The Fairness of Assigning Group Members to Tasks

Abstract

This work introduces and examines the concept of assignment-the process of determining which individuals will perform as members of a team on a given task. In a laboratory study, four assignment procedures (random, ability, personal influence, and personal influence with justification) were used to formally excuse approximately 30% of 137 undergraduates from participating in a second, longer research study. The random assignment procedure was perceived as most procedurally fair and resulted in the highest level of performance on the task used for the second study (a simple, number-finding task). Unassigned subjects (those excused from task performance) always perceived the assignment procedure to be as fair or fairer than the assigned subjects did in all four assignment conditions. Also, subjects felt it was fair to give an equal reward (extra-credit points) to both assigned and unassigned subjects even though assigned individuals were excused from performing additional tasks in the second research study. The implications of these findings for the group performance and organizational justice literatures, as well as for managers in general, are discussed.