The second sentiment, deeply rooted in human nature, is that of justice and fairness.
We need to feel treated with respect and in the same way as other people in similar situations.
This feeling began to be studied in the '50s by Festinger. According to his dissonance theory, individuals are perpetually in search of harmony, coherence, and congruence in their cognitive representation of themselves and their environment. A mismatch between desire and reality creates a dissonance that drives people to act to rebalance their need for harmony.
Subsequently, John Stacey Adams proposed a theory of equity dedicated to the corporate world. In this context, each employee tends to compare his or her situation (salary, benefits, workload, etc.) with that of other employees within or outside the company.
This comparison can lead to a feeling of unfairness. This feeling prompts the employee to take action to redress the balance. In this case, his actions will no longer be for the benefit of his work but a search for more or less honest levers to obtain what he feels is missing.
The feeling of fairness is also affected by the treatment meted out to another member of the group or team.
Here, too, a sense of injustice may emerge, prompting action to restore some form of balance. Such action can lead to expressions of disapproval and even to strikes.
To meet this fundamental need, the concept of organizational justice offers some interesting solutions, right in line with paradigm shifts in the workplace.
Organizational justice refers to the rules and social norms governing the distribution of resources and benefits, the processes and procedures conditioning this distribution, and the interpersonal relationships associated with these procedures and distributions.[1]
We'll take a closer look at this topic when we discuss resources in the Systemic Motivation Model.
[1] Fall, A. (2014). Justice organisationnelle, reconnaissance au travail et motivation intrinsèque : résultats d’une étude empirique. Relations industrielles / Industrial Relations, 69(4), 709–731. https://doi.org/10.7202/1028109ar