PERCEPTION Abstract 1:

OF

FAIRNESS

IN

POLICY

IMPLEMENTATION

IN

GHANAIAN

ORGANISATION Purpose: The purpose of the study is to assess employee perception of fairness in policy implementation in the Ghanaian Banking sector and how it affects commitment to work and relationship with management. Design/methodology/approach Primary and secondary data were employed in this study. Primary data was gathered by means of questionnaires. Responses from these questionnaires have been analyzed and inferences made on the outcomes. Secondary data is generally based on the theories of Organizational Justice which may be defined as the study of fairness at work. The theory can be divided into three primary categories: Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactive Justice. Findings: The findings indicate that perception of fairness in policy implementation has a direct correlation with performance drivers such as motivation, commitment and job satisfaction. Limitations: The limitations of the research lie in the fact that only 100 respondents from four institutions were considered. Again, there were some inherent limitations in the SPSS program used. Practical Implication: The research will lay the ground for discussion about the steps to eliminate current problems about organizational justice practices in Ghanaian organizations and will contribute to policy development by these organizations in this regard. Originality / value: This study is significant in examining the concept of justice as a universal value in Ghanaian organizations, enabling comparison with similar studies in other countries; against the background of extensive research in this area, this paper provides additional knowledge in understanding the perception of fairness in policy implementation in Ghanaian organizations. Key words: Organizational justice, Distributive justice, Procedural justice, primary data, secondary data.

CHAPTER 1.0 1.1

INTRODUCTION

Background

Organizations have various systems and structures which help them manage effectively their employees due to the significant role in the achievement of organizational goals and objectives. Performance appraisal and pay systems are the most common policies in most organizations. Fairness in the implementation of these policies is therefore central and plays a critical role in the employees job and should be treated with high importance if organizations wish to achieve the purpose of instituting these policies. Employees beliefs, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors towards work, their colleagues and management are affected greatly by how fairly they perceive they have been treated. Scholars are beginning to recognize that emotions and moods often wield influence over perceptions and behaviors in work and non-work domains (Brief & Weiss, 2002). In addition, Researchers have established that fair treatment leads to positive reactions from people, such as increased job satisfaction (McFarlin & Sweeney, 1992), affection in intimate relationships (Lerner & Mikula, 1994), strategies used in economic transactions (Falk et al., 1999; Desai, 2008), endorsement of political leaders (Tyler et al., 1985), and so on. Pay systems are methods of rewarding people for their contribution to the organization. Ideally, systems should be clear and simple to follow so that workers can easily know how they are affected. They also provide the bases on which an organisation rewards workers for their individual contribution, skill and performance. Pay structures are different - they are used to determine specific pay rates for particular jobs, usually based on the nature of the job, its content and requirements. A pay structure provides the framework within which the organisation places the pay rates for its various jobs or groups of jobs. Pay systems fall into two main categories: Those where pay does not vary in relation to achievements or performance, (basic rate systems), Those where pay, or part pay, does vary in relation to results/profits/performance (including the acquisition of skills).

There are also systems where pay, and any enhancement, is related to the gaining of extra skills or competencies that can allow a worker to carry out a wider range of work, or work at a higher level, and provide opportunities for greater job satisfaction. In many organizations, appraisal results are used either directly or indirectly to help determine reward outcomes. That is, the appraisal results are used to identify the better performing employees as well as the poorer performers. The better performers get the majority of available merit pay increases, bonuses, and promotions while the poorer performing employees may require some form of counseling, or in extreme cases, demotion, dismissal or decreases in pay. Performance appraisal may be defined as a structured formal interaction between a subordinate and supervisor, that usually takes the form of a periodic interview (annual or semi-annual), in which the work performance of the subordinate is examined and discussed, with a view to identifying weaknesses and strengths as well as opportunities for improvement and skills development. Additionally, for the past century, pay communication policy and restrictions preventing access to information regarding the level of other employees pay and ability to exchange personal pay-related information with others (Colella et al., 2007) has been one of the most controversial, yet under-researched topics in the management sciences (Colella, et al., 2007; Gely & Bierman, 2003). It is the employees' perception of the fairness of the reward system, not how satisfied they are with the rewards, that has the stronger effect on their loyalty to the organization. Despite this, very little is known about how pay determination affect employees' satisfaction. Over the last few decades, there have been numerous investigations on how pay is determined. Since the perceived fairness of pay differentials is an important element of pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989) and a key ingredient in a successful compensation system (Milkovich & Newman, 2005), a better understanding of this is very important to the employee and organization Others have also noted that pay secrecy may be deleterious at the policy, firm and individual levels. At the policy level, pay secrecy can have a negative impact on equal employment opportunity and labor mobility because, in the absence of pay information, employees may be unable to recognize and assess the magnitude of discriminatory pay practices, and hence be unable to accurately estimate the possible long-term benefits of changing jobs (Gely & Bierman, 2003, Edwards, 2005).

