Procedural Justice in Group Decision Support

  • Parmjit KaurEmail author
  • Ashley L. Carreras
Living reference work entry


This chapter reports a case study that explicitly considers dimensions of procedural justice in the negotiation of new “working contracts” in a large organization. The case outlines how using a causal mapping Group Support System (GSS) helped in a specific client intervention to deliver a new negotiated contract. Following key stages from the strategy making approach known as “JOURNEY Making,” we illustrate the development of an agreed identity and vision of the organization and the strategic priorities that were identified and prioritized. One particular area of focus centers on a contentious and difficult political negotiation of revenue contracts between the central decision-making executive of a multinational chain of healthcare practices and the practitioners who run the chain of practices. The intervention resulted in the acceptance of a new collective agreement on working contracts between the center and the practices opening the door to rapid expansion of the business. We show how a focus in the workshops on the dimensions of “procedural justice,” using a “dual facilitation process,” helped to support positive extra rule behaviors in turn fostering the successful renegotiation to be delivered.


This chapter presents a case study examination of a workshop intervention that allowed a client organization to develop a plan for growth. The chapter sets out the steps undertaken in the workshops and is an example of how causal mapping workshops can be used to determine strategic priorities. The examination also seeks to explain why the use of Group Support Systems can be an effective way of undertaking workshops with clients. This is discussed through the lens of procedural justice literature. The literature is examined, and links are drawn between the key aspects noted in procedural justice literature and the “dual facilitation” process used in the workshops; the dual facilitation process is comprised of the electronic workshop process combined with human facilitation. A working model of the dual facilitation process has been developed by the authors (see Fig. 1), which illustrates how the “fair process and extra-role behaviors” noted in procedural justice literature are inherently “present” in causal mapping group support interventions, by the nature of the process (electronic gathering of ideas in a facilitated group workshop).
Fig. 1

Working model of the dual facilitation process

At the top of Fig. 1 is the standard notion of the “Groan Zone,” as discussed by Kaner (2005) and (2007), explaining the typical process in workshops. Initially the workshop participants diverge in thinking, and the dual facilitation process will move them onto convergence of thinking. The dual facilitation aspect is discussed by Kaur and Carreras (2018).

The arrows in the looped feedback process represent the dual facilitation process in action. The right-hand side of the diagram emphasizes how the dual facilitation process encourages the display of desired extra-role behaviors (Kim and Mauborgne 1998) in the workshops. The literature for this is discussed in section “Aligning the Dual Facilitation Process With Procedural Justice Principles”.

The chapter will be of particular interest to readers interested in facilitation using the problem structuring approach of causal mapping and those wanting exposure to procedural justice literature applied in an organizational context.

The Case of Negotiating Strategic Priorities: A Client Case Study

A consultancy team (the authors) was invited to discuss with the CEO of a national chain of dental care providers, the possibility of running a workshop with the senior executive team. The CEO was charged with the expansion of the national chain of dental practices in both numbers and regions. This required substantial capital investment from the parent company, who wished to see a coherent strategic plan to justify this investment in the upgrading and rebranding of the franchised dental practices.

After two initial scoping meetings and brief demonstration of the GSS software to be used (Group Explorer – see Ackermann and Eden, and Ackermann), a 3-day workshop was agreed at an off-site location.

The workshop was to focus on the development of a plan of action to enable the national chain of dental care providers to move the current, or future, business forward. The workshop was designed to achieve a shared understanding of the issues, expectations, and aspirations of the senior executive team and to use this to contextualize the design of a plan of action, delivering expansion of growth requiring additional venture capital funding so as to take the chain to the next phase.

The workshop process was loosely based upon the approach of JOURNEY Making (JOintly Understanding, Reflecting, and NEgotiating strategY (see Eden and Ackermann (1998)). The process was adjusted to take account of some specific issues that the client wanted addressing, regarding team dynamics and decision-making. We shall proceed by outlining the workshop (intervention) process followed with a discussion after each part relating it to the dimensions of procedural justice that dovetail with the workshop process discussed.

