THE DIMENSION
Explaining decisions, applying relevant criteria, and allowing questions.
The dimension in context
Explaining decisions, applying relevant criteria, and allowing questions.
You may make decisions more understandable and open to correction.
You may rely on implicit criteria or lack discretion over the process.
An illustrative work situation
A leader allocates a desirable assignment to one team member because it matches a specific requirement. Another member sees the choice as favoritism because the criteria were not discussed. Even a defensible decision can be difficult to understand when its process and rationale remain hidden.
Fairness concerns both the relevant criteria and how people can understand or question the decision. It does not require identical outcomes in different circumstances. A self-report cannot settle whether a decision was fair. Reflection should examine the information used, the authority involved, and the route for raising a concern.
A small practice to examine
Before a comparable allocation, identify the task requirements and explain the criteria at an appropriate level of detail. Avoid disclosing private information about individuals. Offer a clear route for questions and review whether the explanation addresses the actual concern. Consider whether future opportunities can be made more transparent.
Procedural detail can obscure an urgent or simple decision.
A question for closer study
Would affected participants understand the decision criteria even when they prefer a different outcome?
Read the example alongside the research
The following editorial passages come from the linked framework chapters. They provide context for the original teaching example above; the example is fictional and is not a reported study finding.
Organizational-justice research distinguishes different aspects of fairness, including outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment, and information. Ethical-leadership research examines another related but distinct construct. MLEAD does not reproduce either measure. Its fair-process domain asks about reported actions such as explaining criteria, considering comparable situations, and allowing questions. The purpose is to make a decision process inspectable without claiming that a self-report establishes fairness.
Continue: Fair process makes decisions understandable and open to correction →
A useful study would include occasions where desirable practices create a real tension: offering discretion while preserving an agreed constraint, explaining a decision without revealing another person's private information, or inviting discussion while a deadline limits further revision. Reviewers would code the specific actions relevant to each tension before looking at questionnaire results. The six-domain proposal should be compared with simpler models and tested in a new sample if revised. Strong internal consistency alone would not establish that six separate report bars are warranted. Researchers should document which distinctions fail, whether wording drives apparent separation, and whether authority or role experience explains the pattern. A narrower framework would be preferable to preserving six dimensions solely because the report layout already has space for them.
Continue: What a credible MLEAD evidence programme would examine →
A project lead believes they are supportive because they remain available for questions. Team members, however, may be unclear about which decisions they can make independently. The issue is not resolved by deciding whether the lead is generally supportive. It requires an agreement about ownership, review, and escalation. MLEAD can organize that conversation without claiming to measure a hidden leadership essence.
Continue: Leadership practices are actions in a relationship →
SOURCES AND FURTHER READING
Brown, Treviño & Harrison - Ethical leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing ↗Colquitt - On the dimensionality of organizational justice ↗Judge, Piccolo & Ilies - The forgotten ones? Consideration and initiating structure in leadership research ↗Nembhard & Edmondson - Making it safe: Leader inclusiveness and professional status ↗Griffin, Neal & Parker - A new model of work role performance ↗