How do you build Procedural Justice into your Practice – Some Examples

We have now looked at all the elements of Procedural Justice and by now I hope you have a good grasp of each of the four dimensions.

If you have been thinking about each one as you have read the articles, you may have already started to build each of the elements into your practice. You may have allowed those around you to have a voice, you may have built higher levels of respect into your relationships or the policies you are responsible for, you may have started suspending your judgements and being more neutral in the way you deal with situations that confront you and lastly you may have created an environment where trust has started to be built.

How do you bring this altogether?

This is hard to write about because of course I cannot get into your head and work out you and how you do things. But I can point to a couple of issues to highlight where I have seen procedural justice working in practice over the last few weeks.

My first example is the recent news of the Nottingham Maternity Review. This is likely to be the biggest review of its type in NHS history, with over 1700 cases of possible harm to new-born babies and mothers being examined. It’s not the investigation that I want to highlight here but the way the new Chief Executive of Nottingham University Hospital (NUH), Anthony May, has responded.

On the news this week (week commencing 10th July 2023), I have seen Mr May not only listen to the ‘very harrowing’ stories of the families but he has said ‘a full apology on behalf of the NUH board would be done "on the families' terms". Mr May is building trust before he offers an apology and doing that in a respectful way. Mr May has also made no judgement about any of the families and their issues or scape goateed others before him.

Quoting one family directly, you can see the impact these statement and actions have had on those affected. The following is taken from the BBC News website (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-66151746, accessed 11th July 2023).

Responding to the statements from NUH, Jack and Sarah Hawkins - whose daughter Harriet was stillborn at the trust in 2016 - said the commitment to transparency was "massive".

"It's a bit of a shock to the system to be honest," Ms Hawkins said.

"For seven and a half years we have just been fighting to be heard”.

"So for them to say they are going to take an open and honest approach is incredible really”.

"Whether that happens is yet to be seen but it is certainly a step in the right direction."

These statements are what I would expect to hear from people who have been impacted positively, and importantly, in a Procedurally Just way.

Second, we have the case of the BBC itself and the Sun Newspapers reporting around one of its presenters and the reported allegation made about him. When I started writing this article the name of the man was unknown – that has changed over the last 24 hours.

My first question about this case reflects on the levels of expected trust and respect the BBC has for the licence paying public. I have heard comments like “the BBC are behind the curve on this” (Channel 4 News, reported 11th July) and “the BBC are doing the right thing by not disclosing the identity [of the man] but they need to talk about how they are dealing with the issue” (ITV News, reported 11th July).

I am genuinely not interested in the right and wrongs of what may or may not have happened between two people reported in this newspaper article, but I am fascinated about how un-procedurally just the BBC are in dealing with the issues. There appears to be issues of transparency, neutrality and trust – which is constantly being talked about. There was argument that the man concerned would struggle to have a voice unless he made his name and details known to the public - this has now happened and at the time of publishing circumstances are still meaning he remains silent. Will that have to remain the case whilst an internal investigation is conducted? One of the biggest frustrations in any process is a lack of voice – think about how you have been impacted by this in the past and how you may have felt frustrated by not being able to tell your side of the story.

Whatever you think about the story, think about the way it’s being handled – is it procedurally just, how could it be dealt with differently and how it differs so much from the way the Nottingham University Hospital is responding.

?…and in to work

Today I dealt with a disciplinary appeal. I pride myself on bringing procedurally justice practices to bear in my work, especially in this situation.

I provided a space where I was clear that all new evidence brought would be considered and that I would balance that with what I already knew (I was being neutral).

I explained the process, what authority I had and what outcomes were allowed within the process (I was building respect and trust) and lastly and most importantly I allowed the individual to speak, I allowed his union rep to speak, and I kept checking that he had the opportunity to tell me everything he wanted to (I was providing space for his voice). Twice he brought forward new information.?

Where both my HR colleague and I asked questions, we didn’t interrupt, we waited for a natural pause (respect) and then asked our questions (building trust) and we listened (voice) a lot.

The hearing concluded and I will balance all that I have heard with what I have read (neutrality) and then I will decide my outcome.

What I know is that the process was well received, and that the person concerned felt that they had a fair hearing. How do I know that? Because they told me. What better feedback on the process and to see the elements of procedural justice at play. The outcome is still unknown, but as Tom Tyler points out, you can get the worst possible outcome, but the process is what matters.

It arguably takes longer, and is more detailed, it means I must pay attention and listen, but it’s fair and follows the principles set out in the previous articles and importantly gives me a sense of pride on how things are done and the tone that is set.

Regardless of the outcome I know that the union will speak positively of the way I dealt with the case, and I hope we created a level of loyalty either as a leaver or a stayer, that may have been missing before. Only time will tell me that, but I am confident.

As always thank you for reading this article – I would love to hear your thoughts. Next time I will continue with some other examples of good and not so good procedural justice. Keep watching the news to see if you can spot them!