They looked at the:

1. Communication surrounding the decision
2. Level of employee input
3. Composition of the grievance panel. 

They found that these three elements had a larger impact on fairness perceptions than the actual outcome the person received. When the processes were perceived as fair, even unfavourable outcomes tended to result in higher distributive justice ratings. Distributive justice is the degree of fairness in the distribution of rights or resources. The distributive justice rating is how people perceive it.

The paper assessed multiple justice dimensions and the overall fairness of the process, using a policy-capturing research design. Questionnaires were developed to measure grievance procedure characteristics and outcomes, as well as perceptions of the different kinds of fairness.

The questionnaire used realistic but hypothetical scenarios crossing key variables in all possible combinations. This avoided answers which were “socially desirable responses.” It also allowed the researchers to focus on critical variables and control extraneous variables.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) systems are an increasingly popular method of resolving disputes. They are often viewed favourably due to the low cost and effectiveness.

Common forms of ADR include:

1. “Open door” policy
2. Ombudsperson (mediates but cannot force a decision)
3. Hearing officer (usually makes a final decision)
4. Peer decision committee (often recommends a decision)
5. Outside arbitration (usually makes a final decision)

The levels of structure and composition within these forms may vary.

The researchers hypothesised that factors which lead to equitable outcomes might include:

1. The availability of expert resources to assist employees
2. The level of input which employees have into the process
3. The impartiality of the method, including the degree of independence from management
4. The timeliness and speed of the process
5. The consistency of grievance resolution
6. The degree of top and line management support the process has
7. The extent to which the process fits the organisational culture
8. The nature of the outcome or the decision of the adjudicator

Procedural Justice concerns the fairness and transparency of the process through which decisions are made.

Process Control involves the “control over the development and selection of information that will be used in decision-making.” Decision control is the extent to which one can determine the outcome of the decision.

Lind et al (1980) looked at the impact of outcome on procedural justice, and of procedures on distributive justice. They found that the outcome does not impact on perceptions of procedural justice, and that “evidence that the procedure used to determine an outcome can affect the perceived fairness of that outcome.”

In a Study by Greenberg (1987), it was found that even when the outcome was low, if it was based on a fair process, it was given a high rating. This supports the theory that procedural justice might be an essential requirement for distributive justice when outcomes are low. Ratings of the outcome didn’t influence the ratings for procedural justice.

Interactional fairness (fairness in communications) may also come into play. An example of this might be employees stealing when their pay is cut. Theft levels reduce when an adequate, sensible reason is given by management. If someone loses in a dispute, they are more likely to rate the fairness highly if the interpersonal communication is honest. Alternately, if the employee received no reasons for the decision but just the final conclusion, then the decision may be perceived to be less fair.

The Blancero study participants consisted of 450 non-union, non-management white collar workers from seven organisations. Half of the total number of questionnaires issued were completed and returned. A population of employees was chosen which would best represent the population that would be exposed to ADRS at their workplace, and the questionnaires were anonymous. The questionnaires were distributed by managers, and each package held a reply-paid envelope.

The respondents had a mean age of 37 and were 54% female. The mean organisational tenure was eight years, and 53% had some supervisory experience. 82% were employed in workplaces which had non-union grievance systems in place.

The questionnaire explored hypothetical variations in grievance procedure characteristics and outcomes, to measure perceptions of fairness. The scenarios explored:

1. Offense
2. Decision-making
3. Independence
4. Employee input
5. Assistance
6. Explanation
7. Outcome

The participants answered questions following each scenario, based on the Likert scale to rate levels of fairness. Half of the scenarios involved allegations of drug use during company time, and the other half involved theft. Although 64 scenarios were used, each participant was presented with only eight scenarios, divided using matrix algebra. In the pilot test, participants took less than one hour to complete the questionnaire.

Following analysis, the researchers found that:

1. The existence of a pre-existing non-union ADRS had no impact on fairness perceptions.
2. Individual characteristics had an insignificant impact on fairness perceptions.
3. The communication of the decision had the most impact on fairness, followed by the composition of the grievance panel, then the availability of assistance to help the employee to prepare.
4. Process characteristics (employee input, decision-making independence, employee assistance) were the major determinants of procedural justice.
5. The nature of the outcome and the explanation had little impact on procedural justice ratings.
6. All of the process characteristics were significant, particularly employee input.
7. The outcome and the perception of procedural justice had the largest effect.
8. Process moderated the relationship between the nature of the outcome and perceptions of distributive justice. An unfavourable outcome may be perceived as fair if it results from a fair process.
9. Procedural justice and interactional justice are largely independent of each other.
10. Even if the employee won the grievance, the outcome was regarded as less fair if they weren’t given a full explanation.
11. No type of grievance system was preferenced, as the important characteristics can be included in each.

The full study can be found here.