Abstract
Justice is an important factor in organizational performance, including in higher education institutions. This study examines how faculty perceive and experience issues of organizational justice across distributive, procedural, and interactional dimensions as practiced by their immediate leaders, such as department heads and college deans. In doing that, the study used a case study design and involved 48 purposively selected participants. Data were collected through interviews and focus group discussions. The collected data was then analysed thematically. The study findings showed that all three dimensions of justice are characterized by ongoing challenges. Regarding distributive justice, faculty experienced inequities in the allocation of resources and provision of professional development opportunities, which undermined their trust and motivation. In terms of procedural justice, issues were linked to a lack of transparency, inconsistent application of policies, and limited opportunities for faculty participation in decision-making and governance. Faculty perceptions of interactional justice issues also emerged from experiences of dismissive and disrespectful behaviour from leadership. Taken together, these findings highlight critical organizational justice issues that may affect faculty trust, satisfaction, and performance in higher education. The study findings have important implications for higher education institutions, which aim to increase faculty trust, satisfaction, and performance by increasing the perception of fairness across all three justice dimensions. Moreover, the study highlights the need for higher education institutions to institutionalize transparent and participatory justice practices to foster faculty’s sense of fairness in their daily academic and professional interactions.
Keywords
Introduction
The issue of justice has always mattered for all types of organizations, including higher education, because studying organizational justice is critical to understanding how fair employees feel about their treatment, which affects their behaviour, performance, and commitment (Adamovic, 2023; Lee & Rhee, 2023). Existing literature such as Adamovic (2023), Cropanzano et al. (2007), and Greenberg (2011) conceptualized organizational justice as employees' perceptions of fairness in the workplace based on three interrelated dimensions: (a) distributive justice, which refers to the perceived fairness of outcome distributions such as resources, recognition, and promotion opportunities; (b) procedural justice, which indicates the fairness and transparency of decision-making processes, including consistency, bias suppression, and opportunities for voice; and (c) interactional justice, which implies the fairness of interpersonal treatment, with emphasis on respect, dignity, and truthful communication.
Particularly, the concept of organizational justice in higher education has gained scholarly attention in recent decades (Gollagari et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2020; Rahman et al., 2022; Teshome & Bitew, 2021). That is because understanding faculty perceptions and experiences on these dimensions is crucial for enhancing several institutional outcomes (Khan et al., 2023; Qamar et al., 2022). Further consultation of the literature across the globe suggests that faculty perceptions of organizational justice play a critical role in predicting several outcomes in higher education. For example, Rahman and Karim (2022) show that organizational justice is associated with better organizational productivity in higher education. Another study by Yalçın and Özbaş (2021) emphasizes that organizational justice of the academicians is related to a low level of organizational cynicism perceptions in higher education settings, suggesting that when academicians generally feel their institutions treat them fairly, it reduces their tendency to view the organization negatively or with distrust. Additionally, Dahleez and Aboramadan (2025) posit that organizational justice transforms academic satisfaction in higher education.
Several studies have also been conducted in the Ethiopian higher education context to understand organizational justice and its associated outcomes. For example, the study by Mesfin (2025) reveals that when faculty perceive fairness, they exhibit higher organizational commitment and citizenship behaviours, which are critical for higher education effectiveness and morale. Similarly, Gidi et al. (2023) noted that organizational justice contributes significantly to the positive management of workforce diversity in higher education, affecting identity, values, and communication dynamics. Additionally, the study by Assefa et al. (2024) also found that perceived organizational justice had a significant direct influence on faculty voice behaviour in higher education. Likewise, several studies show that perceived organizational justice significantly predicts job satisfaction, academic commitment, and organizational citizenship behaviour in higher education (Gollagari et al., 2024; Moltot & Walia, 2024; Teshome & Bitew, 2021). The above-mentioned studies inform the predictive relationship between faculty perceptions of institutional-level perceived organizational justice and the related organizational outcomes in higher education. These findings provide a strong basis for a quantifiable understanding of how organizational justice can be associated with institutional outcomes.
