ACEDEMIC ESSAY

ON

FAIRNESS IN REWARD ALLOCATION

MANAGINING HUMAN RESOURCES

(HRMT20024)

SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
Dr Senani Rajamanthri AMAR SINGH
S0275762
Reward allocation can define as different set of rules, techniques, and benchmarks which are
related to the allocation of benefits and increment in salary or post to employees. Theory of a
Adams on fairness in reward allocation give importance to intelligent result. Fairness in
reward allocation can also be said organisational justice. Justice in organisation also means to
give fair rewards or equal rewards on employee’s performance. Moreover, there are some
issues on employee’s performance like a gender issue, organisation culture, equal wages and
equal job are some main issues in organisation justice. In some survey, some factors that are
playing an important role to make a right, clear and fair decision which are age, gender, work
experience, contribution, character in situation. There are total number of three factors which
discussed systematically in the time of reward allocation are need, equity, and equity (buzea
2013). The main truth as per employees or workers behind the organisation justice is that all
workers or employees should get equal remuneration and fair rewards for which they are
putting their efforts. Organisation justice or fairness also means to give preference to needs
and circumstance of employees at reward complementation. According to Deutsch “state and
goods which force single in group is matter to focus on organisation justice for allocable
justice (Thomson, N, Jones 2005).

We also learned about issues like workplace culture issues, issue of work life balance and
many more. Nowadays, the main issue is fairness in reward allocation. Compensation
management is specially made and designed to assist a company to distribute rewards or
awards to deserved people. The goal of management is to give rewards to deserved people for
real, true and sensible reason. Compensation management focus on fair rewards distribution
and its purpose is fulfilled by perception of employees for justice in system and methods of
compensation (Demir, A 2014). Clampitt and potempa said “compensation is compared as
straight and mediate, inner and outer, monetary and non monetary (Ibrahim, A 2010).
Organisation fairness also be define as the standard in which organisation behaviour can be
judge by employees and on that basis employee will change his efficiency of work, behaviour
or attitude towards that company or organisation. So, organisation fairness is the main
responsibility and work of compensation management. Some type of different measurements
and also standards are used to measure the given rewards. Organisation fairness is very
important in rewards distribution or allocation. Equity is the best term used by organisation to
distribute awards to employees. Equity is also one of a major part of distributive justice (Kim,
N 1990). There are total numbers of four measurements according to Colquitt of organisation
justice. These four measurements are education, procedural, distributive, interaction
(Rodwell, L 2013). The most effective rule used in organisation rewards fairness is
distributive justice. This is applied by every organisation to give or distribute rewards with a
clear and fair view. Implementation of distributive equity gives clear result. The main agenda
of compensation is fastened resolutely are directly trustworthy in case of fairness.
Compensation management is very important because in today’s world everyone is connected
with each other by World Wide Web. On internet, we can find all data which is related to
salary, bonus, increment, job enlargement and more. Some studies show that personal justice
is directly connected with fulfilment, role, trust, duty, and execution. Understanding the
potential ramifications of distributive value, and especially esteem speculation, on the
organization setting, experts broke down the obvious conventionality of progressive results

1
and the relations of these value discernments to different standard variables, for instance,
quality and measure of work (Walster, Walster & Berschied 1978). Individual Justice has
been depicted as a solid situational determinant of representative citizenship and execution
(Andrew, C 2015). Procedural justice is not only related to the fairness, it also related to plans
and different methods to make a decision. Interactional justice is fully relation observation
consider to equity identify with the way in which different choices are individually made
from equity considerations emerges from its execution (Saundes, p 2002). Interactional
equity is also an extension of valiant related to procedural. It also identify the people side of
definite practices to the path of advantages of equity (Tyler, T.R & Bies R,J 1990).

