Just June: Fairness, Identity, and Boundaries at Work
By Dr Liz Wall.
June often prompts renewed organisational focus on inclusion, balance, and belonging. Yet from a Business Psychology perspective, justice is not seasonal.
This article explores how perceptions of organisational justice intersect with identity, belonging, and work–life boundaries, particularly in the context of hybrid work and caring responsibilities.
Drawing on recent research, it argues that inclusive practice is most effective when embedded in fair systems rather than reliant on individual discretion. Practical implications are outlined for leaders and practitioners.
Justice as an Everyday Experience
Perceived fairness remains one of the most robust predictors of employee engagement, trust, and wellbeing. Contemporary reviews show that organisational justice is associated not only with attitudes and performance but also with mental health, stress, and sickness absence (Cachón Alonso & Elovainio, 2022). Importantly, these effects arise from employees’ perceptions of fairness, rather than from formal policies alone.
Justice is commonly understood through distributive (outcomes), procedural (processes), interactional, and informational dimensions. While organisations often focus on outcomes such as pay or promotion, research consistently demonstrates that how decisions are made and communicated is at least as influential for trust and motivation (Colquitt et al., 2022). For Business Psychologists, this reinforces a familiar insight; justice is experienced locally, through everyday leadership decisions and interactions.
Identity, Fairness and Belonging
Belonging at work, feeling accepted, valued, and able to be oneself, has received increasing empirical attention in recent years. Measurement studies indicate that perceived belonging predicts intent to stay, productivity, and wellbeing, even when demographic and organisational factors are controlled (Blau et al., 2023).
However, belonging is highly sensitive to fairness cues. Ethnographic and qualitative research suggests that employees’ experiences of inclusion are shaped less by symbolic initiatives and more by whether their expertise is used in decisions and their differences are treated as normal rather than exceptional (Thissen et al., 2023). For employees with marginalised identities, fairness often breaks down through ambiguity; discretionary flexibility, informal sponsorship, and opaque definitions of “fit”.
Business Psychology increasingly frames these patterns as systemic justice issues rather than individual resilience gaps. Where inclusion depends on who feels able to ask, or who is comfortable being seen as an exception, perceptions of unfairness are likely to persist.
Work–Life Boundaries and Caring Responsibilities
Hybrid and flexible working arrangements have intensified longstanding boundary challenges. Large-scale reviews show that policy availability alone is a weak predictor of outcomes; what matters is employees’ actual boundary control and the consistency with which policies are implemented (Kossek et al., 2023).
Recent research highlights three recurring justice risks:
- Blurred boundaries leading to prolonged availability and fatigue
- Visibility and proximity bias disadvantaging remote and caregiving employees
- Informal flexibility arrangements reinforcing inequity rather than inclusion
Evidence suggests that these risks disproportionately affect women and minority employees, particularly where flexibility is still stigmatised (Trades Union Congress, 2024). From a justice perspective, this shifts boundary management from a personal coping issue to a collective design challenge.
Inclusive Practice as Fair Design
Across justice, DEI, and hybrid work literatures, there is growing consensus that inclusion efforts relying on managerial discretion exacerbate inequity. In digital and hybrid contexts, unclear rules amplify disparities in access, visibility and progression (Georgiadou et al., 2024).
Justice-aligned inclusive practices include:
- Clearly defined and transparently applied performance criteria
- Explicit rationale for flexibility and workload decisions
- Consistent signals that boundary respect is compatible with high performance
Such practices benefit all employees while disproportionately supporting those most likely to experience exclusion. Inclusion, in this sense, becomes an outcome of fair design rather than individual advocacy.
Implications for Leaders and Practitioners
Leaders play a central role in shaping justice climates, often unintentionally. Small, repeated behaviours – who is listened to, whose boundaries are respected, how exceptions are handled – carry strong fairness signals.
For Business Psychologists, key levers include developing leaders’ capability in fair process, using justice and belonging data alongside lived experience, and challenging assumptions that flexibility and consistency are incompatible. Justice-focused interventions are most likely to succeed when framed as enablers of sustainable performance and wellbeing, rather than solely as moral imperatives.
Conclusion
“Just June” offers a reminder that justice is not an annual theme but an accumulating experience. When fairness is embedded into everyday systems and decisions, inclusion becomes credible and belonging sustainable. For Business Psychology, the challenge is to support organisations in moving from symbolic intent to justice that is consistently felt, well beyond June.
For ABP Members:
Not a member? We invite you to join us at The Association for Business Psychology!
About the Author
Liz is a Certified Principal Business Psychologist (CPBP) and Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Management Institute (CMgr FCMI). As Senior Director at Labcorp in Greenfield, USA, Liz navigates complex challenges with clarity, drives continuous improvement, and builds strong partnerships that advance both organisational success and employee growth. Grounded and people-centred, she brings a thoughtful, future-focused approach to leadership.
References
Blau, G., Goldberg, D., & Kyser, D. (2023). Organizational belonging: Proposing a new scale and its relationship to demographic, organizational, and outcome variables. Journal of Workplace Behavioral Health, 38(3), 226–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/15555240.2023.2178448
Cachón Alonso, L., & Elovainio, M. (2022). Organizational justice and health: Reviewing two decades of studies. Journal of Theoretical Social Psychology, Article 3218883. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/3218883
Colquitt, J. A., Zipay, K. P., Lynch, J. W., & Outlaw, R. (2022). Organizational justice: Typology, antecedents, and consequences. Encyclopedia of Social Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia2030086
Georgiadou, A., Özbilgin, M., & Özkazanç Pan, B. (2024). Working from everywhere: The future of work and inclusive organizational behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2840
Kossek, E. E., Perrigino, M. B., & Lautsch, B. A. (2023). Work–life flexibility policies from a boundary control and implementation perspective. Journal of Management, 49(6), 2062–2108. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063221140354
Thissen, L., Biermann Teuscher, D., Horstman, K., & Meershoek, A. (2023). (Un)belonging at work: An overlooked ingredient of workplace health. Health Promotion International, 38(3). https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daad061
Trades Union Congress. (2024). Making hybrid inclusive: Black workers’ experiences of hybrid working. https://www.tuc.org.uk/research-analysis/reports/making-hybrid-inclusive