The Hats of HR- Part 2; the Judge

27 Nov

This is a free article you might find interesting. It’s also a sample of our knowledge and how we can help you get a bit better at your job, and/or how we can help you fix a problem. If you’re interested in our consultation services, contact us.

This should go without saying but disclaimer: The information provided below is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal, financial, medical, or other professional advice. You should consult with a qualified professional for specific advice tailored to your circumstances.

If you’re interested learning more about this topic, we have courses: how to partner a business unit covers this sort of thing, as does settling conflict or you can find all of our courses here.

If you have 10 seconds, please complete this survey. It helps us know what people want to know.

That’s a fancy title ‘Judge’ but don’t put it on your business card. Depending on the industry, the company, the culture and/or the workforce, it’s a hat you may wear often, rarely or never. Previously I’ve talked about being the champion of justice (here)- the prosecutor, but sometimes you instead sit in the big chair, as the judge. And that’s a different role, with a different hat (a wig maybe).

The following is not something HR will deal with exclusively, often it will just be involved. But also- who does? The CEO? They can’t sort out everything, and you’d hope they have bigger issues to sort out than whether Ben from Accounts or Sharon from Sales get the desk next to the window, so HR often steps in to help.

Tribes need judges

To quickly skim millennia of human history- at least since recorded history began (and very likely before) a group of people requires an arbitrator role within them. Currently this is the judiciary, but historically this role was often performed by the group leader- the chief, the king, the baron, the oligarch. Considering many organisations are easily larger than what is speculated to be a natural tribal size (approximately 150 people- if you’re curious, look up Dunbar’s number), it’s beyond the scope for self-resolving, so people look to management to resolve.

So concepts of what is ‘fair’ and what is ‘deserved’ turn up again and again in the workplace. How, and why- you’d need to talk to a sociologist or psychologist, but take it as given that people have different expectations of fairness, and someone in management needs to decide what has happened, who is wrong, and what remedies are appropriate, and/or what happens next, and what will determine the problem resolved. Either that someone is you, or a manager or both.

Types of problems

Let’s discuss some problem archetypes we see. There’s more, but let’s hit the key ones only.

Corrective justice

The most common and straightforward is a victim & perpetrator problem, where one employee is alleged to perpetrated an injustice against another. This can range from severe (e.g. bullying, harassment, assault) to moderate (e.g. rude or abrasive conduct) to minor (e.g. careless of indifferent disruptive behaviour, not completing collaborative work on time). Ideally this is where we help management investigate, consider, and decide under a fair disciplinary policy, but often we play a large role in this process.

Distributive justice

Other forms of conflict that requires the employer to step in and make a call, is where individuals have a conflict of interests. This can be who gets what resources (office space, car park, stapler, the bigger pay raises), or who gets prioritized, or who get a negative outcome due to diminished organisational resources (as extreme as redundancy).

A good example is hot desking- as organisation are currently reducing their workspace spend (in part due increasing work from home) employees are being asked to share spaces, which can lead to employe-employee conflict for favourable desks. If you’ve not had someone complaint about so-and-so leaving their stuff on the better desk, don’t worry- it’s coming.

Inter-group justice

At a different scale, groups also have conflicts of interest. While appearing petty and childish, it’s common and unavoidable human behaviour. In the Second World War, both Japan and the USA had severe and sometimes disastrous inter-group rivalry between the navy and the army as they battled for control of resources and prioritization. In the workplace this very common, as the performance and prioritization’s of one department has downstream impacts on another, and some this can be resolved through cooperation and collaboration, often these conflicts get escalated for arbitration. Typically this doesn’t require HR input, but its good to be aware of them.

Right, vs fair, vs deserved, vs best, vs best for business

I’m going to avoid using the term ethics, because that’s a vast area of intellectual consideration, and something people think of as incongruous to the workplace. But when we are making decisions on what is fair and deserved, ethics is part of the equation.

What is the right outcome is often determined by our criteria- whether we are trying to establish what is right, or what is fair, or what is deserved, or what is best, or what suits the interests of the company the best. To explain, let’s use an example.

When deciding who gets the better office, we could pick one person over the other because it’s right (e.g they had the worse office before and now it’s the right thing to do to give it them), it’s fairly decided (e.g. you flipped a coin), it’s deserved (e.g. their a longer serving employee), it’s best (they’re in the office more), or it’s best for business (they earn more money for the company, so better to keep them happy).

In short, there is no right way to decide, although many will have an opinion. BUT at least knowing what you’re values are, what your values are, is half the journey. And before you assert to yourself that your organisation prioritises doing what is right instead of what is fair- let me stop you there. Are there groups in your business paid more than others? Sales/research/product development/the executive? this is ‘fair’? or is it just best for business because they drive the success? See, it’s complicated.

HR’s role

As discussed above, it’s often not our role to make the decision. But often we are involved- either because the problem has been raised through us, or we have be drawn into the process by the deciding manager. As people subject matter experts, we are brought into assist with the process of understanding the problem, and navigating towards the best solution. Sometimes we take on specific roles- in the case of internal mediation, it falls to us to facilitate and mediate between the parties. In allegations against another employee, it falls on us to investigate the allegation.