:
- Treat your obligations to consult seriously.
“It can be as simple as inserting a consultation step in your existing processes, and the effect can be profound.” - Have a clear and respected grievance policy.
“Seek employee feedback to ensure your policy has the buy-in of staff and make sure it is widely understood.” - See complaints as opportunities.
“A complaint can be a gift if it helps you determine what changes could be made to improve outcomes.”
“Good organisational justice equals good HR,” says Snow. “It’s when leaders and managers are curating a culture and policy environment in which concerns can be raised and managed; and when important decisions are being made based on reasonable information and in accordance with company principles. It’s certainly not giving everyone what they want.”
All information, content and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon as such.
🧰 HR’s career resource toolkit
- Reading: 4 common psychosocial hazards and how to manage them.
- Learning: Change Management: Driving Engagement and Performance course.
- Event: Book your ticket for the ER/IR Unpacked Roadshow in Sydney, Newcastle or Geelong to have your psychosocial risk questions answered.