The whole intervention can be divided into two stages:
  • Stage 1: Pre-workshop comprising of project scoping, stakeholder mapping, individual interviews, and an executive team survey

  • Stage 2: 3-day workshop comprising three phases: agreement on group approach to interaction, agreement of goals and aspirations, and agreement and prioritization of key actions


Two scoping sessions were held with the CEO to determine the structure and focus of the workshop. Part of these discussions focused on who would be present at the workshops. Following a brief stakeholder mapping process (see Bryson 2004), it was agreed that the senior executive team would be present plus four other key members of the organization, one person responsible for the information technology strategy and two people representing clinical practitioners who run franchise dental practices. One additional member of the finance team was also included. This was a deliberate decision to ensure the representation of the franchisees’ interests and perspective were placed alongside the parent company’s financial interests.

Here we have the first reference to procedural justice characteristics, in that this inclusivity mirrors the procedural justice aspect of allowing “voice” for stakeholders. The aspect of “voice” and how the workshop process services to provide this opportunity to participants in a workshop environment is discussed more fully in part 2.

The off-site workshop employed a causal mapping approach to strategy and intraorganizational collaboration, co-facilitated by the authors. The intervention was supported by the Decision Explorer1 mapping software and the computer-supported network system Group Explorer. We also conducted a regular survey of the participants’ perceptions on how they worked as a team; these results were collated and analyzed using Excel and SPSS, shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Survey of senior executive team



Goals and objectives are clearly understood and accepted by all members


Everyone is involved and heard during group discussions. There is no “tyranny of a minority”


Team members are consulted on matters concerning them


The group is both objective and effective at reaching decisions


When action is planned, clear assignments are made and accepted


The team has clear rules, methods, and procedures to guide it. There are agreed-to methods for problem-solving


Communication between members is open and honest. Members listen actively


Difficult or uncomfortable issues are openly worked through, and conflicts are not avoided


Team members are open in their transactions, and there are no hidden agendas. Members feel free to be candid


Team members are committed to deadlines, meetings, and other team activities


Members pull for and help each other, including when one person makes a mistake


Individuals feel they can try new things and risk failure. The team encourages risk taking


The team atmosphere is informal, comfortable, and relaxed


Leadership roles are shared. The same people do not dominate or control


The team routinely stops and evaluates how it’s doing in order to improve


Meetings are orderly, well planned, and productive


There is an “esprit de corps” or sense of fun on this team


Questionnaire based upon questionnaires from Bens (2005) and Kaner (2007)

Individual Interviews and Surveys

From the individual interviews, a series of seven causal maps were constructed and analyzed independently by the two facilitators. Five common main themes were found across the whole team:
  • Contracts and their need for renegotiation

  • The Branding of the franchise

  • The Commercial-Clinical Interface, how the commercial imperatives of the organization affected the operations of the clinical practitioners who were the franchisees

  • Internal Processes, improving the day-to-day operations of the organization

  • Teamwork, how the senior team worked together and interacted with the key stakeholders

The survey results (from activity 2), based upon a 5-point Likert scale where 1 signified totally disagree and 5 signified totally agree, are displayed below with no averages indicating significant positive agreement and low degree of variability in the responses.

From these results it was clear that time would need to be spent at the workshop improving teamwork as this was seen to be adversely affecting the decision-making in the team and leading to potential conflicts. Consequently, it was decided that part of the first day would involve developing an agreement on how the team would work together as a group during the workshop and in the future in the workplace.

The subsequent 3-day workshop was constructed to meet the dual objectives of providing a set of prioritized actions to help the organization meet its stated objectives while simultaneously improving the overall team performance and decision-making culture.

Workshop: Three Days at Off-Site Venue

Phase 1: Agreement on Group Approach to Interaction

The first session included a review of the interview maps that were merged into a combined map. With the views of the individual members of the team displayed as a series of combined maps based upon the identified themes above. This demonstrated to the team that they had identified common themes. The overall map indicated the degree of complexity of the issues surfaced and a brief explanation of the process used to determine the main themes (for a full consideration of this approach to combining individual maps, see Ackermann and Eden (2005)). Each of the themed maps was presented to the team on a central public display. Care was taken to ensure that no individuals’ response could be directly attributed to them unless they volunteered to do so in the group; this included the removal of any idiosyncratic language. This was to reassure the team that their responses would be anonymized throughout the process and identities only revealed by the member who was responsible if they chose to do so. Showing the maps demonstrated that all of the concerns raised by the individuals could be addressed during the process. This was a deliberate strategy to show that all contributions were valued.

This is the second reference to the procedural justice characteristics of the “fair process effect,” which allows participants process control over the qualitative data they input in the workshops. The value of this is that participants then engage more meaningfully in the workshop. This will be discussed further in section “Aligning the Dual Facilitation Process With Procedural Justice Principles”, when picking up on the six determinants of procedural justice, with the final 6th one citing stakeholders need a “clear and transparent” voice.