Pay secrecy can generate perceptions of unfairness which, in the context of equity (Adams, 1963) and expectancy (Vroom, 1964) theories, may hamper employee motivation to perform. Researchers have developed and practitioners have implemented various changes to the evaluation criteria, rating instruments, and appraisal procedures in an effort to improve the accuracy and perceived fairness of the process (Banks & Murphy, 1985). The widespread use of performance appraisal can be attributed to the belief by many managers and human resource professionals that performance appraisal is a critical tool for effective human resource management and performance improvement (Longenecker & Goff, 1992). The assumption appears to be that an effectively designed, implemented, and administered performance appraisal system can provide the organization, the manager, and the employee with a plethora of benefits (Cascio, 1987; Coens & Jenkins, 2000). In spite of its widespread use and the attention or resources applied to it, the practice of formal performance appraisal continues to come under considerable scrutiny and criticism such that dissatisfaction with the process still abounds and systems are often viewed by employees as inaccurate and unfair (Church, 1985). 1.2 OBJECTIVE & PURPOSE

The paper will therefore try to investigate how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with other colleagues, management and how organizations can make use of this information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions. 1.3 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The research hypothesis is as follows: P ( S, C, M) P = (S, C, M) Where P: perception of fairness in policy implementation S: employee satisfaction; C: employee commitment; M: employee motivation

LITERATURE REVIEW Perception

Perception is the process that explains the manner in which information (stimuli) from the environment around us is selected and organized to provide meaning for the individual. (Mullins, 2010). Perception can therefore be described as very complex individual process that yields a unique picture of the world, a picture that may be quite different from reality. In applying this to organization behavior, an employee responds to situations in terms of his/her perceptions. Because perception is largely learned and no one has the same learnings and experience, then every employee has a unique filter, and the same situation /stimuli may produce very different reactions and behaviors in organizations. Because people view things differently in organizations, it is important for policy makers to be mindful of the outcomes of fairness in their implementation. The Workplace Fairness Institute defines Workplace Fairness as the harmony of Justice, Efficiency, engagement and resource sufficiency in workplace conflict management system. Each of these four fairness quotients: justice, efficiency, engagement and resources consist of a number of elements or focuses as listed in the table below: Justice Access Applicability Independence Protection Support Procedures Enforcement Efficiency Interests Alternatives Self-Help Cost Flexibility Education Timelines Engagement Buy-in Involvement Resources Human Facilities Financial Improvement

Legal Source: www.workplacefairness.com (workplace fairness institute) These are the constituent parts of workplace fairness. Workplace fairness is that commodity most sort after by employees managers and employees. Where a workplace meets the standards of fairness listed above it will be a healthier, happier and more productive workplace. This emphasizes the Principles of Three Dimensions of Organizational Fairness and Justice which comprises Distributive, Procedural and Interactional. Distributive fairness, refers to the fairness of the ends achieved or the content of an organizational decision or action (Colquitt et al. 2001; Greenberg 1990) while Distributive justice claims that people compare the ratios of their own perceived work outcomes to their own perceived work inputs with the corresponding ratios of co-workers. Adamss equity theory (1965).

Procedural fairness, on the other hand, refers to the fairness of the means used to reach a specific distributive end (De Cremer et al. 2010; Greenberg 1990). Thus, in assessing fairness of a given decision or action, individuals are likely to be examining both distributive (content) and procedural (process) elements. Also, Procedural justice concerns the fairness of the processes by which a decision is reached. Folger and Cropanzano (1998, p. 26) define procedural justice as fairness issues concerning the methods, mechanisms, and processes employed to determine outcomes. Finally, interactional fairness has been shown to be affected by interpersonal justice or the extent to which individuals feel that they are treated in a manner that is respectful and dignified during a decision process. In addition, interactional fairness is influenced by informational justice, which captures the extent to which individuals are provided with information regarding decisions made, processes used, and actual distributive outcomes (Colquitt et al 2001). Recent research has supported the relationship between organizational characteristics, such as structure and design, and employee fairness perceptions. For example, the level of centrality and size of an organization have been shown to influence employee perceptions of distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness (Schninke, Cropanzano, and Rupp 2002). The four fairness or justice dimensions put into practice The notion that fairness or justice is comprised of four distinct dimensions has received empirical support in recent years. Confirmatory factor analysis has demonstrated that the four dimensions do measure different aspects (e.g., Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al., 2001; Judge & Colquitt, 2004; Kernan & Hanges, 2002; Shapiro, Buttner, & Barry, 1994). Though many studies have been conducted within the area of organizational fairness and justice, there is still no unified concept of fairness which applies to employee fairness perceptions relating to the work environment; instead, the concept of fairness is divided into the various described dimensions (distributive, procedural, interactional / informational and interpersonal justice). Most empirical studies have therefore utilized differing sets of justice measures by selecting from among those which represent the dimensions that, at the time, are believed to be most valid for the phenomenon (Ambrose, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt, 2001). Very few studies have attempted to examine organizational phenomena using all four dimensions, and hardly have any utilized them to study the area of pay. This seems to indicate that there is still a good amount of disagreement among researchers on the precise nature of fairness or justice at the workplace, and may

