Procedural Justice & Bargaining for Group Decisions
Bargaining can help a group consider alternatives and reach a decision its members will support. Procedural justice adds a fair process: people can state their case, the evidence is considered consistently, and the decision is explained. Both can make implementation easier without guaranteeing agreement or success.
THE IDEA
Making Group Decisions Fair
Most decisions come with collateral damage for those whose ideas were rejected—anger, hurt feelings, or loss of confidence in the new direction. How can you ensure a decision is seen as fair?
Strategy 1: Bargaining (Compromise)
Paul C. Nutt, an expert on organizational decisions, found that bargaining was used in only one out of seven major decisions, and reported that its use was associated with greater decision success. Bargaining involves horse-trading until a solution most people can live with is found.
Why it works:
- Bargainers typically consider at least two alternatives, avoiding a narrow frame.
- They act as devil's advocates for each other, asking disconfirming questions.
Objection: "Compromise is sloppy and inelegant." This may be true for aligned organizations like Apple, but for entities with multiple powerful parties, it is unavoidable. Bargaining can expose weak parts of a plan, although a compromise still needs to be assessed on its merits.
Objection: "Bargaining is too slow." Time spent bargaining can reduce resistance during implementation. The superintendent can decide autocratically in a minute, but if her staff hates the idea, adoption stagnates. Bargaining yields buy-in. You choose where to spend your time: bargaining up front, or fighting foot draggers later.
Strategy 2: Procedural Justice
In the small-claims examples described, a loser in a fair process (Mike the countertop contractor) was more satisfied than a winner in an unfair process (Jen the house sitter). This is called procedural justice.
Elements of procedural justice:
- Give people a chance to be heard.
- Listen genuinely.
- Use accurate information.
- Apply principles consistently.
- Avoid bias and self-interest.
- Explain why a decision was made.
Making it Real:
- Robert Mnookin: "I state back the other side’s position better than they could state it. And then they can relax because they feel heard."
- Dave Hitz (NetApp founder): When defending Plan A, start by agreeing with the critic, highlighting the merits of their plan (Plan Z) and the flaws in your own plan. This signals the decision is a reality-based bet, not a rigid ideology.
When to use it
An executive team deciding on a major strategic pivot uses bargaining to ensure buy-in from the CTO, CFO, and CMO, trading off budget and timeline constraints.
A product team resolves a feature dispute by comparing alternatives and negotiating budget, schedule and technical trade-offs.
A school administrator discusses a proposed curriculum with teachers and staff before implementation, so that concerns can influence the plan.
A mediator facilitates a high-stakes legal settlement by meticulously applying procedural justice, ensuring both sides feel heard.
FROM THEORY TO EVERYDAY LIFE
In practice
The Small Claims Case Study
Carlos (winning contractor in a fair case) and Mike (losing contractor) were both relatively satisfied because the judge listened carefully and explained the reasoning. By contrast, Analisa (fish owner, unfair case loser) was furious because she was cut off. Jen (unfair case winner) was actually less happy than Mike the loser, showing the power of fair process over outcome.
Robert Mnookin's Mediation Method
High-stakes mediator Robert Mnookin delivers procedural justice by explicitly stating back the other side's position better than they can state it themselves. This provides de facto proof that he is really listening.
Dave Hitz's Management Technique
NetApp founder Dave Hitz learned to defend a decision by first acknowledging its flaws and the merits of the alternative. He says, "We're making an informed bet that this decision will work, but we'll be monitoring it closely." This builds trust that the decision is reality-based.
A MOMENT TO REFLECT
Put it to work.
Think of a recent group decision with a bad outcome. Was the process fair, or was the focus only on the result? How did the losers react?
Identify a current disagreement with a colleague. Could you state their position better than they can? What would that do to the dynamic?
When was the last time you admitted the flaws in your own decision to your team? How did they react to that vulnerability?
Often confused with
References
- Research on Organizational Decisions — Paul C. Nutt
- How to Castrate a Bull — Dave Hitz
CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION
Source texts
- Decisive How to Make Better Choices in Life and Work (Chip Heath)