Don't Be Fair - Be Consistent!

Discrimination and fairness... They're really just different sides of the same coin, right? Or are they?

You could argue, as my fellow Café contributor Jim Brennan did, that they're the same side of the same coin. In his last post, More Discrimination Is Needed, Jim made an excellent point:

The very act of discrimination can be either bad or good, because some differences must be ignored while other distinctions should be noted.

I couldn't agree more. The meaning of the word discrimination has gone through a transformation. People automatically think of "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age or sex" rather than "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another". Semantics often gets in the way when the word "discrimination" comes up.

Jim goes on to say that:

Discrimination is needed to create pay equity. It not only involves comparable worth but also includes perceptions of fair treatment by all employees. 

Here's where things get complicated. "Discrimination" is objective; to use Jim's example, it's important to differentiate between "positive contributors and feckless shirkers". Presumably there's some objective measurable thing that allows us to make this differentiation (e.g., sales volume, average serving time per customer, number of calls fielded per hour, etc.). If the compensation strategy is tied to this objective measurable thing, then the strategy automatically differentiates between the "good performers" and the "bad performers". 

"Fairness" is subjective. What seems unfair to me may seem fair to you. If I'm a bad performer and you're a good performer, I may view a compensation strategy tied to sales volume, for example, as unfair. I put in the same amount of hours as you do, and I'm working hard and doing my best - just like you are. But I sell less than you do because I get all of the crappy sales leads and you get all of the good ones. It's not fair that I get stuck with the crappy leads, and it's not fair that I get paid less than you do even though I'm working just as hard as you.

Fairness depends on our perceptions, and perceptions of the same situation can vary wildly from person to person. So, rather than aiming for fairness in your compensation strategy, deciding which family member takes the dog out for her morning walk, or in anything you do, aim for consistency. Consistency is the key.

My friend Steve Browne made a great point on my podcast about fairness and consistency:

Podcast Powered By Podbean

So don't be fair - be consistent! Set your policies and procedures based on legitimate factors that don't discriminate on the basis of age, gender, race, ethnicity or other protected characteristic, and apply those policies and procedures in a consistent manner. As Steve said, if you're consistent, you end up being more fair than you ever were. 

Stephanie R. Thomas is an economic and statistical consultant specializing in EEO issues and employment litigation risk management. Since 1999, she's been working with businesses and government agencies providing expert analysis. Stephanie's articles on examining compensation systems for internal equity have appeared in professional journals and she has appeared on NPR to discuss the gender wage gap. Stephanie is the founder of Thomas Econometrics and is the host of The Proactive Employer Podcast. Follow her on Twitter at ProactiveStats.

Comments

[Dan Walter]

Thanks Stephanie!

[Michael D. Haberman]

Stephanie:
An excellent distinction. It is "unfair" that the word discrimination has taken on such a negative connotation. After all we all like to be known for our discriminating tastes in food, wine, friends, etc. However, we don't want to be accused of being discriminating. Consistency, within a framework of legality, solves many problems and provides many defenses to someone elses perceptions of "discrimination."

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Certainly totally agree that it's not fair to be inconsistent. Consistency in doing what is right in every situation may not meet some observer's subjective opinion of "fair," but that's just tough. Management has both the authority and the responsibility to be consistent in applying its policies.

Let me also add, things do not have to be "numbers" to be measurable. Anything observable can be judged. Everyone knows the difference between a "good" day and a "bad" day, for exmple, even if it all depends on their point of view.

[Stephanie R. Thomas]

Jim-
Thanks for reminding us that anything observable can be judged. It's such an important point. It's easier to recognize what we're doing when we "evaluate" (read:judge) easily quantifiable things. With observables, there's a tendency to fail to realize that we're judging and bringing in our own perspectives.

[Stephanie R. Thomas]

Mike-
I would argue that consistency outside of the framework of legality solves many problems too. Even something as simple as being consistent in saying "good morning" - saying it every day, greeting everyone and not just some, etc. - can have a positive effect. Being consistent reduces the amount of uncertainty. With everything that we all have to manage in our day (family commitments, civic responsibilities, work demands) a little less uncertainty is certainly a good thing!