APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2007, 56 (4), 663–666

doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2007.00314.x

Commentary
COMMENTARY
Original
CHEMERS
Blackwell
Oxford,
Applied
APPS
©
0269-994X
XXX Articles
International
UK
Psychology
Publishing
Association
Ltd for Applied Psychology, 2007

Comments on the Justice Model from a

Leadership Perspective
Martin M. Chemers*
University of California, Santa Cruz, USA

INTRODUCTION
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to comment on Professor
Komaki’s presentation of a performance appraisal process (i.e. the Justice
Model) designed to reduce demographic biases in evaluation, promotion,
and development of organisational leaders. I do not consider myself to be
an expert in the area of performance appraisal, so I approach this paper
from another perspective.
It was more than 40 years ago that I began doing research on leadership
and organisational effectiveness when I entered Fred Fiedler’s laboratory
at the University of Illinois as a new graduate student. During the last
25 years, I have held a range of academic administrative posts, beginning
with department chair and progressing through dean, vice-chancellor, and
chancellor roles. I have had a considerable amount of time to think about
and study the role of leadership in organisational justice and fairness, and I
have been compelled to wrestle with the same issues as an administrator.
Of one thing I am firmly convinced. Fair and effective practice in pursuit
of organisational diversity is more than a moral demand. It is a matter of
organisational success and national survival. No organisation or nation can
be successful within the context of global competitiveness if it limits its pool
of leadership talent to a third of its population (i.e. males from the dominant
social class or ethnic group). When Branch Rickey and the Brooklyn
Dodgers broke the color barrier in major league baseball by hiring Jackie
Robinson in 1949, it didn’t take long for every other team in the majors to
recognise that they couldn’t be successful by ceding all the talent in the
“Negro” leagues to the Dodgers. The lesson is still true. Organisational

* Address for correspondence: Martin M. Chemers, Department of Psychology, University

of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA. Email: mchemers@ucsc.edu

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,
UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
664 CHEMERS

justice is a boon which manifests in more talented and more motivated

employees which, in turn, influences all the bottom lines.
A second belief which I hold with equal certainty is that any organisational
goal—whether diversity, safety, or productivity—requires (1) top-down
organisational support, (2) careful measurement and tracking, and (3)
recognition and sanctions for goal attainment or failure. It is in this spirit
that I find much to praise in Professor Komaki’s efforts. The Justice Model
is based on careful legal analysis, comprehensive research findings, and
organisational best practices. In the paragraphs which follow, I will
highlight what I think are the strongest features of her approach and offer
some caveats or cautions that I hope are constructive.

GOOD THEORY AND PRACTICE

The Critical Role of Measurement

Komaki makes the very tenable argument that careful measurement of bona
fide occupational qualifications is the sine qua non of good performance
appraisal systems. I see two aspects to the issue of measurement. First, as
Komaki stresses, the measurement of employee performance must be valid.
She is on firm ground when she stresses the role of interrater agreement.
Observation must be reliable to be valid.
I have concerns about two potential contaminants that aren’t protected
against by high interrater reliability. If raters share a common bias, such as
racial prejudice (e.g. stereotypes about intelligence or personality), they
might arrive at similar conclusions reflecting their initial assumptions rather
than valid observation. A second source of contamination is the impact of
influential gatekeepers. Managers do not always have the opportunity for
comprehensive observation of all employees for whom they have evaluation
responsibilities. For example, a high-level manager might depend for
information on subordinates from a trusted assistant, and ratings might
reflect the biases of the influence agent.
The Justice Model doesn’t ignore these types of problems and proposes
some safeguards, such as extensive rater training and comparison of
ratings across multiple raters. These techniques are warranted and work
best when raters are actually striving for accuracy and don’t carry deeply
held assumptions about the target—such as might be the case in “secret
shopper” type ratings in retail businesses. Komaki also highlights what
can be learned from subordinates’ ratings of their satisfaction with the
appraisal process. I think that both of these protections are useful, but
not sufficient. The use of multiple observers is not always possible, and
satisfaction measures can be clouded by the effects of negative but accurate
evaluations.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
 COMMENTARY 665
A potential solution might be to develop procedures to compare an
organisation’s managers on their evaluation and treatment of subordinates.
It might be the case that a manager gives poor ratings to or fails to develop
a particular subordinate, because of the subordinate’s actual shortcomings.
In the long run, however, managers who have a poor record for the
development of underrepresented subordinates will show up in comparison
with peers. A related approach is one that makes the development of
subordinate talent (whether minority or not) one of the acknowledged
responsibilities of each manager. Thus, the manager’s own performance
evaluation depends to a degree on how well the manager develops the talent
of the people who report to him or her. In an extensive field experiment on
the effectiveness of leadership training and organisation development on
safety in underground mining (Chemers, Bell, and Fiedler, 1981), we found
that making safety enhancing behaviors a central factor in foremen’s
performance evaluations had a powerful effect on improvement of leaders’
safety-oriented behavior and accident rates. Whether the goal is safety or
fairness, focusing on and rewarding performance is an effective change
strategy.

The Centrality of Goal-setting

My previous point fits well with Komaki’s strong argument in favor of
accountability. The literature is very clear on the positive benefits of
clear and challenging goals. Goals draw attention to and reflect the
organisation’s commitment and expectations. In the mining safety study
described above, accident-reduction goals set by upper management also
enhanced employee attention with positive results.
However, in the mining study, like many other studies involving behavior
modification approaches, the behaviors that were being influenced were dis-
crete, frequent, and observable (e.g. whether miners used the proper safety
equipment; or in retail sales whether an employee said thank you at appro-
priate times). In the area of career development, the critical behaviors may
be infrequent and the effects hard to observe or categorise (e.g. helpful
mentoring, timely support and encouragement, developmental job assign-
ments, etc.). The answer to this dilemma may be in the development of
proximal goals, targeting managerial behaviors that occur more frequently
or by making appropriate actions more visible. Managers, for example,
might be required to report on subordinate career development actions as
part of regular performance appraisals. Subordinate satisfaction measures
might be included as part of a multiple source (i.e. 360 degree) evaluation
procedure. The most important feature of any goal-setting intervention is
the highly visible and continuous support of organisational leadership for
these efforts.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.
666 CHEMERS

The Value of Communication

One of the features of the Justice Model that I find most impressive is the
emphasis on communications training as part of the performance appraisal
process. I have rarely met a manager who didn’t fear and loathe the
“opportunity” to do performance appraisals of subordinates. That
reluctance can be exacerbated in situations of ethnic or gender differences
between rater and target. Communication training is an effective adjunct to
the other aspects of the Justice Model.
By including performance appraisal processes and career development
and diversity issues as part of each manager’s training and development, the
organisation again signals its commitment and expectations about fairness.

A FINAL COMMENT
I would like to thank Judi Komaki for taking up this challenge. The
problem is an important one that has proved resistant to change. It is clear
that the legal system is not sufficient to achieve the necessary outcomes. The
Justice Model is not perfect, but if an organisation applies it with the same
dedication and commitment reserved for affecting the bottom line, it can be
a powerful tool for achieving change. The organisations that apply it, their
employees, shareholders, and customers and society at large will all be
beneficiaries.

REFERENCES
Chemers, M.M., Bell, C.H., & Fiedler, F.E. (1981). Two approaches to organization
development for mine safety. Proceedings of TRAM III: Training resources
applied to mining. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
Komaki, J.L. (2007). Daring to dream: Promoting social and economic justice at
work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 56(4), 624–662.

© 2007 The Author. Journal compilation © 2007 International Association of Applied

Psychology.