It is also known that human resource management play a big and very important role in
fairness of reward allocation. There are various factors which are affecting the fair and true
human resource management in reward allocation distribution. Competence models is very
good model. It is specially made to give a graphical description in improved manned with the
desired skills which are getting from the company’s techniques and it also encourage
development related to hierarchical and also change (Campion, 2011). It also helps in HR
practices in encouragement of arrangements and to remove the irregularities. The main role is
to increase and influence the employee’s behaviour towards organisation and assist them to
get good and fair rewards (Sanchez and Levine, 2003). If we standards the performance, we
will easily evaluate the performance of every person of organisation in very fair manner. It
will decrease internal equity. The employees can easily find the way to get rewards. Rewards
system will be transparent. So, there should not be any partiality happen with anyone. In
transparent rewards system employee will easily understand that why they did not get
rewards. This will make every member of organisation positive and happy. Employees will
work with free and concentrative mind. Employees should get full knowledge about rewards
and incentives distribution from the organisation. There should be equality in staff. Some
factor that play a vital and fair role is fair rules should be implemented carefully and also
rewards distribution should be carefully managed. The next factor, in reward distribution of
fair human resource management is monitoring by leader, because if leader monitor the
performance of employees then leader will be able to give rewards to employees on the basis
of their performance. Leader will accumulate data a subordinate ought to give fair rewards.
Then chief also have a little knowledge about employees work. Komaki developed three
supervisions to overcome the problems related to rewards. The performance ancestors,
monitoring of performance, performance affects. For impact procedural equity firstly we
have to get a real and right data, so that fair reward should be given to the employees. Higher
management and compensation department should carefully and fairly monitor the
performance of the employees so that the real “organisation justice” will occur.

Rewards distributions have a big impact on work outcomes. Rewards distribution has a good
as well as bad affects on performance. If the rewards are given properly, fairly then it will
give a good work outcomes otherwise bad outcomes. Employee’s career growth leads in the
performance of organisation. Transparency helps employees to get knowledge to get rewards,
which leads in work outcome. Fair reward system has a deep impact on employee’s
performance and work outcomes. HRM practices is connected with fairness in rewards and it

2
can be identify the various thing turnover, job commitment and job satisfaction (Haar, C
2009). When fairness not happened up to mark then bad affects can be seen like robbery, high
turnover goals, anxiety, decreased interest in work, diminished humanity and citizenship,
dissatisfaction and more (Amold, S 2009). Behaviour and reaction of employees towards
organisational life can be seen by fairness in rewards (Welbourne, 1995). The main and
biggest effect of fair reward allocation is that all the workers and employees will work with
their high capabilities and high efficiency; because they will know that the fair reward should
be given on their performance (Clay, Warner 2005). Fair reward allocation is best way to
motivate the workers and employees, it will help to increase the productivity. If the
organisation have not fairness in reward distribution then it will be very difficult to handle the
productivity and employees satisfaction. Rewards distribution should be fair, otherwise
employees will quit their job (Hendrix 1998). Human resources management should work in
equal and fair manner so that they can recover trust of employees and workers. If the fair
rewards are not given the workers will lose their concentration and interest on work, it will
cause the error in work and decrease the reputation, productivity of the organisation. It can
also be said that compensate and attempt are the two different faces of reward distribution
fairness. If there will be proper and fair policies in rewards system, productivity and
employees satisfaction towards job will increase automatically. If the culture of the
organisation will changed from the previous one, it will also help to increase the productivity.
Fairness in policy will also encourage and influence the employees to believe in the
organisation. If the employees start trusting in reward allocation, it will raise the performance
of the employees and also control the productivity. It will lead in good work outcomes. So,
there are both effects of fair rewards.

To conclude, research on fairness in reward allocation is easy and best way to motivate the
employees and to get efficient work from the employees. It is also help to achieve higher
goals and to reach at peak to any organisation. Supervisors who look after and monitors the
performance of employees and workers should give fair rewards. If any organisation is fair in
reward distribution to employees, it will lead in encouraging and also motivating the
employees and workers to do efficient and perfect work to get rewards from organisation.
Fairness in reward allocation can also be say a constructive whereas unfair in reward
allocation is a destructive process. It will lead to de motivates the employee. It will make a
doubt environment in organisation and also dissatisfaction of employee towards their job.
Employees will quit their job at one moment. So, at the end reward allocation fairness will
increase the productivity and job satisfaction of the employees. Everybody will work free of
mind because they will know that the fairness in rewards allocation will be done.

3
References

BUZEA, C, MESESAN-SCHMITZ, L, & van de VIJVER, F 2013, 'Reward-Allocation

Judgments in Romania: A Factorial Survey Approach', Revista De Cercetare Si Interventie
Sociala, 40, pp. 107-123, SocINDEX with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 January 2016.

Andrews, M, Kacmar, K, & Kacmar, C 2015, 'The Interactive Effects of Behavioral Integrity
and Procedural Justice on Employee Job Tension', Journal Of Business Ethics, 126, 3, pp.
371-379, Health Business Elite, EBSCOhost, viewed 2 February 2016.

Thomson, N, & Jones, E 2005, 'Children's, Adolescents', and Young Adults' Reward
Allocations to Hypothetical Siblings and Fairness Judgments: Effects of Actor Gender,
Character Type, and Allocation Pattern', Journal Of Psychology, 139, 4, pp. 349-367,
SPORTDiscus with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 28 January 2016.