furthermore be a consequence of the fact that the area of organizational fairness and justice does not have an accepted comprehensive theory to turn to (Latham & Pinder, 2005). This lack of consensus demonstrates that more attention needs to be paid to determining which work- and pay-related factors are related to the four dimensions of justice, which entails looking at what consequences individuals perceptions of whether something is just or not, in respect to performance appraisals and pay, may lead to and then exploring what the conditions are in the work environment that shape these perceptions. Predicting perceptions of justice Many of the studies on organizational fairness and justice have shown that it is primarily factors in the employees surroundings which influence their experiencing of justice (Pfeffer, 1997). This would suggest that an individuals perceptions of justice in respect to the performance appraisals and pay-setting process are shaped by factors at the workplace, including those that relate to the interactions between supervisors and employees. Since ones pay and, thereby, the system it is based on are both of great consequence to most employees, it is not difficult to accept that ones pay level has a role in how just a pay system is perceived to be (Greenberg & Lind, 2000). Although, the impact of monetary rewards in comparison to the effects other work-related factors have on pay attitudes will probably vary depending on what individuals prioritize. Those of different demographic groups, for instance, have been found to prioritize different justice issues (Brockner & Adsit, 1986). The degree of pay justice perceived by individuals of certain occupational groups would likely differ depending on whether, and to what extent, they believe that the pay system is favorable or unfavorable to them as a member of this group. It has also been shown that women and men may react in different ways in connection with the pay-setting process (Kaman & Hartel, 1994; Small, Babcock, Gelfand, & Gettman, 2007). There are also a number of factors in the work climate that are associated with employees perceptions of fairness & justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zapata-Phelan, 2005). An important aspect of individualized pay setting is that the Employees performance is evaluated by someone else; the pay-setting supervisor (Pfeffer, 1997). In order for employees to be able to perform at a level or in a manner which will ultimately lead to a pay raise, they need not only be aware of which pay criteria are prioritized by their organization (Daly & Geyer, 1994; Ilgen, Major, & Tower, 1994), but also need to receive regular feedback from the supervisor on how well their work is progressing. This would allow employees the opportunity to alter their work efforts if so desired (Schaubroeck et al., 1994). Receiving clear and sufficient information in connection with pay-related decisions tends to be important for employees perceptions of justice in respect to the pay-setting process as well as the pay policies behind it (Bies & Moag, 1986; Colquitt & Chertkoff, 2002). But if the

fulfillment of the expected goals or the previously determined pay criteria is to be a real possibility for employees, they must have the ability and leverage necessary to pursue them (Mueller, Iverson, & Jo, 1999), as well as a workload that suits the given work demands (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Consequences of (in) justice Everyone carries with them their own set of prior experiences, and these experiences affect our views on what is fair and unfair (Weiss, Suckow, & Cropanzano, 1999). Because of this, different individuals may reach quite different conclusions about the very same outcome. The various dimensions of fairness and justice have been observed to relate to different outcomes. Distributive and procedural justice/fairness have, for example, been shown to have relatively strong positive relations to job satisfaction (Colquitt et al., 2001), organizational commitment (Ambrose, 2002; Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001), and pay satisfaction (Folger & Konovsky, 1989; Sweeney & McFarlin, 1993). Low levels of interpersonal and informational justice have, on the other hand, been found to lead to more negative outcomes such as withdrawal and other negative reactions (Colquitt et al., 2001; Greenberg, 1990). Previous studies have observed that unfair treatment is strongly related to attitudes, emotions, and behavior (e.g., Barclay, Skarlicki, & Pugh, 2005; Colquitt et al., 2001; Tyler & Lind, 1992). The experiencing of injustice and unfairness can, for example, bring about any of a number of negative emotions, including disappointment, anger, and jealousy (Mikula, Scherer, & Athenstaedt, 1998). These reactions, in turn, can prompt individuals to take some sort of harmful action against the organization (e.g., Greenberg, 1993b; Skarlicki & Folger, 1997). In a study by Ambrose, Seabright, and Schminke (2002), for instance, individuals who believed that they had been unjustly treated at work sometimes sought revenge by engaging in sabotage or stealing. In the earlier literature, much of the focus is on the effects of insufficient organizational justice; since perceived injustice leads to much stronger responses than perceived justice appears to (Folger, Cropanzano, & Goldman, 2005). For employees, their own financial outcomes and the paysetting process are two related areas that tend to raise strong emotions (Pfeffer, 1997). It has been argued, for example, in discussions on expectancy theory (Vroom, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1965), that the pay distribution process in organizations and the financial outcome can have an influence on employees work motivation, a notion which has also received support in more recent studies (Porter, Bigley, & Steers, 2003). It is highly likely that a pay-setting process that is believed to be unjust could have a negative effect on employee motivation. Work motivation can manifest itself in a number of different ways, such as in the quality of work performance, the amount of effort put into work assignments, how well instructions are followed, and the degree of cooperation exhibited. Since these are

aspects which could typically be taken into account in the pay-related criteria of a paysetting process, unmotivated employees may find their future pay raises affected if they do poorly in respect to these aspects. It is therefore important that individuals maintain their motivation in order for this type of pay system to work as intended. When there is a lack of justice regarding the method of pay setting, as with inequitable pay raises or biased methods of work performance evaluation, employees may end up becoming more inclined to quit (Tekleab, Bartol, & Liu, 2005). Insufficient pay justice has also been observed to lead to health-related consequences in that lower levels of pay justice resulted in greater worry as well as sleep difficulties among the employees (Greenberg, 2006). Organisational justice is a significant factor in employee job satisfaction and organisational effectiveness in schools. In a study conducted by Yaylac (2004, p. 197) on organisational citizenship behaviours in schools it emerged that participants opinions about organizational justice in turn influence opinions on organisational citizenship behaviour. In this study there are statistical relationships between the administrators opinions towards organisational citizenship and distributive justice (r 0.33), rectificatory justice (r 0.30), procedural justice (r 0.39) and interactional justice (r 0.34). The respective importance of organisational justice dimensions on administrators organisational citizenship behaviours are as follows: procedural, interactional,distributive and rectificatory justice. In another study on sources of stress in educational management, Pehlivan (1993) found that unfairness in personnel appraisal and failure to attain outcomes created a high level of stress in teachers. Injustice in staff assessment was seen as a source of stress at a moderate level for supervisors and school principals; and at a high level for teachers. On the other hand, not being able to get the income was a source of moderate stress for supervisors and high stress for school principals and teachers. As these results of the foregoing (mainly American) studies reveal, organizational justice is influential in employees organisational behaviours such as organizational citizenship, jobrelated stress, job satisfaction, organisational loyalty, and conflict. However, no research of this kind has been identified in Turkey. In particular, nothing has been found that addresses the dimensions of distributive, procedural, interactional and rectificatory justice. Research has demonstrated that the implementation of merit pay programs can suffer from a number of barriers related to the performance assessment and pay allocation that may impede its intended usefulness. Both the subjective nature of performance appraisals and the use of those appraisals for administrative purposes (such as pay and promotion) can facilitate different forms of bias in performance appraisal (e.g.