The pre-workshop executive team survey was used to legitimize the first activity of gaining a team agreement on how they would interact during the workshop and possibly beyond in their future meetings. This can be seen to relate to the notion of “interactional justice and treatment effects,” to be discussed in section “Aligning the Dual Facilitation Process With Procedural Justice Principles”. To do this we invited them to enter suggestions on what they saw as important behaviors in team meetings. The anonymized responses from this fresh gather were put up on the central screen with the group invited to view their responses and suggest emergent themes (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2

Gathering from participants of suggested workshop behaviors

A facilitated discussion with the group led to the generation of a set of rules of behavior or group norms (see Table 2) that would be followed during the rest of the workshop.
Table 2

Group norms

Group Norms


Seek first to understand before being understood


Feedback should be considered and constructive


Be open-minded


We have the freedom to express and explore without judgement


We encourage equal participation, reflection and healthy challenge


We have a responsibility to contribute


Be respectful of each other


It’s OK to disagree

These workshop norms were posted around the room as a reminder for the team on their agreed way of working together.

The group norms developed resonance with themes procedural justice literature. Norms 1, 2, 4, 7, and 8 emphasize the treatment or interactional aspects of procedural justice, while 5 and 6 capture the notion of fairness inherent in procedural justice. The literature examination in section “Aligning the Dual Facilitation Process With Procedural Justice Principles” explains these concepts further, and in doing so it becomes easier to argue that the dual facilitating process adopted in the workshops in procedurally fair.

Some team building activities were also used before the workshop progressed to the strategic decision-making process. This ensured that the group felt refreshed and alert before they started in earnest.

Phase 2: Agreement of Goals and Aspirations

We started by asking the group what they each expected to achieve by the end of the workshop and gathered their answers again on the central screen before grouping them into themes (Fig. 3).
Fig. 3

Workshop hopes

Clustering these hopes around the six themes in Fig. 3 helped create a sense of direction and establish reasonable expectations for the 3-day workshop as well as indicating what was and was not in scope.

Next we conducted a “gathering” of issues through anonymous brainstorming based upon the prompt question “What can the senior team do to meet its objectives in 1 and 5 years?”. The question was designed to be open, so as to avoid self-censorship of ideas, but also had a clear time frame. This gather was further developed to include all of the issues/concepts/ideas that emerged during the workshop and is indicative of the complexity of the issues facing the organization.

From the initial gathering, we clustered the concepts into themes cross-referencing them against the themes from the interviews to ensure none were missed. The team then followed an exercise in indicating their preferences, using the software for prioritizing the themes to be worked upon during the workshop. The anonymized preferencing was based on the premise that toward the end of the workshop, the group would work on creating work streams for the key actions or projects that would be identified as the workshop progress. To indicate the teams’ collective preference for the order in which we would work through the cluster, each team member was given a number of green tokens and a number of red tokens. Green tokens against a cluster would indicate a desire to work on this cluster, red tokens indicating that while of importance that cluster was not a priority for discussion in this workshop. Typically, thrice as many green tokens as red tokens are offered, and there are fewer tokens per person than clusters. This encourages the group to prioritize and not simply evenly spread their electronic votes. Participants can also place more than one of their tokens against a particular cluster to indicate a strength of preference. Though we urge caution with this approach as participants can learn to behave strategically if this process is repeated, a number of times to ensure a specific agenda are followed (Fig. 4).
Fig. 4

Preferences on cluster from initial gathering

In this instance there were nine clusters, so the participants were offered six green tokens but only two red tokens. While all of the green tokens were allocated, with some people placing more than one against a particular cluster (Process and systems), not many people used their red tokens. Again the “fair process and voice” aspects of procedural justice are part of the process to ensure the working order of the days schedule. This allows the group to see that the structure and content of the workshop is “collectively agreed” through discussion, which should produce a higher level of buy into the outputs developed as a result of the intervention.

The spread of votes on clusters was discussed by the group to see if any surprising results had arisen and that the order indicated by the preferencing was what the group wished to follow. Such a discussion can also help members understand why some clusters have received red tokens and that the team have a sufficiently similar understanding of what each of the clusters encapsulate.

