Justice

On the basis of the work written by László Balogh and Andrea Rédli (2010)

„Sport is an abstract notion most of all. A sports team is the miniature picture of society, and a contest is the symbol of the grand struggle for life. Here, during the contest, sport teaches the most important civil virtues within a short time: cooperation, self-sacrifice, the subordination of individual needs, endurance, the readiness to act, the way quick decisions are made, personal judgement, absolute respectability, and, above all, the rules of fair play, i.e., the rules of the grand game.”(Albert Szent-Györgyi, 1930)[1]

International experience shows that although Hungarian sports teams still have leading positions in certain sports and internationally recognised results in some sports (such as water polo or handball), there is an urgent need for the application of new and exact findings of the studies in sports science in order to maintain such positions and catch up with other sports teams (for example, in basketball, football, or volleyball). Furthermore, one should also bear in mind that there have been several alternative techniques these days, thus sports experts should weigh in each case which one is the most suitable for practical use.

The aim of this chapter is to discuss players’ perception of ethical (or unethical/unfair) decisions within an organisation that is not frequently manifest but rather latent. To this end, the results of questionnaires partly validated by others and some validated by us have been used as a new method.

The notion of fairness does not only appear in ethics, law, or politics, but it is also present in the case of sport. Justice/fairness provides a normative description for individuals to be able to decide whether certain situations concerning them and their actions are considered “ethical” or “unethical” according to certain rules and values.

George C. Homans (1961) described to notion of justice in his book entitled Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. He studied the perceived fairness of how rewards and costs are shared by groups and group members. He was the first to introduce the rules of distributive justice, and illustrated the application of the same in various social contexts (Deutsch, 1982).

Homans also stated the following concerning distributive justice:

• The distribution of rewards is unjust if one individual receives a bigger share than expected compared with the share received by another.
• It might be expected by employees to have such shares of rewards and costs that are proportionate to the ratio of their gains and losses.
• Individuals who feel to be treated in an unjust way and are filled with anger and try to express their feelings to make those who are responsible know about it.
• Those who are unfair to others tend to feel guilty and normally make attempts to compensate for one’s loss.
• We tend to compare ourselves to the people around us when trying to decide about the fairness of the distribution of rewards.

J. Stacy Adams (1965) used the notions of inputs and outcomes in his theory, which is built on Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory. According to this model, individuals tend to compare themselves to others around them all the time. Unjust treatment occurs if one’s input/outcome ratio is less/more than that of another individual’s, i.e., there is inequality between one’s own and another person’s input/output ratios.

Adams also suggested that it is not only the absolute amount of rewards that counts, but it is the relative amount that is critical when equity is estimated. This approach is based on the assumption that people are motivated to maintain meaningful relationships with others (in which they feel to be treated justly), and they make attempts to change any relationship that lacks such qualities (in which they feel to be treated in an unjust way).

There are three main types of justice:

1. Distributive justice
2. Procedural justice
3. Interactional justice (interpersonal and informational)

1) Distributive justice: outcomes and the results of distribution are of key significance (for instance, pay, bonus, money paid after matches)

Are resources distributed equally according to the principles shared by all the members of a group? Do members receive the amounts they expect? There are several principles and factors that might influence decision-making in such cases.

Principles of distribution:

1. Proportionate to performance: the more one performs, the more he will receive.
2. Equality of distribution: everyone receives an equal share of rewards, regardless of how much input they have in the accomplishment of a goal.
3. Distribution according to needs: those members may obtain bigger shares of resources who are in greatest needs, regardless of how much input they have in the accomplishment of a goal.

According to Deutsch (1982), the principles of distribution are generally applied on the basis of the relationships between parties: the distribution of rewards is proportionate to performance/inputs in competitive relationships, whereas rewards are distributed equally in cooperative relationships. In addition to this, relationships based on emotions are characterised by the distribution according to the needs of individuals. There are disadvantages of each type of distribution too. Distribution proportionate to performance generates too much competition, envy and enmity in sports or in individuals’ private lives. Equal distribution creates the possibility of stowaway behaviour, which means that certain individuals might invest a smaller amount of input into the accomplishment of a task, and it is impossible to differentiate between their performance and that of others. The last principle, i.e., the distribution according to the needs of employees might offend one’s sense of justice.

