The Pursuit of Fairness
Posted on | May 19, 2010 | 1 Comment
Originally published on Fresh Business Thinking earlier today.
In the Election campaign that ended earlier this month, two of the three main Political Parties in the UK included the concept of fairness in their slogans. The Liberal Democrat manifesto talked of “change that works for you – building a fairer Britain”, and the Labour Party proposed a ‘future fair for all’. As was to be expected in manifesto slogans, both are very aspirational, even idealistic. Despite the loss of seats that both parties sustained, it is clear that people do respond positively to the idea of fairness but are maybe not clear on what it means in practice.
Definitions of fairness talk of such concepts as equity, justice, even handedness. One definition of fair reads ‘free from favouritism or self-interest or bias or deception; conforming with established standards or rules’. Is fairness something that business can, or should, aspire to deliver in a competitive marketplace?
Business and personal life is full of decisions. They define our journey. Some are universally applauded whilst others evoke the response of Kevin the teenager (as played by Harry Enfield) – “that is so unfair!” What is it that determines the response?
For a decision to be needed there has to be more than one possible outcome. If some people desire one outcome and others desire a different one, there is likely to be an element of unfairness in the result. The decision process however, should be perfectly fair. Whilst some decisions appear to have a win/win outcome, a set of circumstances where all gain something, can all gain what they want? More than likely there will be a compromise for some or all of the parties.
Perhaps most decisions are to some degree zero-sum, where for one party to win, the others must lose. Where the outcome is win/win, neither gets all that they want. In such cases, it is then dependent on how much each can gain and how acceptable that is, especially when taken with other decisions that may be made over time. We all accept that ‘we win some and we lose some’ and we all tend to have a ’bottom line’ position that we will accept if we can’t achieve the desired outcome.
The English Premier League of Football was recently decided between Chelsea and Manchester United. Each won their final game emphatically. Yet, because of the results over the whole season, Chelsea had one more point and became Champions of the Premiership. Was that fair? By the ‘rules and standards’ of the league, it was. Did both get what they wanted? No. Manchester United and Chelsea both wanted to be Champions but only one could be – the definition of a zero-sum game. Would it have been better if it had been ‘fairer’? Where all of the teams would have been in mid-table on equal points, having drawn all of their matches? I think not. There would not have been any reason to follow the ups and downs of your team if there were no clear winners and losers. The Teams and the Premier League would count that as a financial disaster.
Prisoner’s dilemma is an example of a game where there is a ‘fair’ outcome but only if both parties play a particular strategy whilst not knowing what the other has chosen. In the game, if both prisoners deny involvement they will both be able to leave as free men. If one denies and the other chooses to betray him, the one who is betrayed will be jailed and the betrayer goes free or is favourably treated. If both betray each other, both will be jailed. If they play purely for themselves – both may lose.
You might reasonably ask, so what? If we believe that fairness is possible and should be always be the outcome, then the decision making process can be extended possibly ad infinitum – especially if the decision can only be zero sum. If we seek the best outcome for all parties, we can construct a solution that gives a quicker and workable solution. The idea of fairness for all brings to mind Garrison Keiler and his description of the fictional Lake Wobegone – “where all the children are above average.” A great concept but probably not achievable in practice and certainly not one that would inspire people to perform to their best.
I believe that we can seek to improve the lives and experiences of all of our people by bearing in mind the needs and wants of all parties when we make decisions. However, as the Premier League shows, it is not always possible – or desirable – to accommodate them. So long as the process is even-handed and the rules and standards are clear and open, there is nothing wrong in a decision making process where there are winners as well as losers. In fact, I would suggest that we are more comfortable with that approach.
So, in business, fairness is not about an equal division of outcomes nor is it some mathematical formula to ensure even handedness. Fairness is a process that is transparent, that all can understand and with which they can engage, that takes into account all desired outcomes and produces a decision that is explicable and explained.
You cannot please all of the people all of the time, but you can do your best to ensure that you don’t significantly displease groups of them. That’s good leadership.
Andy Coote is a professional writer and co-author of A Friend in Every City (2006), a book about Social Networking and Business. As a commentator on leadership and networking, Andy provides content strategy, writing support and services for a number of Business Leaders. You can reach him at andy [at] bizwords [dot] co [dot] uk or view his website at www.bizwords.co.uk.
Andy edits the Virtual CEO Newsletter which appears each week on Fresh Business Thinking and showcases the members, leaders and professional speakers whose input forms the resource available to all Academy members. More at www.chiefexecutive.com.
Comments
One Response to “The Pursuit of Fairness”
Leave a Reply
Networked Blogs
Join Email List
May 19th, 2010 @ 11:54 am
Interesting post Andy, fairness always seems to resonate with the buyer in business and not with the seller sadly. Win/win is essential for all businesses and when driving down prices to get the best for one business, they can be immune to the damage it causes another, fair and fairness are indeed dangerous rules.
As a person I try to play by the rules and I expect others to do so as well, a few times that it has happened others had not abided by their rules and lied, it has left a bitter taste in my mouth and an outright refusal to do business with them again.