Fairness is not determined by words, but by everyday managerial decisions. Workload distribution, access to opportunities, feedback, recognition, goal setting, and compensation decisions: each decision sends a signal about what is considered fair within the team.

The role of a manager is not to satisfy everyone. It is to ensure perceived fairness by taking real situations into account, setting explicit criteria, explaining trade-offs, and applying principles consistently over time. It is this framework that maintains trust, even when decisions are difficult.

Clarify the rules of the game for fair treatment

Tensions surrounding managerial fairness do not arise solely from difficult decisions. They arise mainly when the rules of the game are absent or implicit. When criteria are not established, everyone tries to guess "why him and not me," and managerial decisions are quickly interpreted as arbitrary.

Establish explicit decision-making criteria

A decision that is not properly explained is often perceived as unfair, even if it is rational. And certain situations recur repeatedly in teams:

• Workload distribution
• Access to visible projects or development opportunities
• Choosing priorities: what to do, what to stop, what to postpone

To strengthen managerial fairness, the challenge is simple: establish criteria before making decisions, not after the fact. This provides a secure framework and limits interpretations.

Among the most useful criteria are:

• Impact on collective goals
• Real urgency of the subject
• Current position of the person
• Opportunity to develop skills
• Rotation over time to ensure fairness over time

The NUMA recommendation 

Announce 3 to 5 criteria in advance, either in a meeting or in writing, then implement them systematically. Consistency in implementation is more important than perfection in choice.

A concrete example

A strategic project is assigned without explicit criteria. The employee who is not chosen gradually disengages, without saying anything. When the next decision is made, the manager announces the criteria (impact, workload, skills development, rotation) before making a decision. The differences become understandable and trust is maintained.

Making equity visible without falling into equality

Fair treatment does not mean treating everyone the same. Managerial fairness is based on one skill: differentiating in an explainable and conscious way. Otherwise, the team will fill in the blanks.

For differentiation to be perceived as fair, three conditions are important:

• consistency: the same principles apply over time
• transparency: everyone understands the rules, even if they are not "winners" in the short term
• explanation of discrepancies: explain why X has an opportunity today, why Y does not yet have one, and under what conditions this will change
  

One point to note: not differentiating when necessary also creates injustice. For example:

• A senior and a junior do not have the same level of autonomy.
• A person who is already overburdened must be protected, even if they are competent.
• A learning phase requires tailored assignments and enhanced support.

The NUMA recommendation

Summarize your reasoning for differentiation in a simple sentence, then explicitly link it to the criteria you announced. Example: "I assign topics based on actual workload, level of autonomy, and rotation, so that everyone can progress without burning out." This explanation reinforces perceived fairness, even when the decision doesn't suit everyone.

A concrete example

Within a team, the manager assigns tasks based on experience and actual workload. He explains his reasoning (consistency, rotation, learning). Differences are understood and accepted because they are clear.

Making trade-offs in decision-making

The biggest risk isn't always making the wrong decision. It's not making a decision at all. When a manager avoids making decisions, certain mechanisms kick in automatically: habits, power dynamics, visibility. And perceived fairness quietly deteriorates.

Moving away from implicit decisions for fair management

When a manager does not make decisions, they sometimes think they are "letting the team organize itself." In practice, it is rarely rules that take hold. It is automatic behaviors. And these automatic behaviors quickly create a sense of injustice, because they are not based on any explicit criteria.

Not arbitrating often amounts to:

• Let the most visible profiles seize opportunities: those who speak the most in meetings, who quickly position themselves, or who are close to the topics "that matter" naturally get the projects that are presented.
• Penalizing more discreet employees: they contribute, but they are less visible. Without explicit decisions, they remain in the background and eventually lose interest.
• Reinforcing existing imbalances without acknowledging them: the same people take on urgent tasks, difficult issues, and cross-functional requests because they are competent and available. Others protect themselves or become spectators.

