The True Meaning of Justice in the Workplace

Biblically speaking, to be just means to use your strength on behalf of the weak.

Justice most certainly includes an overall “fairness” and truth and integrity and honesty and refusing to show partiality.

But the essence of justice goes beyond that.

The essence of justice is that those with greater authority and influence are to use their stronger position in service of those who are in a weaker situation.

Helping those in a “weaker situation” might mean helping those suffering from poverty or sickness or some other harm, but it doesn’t have to be. It means helping anyone without the influence of formal authority you have. Which means, if you are a manager or leader in an organization (or in politics or anywhere), that it includes those who work for you.

Some people think that the biblical commands to be just in this sense and their corollary, radical generosity, do not apply inside the bounds of an organization. Inside an organization, “business rules” apply, which is interpreted to mean that people must be impersonal (a distorted notion of the concept of being “impartial”) and that doing things for your own advantage primarily is correct and right.

But this is wrong. The biblical commands to be generous and to be just apply in all areas of our lives, without exception. The Golden Rule (Matthew 7:12) and commands to be merciful as God is merciful (generous to all, especially the undeserving, Matthew 5:43-48) do not cease to apply at our jobs and in our work and in our organizations. They are not simply for the personal realm.

Their manifestation may look different in each area of life. But these principles of justice and generosity still apply in every area of life and we must be diligent to apply them in all areas.

So, here’s one example. Let’s take the workplace. Being just and generous in the workplace means that, if you are in authority over people, you use that authority in the service of everyone you interact with — including those in the organization who directly work for you, those around the organization who don’t work for you but you are in a position to influence, and those outside the organization that you interact with. It means you see yourself as the servant of all, and that you see your authority and position and role as existing not as some statement of how great you are or how hard you’ve worked, but rather as existing for the sake of those around you. Your authority exists to do them good.

Now, immediately here we run into “the fallacy of doing good,” which is the tendency of people to act contrary to the purpose and role of their vocations in in their attempts to “do good,” which ends up making things worse. One example might be a chef at a restaurant who gives away dozens of free meals every night out of a spirit of generosity, when it’s not his restaurant and the owner has not given him the authority to do that. In this case, the chef’s generosity of spirit is right, but the way he carries it out is not. (If he owned the restaurant or had been given the leeway to do that sort of thing by the owner, however, go for it!)

So, what does using your authority and role to “do good” at your job look like when done right? A lot could be said, but let me just say one simple, yet core, thing.

It means being for the people who work for you. Which means believing that they can excel and do good work and make a contribution, even when few other people might be able to see it. And it means using your influence to give them opportunities and, yes, advance their career whenever you have the chance.

Note I’m not saying you shouldn’t be smart and discerning. But I am saying that you should have a default belief in people and therefore do whatever you can to give them a chance, to give them greater opportunities, and to give them a break whenever you can and whenever it seems they will be able to meet the opportunity and succeed in it.

And it means, even when you aren’t in a position at the moment to help advance someone or given them an opportunity, that you are encouraging and always seek to be the type of person that builds others up and helps them get better at what they do.

So much here is about your spirit and attitude — the disposition you have and with which you carry yourself. You need to see yourself as existing for the good of others, and charged with the responsibility from God to use any influence, authority, and resources you have in service to others.

But note that I’m not simply saying “be for other people.” That is a critical thing. But it’s not enough, because it’s so easy to say that we are “for” someone but never take action. It’s easy to say words that we don’t back up with our behavior. The true disposition of a servant is to be for people and to be diligent and forward and effective in identifying ways to promote their welfare.

This is a call to give thought to improving in both our dispositions and our concrete actions. See yourself as existing in your role for the good of others, and be proactive in finding real opportunities to use your authority and influence and resources to serve others and build them up.

That’s a how true Christian operates in his job and lives his entire life.

December 12, 2011 | Filed Under Vocation | 5 Comments

Comments

5 Responses to “The True Meaning of Justice in the Workplace”

Loren Pinilis on December 12th, 2011 8:42 am

Powerful, Matt.
I wonder: In terms of radical generosity in the workplace, what is the difference between justice and grace?
Is there even a distinction in how they’re practically implemented?
Is the confidence you place in your employees deserved – but most leaders don’t recognize it? Or are you intentionally viewing your employees’ potential in a positive light as an act of grace?

These questions may be unnecessarily academic, but I was just trying to process these issues.
Rachael Starke on December 13th, 2011 1:17 am

Loren – I’m having an issues somewhat like that with my new team. They are all talented, getting lots of great feedback from the sales teams they support. But that’s happening because they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing. They are doing the sales reps’ (and the sales engineers, and the caterers!) jobs. IOW, they’re not doing what they should. They’re doing everything else, and really well. I have to find a way to both highlight how much they do, highlight how what they’ve done has likely kept us from pretty lacklustre numbers but isn’t the right model, and then find ways from them to do the right job equally well. That’s different from the employee who truly isn’t a good fit for a job, and the job is essential. Then, it is the just thing to help the person find what they’re good at and do that….elsewhere.
Matt on December 13th, 2011 12:43 pm

Very good questions, Loren. Lots of fruitful thinking can be done by thinking through the questions you raise. A few thoughts:

I used to think of justice and grace as highly distinct. Now I would say grace is just, and justice exhibits grace. I actually haven’t read Keller’s _Generous Justice_ yet, but I think he gets at that idea. I have read, though, his _Ministries of Mercy_, which talks about that a bit, and it has influenced my thinking a lot.