The group moved onto mapping each of the identified clusters, through the addition of causal links, in order of indicated group preference. Taking each agreed cluster in turn, we moved the related concepts to a separate screen and checked them for accuracy and meaning; see “Teams” in Fig. 5 as an example.
Fig. 5


The group first linked the individual concepts in the cluster using the standard notion of causal links. The arrows between the items are causal, i.e., an arrow from “A” to “B” means that “A” may lead to (or influence) “B” or that “B” is caused by (or influenced by) “A.” Arrows can also be negative; this would mean a reduction or reduce likelihood of “B” due to the influence of “A.” Figure 6 shows the more developed map with the potential for additional concepts being added later as more clusters were discussed and links between the cluster understood. The numbering on the concepts act as reference numbers and are indicative of the order in which they were entered into either the participants’ laptops or by the facilitator.
Fig. 6

The “Teams” cluster with causal links

The approach adopted was to have concepts with causal links going out to other concepts toward the bottom and those primarily with causal links feeding in placed toward the top. The software provides a useful function to aid this process of establishing a loose hierarchy of concepts. This structure facilitates the next stage of understanding how carrying out these actions benefits the organization. Each of the maps was developed following the process of “laddering” up to understand how resolving or working on actions suggested would benefit the organization. This revealed a system of interlinked goals or aspirations that the organization wished to fulfill (Eden and Ackermann 2013). To enable the team to gain an understanding of each other’s motivations for the development of the business, we took the group of issues that centered on the key issues of developing and extended them by asking why it is important to resolve or carry out the identified action.

The goals across the themes were then placed in single screen along with the key actions thought most likely to significantly add to their realization (Fig. 7). The map was enhanced using a function of the software that captures both the direct links between the concepts and the indirect links, where a casual chain from one concept on the map leads to another on the map through a series of other concepts. The six end goals or aspirations are the concepts with oval borders. These are facilitated by the key actions in red font and provisional key performance indicators in the green font.
Fig. 7

Goals and aspirations

The CEO reported that this map of agreed goals proved to be a significant milestone in the workshop and for the organization as a whole. It demonstrated that a number of key actions would simultaneously meet the pressing commercial needs of the company’s owners (121 and 131) and be aligned with the stated aims of the franchise owners who held an ethical medical imperative and duty of care to their customers (342, 352 and 358). A catch-all goal that seemed to capture both cultural strands within the developing organization was represented by 344 “A sense of pride” which later developed to inform the rebranding of the organization.

Once a full discussion of these complimentary goals had taken place, the third phase of the workshop began. This is an important stage in the workshop process and can be linked to one of the six key determinants of procedural justice. Table 4 will look at these six determinants.

Phase 3: Agreement and Prioritization of Key Actions

Now there was some consensus on what the organization was seeking to achieve; the participants were invited to review each cluster and select the actions they thought were critical within the context of that cluster. These key actions were then collated onto a single screen. We used the “domain” function to help us identify those concepts that were linked to large numbers of other concepts as groups can find this useful when reviewing very busy and highly interrelated maps. This can also be done by eye, with the group members invited to individually select concepts, and then the domain function used to check for any missed potential candidates. Following this process ensures that the group retains the sense that they have chosen the concepts to be taken forward.

Using the software‘s rating function, we invited the group to prioritize the identified key actions. This was done by asking the question “Which of the key issues in the business plan has the greatest impact in helping the company in the direction of the prompt question?”. The participants gave a rating of 100 to the action that they expected would have of the greatest impact, a zero score to the issue with the lowest expected impact, and the others placed within that normalized range. The average scores from the team and their standard deviations are listed next to the issues in Table. A partial view of the table is presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Ratings on impact of key issues/actions

For example, concept 114 “Implement a robust, flexible information systems infrastructure” had an average rating of 82 and standard deviation of 13.5 represented by the yellow line above the scores which would indicate a relatively high degree of consensus compared with the standard deviation for concept 137. The anonymized individual scores are also indicated which again help demonstrate the relative degree of consensus.

Because some concepts seemed to indicate a lack of consensus on expected impact (e.g., 137), a discussion took place as to whether or not this was because there was real difference of opinion or simply a difference in understanding of what the concepts meant. After the discussion a second rating exercise took place to check if there was any movement in the ratings and the degree of consensus. The second rating confirmed the results for the first with a reduced degree of variability.

