Suppose a superior in your organization is going to rule on a grievance you have filed. Which of the following do you think determines how you will feel about the outcome?

a. If the ruling is in your favor
b. If you are able to maintain indirect control by your ability to influence the authority figure
c. If the authority figure treats you with courtesy, dignity and respect
d. If the procedures used to arrive at the decision are fair and equitable and you had ample opportunity to present your evidence
The answers are c and d.

Justice depends on the process. Tom Tyler, psychologist at New York University, cites two studies. The first study of convicted felons showed they judged their experience with the court system primarily on whether they were treated fairly, not by the sentence they received.

In a related study conducted by the Rand Corp., civil litigants were willing to accept decisions by an arbitrator if they felt the procedures by which the decisions were made were fair.

In both of these cases, those affected by the judicial process didn’t become more negative toward the authority figure even if the decision went against them. On the other hand, if they regarded the procedures as unfair, people who experienced an unfavorable judgment became bitter and negative toward both the authority figure and the system he or she represented.

Tyler surveyed the reactions of people involved with disputes. He studied their feelings of justice following decisions rendered by judges, police officers and managerial supervisors. Acceptance of the decisions of third-party authorities occurred when the authority figure:

•Treated them with dignity and respect, and affirmed their feelings of self-worth as a person with standing in the community

•Was perceived to be kind and showed concern for the well-being of all parties

•Was seen as being neutral, unbiased, honest, reasonable and basing judgments upon the facts

People experience justice when they feel that the procedures are fair and even-handed and when they feel the authority figure is respectful and unbiased in their interactions with them. These factors of “respect,” “trust” and “neutrality” have independent effects on how people feel about their experience with authority.
Why should the way the authority figure relates to the disputant carry so much weight?

Affirmation of self-worth. When people themselves have an occasion in their lives to be subject to third-party rulings, they hope, trust and fully expect that the process will be fair and just. The relationship between the disputant and the authority figure becomes a test of the social bond and trust the individual places in society.

“Does this representative of society regard me as a person of worth?” “When it comes to my interests, will the system be fair?” “Will I get a fair hearing of my evidence?”

If people have a bad experience with an authority figure, the disillusionment can be profound. It challenges their basic assumptions that life is good and just and that people can be trusted.

People hold on to their bitterness longer based on how they perceived themselves to be treated, rather than the adverse nature of the actual decision. For the disputant, the issue of right and wrong gets muddied up with their feelings of pride and dignity.
What does this mean? Here are some implications for third-party authorities who hear disputes:

When people sense politics, back room deals, conflict of interest, prejudice or other hidden agendas, they feel violated. Attitudes of neutrality and openness, along with fair procedures, lead to acceptance and compliance with decisions. People need ample opportunity to present their evidence.

Basic human relation skills such as making eye contact, giving attention, showing empathic concern, listening and extending common courtesies communicate respect and dignity to the individuals involved. Non-verbal facial expressions, tone of voice and body posture communicate important cues about the attitude of the authority figure toward the individuals involved.

The experience should be as interactive as possible.
 Mediation is a satisfying tool for resolving disputes because it maximizes the opportunity for discussion between the authority figure and the disputants.

Plea bargaining in criminal matters represents a respectful way of including a defendant in a dialogue with the prosecutor and the judge. Decisions reached behind closed doors outside of the presence of the affected parties – conferences in chambers, settlement agreements and the like – weakens trust in the process.
When it comes to justice, the facts matter. So does winning and losing. But the hidden factor is how people feel about how they are treated by the authority figure and whether the process is fair.
There is a lesson here for other authorities not wearing judicial robes or police uniforms, such as parents, teachers, administrators, supervisors, government officials and church leaders: The quality of your relationships with people makes legitimate the authority you exercise.

Abuse of authority upsets and enrages people. Power should be exercised with kindness, even-handed concern, patience, respect and consideration.

Dr. Val Farmer is a clinical psychologist specializing in family business consultation and mediation with farm families. He lives in Wildwood, Mo., and may be contacted through his website at www.valfarmer.com

Farmer’s book, Honey, I Shrunk the Farm, can be purchased by sending a check or money order for $7.50 to: “Honey, I Shrunk the Farm,” The Preston Connection, P.O. Box 1135, Orem UT 84059.