Cafe Classic: Don't Be Fair - Be Consistent!

Editor's Note: Today's Classic post features Stephanie Thomas speaking to the question of fairness - a perennial hot button in the field of rewards.

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 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 gender" 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. 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. If you're consistent, you end up being more fair than you ever were. 

Stephanie Thomas, Ph.D., is a Lecturer in the Department of Economics at Cornell University. She teaches undergraduate and graduate courses on economic theory and labor economics in the College of Arts and Sciences and in Cornell’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Throughout her career, Stephanie has completed research on a variety of topics including wage determination, pay gaps and inequality, and performance-based compensation systems. She frequently provides expert commentary in media outlets such as The New York Times, CBC, and NPR, and has published papers in a variety of journals. 

Comments

[E. James (Jim) Brennan]

Thanks, Stephanie, for adding to my ancient ideas. As I have also often said, "fair" means "I want more"... or "I want better than what I got."

"Fair" does not imply "popular". Sometimes, consistency rests on the bottom line of "this is management's decision". When you get to be the CEO, you get the big bucks to make these policy edicts that apply to everyone the same.