The Paradox of Fairness

“It’s not fair” – a refrain that rings out across the world, generally from children lamenting the unfairness of not being given a treat, not being allowed to stay up late or not being allowed the same curfew as a friend. However fairness is a value that is somewhat contradictory by nature once you start digging down, as often what is fair for everyone actually isn’t fair for anyone. 

There are some instances where ‘fairness’ is a clear cut scenario – e.g. two people doing the same job but one person being paid less to do this due to their gender, race, class, sexuality, etc. In these instances, we should be ‘fair’ to everyone and there shouldn’t be any debate about this.

However, there are other scenarios where personal preference or situation means that two scenarios are not actually as similar as they initially appear, meaning ‘fairness’ is more complicated. Imagine you want to give all your team a present to celebrate a huge success – what do you do and what is ‘most fair’? Do you give everyone the same present – rejecting anything out of hand that one person in a group of 100 doesn’t like (thereby ruling out chocolate due to the dairy intolerant, alcohol for those that don’t drink, take away/ restaurant vouchers for those stuck in the middle of the countryside, etc). And end up giving cash/ a generic voucher – running the risk of not being seen as thoughtful. Or do you offer a box of chocolates or a bottle of champagne – often resulting in people choosing on value rather than what they actually want?

In these situations, I think that individualisation is essential. Understanding the preferences of the individuals involved may take more time but by really understanding those you are working with, you can get far more policies than just ad hoc gift giving correct. 

For example, as people move to a hybrid way of working there are those companies that are dictating a certain number of days in the office. Is that actually fair? On the surface it may look like it is – everyone is in the office and working from home the same number of days and no one is being singled out for preferential treatment. But, what about those whose work from home set ups mean that they are longing to be back in the office full time? What about those who are primarily individual contributors and who actually need to be meeting up with colleagues for brainstorming and problem solving, but whose productivity is much lower when they are forced to work in an open plan office for two days a week? Surely companies need to look to their managers to implement ways of working that are ‘fair’ based on both the requirements and wishes of the individuals and the teams. They need to use open and honest communication to explain ‘why’ different people have different set-ups – rather than allowing a sense of unfairness to build up from those who feel ignored. They need to be flexible and open to change – conducting continual experiments rather than things being set in stone. 

When people implement blanket policies that externally look ‘fair’ but in reality don’t work for people, it will backfire in the long run. Instead we all need to focus on creating broad frameworks that everyone agrees to – built upon a shared vision and values. Once these are in place (and they will take work and experimentation to get right), then it is easier to have the flexibility to treat individuals fairly rather than create hard and fast rules that actually don’t work for anyone.