Rodwell, J, & Munro, L 2013, 'Relational regulation theory and the role of social support and
organisational fairness for nurses in a general acute context', Journal Of Clinical Nursing, 22,
21/22, pp. 3160-3169 10p, CINAHL with Full Text, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 January 2016.

Ibrahim, I, & Boerhaneoddin, A 2010, 'IS JOB SATISFACTION MEDIATING THE

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AND
ORGANISATIONAL COMMITMENT? A STUDY IN THE MALAYSIAN POWER
UTILITY', Journal Of Global Business & Economics, 1, 1, pp. 43-61, Business Source
Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 January 2016.

Saunders, M, Thonhill, A, & Lewis, P 2002, 'UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES'

REACTIONS TO THE MANAGEMENT OF CHANGE: AN EXPLORATION THROUGH
AN ORGANISATIONAL JUSTICE FRAMEWORK', Irish Journal Of Management, 23, 1,
p. 85, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 January 2016.

Kim, K, Park, H, & Suzuki, N 1990, 'REWARD ALLOCATIONS IN THE UNITED

STATES, JAPAN, AND KOREA: A COMPARISON OF INDIVIDUALISTIC AND
COLLECTIVISTIC CULTURES', Academy Of Management Journal, 33, 1, pp. 188-198,
Health Business Elite, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 January 2016.

Haar, J, & Spell, C 2009, 'How does distributive justice affect work attitudes? The
moderating effects of autonomy', International Journal Of Human Resource Management,
20, 8, pp. 1827-1842, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 January 2016.

Arnold, T, Landry, T, Scheer, L, & Stan, S 2009, 'THE ROLE OF EQUITY AND WORK
ENVIRONMENT IN THE FORMATION OF SALESPERSON DISTRIBUTIVE

4
FAIRNESS JUDGMENTS', Journal Of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 29, 1, pp. 61-
80, Business Source Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 30 January 2016.

Welbourne, T.M., Balkin, D.B., and Gomez-Mejia, L.R. (1995), ‘GAIN SHARING AND
MUTUAL MONITORING: A Combined Agency-organizational Justice Interpretation,’
Academy of Management Journal, 38, 3, pp. 881– 899, EBSCOhost, viewed 1 February 2016

Clay-Warner, J., Reynolds, J., and Roman, P. (2005), ‘Organizational Justice and Job
Satisfaction: A Test of Three Competing Models,’ Social Justice Research, 18, 4, 391– 409.

Hendrix, W.H., Robbins, T., Miller, J., and Summers, T.P. (1998), ‘Effects of Procedural and
Distributive Justice on Factors Predictive of Turnover,’ Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 13, 611– 632

Campion, M. A., Fink, A. A., Ruggeberg, B. J., Carr, L., Phillips, G. M., & Odman, R. B.
(2011). Doing competencies well: Best practices in competency modeling. Personnel
Psychology, 64, 225–262

Cohen, A., and Gattiker, U.E. 1994, Rewards and organizational commitment across

structural characteristics: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 9, No.

2, pp. 137-157.

Dulebohn, J.H., and Martocchio, J.J. 1998, Employee perceptions of the fairness of work

group incentives pay plans. Journal of Management, Vol. 24, No.4, pp. 469-488.

Walster, E., Walster, G. W., & Berscheid, E. (1978). Equity: Theory and research. Boston:

Allyn & Bacon

Deutsch, M. 1975 Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as

the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31, 137-149.

Gooderham, Paul; Fenton-O’Creevy, Mark; Croucher, Richard and Brookes, Michael 2015.

A Multilevel Analysis of the Use of Individual Pay-for-Performance Systems. Journal of

Management.

DEMİR, R, & ACAR, A 2014, 'Compensation Management System from a Business Ethics

Perspective', Turkish Journal Of Business Ethics, 7, 1, pp. 133-148, Business Source

Complete, EBSCOhost, viewed 29 January 2016

5
Sanchez, J. I., & Levine, E. L. (2009). What is (or should be) the difference between
competency modeling and traditional job analysis? Human Resource Management Review,
19(2), 53–63.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of
procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational
settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Komaki, J. L, zlotnick, s., & Jensen, M 1986, developementof an operant-based taxonomy

and observational index of supervising behaviours, journal of applied psychology, 71, 260-
269.

Leventhal, G.S,. Karzua, j., &Fry, W.R, 1980, Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation
preferences, ln, G, Mikula (Ed.), justice and social ingteraction: 167-218, New York:
Springer Verlag.