These scores were captured by the software and attached to the concepts in the map, where the potential key action/issues had their font altered to help focus attention in their original clusters. Only a few were selected from the teams cluster to represent the cluster in the ratings process above and were thought to be sufficiently linked to the rest that they were representative of a key element within that cluster (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8

“Teams” with key actions highlighted

Each of the key actions with a high-impact rating where then considered in more detail. They were taken to a separate view so as to enable a clearer focus, and the links to the overall goal clearly indicated.

If we focus on the concept 285, “Strong pipeline of dentists” (which had a mean rating of 87 and a standard deviation of 12), then we can see how the development and maintenance of this feeds into all of the end goals via a series of causal chains (see Fig. 9). This activity was done for each of the identified key actions.
Fig. 9

Strong pipeline of dentists

Following this process of prioritization, the team then spent the final day agreeing the work teams for each of the key actions, with the participants asked to first volunteer for taking charge of specific work streams. The team started to make a distinction between strategic objectives and key actions that would enable them. These strategic actions were identified and others added as the team built up an understanding of how these might fit together as a series of projects. As projects were identified as being sufficiently discrete from each other, they were added to an Excel spreadsheet and assigned a sponsor and project leader. The projects were then filled with suitably aligned key actions with an agreement that the project leader would return to the management team at a later date with a provisional timeline for the key actions. Members of the wider team were assigned ownership of specific key actions within projects relevant to their roles and positions within the organization. Project leaders were identified for each work stream with key supporting team members. Getting the commitment for leading these projects and being part of other projects, teams were relatively easy as the participants could see the impact each project would have for the part of the organization for which they were responsible, and how cooperating with other members could directly or indirectly have positive impacts for them.

A final map was produced to demonstrate the degree of interrelatedness that the work streams had (see Fig. 10), where the solid lines represent direct links and the broken line indirect links. For each set of strategic actions (which have a red font with rectangular border), one action was identified as embodying the nature of a project and given a black font with rectangular background.
Fig. 10

Project dependencies

The client was able to understand the complexities around activities that would the required, as a result of the visual representation of the causal map. The intervention resulted in a large amount of qualitative data generated and captured through the intervention. We worked with the client on a number of follow-up workshops to help them dig deeper into the specific projects that had been identified through this process. This enabled them to provide plans for additional investment finance to expand the organization and significantly renegotiate their contracts with their dental practitioners as they could see the combined benefits of the actions proposed. The dentists agree to pay a greater proportion of their revenue to the parent company in return for the investment in marketing and processes that took place. Involving the dental practitioners in the procedurally fair decision-making process opened up the possibility of them accepting a distributional outcome that at the outset would have been deemed unacceptable.

Having examined the case study in detail, the second part of the chapter moves to look at the literature in the field of procedural justice, to seek answers on what make group workshop interventions using GSS more effective.

Aligning the Dual Facilitation Process with Procedural Justice Principles

Here we use procedural justice as the theoretical lens to assess how the process of investigation serves to illustrate the development of the commitment and engagement of the participants in strategic development workshops.

This section examines how this method of undertaking interventions mirrors the dimensions of a “fair” process, as is discussed in procedural justice (PJ) literature and explored in Ackermann and Eden 2011 The lack of research in this applied area is noted:

The relatively small amount of research in group decision making is surprising considering its importance for both practice and theory. One possible explanation for this scarcity is the absence of an effective tool of for measuring fairness of procedures in a group context. (Jacobs et al. 2009, p. 386)

This section aims to draw the links between the facilitated, software-driven group process used in the study and the characteristics of procedural justice.

In the field of organizational research, justice is considered to be socially constructed (see Wagner and Druckman). In the workshop space, it is proposed that this subjective aspect of a socially constructed reality can be “managed” and “controlled” via human facilitation and use of group decision negotiation software, such that the overall structured process used in this group study becomes fairer in the vein of procedural justice.

It has been noted that “voice” has value beyond its ability to shape decision-making processes and outcomes (Tyler and Blader 2003, p. 351). In this context the facilitation process that the organization set up is indicative of the policy maker showing respect and allowing all participants in the intervention to voice their concerns, in an attempt to improve interactional justice (Bies and Moag 1986; Tyler and Bies 1990). This posits that being treated with dignity and politeness positively reinforces people’s identity judgements since the interpersonal experience shows one is valued by others.

In organizational justice research, concerns about fairness are based on the interrelated aspects of organizations, such as how resources are distributed – distributive justice; the fairness of decision-making processes – procedural justice; the nature of interpersonal treatment received from others – interactional justice; and collectively these justice dimensions are known as organizational justice (Colquitt et al. 2005). Of these justice dimensions, the one which was the main aim of examination was procedural justice, since fairness of process is expected to enhance the group outcomes, in terms of levels of firstly meaningful engagement with the process and secondly the richness and authenticity of the qualitative data generated throughout the workshop intervention.