So there is a distinction, but also an important overlap. The overlap goes, in part, like this: it is unjust not to be gracious. Justice requires graciousness. This is one of the things the Pharisees missed. They thought of justice in terms of being exacting and following all the (supposed) rules, and Jesus said: “you’ve missed it. I desire mercy and not sacrifice. Mercy is an essential component of justice.”

Likewise, when Jesus died on the cross for us, he was not simply being merciful. He was also being just. Not just simply in the sense that sin must be paid for. Rather, his love itself was an act of justice because this is how God is–he acts to save those in need, even at cost to himself (I know talking of “cost” in relation to God can go wrong, but you know what I mean). God could have decided not to save us and still been just, but acting to save us was a manifestation of justice, not just mercy, because God’s nature and disposition is to take up the responsibility to save his people. The parable of the prodigal son is significant here, because I think Keller is right that Jesus is the true older brother. That is, Jesus exhibits what the older brother _should have done_–namely, gone after his younger brother to bring him back. Instead, the older brother in the parable left the younger to himself and then complained when he came back. That wasn’t just. It’s not just that the complaining that was unjust; he failed at his responsibility as an older brother to go seek and find his younger brother. Jesus shows us what the older brother should have done, and the older brother doing that would have been an act of justice, as well as mercy, because it was the right thing to do.

So we can distinguish mercy and justice, but not separate them, and each contains a component of the other. To be merciful is just; not to be merciful is unjust. Yet, there is still a “I didn’t strictly speaking have to do this” component to most mercy. Which is why this gets a bit challenging.

Moving to the workplace directly: I think there is both justice and grace in how we are to view our employees. The confidence _is_ deserved: people are capable of doing amazing, incredible things, and most people want to do great work and increase in responsibility. It is also an act of grace because the way you view people becomes self-fulfilling. If you view someone as incapable, they often become incapable. If you view them as capable, they often live up to that–not _simply_ because they are intrinsically capable of it (which they are) but also because you believed they are. That provides, often, the encouragement and stimulus to become everything they are capable of.

So viewing people in a positive light in the workplace is both an element of justice–it is indeed how most people are–and mercy: it has a “creative” function because people tend to live up (or down) to the expectations of them.

(This is not to say that people don’t misbehave, slack off, do things totally wrong, need correction, and etc.–which we are all familiar with. Many times the solution there is that people need more direction; sometimes people need a kick in the pants; and sometimes they just need to move on. So there are more nuances that can be made, and it sounds like Rachael is dealing with some of that right now!)

Those are a few thoughts. Much more could be said in lots of directions. Really interesting stuff.
Loren Pinilis on December 13th, 2011 1:22 pm

Do I have this straight? Is this basically what you’re saying?

God extends mercy to us, thereby doing justice to his character (the character of a loving, merciful God).

Likewise, we should extend mercy to others, thereby doing justice to the law of Christ (which compels us to be merciful).

Recognizing good in our employees is an act of justice towards them. Responding graciously towards their flaws and mistakes is an act of mercy towards their wrongdoing – but an act of justice towards the law of Christ.

Does that make sense? Is that what you’re saying?

Also, in regards to Rachael’s point: God sometimes allows our mistakes and flaws to get us in trouble. This is an act of justice but also an act of love and grace, since this forces us to ultimately face our flaws. It’s a “longterm view” of grace, if that makes sense.

So we could extend this same character towards those we lead and manage. It may be the best and most loving thing for the organization – and also for them – is to handle the issues. Just a thought
Matt on December 16th, 2011 2:22 pm

I think pretty close to that. I think it is helpful to introduce here the biblical category of “kindness” as well. Kindness is doing good for others, treating them well, and so forth, and doesn’t have “lack of desert” as part of the meaning (as grace does).

The key part of my point is that justice is kind and generous. And this is how we _ought_ to treat people. People _deserve_ to be treated well, because they are in the image of God.

When people make mistakes and so forth, then kindness becomes not simply kindness, but also grace. In that case, a person by definition doesn’t deserve the kindness, but it is still right and just to be gracious because God requires us to be gracious. Which is your point that it is grace (or mercy) to the person, but justice in relation to God’s will because that’s what he requires.

The thing I’m adding (beyond what I used to say) is that we can call an act of mercy “justice,” while understanding that the person doesn’t deserve it, because showing mercy is part of the character of the just person. I used to say “call mercy, mercy, and justice, justice.” Now I’m making the slight distinction that we can call mercy “justice” when it is viewed through the lens of what God requires, rather than what a person specifically deserves.