Justice

decision-making policy under an environment which lacks fairness. The participation of the different actors is crucial in an interdependent world.

Tyler et al. (2008) have identified two types of fairness: outcome fairness and procedural fairness. Within this classification, the outcome fairness refers to the results of the program. By contrast, procedural fairness deals with the processes that lead to outcomes. The processes must include whether or not people are given an opportunity to present their views; whether procedures are neutral, transparent, and fact-based; and whether rules and policies are consistently applied across people and over time. People will comply with processes if they view the leadership as legitimate and the administrative practices as fair. Tyler et al. (2008) emphasized the importance of interpersonal treatment and the quality of decision making.

In many organizations, in both developed and developing countries, there is a greater tendency to reward cronies rather than the best performers. In such circumstances, the organizational rewards are based on neither merit nor productivity. When performance goes unrewarded, some people engage in cronyism to achieve their organizational rewards. It is counterproductive to the performance ethics, thereby diminishing public morale. When performance goes unrewarded, people can engage in organizational politics, which is also counterproductive, as discussed above.

jUstiCe Justice and fairness are interrelated concepts. Justice is conceived here in the sense of the denial of service or benefit. People expect justice when they are denied a service or benefit. Denial of justice is interpreted as favoritism based on different personal factors. Leadership needs to provide opportunities for justice. A perception of injustice can have a devastating effect on the morale of the public. When people consider leaders to be unjust, they will not seek justice, but will resort to violence and conflict to end unjust treatment, with disastrous results. Justice must also be reflected in compensation. There is, for example, an uproar among the public when private sector bosses received millions of dollars in compensation, and at the same time, many employees are laid off. This is an example of gross injustice. Recently, there has been criticism against the Transportation Security Administration of the United States because it provided bonuses to the administrator despite the fact that the travelers had to wait for many hours while checking in for flights and many in fact missed their flights.