Prendergast and Topel, 1996), which results in inaccurate ratings. These biases in performance appraisal, as well as biased pay allocations, can be viewed as violations of organizational justice, and/or as forms of organizational politics. Indeed, research and theory on fairness and politics has identified conditions under which merit pay practices are likely to promote hoped-for and unanticipated outcomes. It is notable, however, that the two lines of literature have developed relatively distinctively, and only recently have there been attempts to integrate them (Ferris et al.,1995). Subsequent research has empirically distinguished the constructs by showing that they have somewhat different antecedents and consequences (Andrews and Kacmar, 2001; Aryee et al., 2004). Furthermore, some recent research has argued and shown that these constructs interact to produce outcomes (Byrne, 2005; Harris et al.,2007). This paper draws from these recent developments and argues that some forms of politics in merit pay systems are more detrimental than others, and employee perceptions of politics and fairness are distinctively and interactively associated with the effectiveness of merit pay systems. Fairness and Conflict in Organizations How employees perceive fairness in the implementation of organizational policies can lead to conflict in the workplace. According to Donais Theory conflict when properly managed can have a tremendous benefit like serving as a catalyst for healthy competition in the workplaces, it brings underlying workplace issues into the open to be resolved, it can also promote a better understanding of differences, it can lead to increased team spirit and properly managed conflict fosters healthy dialogue which can motivate people to raise issues, discuss new ideas , finally it can also dissipate anger when brought to the surface and raise awareness of other peoples needs. However, the cost of conflict as a result of perceived unfairness far outweighs its values. It can lead to huge expenses of formal dispute resolution, decreased individual competence and ineffective working relations, toxic communication, impaired staff and team development, increased absenteeism, increased resignations and dismissals, emotionally charged workplaces, tarnished image, decreased productivity and breakdown in trust of hierarchy. Many of these factors have an effect on the bottom-line of the companys performance. METHODOLOGY Introduction

10

This chapter outlines the methods, models and steps taken to satisfy the objectives of this research which is to investigate how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with other colleagues, management and how organizations can make use of this information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions. It also contains information on the statistical tools used to analyse the collected data. It spells out the implications of the research design that were directly imposed for the purpose of this research. 3.2 Sampling Population The population sample for this research was limited to 100 respondents from some selected companies in the Banking sector. These individuals were selected from the various companies and questionnaires administered to them. The companies used include the following: The Trust Bank Limited Merchant Bank Ghana Limited HFC Bank Limited UBA Bank Limited These companies did not have equal representation in terms of the numbers of staff interviewed and given questionnaires to. 3.3 Method of analysis In assessing how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with other colleagues, management and how organizations can make use of this information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions, this research employed the use of questionnaires where sample questions on the subject area where asked and the responses from the respondent analysed. This method of was useful as it provided insights into several important areas, including the respondents knowledge of existing policies in their organisation, perception of the fairness of the process and respondent thoughts on how various aspect of the policies can be amended to improve the level of fairness. It also revealed the possible outcomes the respondents proposed include resignation if they perceived the systems to be unfair as well as the impact on job satisfaction, motivation and so on. In testing the internal validity of items measuring employees perception of fairness, satisfaction, motivation and commitment the researchers employed Cronbach alpha. An alpha of 0.70 and above measured consistency of items under a particular section.