The work on justice literature has developed in waves with each dimension receiving prominence in certain decades: distributive (1950–1970), procedural (mid-1970s to mid-1990s), and integrative (mid-1980s to present). Increasingly when examining the area of social justice, there has been a movement away from “distributive justice” to “procedural justice” (PJ) concerns.

The aspect of justice in organizational literature is a subjective notion of justice that states that certain process and procedure types can enhance fairness judgments (Lind and Tyler 1988, p. 3). “Procedures can refer to official rules of how things are done, how decisions are made, etc. This represents the traditional view which in this study we refer to as Procedural Justice Narrow (PJN). An alternative and possibly more inclusive understanding of procedures can comprise all processes and interactions that occur in the context of organizational life” (Blader and Tyler 2003, p. 123), which here is referred to as Procedural Justice Wide (PJW). While this broader view of process and procedures helps us understand how the process we used may affect the participants perception of their relationship within the organization, the more focused concern was on how ensuring PJN impacts upon the quality of the outcomes of the workshops. The quality of the sessions is indicated by the authenticity of the data generated and the number of concepts/statements that are volunteered in the session.

There is a further distinction in the literature that helps understanding. Organizational justice can be seen to operate at two distinct but potentially interrelated levels. The individual self-interest models that state that participants are interested in fairness purely from improving their individual outcomes (Kovonosky 2000, p. 493) and the group oriented models which reflect the concerns of all the group members and are thus more complex in nature (Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler and Blader 2000, 2003). As a group process was used that did not involve making decisions that would necessarily directly affect their individual outcomes, it is argued that the group-orientated models are more appropriate in framing this examination and this will be discussed further below under treatment issues in PJ.

In the area of PJ, the work of Thibaut and Walker (1975) paid particular attention to the “level of control”; the participants believed they had in a process and the subsequent decisions arrived at through that process. They noted that participants reported higher levels of satisfaction when the process was seen as fair and as such even second best final decisions could be accepted by the participants so long as they had experienced control and fair participation in the earlier, process stage (Colquitt et al. 2001, p. 426). “Disputants viewed the procedure as fair if they perceived that they had process control (that is, control over the presentation and sufficient time to present their case). This process control effect is often referred to as the “fair process effect “or “voice” effect (Lind and Tyler 1988; Folger and Cropanzano 1998). In this context fair decision-making would allow participants control over the procedures that determine the outcome, as opposed to the outcomes themselves.

Linking this to our work, in an organizational context with a hierarchical structure, direct decision-making tends to reside at the top (at CEO level) and given that participants recognize this as the correct structure; they are hence prepared to accept “indirect opportunities” to impact on decision-making as acceptable. This indirect aspect is termed “process control” by Thibaut and Walker (1975) or the opportunity to express “voice.” The dual facilitation process used in the study allowed all participants to directly input their concepts (thoughts) into the Group Explorer system, without any censoring of views; hence we propose that the power to express “voice” for the participants is unrivalled by any other process.

Colquitt et al. (2001) note that Leventhal broadened the determinants of procedural justice to points beyond process control (Leventhal et al. 1980). This requires six criteria to be met if procedure is to be perceived as fair (Colquitt et al. 2001, p. 426). These six determinants are compared to the characteristics of the dual facilitation process used in the study in Table 4.
Table 4

Colquitt et al. 2001, p. 426 [8]

Determinant; Colquitt et al.

Workshop Process; Dual facilitation

A) Procedures should be applied consistently across people and across time

We conduct the workshops using a laptop/tablet laboratory setting. This ensures uniformity over time of both the steps followed and the reporting process of results to participants and organization

B) Procedures should be free from bias, i.e., ensuring that a third part has no vested interest in a particular settlement

As facilitators should be seen by the participants as independent of the senior executive/organization and cannot impact on policy formulation at senior level

C) Procedures should ensure that accurate information is collected and used in making decisions

Electronic gather of statements/concepts directly from the participants ensures accurate collection of qualitative/experiential data with a clear audit trail through cluster building

D) Procedures should have a mechanism to correct flawed or incorrect decisions

The process can be used iteratively to ensure accuracy of information gathered

Concepts and links entered can be corrected electronically if incorrect

E) Procedures should conform to prevailing standards of ethics or morality

Trained independent facilitators ensure process is ethically used with a correct employment of group norms in the focus sessions

F) Procedures should ensure opinions of various groups affected by the decision which have been taken into account

Stakeholders are often not directly consulted in policy formulation, yet this process affords them a clear and transparent voice

By aligning the six determinants of procedural justice to the dual facilitation process, it can be understood how the workshop process ensures that it has kept to the tenants of procedural justice. In making this connection, we are seeking to show that this helps to develop the help “extra-role” behaviors, discussed below.