The fairness of distribution might be classified into the following 4 categories on the basis of whom it concerns (Eckel-Grossman, 1997, see Faragó, 2003):

1. Fairness to oneself: one weighs whether rewards and costs are allocated fairly, which includes the comparison of one's own outcomes to others' outcomes. (Adams, 1965)
2. Fairness to others (altruism): an individual also focuses on others when the allocation of rewards and costs takes place at his expense (giving something away).
3. Fairness to ourselves: parties expect others to return their kindness.
4. Fairness to everyone: at the expense of individuals, everyone receives equal amounts of shares when rewards and costs are distributed according to social norms (or those of the team).

Fairness usually comes under scrutiny when any unfavourable situation takes place. Parties who are concerned might be influenced by egocentric bias, and they tend to favour circumstances that are beneficial to themselves and consider unfavourable ones to be unjust. The occurrence of such biases might give rise to a number of conflicts. If an individual is treated in an unjust way, he will react to that somehow (Sass, Bodnár, 2008).

How do we normally respond when treated unfairly?

• We tend to modify our inputs.
• We tend to convince others to punish those who work less or invest a smaller amount of input.
• We tend to lower performance.
• We tend to encourage others to invest a larger amount of input.
• We tend to decrease the amount of shares that others receive from the total amount of rewards.

• We tend to join another group, leaving the problems behind.
• We tend to look for more suitable employees/colleagues.

2) Procedural justice: refers to the fairness of the processes by which decisions are made (for instance, how certain tasks are allocated, or on the basis of what players are chosen for a starting lineup, whom are called upon to play as substitutes during a game, etc.).

Trust, the development of which has been described in a previous section, mainly appears in the case of the evaluation of this type of justice. The fairness of a leader or a trainer is judged on the basis of how honest and believable the intentions of such individuals seem to be. Apart from trust, decision-making based on integrity and objectivity is of key importance. Procedural justice might apply to the following:

• Values – what kind of values determine how decisions are made (abilities, effort)
• Rules – the construction of rules according to a group’s shared principles (the number of references to other cases or their importance when evaluating a situation)
• The observation of rules – how much rules are followed by members
• The unfairness of decision-making processes – although individuals or players agree with the principles and rules and the observation of the same, they think they are responsible for the creation of all the rules and principles

The perception of the fairness of certain procedures also depends on the so-called structural factors, for example:

• the publicity and traceability of judgement/evaluation
• the impartiality of those who evaluate (unbiased individuals) it
• democratic decision-making processes
• unbiased (based on precise information)
• ethical (the maintenance of moral norms)
• the chances of correction (possibility of modification)
• consistency (no conflicting features, reliability)
• attention is paid to the interests of every concerned party (Lenethal, 1976, in Mező, Kovács, 1999)

Other important aspects:

• reasons are given, choices are justified
• correct treatment
• regular feedback (Folger-Bies 1989, see Mező, Kovács, 1999)

People find it especially important to be treated in an appropriate way when issues that concern their lives are discussed, and they also expect others to respect human rights and dignity at the same time. These social-interactional elements are related to relationships. Procedural justice is one of the primary conditions for the emergence of trust towards an organisation, club or management. According to the findings of a study (Mező-Zala, 2000), procedural justice has proven to be more important for individuals than distributive justice.

3) Interactional justice:

It refers to the quality of communication experienced by individuals (team members, trainers, club leaders).

Interpersonal justice reflects the degree to which people are treated with respect during any procedure. The clarity of communication: individuals avoid the use of inappropriate language and remarks.

Informational justice ensures honest and open communication while reasons and justification are given and players receive adequate information when listening to explanations (for example, trainers pay attention to any suggestion of a player).

Appropriate explanations should be given prior to and during any procedure too.

Annex 1 summarises the results of a study conducted among national sports teams. This research was carried out in two phases. First of all, attempts were made to identify and categorise those unjust situations that the most frequently occur in sports organisations having interactive sports teams. Then a questionnaire was compiled on the basis of the received answers. The theoretical background of the Questionnaire on Organisational Justice enables us to analyse this key component of psychological contracts.

It is advisable for sports leaders and trainers to study the factors listed in the questionnaire carefully in order to see a number of hidden components which are present in the daily workings of organisations affecting organisational behaviour.

Justice and organisational fairness are two factors that should receive much more attention; however, research into these issues has only been conducted for some decades now in Hungary, which also proves how relevant our findings are.