11

Statistical tool SPSS was applied to the responses obtained to determine whether the perception of fairness in policy implementation has implication on job motivation, satisfaction, relationships between employees and above all the bottom line of the organisation. SPSS is a computer program used for survey authoring and deployment (IBM SPSS Data Collection), data mining (IBM SPSS Modeler), text analytics, statistical analysis, and collaboration & deployment (batch & automated scoring services). SPSS is among the most widely used programs for statistical analysis in social science. It is used by market researchers, health researchers, survey companies, government, education researchers, marketing organizations and others. The original SPSS manual (Nie, Bent & Hull, 1970) has been described as one of "sociology's most influential books".[4] In addition to statistical analysis, data management (case selection, file reshaping, creating derived data) and data documentation (a metadata dictionary is stored in the data file) are features of the base software. Statistics included in the base software: Descriptive statistics: Cross tabulation, Frequencies, Descriptive, Explore, Descriptive Ratio Statistics Bivariate statistics: Means, t-test, ANOVA, Correlation (bivariate, partial, distances), Nonparametric tests Prediction for numerical outcomes: Linear regression Prediction for identifying groups: Factor analysis, cluster analysis (two-step, K-means, hierarchical), Discriminant SPSS offers a user friendliness that most packages are only now catching up to. It is popular, and though that is certainly not a reason for choosing a statistical package, many data sets are easily loaded into it and other programs can easily import SPSS files. As of version 16 and 17 it now is compatible with R and Python (assuming they are installed on the machine), which can give it the functionality it otherwise lacks or would be too clunky in its own syntax. On the other hand, for academic use SPSS lags notably behind SAS, R and even perhaps others that are on the more mathematical rather than statistical side for modern data analysis (e.g. robust and bootstrapping approaches available easily conducted elsewhere are nonexistent or very difficult to do, basic tests of analytical assumptions are often not available). Its menu offerings are typically the most basic of an analysis and sometimes lacking even then, and it makes doing an inappropriate analysis very easy. The default graphics are poor and not easily customizable to make them better. It is expensive, sometimes ridiculously so (e.g. many of its add-ons are free elsewhere or part of the base install for other packages), and even when you do buy you're really only leasing, and its

12

license is definitely not user friendly. versions. 3.4 Limitations:

There are often compatibility issues with prior

Every program has its limitations and unfortunately, SPSS is no exception. Variable names are still limited to 8 characters. If the variable name is longer than 8 characters, and the file is imported from an external source, the variable names are lost and are renamed var001, var002, etc. Variable labels do not import, and must be entered through data definitions. Finally, the output file limits the user's ability to view all of the data in a large correlation matrix; thus, the matrix needs to printed. This reviewer was unable to determine a way of decreasing the size of rows so that more data could fit on the screen. The entire program might be expensive for the casual user because of all of the possible add-on programs available. The good news is that most statistical analyses are contained in the base program, and the purchase of additional programs may not be necessary. Many colleges, universities, hospitals, etc. have special arrangements with SPSS which might alter the cost for individuals associated with those institutions. ANALYSIS, DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents qualitative analysis of the data collected from the respondents. A simple random sample was used to select 90 respondents from two banks in the Greater Accra metropolis. Response to the questionnaires came from various banks in the capital of Accra.

4.2

Presentations of Results % of sample Characteristics % of

Table 4.01, Sample characteristics Characteristics

13

sample (n=90) Gender Male Females Position Manager Supervisor Clerk 58 42 29 41 30 Age 20 - 30years 41 - 50years 51 - 60years 0ver 60years (n=90) 56 29 8 8

Table 4.01 above shows the sample characteristics of the respondents. The first characteristics looked at was the gender of the respondents. From the response, approximately 58 percent were males whilst 42 were females. On their age distribution, 56 percent of the respondents were between 20 to 30 years old, 29 percent were between 41 to 50 years old, 8 percent each were between 51 to 60 years and over 60 years old respective. With regard to the position in organization, 29 percent were managers in the various banks, 41 percent were supervisors, whilst 30 percent were clerks.

Table 4.02, Performance Appraisal system Response Peer Review Appraisal by supervisor Self Appraisal All the above Percent 6.3% 53.4% 23.1% 17.2% Response Once a year Semi-annually Quarterly Monthly Percent 12.6% 26.2% 36.9% 24.3%

From table 4.02 the respondents were asked to enumerate the type of performance appraisal system used in their respective organization. In response, approximately 6 percent indicated their peer review organizations, 53 percent used appraisal system, 23 percent used self appraisal system, whilst 17 percent used all the type mentioned by the researcher. On number of times respondents undergone appraisal approximately 13 percent mentioned once, 26 percent mentioned semi-annually, 37 percent mentioned quarterly, whilst 24 percent mentioned monthly.

Figure 4.01 Factors influencing determination of pay (%)

14

Figure 4.01 above shows the factors influencing the determination of employees pay. From the results of the analysis, 43 percent mentioned rank of employees as a factor influenced pay determination, 31 mentioned qualification, 17 percent mentioned experience 1 percent age whilst 8 percent said pay determination was on individual basis.

Table 4.03 Test of Consistency Cronbach's Alpha Perception of Fairness Job Satisfaction Motivation Commitment 0.904 0.921 0.468 0.460 N of Items 15 9 4 9

In testing the internal validity of items measuring employees perception of fairness, satisfaction, motivation and commitment the researchers employed Cronbach alpha. An alpha of 0.70 and above measured consistency of items under a particular section. In this regard, perception of fairness and job satisfaction shown a high internal consistencies whilst motivation and commitment shown a low internal consistency. But for academic purposes the researcher decided to use the items under motivation and commitment.

15

Table 4.04, One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test Perception of Fairness N Normal Parameters Mean Std. 90 40.97 9.82 0.648 0.796 Job Satisfaction 90 50.77 14.002 0.855 0.457 Motivation 90 10.61 2.582 1.853 0.062 Commitment 90 23.3111 6.58675 1.439 0.082

Deviation Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed)

In addition to validity of data another condition for carrying out a parametric test is that data must be normally distributed. The researchers once again employed Kolmogorov-Smimov test to conclude if total scores for perception of fairness, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment were normally distributed. A p-value > 0.05 indicates data was normally distributed. Clearly total scores for perception of fairness, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment were normally distributed.