When processes of investigation are embodying PJ determinants, the participants show commitment to the decisions made and will exhibit extra-role behaviors (Kim and Mauborgne 1998). PJ also enhances the levels of voluntary contribution by “invoking the side of human behavior that goes beyond the outcome-driven self-interest” in exhibiting the extra-role behaviors (Kim and Mauborgne 1998). All participants in the workshop needed to experience a “fair” process of focus group investigation so as to engage meaningfully. In this study, the extra-role behavior would be to divulge information that participants are not normally obliged to divulge and in doing so show “honesty” of opinion in a transparent manner. This would enable them to volunteer their individual confidential opinion/information (given the initial anonymity of the facilitated software-driven process) relating to which areas of organizational activity need improvement, agreement on goals and aspirations for the business, and prioritization of key actions. As the inputting is anonymous electronic inputting to individual PCs, participants are less likely to self-sensor and will be more likely to engage in exhibiting extra-role behaviors and allow to surface individual opinions, which otherwise they would not feel safe to express. The construction of the maps enables the facilitators to understand the conversation so that they may help surface more meaningful qualitative data.

To understand how we are enabling Procedural Justice Narrow (PJN) in the workshop process discussed above, which in turn may enhance Procedural Justice Wide (PJW), also called organizational justice, we need to consider a more recent refinement of PJ terms.

Treatment Issues in Procedural Justice

The group engagement model of Tyler and Blader (2003) gives a prominent role to procedural justice and is used to contextualize the work in this study. Within their model treatment issues are examined – participants value PJ (operationalized by voice or process control) because it aids the decision-maker’s ability to make equitable judgments. In the post-1990s’ examination of PJ, more attention is given to the interpersonal aspects of procedures. This attention to interpersonal aspects recognizes that any process or procedure used in a group context will be a setting where participants are involved in social interaction and is known as the treatment aspect. Interpersonal experience can range from being polite, rude, respectful, and with hostility. The process used in the interventions exhibits interpersonal fairness as one of the key functions of the facilitators is to ensure that the group conducts itself in a way that reinforces interpersonal fairness positively. The workshop sessions open with a slide on eight “workshop conventions and norms” of operation, and as these are presented to the participants, it is emphasized that the facilitator will intervene in discussions to bring the use of the norms on track, if the group appears to be overlooking them.

This shift in PJ, from a focus on decision-making to interpersonal treatment aspects, shows the development of PJ literature. It increasingly emphasizes “pro-social outcomes, such as how to build trust, encourage responsibility and obligation, generate intrinsic motivation, and stimulate voluntary cooperation with others” (Tyler and Blader 2000). All of the above are a fundamental necessity in workshops as they ensure the surfacing of meaningful qualitative data.

In terms of interactional justice, the workshop study ensured equality in contribution, such that fair interpersonal treatment was attained within the groups. All participants had access to an individual laptop to input an “equal number” of concepts on the prompt question, such that no one participant had a louder voice. This process was overseen and “policed” by the facilitators using the software that notes all concepts entered and by whom. This dual use of facilitation with Group Explorer software improves interpersonal fairness and can very quickly generate rich qualitative data.

In summary, in the area of Organizational Justice Research, there are very few practitioner orientated reviews, and there is a lack of practice-based theory development (Page 2009). The examination here is firmly “practice based” in terms of context, as it illustrates a live case of negotiation of strategic priorities for the senior executive of a multinational healthcare chain.

The electronic gather of qualitative statements (known as concepts) on the prompt question allows the participants a clear “voice,” which would then impact higher up in the strategy development process.

“Fair procedures reassure people that stereotypes are not and will not be applied” (Tyler and Blader 2003, p. 358). Research has been undertaken to show that fair decision-making procedures are important in judgments about racial profiling (Tyler and Blader 2003, p. 359). In the workshop, it was imperative that the process and procedure be seen to be fair; otherwise the respondents would not engage with the study, and the qualitative data would be banal, of no illuminating value. Participants would opt not to express their voice (not exhibit extra-role behaviors) as they would have no faith in the process, in terms of upholding their respect and interpersonal treatment issues.