In these situations, managerial fairness does not deteriorate because the manager made a bad choice. It deteriorates because he did not make the choice visible. The manager is not a neutral observer: he is responsible for implementing trade-offs and their effects on workload, exposure, and opportunities.

A concrete example

A manager lets the team "self-organize" when it comes to assigning complex projects. As a result, it's always the same people who end up with the most difficult tasks because they are reliable, available, or already identified as "the ones who know how to do it." Little by little, the workload becomes uneven, frustration mounts, commitment declines, and the atmosphere becomes tense.

Explain trade-offs, even when they are imperfect

Transparency builds trust, even when the decision is not unanimous. Conversely, a decision that is made without explanation leaves room for interpretation and, therefore, feelings of injustice.

Explaining an arbitration decision is not about justifying yourself for 10 minutes. It's about providing a simple and consistent framework. 

In concrete terms, this means:

• What was taken into account (criteria, constraints, current priorities)
• What was not retained (what did not tip the scales, or what you were unable to change)
• What can influence the decision (conditions for an opportunity to return, a transition point, a deadline)

This approach reduces interpretations. Even if the decision remains frustrating for some, it becomes understandable. And that is often what protects perceived fairness: clear logic, repeated and maintained over time.

A concrete example

A manager announces that an opportunity will not be given to this person this time around. He simply explains what his decision was based on: today, the position requires experience in managing cross-functional projects, and this criterion weighed heavily in the decision. He also adds what could make the difference next time: demonstrating the ability to lead a project independently by the next review, with a clear progress report. Even if it is disappointing, the decision remains transparent. The rules of the game are explicit, and trust is maintained because the criteria are clear and consistent.

Recognizing actual work to support team engagement

Recognition at work is not a bonus. It is a managerial lever that directly influences team commitment, trust, and cooperation. When it is uneven or unpredictable, it becomes a matter of managerial fairness in its own right.

Moving beyond recognition limited to visible performance

In many teams, recognition focuses on what is most visible:

• showcase performance (immediate results, major deliverables)
• speaking up (those who express themselves, sell themselves well)
• the exposure (visible projects, interactions with top management)

The problem: 

If we only recognize this, we create structural injustice. Because real work also relies on contributions that are less visible but crucial to collective performance: reliability on a daily basis, consistency, cooperation, support for others, managing irritants, and risk prevention.

The NUMA recommendation: 

Each week, identify one "invisible but useful" contribution and explicitly acknowledge it (either in writing or verbally), linking it to its impact on the team. This restores balance in recognition and strengthens the climate of trust.

A concrete example

An employee regularly takes on urgent tasks, ensures deliverables are completed, and helps colleagues finish last-minute projects. Because this work is done quietly, it is never mentioned or recognized. Over the weeks, he stops "compensating." Incidents multiply, the workload explodes, and the manager realizes that the team's performance was partly based on a contribution that remained invisible.

The clarity of priorities and rules is identified as a key lever for balancing performance and well-being in our article on the key factors for balancing performance and well-being.

Establish consistent feedback to avoid double standards.

The lack of feedback is often perceived as unfair. Not because everyone expects compliments, but because without feedback, everyone wonders where they stand and what criteria they are being evaluated on.

For feedback to support perceived fairness, consistency matters as much as content:

• same level of requirement: avoid standards that vary depending on the person
• same frequency: do not reserve feedback for visible profiles or "problems"
• same criteria: state what is expected and stick to it
  

Setting clear, shared goals ensures recognition: contributions are recognized based on an explicit framework, not on intuition at the moment. And when it comes to sensitive decisions (raises, promotions), the same principle applies: explain what was taken into account, what was not taken into account, and what will enable growth.

Managerial fairness is a direct driver of trust and engagement in the workplace. To establish credible fairness on a daily basis, five practices make all the difference: clarifying criteria, making differentiation transparent, accepting trade-offs, recognizing actual work, and maintaining consistent feedback.

If you only do three things this week: announce your criteria before making a decision, explain a sensitive trade-off in three points, and recognize an invisible but decisive contribution.