Table 4.05, Correlation Matrix Mean Std. D 1 Perception of Fairness 41.0 9.8 2 Job Satisfaction 50.8 14.0 3 Motivation 10.6 2.6 4 Commitment 23.3 6.6 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 1 1 .554** 0.143 .368** 2 1 0.204 .250* 3 4

1 0.064

Table 4.0 above shows a correlation matrix consisting average, standard deviation and Pearson correlation coefficients for score on perception of fairness, job satisfaction, motivation, and commitment. From the results of the analysis, there was a significant positive relationship with scores on perceived fairness between job satisfaction, and commitment; (r(90) = 0.554, p-value < 0.05) and (r(90) = 0.368, p-value < 0.05) respectively. However not signification correlation exist between perception of fairness and employee motivation; (r(90) = 0.143, p-value < 0.05). There was also significant weak correlation between job satisfaction and organizational commitment; (r (90) = 0.316, pvalue = 0.05). The above results suggested that higher perception of fairness in organizations sampled leads to higher job satisfaction and commitment. Conversely lower perception of fairness may lead to lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

16

Table 4.06 Independent sample t-test Male Mean 40.4 49.92 Std. D 9.89 13.6 Female TPerception of Fairness Job Satisfaction Mean 41.74 51.92 Std. D 9.79 14.62 P-value 0.528 0.507 Statistics -0.634 -0.666

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare scores on perceived fairness, and job satisfaction against gender of respondents and the results of the analysis displayed in table 4.04 above. There was no significant difference in the scores on perceived fairness for males (M = 40.40, SD = 9.89) and scores for females (M = 41.74, SD = 9.79) perceived fairness; (t (90) = -.634, p > 0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in scores on job satisfaction for males (M = 49.92, SD = 13.6) and females (M = 51.92, SD = 14.62), job satisfaction; t (90) = -0.666, p > 0.05). The results shown that, differences in perceived fairness levels experienced by respondent were not significant for males and females. Hence male and females on the average had similar perception of fairness in their organizations. In addition job satisfaction was also not significant across gender of the respondents. From the results the researcher can conclude with a high level of confidence that, job satisfaction did not differ significantly for males and females.

Table 4.07 Analysis of Variance Table (ANOVA) Motivatio Job Satisfaction PAge group 20 - 30years 41 - 50years 51 - 60years 0ver 60years Mean 50.16 54.35 42.29 50.29 value 0.226 F 1.48 n PMean 11.46 9.62 10.57 8.29 value 0.001 F 5.787 Mean 22.72 25.57 20.14 22.28 P-value 0.153 F 1.80 4 Commitment

To explore the analysis further the researcher employed one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) find out if differences exist in scores on job satisfaction, employee motivation and organizational commitment across the four age groups. Scores on job satisfaction and organizational commitment were not significantly different across the age groups; job satisfaction F (3, 86) = 1.48, p > 0.05, and organizational commitment F (3, 86) = 1.80, p >

17

0.05. On the other hand job motivation was significantly different across the age groups; F (3, 86) = 5.79, p < 0.05. in conclusion the researchers can say that age groups provided above did not influence employees job satisfaction and organizational commitment. That is employers may be providing the level of condition of service for the respondents regardless of the age, which lead to similar level of satisfaction experienced culminating into similar organizational commitment. This is evident from table 4.03 above job satisfaction and organizational commitment correlated positively. However differences exist in levels of employee motivation across the age groups. it clear from the analysis that the highest motivated cohort was respondents who were between 20 and 30 years old with a mean score of 11.46, followed by respondent who were between 51 and 60 years old also with a mean of 10.57, whilst the least, motivated cohort was respondents who were over 60 years old.

Table 4.08, ANOVA Motivatio Job Satisfaction PPosition Manager Superviso r Clerk Mean 48.62 52.81 50.04 value 0.483 F 0.73 3 n Mean 10.42 10.57 10.85 Pvalue 0.829 Commitment F 0.18 8 Mean 22.42 25.35 21.37 P-value 0.04 F 3.35 1

A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used once again to test if differences exist in scores on job satisfaction, employee motivation and organizational commitment, across the three levels of positions held in an organization. Scores on job satisfaction and employee motivation was not significantly different across the position in an organization; job satisfaction F (2, 88) = 0.483, p > 0.05) and employee motivation F (2, 88) = 0.829, p > 0.05), whilst organizational commitment was significantly different across position in an organization. Hence the researchers can conclude that position held in organization influence organizational commitment. From the average scores supervisors have the highest average score on organization commitment. The reason might be the sensitive role they played in an organization. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study sought to investigate the perception of fairness of policy implementation in a Ghanaian organisation and how the perception of fairness affects work, relationship with

18

other colleagues and management. It also sought to investigate how organizations can make use of this information to be more receptive and fair to the implementation of HR policies of pay determination, performance appraisals, pay communication and pay appeal decisions. To perform this analysis, a sample of 100 respondents from some selected companies in the Banking sector were selected and statistical tools and SPSS was employed on their responses to questionnaires. The study established that respondents had a general knowledge of how pay improved motivation, job satisfaction and performance of the companies. Perception of fairness and job satisfaction shown a high internal consistencies whilst motivation and commitment shown a low internal consistency. But for academic purposes the researcher decided to use the items under motivation and commitment. A larger number of respondents acknowledge that the way they perceive fair or equity had a direct correlation with their performance and would not even mind leaving the organization just to serve as a means of correcting any perception of unfairness. Largely respondents perceive the various policy implementations as fair with the organisations having some appeal mechanism in place to discuss the various irregularities that may result in the implementation process. This we believe may be as a result of the sample size chosen since most banks are good policies on human resources. The results of the analysis served to verify the hypothesis that the perception of fairness in policy implementation has a direct relationship with the commitment, motivation and job satisfaction which have direct and positive relationship with organisational performance and goal achievement. From the analysis, the perception of fairness drive productivity and performance through the above factors and this was in line with existing literature on the subject matter. The following were some of the limitations encountered during the analysis of the performance of the companies. In measuring performance, the influence of managerial competencies, high calibre employees and organisational policies were ignored due to the fact that human capital cannot be measured quantitatively. In addition, SPSS analysis has its inherent limitations. Finally, an equal number of companies could not be selected from the various sectors within the economy to enable a fair view of the perception across a wider sample size. 5.2 Conclusions