By starting with only one initial question and allowing the participants to determine what the main factors and themes are, the participants have implicitly been involved in the development of the workshop process which has led to what we call Procedural Justice Narrow. This has had the added advantage of changing the underlying nature of the workshop from a cognitive/discursive type to a cultural, analytical, or linguistic approach with the shared experiences of the group being surfaced and a more authentic voice being heard. This in turn can only help to serve to improve the Procedural Justice Wide dimension of participant’s engagement in policy making at the organizational level.


Group Support Systems (GSS), such as the one used in the case study referred to in this chapter, are an effective approach to supporting organizations seeking to develop strategic priorities that can help to support organizational growth. The case study details the steps in a particular client intervention. This process however can be generalized as an appropriate structure for most interventions aiming to determine organizational goals, aspirations, and key priorities for action.

The chapter also examines procedural justice literature, which has led the authors to model the dual facilitation process used in group workshops and the dimensions of procedural justice. The crossover between the dimensions of procedural justice and the dual facilitation workshop process shows a strong alignment. This has been used as evidence that supports the effectiveness of GSS in aiding the development of organizations.



  1. 1.

    Decision Explorer is available from and was developed at the University of Strathclyde.


  1. Ackermann F, Eden C (2005) The practice of making strategy: a step-by-step guide. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Making strategy: mapping out strategic success. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bens I (2005) Facilitating with ease!, 2nd edn. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  4. Bies RJ, Moag JS (1986) Interactional justice; communication criteria of fairness. In: Lewicki R, Sheppard B, Bazermann BH (eds) Research on negotiations in organizations, vol 1. JAI press, Greenwich, pp 43–55Google Scholar
  5. Blader SL, Tyler TR (2003) What constitutes fairness in work settings? A four- component model of procedural justice. Hum Resour Manag Rev 13:107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Public Manag Rev 6(1):21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Colquitt JA et al (2001) Justice at the millennium: a meta-analaytic review of 12 years of organisational justice research. J Appl Psychol 86(3):425–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Colquitt JA et al (2005) What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In: Colquitt JA, Greenberg J (eds) Handbook of organizational justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, Hillsdale, pp 3–56Google Scholar
  9. Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO J Decis Process 1(1):7–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Folger R, Cropanzano R (1998) Organizational justice and human resource management. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  12. Jacobs E et al (2009) Of practicalities and perspective: what is fair in group decision making? J Soc Issues 65(2):383–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kaner S (2005) Promoting mutual understanding for effective collaboration in cross-functional groups with multiple stakeholders. In: Schuman S (ed) The IAF handbook of group facilitation: best practices from the leading organisation in facilitation. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaner S (2007) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision making. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Kaur P, Carreras AL (2018) Capturing the participants’ voice: using causal mapping supported by group decision software to enhance procedural justice. In: Published in the edited book of referred proceedings of the 18th international conference of GDN 2018. Lectures notes in business information processing (LNBIP 315) a Springer publication, pp 113–126Google Scholar
  16. Kim WC, Mauborgne RA (1998) Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strateg Manag J 19(4):323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kovonosky MA (2000) Understanding procedural justice and its impact on business. J Manag 26(3):489–563Google Scholar
  18. Leventhal GS et al (1980) Beyond fairness: a theory of allocation preferences. In: Minkula G (ed) Justice and social interaction. Spinger, New York, pp 167–218Google Scholar
  19. Lind EA, Tyler TR (1988) The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Page K (2009) Unlocking engagement and building social capital using procedural justice. PhD thesis Strathclyde University, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. Thibaut J, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
  22. Tyler TR, Bies RJ (1990) Interpersonal aspects of procedural justice. In: Carroll JS (ed) Applied social psychology in business settings. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 77–98Google Scholar
  23. Tyler TR, Blader SL (2000) Cooperation in groups: procedural justice, social identity, and behavioural engagement, Taylor & Francis Group, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  24. Tyler TR, Blader SL (2003) The group engagement model: procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 7(4):349–361. Lawrence Erlbaum AssociateCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Marketing, Faculty of Business and LawDe Montfort UniversityLeicesterUK
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsLoughborough UniversityLeicestershireUK

Personalised recommendations