Developed by Ulrich Grannemann
Fair process in change processes
Justice and change management have a certain similarity. Acceptance of the result (or judgement) doesn’t only depend on the justice of it, but also on the way in which the result was reached: It depends on “fair process”.
Kim and Mauborgne (2005) describe three main areas under the term “fair process”:
|
Engagement
|
Level of attention, type of intercourse: is communication characterised by partnership?
Honesty, quality of the relationship. Is communication seen as open and honest? ‚Engagement‘ describes the “soft factor” in the process. |
|
Explanation
|
Were the reasons that led to the decisions made clear? Are they comprehensible? Were the reasons given in the right form and language and at the right time? Were all background aspects really given or is there an explanation deficit which is filled with negative inventions? Were the existence, significance, resolvability and use (necessity and opportunity) of the process highlighted?
|
|
Expectation Clarity
|
Have the process’ “rules of the game” been clearly defined and
openly communicated? Are the rules and procedure transparent? What is fixed and what can be discussed? What happens to the contributions of those involved? The “C.I.D. design” (rules on communication, information and decision-making of a project) must fit in with the culture of the area. |
The significance of fair process becomes most clear in paradoxical cases in which the fairness of the result (e.g. more money in the form of bonuses) is more than cancelled out by the negatively-viewed fair process.