19

With reference to the above discussion and analysis of the perception of fairness in the implementation of inferred: There is a positive relationship between the perception of fairness of policy implementation on employee commitment, motivation and job satisfaction. Employees are likely to be demotivated, unsatisfied and uncommitted in environment where the perception of fairness is low. This may lead to poor performance and high turnover. The perception can however be influenced by some other factors including the role and position of the individual employee in the organisation. policy in Ghanaian organisation, the following conclusions can be

5.3 Recommendations The findings of the study indicate that organisational justice and fairness has great advantages to companies in terms of their profitability and future growth potentials. Efforts must therefore be directed at encouraging the following: 1. Communication Information on organizational policies is made available and understandable, policy forms are in plain and simple language, employees are provided with information they need, and are treated with courtesy. 2. Facilities and Services Other means of communication should be available, the office responsible for implementation is easily accessible, organizational environment is safe and healthy, and employes privacy is observed. 3. Decision Procedures Decision makers have a chance to give information and evidence to support their stance, decisions are done within a reasonable amount of time, and reasons for the decisions are explained. 4. Appeal, Review, and Complaint Procedures People are told immediately of any existing appeal or review, complaints procedures are clearly defined, and solicitation of ideas from the employee to improve services. 5. Organizational Issues Staffs are given clear titles for the role that they assume in the organization, agencies consider if reorganization would amplify the quality of service, and inter-agency cooperation is nurtured. 6. Agency Review and Planning

20

Employee participation in program planning is encouraged, explanation is provided from the beginning about how decision-making process is reached, and provision of data needed to evaluate and improve performance is archived. All the above would further enhance the perception of fairness in the organization which would boost the performance and profitability of the organization though motivated, committed and satisfied employees. REFERENCES:

Bobinski D. (2006), The Hidden Costs of Conflict, http://www.hodu.com/conflictcost.shtml Cram J. A. and MacWilliams R. K., The Cost of Conflict in the Workplace, http://www.crambyriver.com/coc.html [25 January 2011]. Slaikeu K. A. and Hasson R. H. (1998), Controlling the Costs of Conflict: How to Design a System for Your Organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, xii. Pearson C. & Porath C. (2009), The Cost of Bad Behaviour. New York: Hart R., McDonald J., Rock S. (2004),The Mind-Body Connection: Workplace Conflict, Stress & the Risk of Injury, EHSToday, The Magazine for Environment, Health and Safety Leaders, 29 July 2004

Dana D., The Dana Measure of Financial Cost of Organizational Conflict, 2001, Alberta Ombudsman Administrative Fairness Guidelines Web Page.

http://www.ombudsman.ab.ca/natural-justice.php

Allesandra, T. & OConnor, M.J. (1996). The platinum rule: Discover the four basic business personalities and how they can lead you to success. Victoria, Canada: Warner Business Books.

Anastaplo, G. (1983). Aristotle on law and morality. 3 Windsor (Ontario) Yearbook of Access to Justice. 458-464. Buch, K. (2010). The role of fairness in the workplace.

http://blogs.managementconcepts.com/lm/leadership/2010/06/the-role-of-fairness-inthe-workplace

Constitutional

Rights

Foundation

(2008),

Bill

of

Rights

in

Action

24,

(2).

http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-24-2-c-the-development-ofconfucianism-in-ancient-china.html

Dunford, J. (2010). Review of the childrens commissioner (England). Presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Education by Command of Her Majesty.

21

Fowlie, F. (2008). A blueprint for the evaluation of an ombudsmans office: A case study of the iCANN office of the ombudsman. Guth, W., Schmittberger, R., & Schwarse, B. (1982). An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 3, 367-388. Heslin, P.A. (1998). Negotiating effectively: The role of fairness. Journal of St. James Ethics Society. Rawls, J. (Second Edition, May 2001). Justice as fairness: Leventhal, G. S. (1976). The Distribution of Rewards and Resources in Groups and Organizations. in AL. Berkowitz And E. Walter (Eds.) Advances In Experimental Social Psychology , (Vol. 9, 91-131). Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What Should Be Done With Equity Theory? In Gergen, K. J., Greenberg, M.S., and Willis, R. H. (Eds.) Social Exchange Advances In Theory And Research, . 27-55. NY: Plenum. Levinson, H. (1965). Reciprocation: The Relationship between Man and the Organization. Administrative Science Quarterly, 9, 370-390. Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R. and Earley, R. (1990). Voice, Control and Procedural Justice: Instrumental and Non-Instrumental Concerns In Fairness Judgments. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.