While the above-mentioned previous studies tend to examine perceived organizational justice in terms of institutional policies, overarching procedures, and broad leadership strategies, they leave a limited understanding of how justice is experienced at the more immediate, operational level of leadership. They do not explain in detail how faculty perceive organizational justice in its dimensions and what characteristics define it. Although Ethiopian universities have expanded rapidly, concerns about fairness in resource allocation, decision processes, and leader–faculty interactions remain common (Gidi et al., 2023; Mesfin, 2025; Teshome & Bitew, 2021). Most existing studies, such as Assefa et al. (2024), Mesfin (2025), Moltot and Walia (2024), examine issues related to the interaction of top-level university governance, leader-faculty relationships, faculty satisfaction and performance, organizational justice, and related outcomes. However, such research efforts leave a limited understanding of how organizational justice is practiced in day-to-day academic units where faculty interact most with their immediate leaders, such as department heads and college deans. Faculty interact most directly with department heads and college deans, who, for example, make decisions about workload allocation, promotion recommendations, resource distribution, and recognition, which have a significant impact on the day-to-day work experience. However, to the best of the present study researchers’ understanding, limited studies have examined and understood the issue of organizational justice from this perspective, leaving a considerable gap in the literature. This gap highlights the need to explore the perspectives of faculty from their self-perceptions and shared experience, as these leaders (department heads and college deans) directly influence their daily working conditions, opportunities, and interactions, which can be different from the wider institutional justice seen at higher administrative levels. This gap is critical because immediate leaders are often the primary interface between institutional policies and the faculty experience, and their practices of organizational justice may have a direct impact on faculty motivation, trust, engagement and related professional and organizational outcomes.
This study, therefore, seeks to address this gap by examining the faculty’s perspective from their perceptions and experiences of organizational justice, focusing on issues of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice practices by their immediate leaders such as department heads and college deans, and whether these practices are in line with the principles of organizational justice within the Ethiopian higher education context. It aims to provide a nuanced understanding of how issues of fairness are enacted and perceived at the departmental and college levels, which may differ from the experience and perception of justice at the highest administrative level, and thus to provide practical insights for improving leadership practices in higher education. Drawing on rich and in-depth faculty narratives and lived experiences, the study also aims to deepen the knowledge that can guide higher education leadership, inform policy development, and support capacity-building initiatives to promote fairness at the grassroots level of higher education and improve institutional effectiveness. In doing so, the study addresses the following three research questions:
(1) What are the faculty’s perceptions and experiences on issues of distributive justice in the context of higher education in Ethiopia?
(2) What are the faculty’s perceptions and experiences on issues of procedural justice in the context of higher education in Ethiopia?
(3) How do faculty describe issues of the quality of interactional justice in the context of higher education in Ethiopia?
Literature Review
The review of relevant literature on organizational justice suggests that the construct has diverse emphasis across contexts, and the meanings in all endeavours are nearly similar. For example, studies have seen organizational justice from the perspectives of organizational variables such as commitment, turnover intention, job satisfaction, and performance (Abbasi & Nudrat, 2022; Bakhshi et al., 2009; Lee & Rhee, 2023; Qamar et al., 2022; Rahman & Karim, 2022). Additionally, Adamovic (2023) and Cropanzano et al. (2007) synthesized the theoretical base of how organizational justice is perceived in the workplace. From all sources, organizational justice can be conceptualized as the perception of fairness and equity within an organisation. Literature shows that when employees perceive their organization as fair and just, they are more likely to be motivated, committed, and satisfied with their job (Gollagari et al., 2024; Moltot & Walia, 2024; Teshome & Bitew, 2021).
From the review works of scholars in the field, it can be understood that the organizational justice construct has been partitioned into three dimensions such as distributive justice (fairness in the distribution of rewards such as pay and promotions), procedural justice (fairness in the processes and procedures used to make decisions), and interactional justice (fairness in the way in which employees are treated and communicated with their supervisors and colleagues) (Adamovic, 2023; Bakhshi et al., 2009; Cropanzano et al., 2007; Greenberg, 2011). They figured out the theoretical base of these three dimensions of organizational justice. For example, Bakhshi et al. (2009) derived distributive justice assumptions from the initial work of Adams (1965), who used a social exchange theory framework to evaluate fairness. Bakhshi et al. (2009) also presented procedural justice from Leventhal’s theory of procedural justice judgements, which focused on six criteria that a procedure should meet if it is to be perceived as fair. The criteria are: (a) applied consistently across people and across time, (b) free from bias, (c) ensure accurate decision-making, (d) have some mechanism to correct flawed or inaccurate decisions, (e) conform to personal or prevailing standards of ethics or morality, and (f) ensure that the opinions of various groups affected by the decision have been taken into account. Additionally, Cropanzano et al. (2007) see interactional justice, which is the third component of organizational justice, from two dimensions, such as interpersonal justice (treating an employee with dignity, courtesy, and respect) and informational justice (sharing relevant information with employees).
These dimensions in the higher education settings can be conceived as follows. Distributive justice within higher education often deals with, for example, faculty’s perceptions of equity in workload distribution, recognition, and promotion opportunities (Ammari & Howe-Walsh, 2025). Procedural justice is equally critical in higher education academic settings where decisions affecting faculty—for example, promotion, tenure, and resource allocation—need to follow transparent, consistent, and inclusive processes to maintain trust and morale (Abbasi & Nudrat, 2022). Interactional justice also plays a vital role in shaping faculty experiences in higher education. Practices, for example, respectful communication, ethical leadership, and honest feedback, enhance faculty members’ feelings of fairness, which in turn influences their performance and satisfaction (Khan et al., 2020; Qandeel & Kuráth, 2025).
