Editor's Note: Today's Classic post features Stephanie Thomas speaking to question of fairness - a perennial hot button in the field of rewards - and includes a wonderful cameo by Café friend Steve Browne.
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:
I agree. Let's not try to treat employees fairly. Let's let the courts and regulators do that for us.
Posted by: Harold | 11/19/2016 at 11:42 AM
Thought that courts and regulators only do legal or illegal rather than fair or unfair. Defining "fair" is a terribly complex, controversial and essentially subjective issue too immense for short articles ... but maybe I'm being unfair to say that.
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | 11/19/2016 at 12:35 PM
Respectfully, company policies should be both fair and consistent. We're not doing our jobs if not trying to treat employees fairly.
Posted by: Harold | 11/19/2016 at 02:36 PM
Then we agree that internal company policies should be established by good-faith efforts to do right and should not be abandoned in favor of government edicts. Best to follow Stephanie's closing advice.
Posted by: E. James (Jim) Brennan | 11/19/2016 at 03:15 PM