Lind, E. A. and Tyler, T. R. (1988). The Social Psychology Of Procedural Justice. NY, Plenum. Locker, A.H. and Teel, K.S. (1988). Assessment: Appraisal Trends. Personnel Journal, 67, 139-145. Longenecker, C.O. and Goff, S.J. (1992). Performance Appraisal Effectiveness: A Matter of Perspective. Advanced Management Journal. 57, 2, 18-23. Longenecker, C.O. Gioria, D.A. and Sims, H.P. (1987). Behind the Mask: The Politics of Employee Performance Appraisal. Academy Of Management Executive, 1, 183-193. Internet Research through search engines ( google)

APPENDIX I - QUESTIONNAIRE PERCEPTION OF ORGANISATION Questionnaire Section A Please specify the following: 1. Name of organization . FAIRNESS IN POLICY IMPLEMENTATION IN A GHANAIAN

22

2. Year you joined organization 3. Your rank 4. Age 20-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 Over 60

5. Sex 6. Male Female

7. Which of the following influences the determination of your pay? Rank Qualification Experience Age On individual basis Other [please specify].. 8. Do you know who determines your pay?

Yes

No

9. If you answered yes to question 8; then tell us who and do think the approach is fair? . . . Section B On a scale of 1-5, please indicate by ticking ( ) the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements when it comes to your perception of fairness in policy implementation in your organization. 1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization?

23

1. Determining the pay for your job 1 2 3 4 5

2. Determining pay raises 1 2 3 4 5 5

3. How your pay raises are determined 1 2 3 4 5 5

4. Determining the pay for your job relative to higher and lower level jobs than yours. 1 2 3 4 5 5

5. The frequency of pay raises 1 2 3 4 5

1=Very Unfair,

2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair

How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization? 6. Communicating pay policies and procedures 7. Communicating pay issues of concern to you 8. Answering questions about how your pay is determined Section C 1=Strongly Disagree, Agree In administering the pay plan, your supervisor: 1. Represents your pay interest with upper management 2. Is concerned about the amount of money that you receive 3. Backs you up when he/she feels that you have legitimate complaints about your pay 4. Is concerned that your work group gets its fair share of the pay budget. 2=Disagree, 3=Indifferent, 4=Agree, 5=Strongly

24

5. Is frank and candid with you about pay issues. 6. Is honest and ethical in dealing with you about your pay 7. Is truthful and honest about pay issues that affect you. 8. Applies the same standards to everyone when making pay decisions. Section D 1=Not at all accurate Accurate Have you had the opportunity to express your opinion with management about? 1. The way pay is allocated within the organization 2. The pay for your job 3. Your pay raises 4. Your benefit package In administering the pay plan, your supervisor: 5. Allows you to express opinions about pay decisions 6. Gets your input before making a recommendation about your pay raise. 1=Not at all accurate Accurate In administering the pay plan, your supervisor: 7. Answers questions about your pay and benefits 8. Answers your questions about your pay and benefits procedures 9. Lets you know about changes in pay procedures which may affect your pay. 10. Explains the reason(s) for the size of your pay raise. 1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very

How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization? 1. Appealing pay decisions 2. Resolving disagreements about your pay. Section E What type of performance appraisal is used in your organization?

25

Peer Review Appraisal by Supervisor Self Appraisal All of the above Other [please specify] How many times do you undergo appraisal? Once a year Semi-annually Quarterly Monthly 1=Very Unfair, 2=Unfair, 3=Indifferent, 4=Fair, 5=Very Fair

How do you feel about the fairness of the procedures below in your organization? 3. Gathering information used to evaluate your performance 4. Evaluating your performance 5. Appealing performance evaluations Section F 1=Not at all accurate Accurate In administering the pay plan, your supervisor: 11. Becomes familiar with your performance before evaluating it 12. Uses relevant information to appraise your performance. 13. Obtains accurate information to appraise your performance 14. Uses consistent standards when evaluating your performance. 15. Frequently observes your performance 16. Explains the reason for your performance appraisal 17. Considers your complaints about performance appraisals. Section G 2=Not accurate 3=Indifferent 4=Accurate 5=Very

26

1=Not at all accurate Accurate

2=Not accurate

3=Indifferent

4=Accurate

5=Very

In administering the pay plan, your supervisor: 18. Allows personal motives or bias to influence performance appraisal ratings 19. Is influenced by things that should not be considered in his/her pay decisions. 20. Shows a real interest in trying to be fair in his/her pay decisions 21. Does not show favoritism in his or her pay decisions Section H 1=Strongly Disagree 2=Disagree 3=Agree 4=Strongly Agree

1. You were involved in setting the performance expectations for the review period. 2. Performance expectations were reviewed as and when necessary. 3. The supervisor considered the important aspects or your work when rating you. 4. The supervisor rated you on how well you did your job not on his or her personal opinion of you. 5. The supervisor treated you with consideration when giving you your performance appraisal results 6. The supervisor who evaluated you showed concern for your rights as an employee. 1=Not at all 2=A little bit not fair 3=Satisfactory 4=Very Much

7. Overall, how hard did the supervisor who rated your performance try to be fair to you? 8. Overall, how fairly were you treated by the supervisor who rated your performance? 9. Overall, do you think policies relating to pay and performance appraisal is fair in your organization? What will be your next line of action if you think the policies are not fair? Fight for reforms Resign Leave when I find a new job

27

I will stay I will stay but my work output will be reduced. Other [please specify]

28