More importantly, understanding faculty’s perceived organizational justice is important for several reasons, especially for enhancing organizational justice practices in the workplace in a higher education setting. First, faculty who feel that they are treated fairly and justly are more likely to be satisfied and motivated in their job (Gollagari et al., 2024; Lee & Rhee, 2023). This can lead to higher productivity, lower turnover rates, and better overall performance (Khan et al., 2023; Yalçın & Özbaş, 2021). Second, organizational justice helps to build trust and loyalty between faculty and the institutions (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2025). This implies that when faculty feel that their organization is fair and just, they are more likely to trust and believe in the higher education system. Third, it is also evident that understanding faculty perceptions of organizational justice helps to improve organizational commitment and citizenship behaviours, foster communication, and reduce conflict (Cropanzano et al, 2007; Moltot & Walia, 2024; Teshome & Bitew, 2021). These reasons suggest that understanding perceived organizational justice is important for creating a positive workplace environment in higher education that enables improving faculty motivation and performance, and builds trust and loyalty between faculty and higher education.
Overall, the literature underscores the integral role of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in shaping faculty attitudes and behaviours in higher education. Research efforts specifically within Ethiopian higher education reveal underlying complexities in how faculty perceive justice. For instance, Mesfin (2025) found that organizational justice positively affects organizational citizenship behaviour through enhanced commitment among faculty. Similarly, Assefa et al. (2024) documented the link between perceived injustice and organizational voice behaviours in academic settings. These findings emphasize that organizational justice is more than a theoretical construct; it is a practical determinant of faculty morale and institutional performance. Moreover, the Ethiopian higher education system is shaped by several social and institutional contexts, such as workforce diversity, cultural norms, and administrative practices that directly or indirectly influence faculty perceptions of fairness (Gidi et al., 2023). Understanding these contextual influences is essential for suggesting policies and leadership practices that enhance justice and faculty well-being in higher education.
Methods
Approach and Design of the Study
This study employs a qualitative approach with a case study design to explore faculty perspectives on issues of organizational justice, specifically distributive, procedural, and interactional justice in the Ethiopian higher education settings. The qualitative approach is chosen to gain in-depth insights into faculty experiences, attitudes, and meanings attributed to organizational justice in their workplace (Teherani et al., 2015). Likewise, the case study design is preferred for this inquiry because it helps the researchers emphasize contextual depth over broad generalization of faculty experiences with organizational justice within their specific workplace settings (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2018). Given that the study aims to gain a deeper understanding of faculty perspectives on issues of organizational justice to inform broader insights into this phenomenon within higher education, it adopts an instrumental type of case study design (Kekeya, 2021). In this approach, faculty experiences within the institution(s) are used as a means to comprehend the complex concept of issues of organizational justice in the context of Ethiopian higher education.
Study Participants and Sampling
The study involved 48 faculty participants from 4 public universities in Ethiopia. The sample consisted of two groups: eight participants took part in individual semi-structured interviews, and forty participants participated in four focus group discussions (FGDs), with ten participants in each group. This brings the total number of study participants to 48. The sample size is guided by the principle of data saturation (Khoa et al., 2023), whereby data collection continues until no new themes emerge, ensuring both depth and breadth in understanding faculty perspectives. These participants were selected using purposive sampling with maximum variation criteria (Nyimbili & Nyimbili, 2024). This sampling method helped choose participants so that a wide range of faculty experiences could be captured. Variation was sought across gender, academic rank, field of study, and years of experience. This approach ensures the inclusion of information-rich participants who can offer detailed perspectives on the organizational justice practiced by the faculty’s immediate leaders, such as department heads and college deans. Table 1 presents the distribution of participants by gender, academic rank, discipline group, and years of experience.
Summary of Participants’ Key Characteristics (N = 48).
Data Collection Tools
The study employed two data collection methods: semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) to obtain subjective experiences and shared perceptions of faculty, respectively (Khoa et al., 2023). The study employed semi-structured interviews with eight key informants to gain faculty’s in-depth insights into their subjective experiences and perceptions on issues of organizational justice as practised by department heads and college deans. The study also conducted four FGDs, each comprising ten participants of faculty members, to obtain the faculty’s collective views and diverse experiences related to issues of organizational justice as practised by department heads and college deans. This dual tool of data collection provided a comprehensive understanding of faculty perspectives on justice in their workplace context.
