By Tyron Thomas
Have you ever felt that a decision at work was unfair? Maybe you were left out of an important process or felt that information was withheld when it could have been shared. Perhaps you noticed that a supervisor treated you more harshly than others or had something they instructed you not to do, justifying it by saying that the rules are different for different positions of the organization. If any of this sounds familiar, you likely felt a sense of disconnection from your workplace. Experiences like these can leave staff questioning their place within an organization, affecting how motivated and engaged they feel in their roles.
This is where Organizational Justice Theory comes in. Built on three core pillars – procedural justice (fair decision-making processes), distributive justice (fair allocation of resources), and interactional justice (fair interpersonal treatment) – this framework provides organizations with the tools to shape individuals’ sensemaking positively. When these pillars are upheld, employees and students are more likely to feel valued, connected, and committed to the work that they are doing.
Sensemaking is the process of trying to decipher why certain things happen and what they mean; it is how individuals interpret and understand events within their environment, especially when those events feel ambiguous or are unexpected. Through ongoing conversations, cues, and interpretations, people shape their understanding of what is going on around them in an organization, which in turn influences their current and future actions. When treated fairly, people often perceive or make sense of these experiences as a sign of respect and value, which creates a stronger sense of trust and connection to the organization. When treatment feels unfair, however, this can trigger a negative sensemaking process, leading individuals to disengage or even consider leaving the job.
Drawing on examples from several campuses, this article explores how campus housing departments can incorporate Organizational Justice Theory into practices to support employees and students. By understanding each of the three pillars and being aware of what leads individuals to experience negativity and disconnect from the work environment, supervisors can determine where to implement these practices.
The first pillar, procedural justice, focuses on the fairness of decision-making processes, which impacts both employees’ and students’ trust in their organization. Fair processes ensure that they feel respected and valued. Low procedural justice in the workplace often arises from several different actions. One is favoritism or preferential treatment towards certain individuals or groups, which can undermine fairness and lead to feeling devalued. Another example is the unwillingness to consider the information that is available and the tendency to think that the decisions being made are ignoring information that was provided to the decision makers. Finally, non-inclusive decision-making processes such as leadership excluding relevant voices, especially those of entry-level staff or student leaders, can result in decisions that are perceived as biased or uninformed. For instance, when department leaders decide how student staff on-call teams are determined without consulting those actually responsible for being on call, student staff are denied an opportunity to share their input about what they feel the best decision is.
Colleges and universities employ many successful strategies for enhancing procedural justice. At Concordia University of Edmonton, for example, leadership reshaped their staff evaluation process so that it could be a more holistic performance review. Their reflection-based performance reviews focus on each employee’s unique strengths and contributions, which ensures that everyone gets to speak to their performance. This approach emphasizes individual value rather than being a rigid, one-size-fits-all evaluation system.
Some institutions are starting to make decision-making processes more inclusive by asking entry-level staff and senior student leaders to participate in discussions about policies that directly affect their roles. They also seek feedback on particular processes, such as on-call rounds, by asking staff and students whether current systems are effective and what improvements are needed. The staff at Campus Living Centres use a framework centered in ethics for their decision-making process. Emily Giugovaz, associate director of residence life, explains that they use a set of ethical questions (such as “What is the student impact?” and “Who is not at the table when making these decisions?”) to evaluate the potential impact of decisions. This approach encourages leaders to consider the broader effects on all stakeholders and ensures transparency and accountability. McMaster University implemented consistent processes for conduct cases by applying the same procedures for handling student conduct cases to residential students that they do to non-residential students. This consistency ensures that all students are treated fairly, reinforcing trust in the campus housing system’s fairness.
Improving procedural justice in an organization doesn’t require leadership to change who is ultimately responsible for making the decisions. It just requires them to be more mindful about including the relevant departmental stakeholders who may be impacted by a decision, either directly (affecting a staff member’s specific responsibility) or indirectly (affecting students who may be going to their student leader to ask questions about a change that impacted them). There will inevitably be decisions that leaders have to make that are not aligned with what certain stakeholders prefer. However, research about procedural justice suggests that people are more likely to accept and be understanding of unfavorable outcomes when they feel they had an opportunity to have their voices heard. When leadership creates fair processes that intentionally include diverse perspectives, they can create and maintain a sense of procedural justice that reinforces trust in the department.
Through ongoing conversations, cues, and interpretations, people shape their understanding of what is going on around them in an organization, which in turn influences their current and future actions.
The second pillar, distributive justice, addresses the perceived fairness in how resources and rewards (such as pay, professional development opportunities, and access to campus amenities) are distributed. When people feel that outcomes are fair to them as individuals, this is a confirmation that can in turn lead to improved job satisfaction, reduced turnover, and confidence that they are valued and respected in the organization.
Low distributive justice can result from several inequities: pay discrepancies (hiring new employees at higher rates than long-term staff with similar experience can lead to resentment and disengagement); an unequal workload distribution (when tasks are not allocated based on individual capacity or role requirements, certain employees may feel overburdened); and resource gaps (not addressing individual needs, such as additional support for complex roles or equitable access to student spaces, can result in perceived unfairness). For example, a decision by mid-level management that every entry-level staff member’s professional development plan should only include attending a regional conference (a decision made in an attempt to provide equal opportunities) will lead to low distributive justice since the decision wouldn’t account for the differences in experience, passion, or skills among the group of entry-level professionals.
