Fairness

As mentioned in the previous chapter, the concept equity and fairness remind, to large extent, each other. Fairness relates to "what is right" or "what is deserved", and can be measured as ratio of one's own perceived inputs and outcomes. The narrow interpretation of fairness, sees it as a judgment of one individual or group, but if the deserviness aspect is taken into account, fairness can be concerned and is affected by all the perceptions of "what is deserved" of all the actors included in the relationship. (See more e.g. Oliver and Swan 1989)

In order to shed light onto the concept of fairness in a business context, it is useful to examine other concepts used in service, satisfaction and channel literature. These concepts are closely related to the idea of what is deserved. At least the concepts of sacrifices, value, deserved service, utility and reward and cost outcome are relevant here.

The deserviness aspect of fairness relates, also it to the other concept used in customer satisfaction studies (e.g. Miller 1977; Gilly 1980; Liljander 1995) and in some service quality studies (Zeithaml 1988; Bolton and Drew 1991; Liljander and Strandvik 1993a, 1995a; Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995; see also Lehtinen and Järvelin 1995; Järvelin and Lehtinen 1996) as a comparison standard, namely deserved product/service or value. Liljander (1995) has defined deserved service as "a comparison between all the outcomes connected to a service that the customer is perceived to get, and all the sacrifices which he made to get them" (p. 66). Defined as such deserved service(/product) is the ratio between individual's inputs and outcomes.

Liljander (1995) found eleven different comparison standards used either in consumer satisfaction or service quality literature. In the comparison, between these different standards, in a restaurant setting, she found that deserved service as comparison standard used in disconfirmation best explained the episode satisfaction. Second best, was the performance alone. (Ibid.) Deserved service (or value) is according to Liljander (1995), different from the other comparison standards in the sense that it already contains a comparison itself, and it is not compared to service performance. Thus, it can be argued that deserved service is not a comparison standard at all, as it in itself, consists of a comparison. Consequently, in this study

fairness, like equity, is treated as a separate process from the main evaluation process, but it is seen as affecting the main evaluation process.

In service quality literature, the concept of value and its importance in service quality evaluations was noticed only recently (e.g. Zeithaml 1988; Bolton and Drew 1991; Liljander and Strandvik 1993a, 1995a; Ostrom and Iacobucci 1995). Zeithaml (1988, p. 14) has defined value as "a consumer's overall assessment of the utility of a product based on perceptions of what is received and what is given". This definition gets close to cognitive evaluation, and can not be as such, considered as a social evaluation. The utility of product here is seen as a comparison between inputs and outcomes, and thus it can be considered as an individual's own evaluation of "what is deserved".

The other view of value in service quality literature sees it as a function between perceived service quality and perceived sacrifices (e.g. Liljander 1995; Liljander and Strandvik 1993a, 1995a; Bolton and Drew 1991). This view, however, relates two comparisons, which are not necessarily dependent on each other (Molm 1991, p. 477 - 478). The belief of what is fair, can be formed at the same time as the expectations concerning service, product or episode. Thus, it is impossible to say what is the ordering of fairness and quality evaluations in which they may be to some extent, dependent on each other.

In some studies, sacrifices are treated as a part of the satisfaction evaluation itself (e.g. Howarth and Sheth 1969) in a way that satisfaction itself reminds value. In interaction - network studies, sacrifices are included to the satisfaction evaluation as a part of outcomes gained (e.g. Andersson and Narus 1984, 1990; see also Andesson and Håkansson and Johansson 1994; Wilson and Mummalaneni 1986), and in some studies the fairness concept also is affecting (together with equity) satisfaction (e.g. Frazier 1983; Frazier, Spekman and O’Neil 1988). The latter view is in accordance with the view used in this study.

Consequently, fairness is included in the preliminary framework (see figure 6) as affecting both episode quality and the relationship quality evaluation. Fairness includes not only economic, but also social, behavioral, physical and psychological factors (see more e.g. Mills 1990). Fairness is in this study seen as a separate, but to some extent dependent process, with the basic comparison between experiences and a comparison

standard. As the concept of fairness includes a comparison in itself, it is treated as a separate process which can affect the quality judgments made in main evaluation process. The fairness process includes a comparison between input the partner has made on certain episode or on the whole relationship and the outcomes the partner has gained from that episode or relationship. The result of this process can change the quality perception formed in main the evaluation process. For example, if the evaluator perceives that the experiences gained form a certain episode, are according to the goals set for that episode the episode quality perception should be good. However, if the inputs made to the episode considerably exceed the outcomes gained, the episode quality perception may decrease.

Fairness, can to some extent, be affected by the social notion of what is fair or what is deserved. This social notion can consist of the social norm formed inside an organization, inside a relationship or inside a larger network of relationships. Social norm formed inside the relationship can be based on a contract or long term institutionalized relationship.

Fairness or perception of what is deserved must be to some extent also present in the formation process of comparison standard against which the actual performance is compared. The ordering of different processes, may depend on the relationship, episode evaluation situation, evaluator and numerous other factors. The ordering of different processes, is not, according to my view, the most important issue. Much more important, is the notion than both fairness and equity have an important role in episode and relationship quality evaluation.

In conclusion it can be said that the fairness process includes a comparison between the input that the partner has made on certain episode or on the whole relationship and the outcomes partner has gained from that episode or relationship. In this study, like equity, fairness also is seen only affecting the main evaluation process, not as a main evaluation. It is impossible to say what is the ordering of fairness and quality evaluations which may be to some extent dependent on each other. Fairness can be to some extent also be affected by the social notion of what is fair or what is deserved.