Fairness and Persuasion. How Stakeholder Communication Affects Impartial Decision Making

Abstract

We study experimentally whether and to what extent impartial decision makers are influenced by stakeholders' fairness opinions in an allocation decision. The setting allows for different focal fairness rules to be considered. We compare communication treatments, in which one of the stakeholders states his or her opinion prior to the allocation decision, to a baseline without communication opportunities. We find that stakeholders who state their opinion in the communication treatments are allocated significantly less money than their counterparts in the baseline. Asymmetric reactions to the statements appear to be the driving force behind this result: impartial decision makers deviate from their initial fairness judgment and follow stakeholders' opinions only if the requests are moderate; they largely ignore high monetary claims. Our results contribute to understanding the underlying processes that may affect the decisions of judges, juries, arbitrators, referees, or other impartial decision makers in interaction with stakeholders.

Outcomes or participation? Experimentally testing competing sources of legitimacy for taxation

“…The message read, "Paying tax means we all gain from vital public services like the National Health Service (NHS), roads and schools" or "Not paying tax means we all lose out on vital public services like the NHS, roads and schools." 6 2.7 | Support for the procedure used to define tax burden and the purposes for which tax money is spent Studies further show that participants care about procedure (Tyler, 2006) and about voice in particular (Kleine et al, 2016(Kleine et al, , 2017. More broadly, trust in government has been identified as a key determinant of compliance behavior (Jackson & Milliron, 2002;Torgler, 2003Torgler, , 2007.…”

Human Resource Management Practices: Compare the Perceptions of Faculty Members in Punjab and Federal Universities

“…An hr administrator should have the ability to diagnose between correct and incorrect, reasonable and un-reasonable and valuable and valueless. Simply he must be a good judge that when he is member of selection board he must be able to take fair and impartial decision for the benefit of institution (Kleine, Langenbach, & Zhurakhovska, 2016).…”

Orientação e gestão para stakeholders no processo de decisão organizacional

“…Em contrapartida, Harrison, Bosse e Phillips (2010), argumentam que por meio de um relacionamento alicerçado em reciprocidade e justiça com os stakeholders primários, a organização tem mais acesso à informações sobre a função utilidade dos stakeholders, gerando potenciais vantagens como o aumento de demanda e eficiência, a inovação e a habilidade de lidar com situações inesperadas. As vantagens obtidas, quando aproveitadas pela organização, geram valor que é distribuído de forma justa entre os todos os stakeholders (Kleine, Langenbach, & Zhurakhovska, 2016).…”