Several campuses have found effective strategies for increasing distributive justice. The leadership at Campus Living Centres has implemented flexible work and resource allocations, which allows entry-level staff to choose between living on or off campus and provides temporary housing for staff while they are on-call but live off campus. This flexibility respects the individual needs and personal circumstances of employees. “Employee feedback has been overwhelmingly positive for this,” Giugovaz notes. “The flexibility is a huge factor in employee retention, satisfaction, and overall employee well-being. It's also worth noting that in the current housing climate in Canada, on-campus staff apartments are quite coveted for new graduates.”
At Mount Royal University, the residence services leadership has helped staff create equitable workloads for residence conduct cases, which are shared among team members to reduce stress, particularly when they return from breaks; ensuring that no single team member is disproportionately burdened with having to catch up on an unrealistic workload just because they took a vacation reduces burnout. “Dividing the caseload reduces the amount of anxiety I have about returning to work after a break,” explains Svati Balaji, a residence life coordinator. “On the other hand, it also serves as a professional development opportunity for me to take on more cases when my colleagues are on break. I’ve been able to work on unique cases and interact with many more students because of this arrangement at work.” Leadership at the College of the Rockies has implemented personalized support and resources by offering what they call personal circumstance days, which allows employees to manage unexpected personal needs without penalty, supports employee well-being, and grants them the autonomy to use those days most effectively.
Finally (and probably most important to staff), campuses should have clear compensation policies. Leadership must have the skills to be transparent about such things as pay structures and the criteria for raises or bonuses. This helps prevent ambiguity about compensation, and providing documentation on salary guidelines based on role requirements and performance criteria ensures that employees understand the factors behind their compensation.
The third pillar, interactional justice, highlights the importance of respect, empathy, and transparency in interpersonal treatment, which impacts both employees’ and students’ sense of belonging. From day-to-day interactions to evaluations, leadership must be savvy about rolling this into their communications with staff. Low interactional justice can arise from several things within the work environment: disrespectful communication (when there is a perception that leaders dismiss input or fail to communicate respectfully, employees and students may feel undervalued); lack of clear explanations (insufficient explanations for decisions can lead to confusion, especially when those decisions affect day-to-day operations or individuals directly); and rigid processes (a reluctance to adapt or involve team members in creating change – e.g., “We’ve always done it this way” – can negatively impact morale and the sense of belonging). For example, if a department decides to remove a student staff position and either provides no explanation or a fallacious one, this can create confusion and can reduce the level of trust in the department’s leadership. Without a clear explanation of why decisions were made, people may try to utilize sensemaking, which can create further misunderstandings and frustrations about departmental decisions.
Several campuses have implemented a variety of strategies to improve interactional justice. The leadership at Red Deer Polytechnic created a culture of recognition with what they call their sparkle jar and star initiatives, where employees are acknowledged for their efforts in meaningful ways. This initiative involves printing off a poster of an empty jar, which the team fills up collaboratively throughout the term by adding sparkly star stickers with the student staff who earn the star. “It’s essentially a system we use to support each other, and we use it to recognize each other’s successes and give shout-outs to those who go above and beyond in their work,” says Megan Koch, the lead attendant for residence life. “Each meeting I have with the residence attendants starts with the stars that were added to the sparkle jar – it can be for anything, from positive feedback I hear from tenants or staff to noticing the small things that go a long way to create a positive student life in residence.” Koch notes that this not only adds value to the peer-to-peer dynamic of their workplace, but also “has fostered a welcoming and supportive culture within residence life.”
Many institutions are aware that communicating comprehensive justifications for decisions is crucial for staff, so they offer transparent explanations for decisions. For instance, leaders explain changes, share feedback, and offer one-on-one discussions to help staff and students understand how their feedback influences outcomes. At the College of the Rockies, leaders emphasize personalized acknowledgments and recognize individual efforts by publicly acknowledging staff contributions, even when the person is not present. This public recognition demonstrates respect and appreciation for each team member’s contributions.
At McMaster University, they have outlined alternative processes for health-related behavioral issues in “Section X” of their Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (i.e., when student behavior may be related to a health condition). This approach allows for distinct procedures to support the student, aiming to understand how a student’s health may impact their behavior while providing access to resources. This respectful and empathetic response demonstrates a commitment to understanding individual needs and promotes interactional justice.
When employees and students experience fairness in processes, resource distribution, and interpersonal interactions, they interpret their place within the organization as a positive one. A consistent culture of perceived fairness supports a sensemaking process that reinforces connection, trust, and commitment to the organization. When organizational justice is upheld, sensemaking creates cohesive, positive narratives that allow employees and students to feel valued and connected to their environmentπ. This enables them to make sense of their roles as valued parts of a larger mission, to increase their engagement with the campus community, and to nurture a greater long-term commitment to the organization.
Now, imagine the lasting impact of implementing these strategies in your department: a workforce that is motivated, students who are fully engaged, and a community that thrives on mutual respect and shared purpose. As leadership envisions the future of the campus housing profession, it’s up to each of us to turn these principles into action, creating fair campus housing environments that truly support every individual’s potential.
Tyron Thomas is a residence life area coordinator at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
