2. JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS
Managers who are fair in their dealings are
generally more successful in motivating their
subordinates than those who are not. A reputation
for being unfair or biased is surely going to be a
liability for managerial success. FAIR UNFAIR
. 13–2
3. TYPES OF JUSTICE
TYPES OF JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE COMPENSATORY
JUSTICE JUSTICE
– Requires distributing – Requires restoring to a
society’s benefits and person what the person
burdens fairly. lost when he or she was
wronged by someone.
RETRIBUTIVE
JUSTICE
– Requires fairness when
blaming or punishing
persons for doing
wrong.
13–3
4. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
JUSTICE AS EQUALITY: EGALITARIAN
Egalitarians hold that there are no relevant differences among
people that can justify unequal treatment. According to the
egalitarian, all benefits and burdens should be distributed
according to the following formula:
“Every person should be given exactly shares of a society’s or a
group’s benefits and burdens.”
5. EGALITARIANISM
EGALITARIANISM
POSITIVES:
When workers in a group receive equal compensation, they
tend to become more cooperative with each other and also feel
greater solidarity with each other. This has been found to be
more effective especially in collectivistic cultures.
6. EGALITARIANISM
EGALITARIANISM
CRITICISMS:
There is no quality that all human beings possess precisely in
the same degree i.e they differ in their abilities, intelligence,
virtues, etc.
If everyone is given the same things, the lazy will get the same
as the industrious one or a sick will get the same as the healthy
one. The individuals will have no incentives to exert greater efforts
in their work.
When lazy get as much as the industrious ones it demoralizes
the industrious ones which would lead to decline in society’s
productivity and efficiency. On the other hand, if the society did
not provide for the sick, the needy and the crippled ones, then the
value of care for one another would be eroded.
8. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
JUSTICE BASED ON CONTRIBUTION: CAPITALIST
JUSTICE
According to capitalist view of justice, when people engage in
economic exchanges with each other, what a person gets out of the
exchange should be at least equal in value to what the person
contributed. In a more simple statement:
“Benefits should be distributed according to the value of the
contribution the individual makes to a society, a task, a group, or
an exchange.”
9. CAPITALIST JUSTICE
CAPITALIST JUSTICE
NEGATIVES:
When workers are paid in accordance to the principle of
contribution, it tends to promote among them an uncooperative and
competitive atmosphere in which resources and information are less
willingly shared and in which status differences emerge.
The value of contribution of individual should be measured in
terms of work effort. Contribution should be rewarded in terms of
productivity.
10. CAPITALIST JUSTICE
CAPITALIST JUSTICE
PURITAN ETHIC PRODUCTIVITY
– The view that every – The amount an individual
individual has a produces or that a group
religious obligation to produces per person.
work hard at his or her
calling(the career to
which god summons
each individual).
WORK ETHIC
– The view that values
individual effort and
believes that hard work
does and should lead to
success.
11. DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
JUSTICE BASED ON NEEDS AND ABILITIES: SOCIALISM
According to this concept, work burdens should to be distributed
according to people’s abilities and benefits should be distributed
according to people’s needs.
Work should be distributed in such a way that a person can be as
productive as possible i.e. according to people’s abilities. The
benefits produced should be used to promote human happiness and
well being.
The socialist view is based on the notion that societies should be
communities in which benefits and burdens are distributed on model
of a family.
12. SOCIALISM
SOCIALISM
CRITICISMS:
There would be no relation between the amount of effort a
worker puts forth and amount of remuneration the worker
receives. Hence workers would have no incentive to put forth any
work efforts at all, knowing that they will receive the same
regardless of whether they work hard.
It is unrealistic to think that entire societies could be modelled
on familial relationships as human beings are intrinsically self-
interest motivated. The counter argument by the socialists is that
human beings are not intrinsically selfish but are trained to
acquire the selfishness and competitiveness by modern social and
economic institutions.
The socialist principle would eradicate individual freedom.
There will be no freedom of choice but everything is decided
based on abilities and needs.
