Procedural justice in promotion decisions and employee satisfaction

Promotion Exercise

My role in the exercise was as the employee. My goal for this meeting was to find out why I did not get the job. I was hurt to be passed over for this promotion, and so I was curious about why that happened. Part of my curiosity is benign, in that I simply want to know how I can improve for next time, but part of it is that I want to get assurance that the process was fair and that the better candidate got the job.

I was able to find out a few things, but the answers were not as compelling as I might have thought them to be. There were other strong candidates, and it was a tough choice, and a few other arguments were made, but ultimately these arguments were short on specifics, to my disappointment.

I agree that this meeting was satisfactory. I was provided with answers, that while not as clear as I might have liked, provided some insight into managerial thinking. I came away from the meeting with the sense that the process was fair.

I believe that a fair result was reached. The fairness of the process is of utmost importance to me, and after this meeting I am confident that the hiring process was fair, and I also have a pretty good sense of what I would need to do next time in order to win a promotion.

3. I agree that I feel satisfied with this meeting. The reason for this is that I got most of what I wanted out of the meeting. I am concerned mainly with procedural justice, and my investigation tells me that procedural justice was most likely served. This is important for me because I am continuing to work here, and I need to know that I can trust the processes that drive promotions in this company.

a. I feel that the discussion went reasonably well. While I did not meet all of my objectives, I do feel that there was an element of procedural justice, and that I was treated fairly in the promotion process. I believe that management truly felt there was a better candidate. What I did not come away with was a sense that I truly know how to get the job next time.

b. I was more concerned with procedural justice. I really just needed to know that the hiring procedural was fair, equitable and legal.

c. It was not so much the attitudes and behaviors that led to this conclusion so much as the content of the words. Management's even-handed approach was helpful, but the content of what was said was the most important part, since I was seeking information, not assurance.

d. I believe that managers and employees do empathize different aspects of justice. In this case, I think we were on the same page with respect to highlighting procedural justice. To me, that is the only type of fairness in which I am interested in. As long as I feel that procedural justice held sway, then I can trust in the process. This is important because procedural justice has been written down, codified, and all have agreed to it. Any other form of justice is just too arbitrary and subjective to be just.