During both the interviews and FGDs sessions, a set of nine guiding questions was used for the semi-structured interviews and eight for the FGDs to facilitate the conversations. These questions were designed to explore faculty perceptions of fairness across the three dimensions of organizational justice. Sample guiding questions for the interviews across the three dimensions of organizational justice, for example, included: How do you describe the fairness of resource allocation, such as project funding, research support, and related opportunities in your department and college? Can you share an example of when you felt a decision about resources or rewards was fair or unfair? And, can you describe a situation where you felt that you were treated unfairly by a colleague or supervisor within the university? Likewise, for the FGDs, sample guiding questions across the three organizational justice dimensions include: In your opinion, how do your department and college ensure the equitable distribution of resources and rewards for staff? Can you describe a time when you felt that your input was not taken into account in a decision made by the department and college? And can you describe a situation where you witnessed a colleague being treated unfairly within the department or college? These questions encourage discussion, reflection, and sharing of participants’ self-perceptions and collective experiences.
Data Collection Procedures
In the process of administering both interviews and FGDs, steps were taken to ensure ethical and effective data collection. First, all ethical considerations relevant to this study were carefully addressed, including respect for participants’ rights and confidentiality. Informed consent was obtained from every participant, ensuring their voluntary agreement to take part in the study. Only after confirming each individual’s willingness to participate in the study did the researchers proceed with the interviews and FGDs. The interviews and FGD sessions were conducted in a private and comfortable atmosphere. Each session lasted for 60 to 90 min. Most of the interviews and FGDs were audio-recorded with participants’ permission to capture their responses accurately. However, in cases where some participants declined audio recording, detailed notes were taken to document their perspectives. This approach valued participants’ preferences while maintaining data integrity. The integration of interview data with FGDs evidence allowed for a more comprehensive understanding, providing both the subjective and shared insights of faculty about issues of organizational justice in their working institutions.
During transcribing the recorded and noted data as well as in reporting of main perspectives, pseudonyms were used to maintain participant confidentiality. In that, for example, interview participants were mentioned in this repor as Interviewee 1, 2, and so on, while FGD participants were labelled as Discussant 1, 2, etc. Participants' affiliated institutions were kept confidential. This practice ensured that all transcripts, reports, and publications remained fully anonymous, safeguarding participants’ identities while accurately reflecting their perspectives.
Data Analysis Method
The study applied thematic analysis to systematically identify, analyse, and report patterns within the qualitative data collected using interviews and FGDs. Initially, all audio recordings were transcribed verbatim to create comprehensive text data for analysis. The research team carefully read and re-read these transcripts to become thoroughly familiar with the content. Next, a coding process was undertaken, where meaningful segments of data related to organizational justice dimensions were highlighted and labelled with descriptive codes. This coding was performed by two lead researchers and one trained research assistant. Initial codes were generated inductively from the data rather than from a predefined list. Both coders reviewed the transcripts independently, highlighted meaningful segments, and assigned descriptive codes that captured the nuances of faculty perspectives related to fairness, leadership practice, and related experiences. After the initial coding, the two coders met to compare code lists, reconcile differences, and merge overlapping codes. Then, related codes were grouped into preliminary categories. These categories were reviewed against the data to confirm consistency and refine boundaries. Categories that captured similar ideas were then developed into broader themes that reflected the three dimensions of organizational justice issues. Each theme was supported by representative quotes from participants, illustrating shared views as well as variations in experiences. The following example shows how one theme was developed. A participant stated, “You cannot get research funds unless someone knows you.” The phrase was first coded as “leaders prioritize close colleagues,”“informal networks influence decisions,” and “access tied to personal ties.” These codes were grouped into the category “preferential allocation practices.” This category contributed to the broader theme “favouritism and informal networks.” This step-by-step process ensured that themes were grounded in the data and supported by the participants’ experiences. In doing that, MAXQDA version 24 was used to organize codes and track connections between categories and themes. This rigorous thematic analysis enabled a rich interpretation of how faculty perceived and experienced organizational justice within their departments and colleges, providing valuable insights into the complexities of fairness in the Ethiopian higher education setting.
Results
This section presents the study results thematically based on faculty perceptions and experience across the three principal dimensions of organizational justice: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Below is a detailed presentation of the emergent themes supported by representative quotes, followed by critical reflections.
Faculty's Perceptions on Issues of Distributive Justice
Faculty perceptions of distributive justice emerged as a prominent theme in this study, reflecting both negative and positive experiences. Many pointed to issues around resource distribution (particularly for research and projects), scholarship opportunities, career advancement, and perceived biases in promotion and tenure decisions as ongoing problems. Others also noted recent efforts to increase distributive fairness and transparency. These mixed views capture the tension between persistent challenges and growing signs of progress. The following sections present the negative perspectives first, followed by the positive experiences.
Favouritism and the Chain-of-Benefits
Several participants linked distributive injustice to the way resources are allocated, especially funding for research and projects, professional development opportunities, and teaching assignments, reflecting widespread dissatisfaction and frustration with distributive justice practice. During discussions with FGDs, most of the participants described distributive justice in their workplace as a deficient practice. In this context, one participant from FGD4 described the situation as follows:
… When you fail as an institution, you fail in all directions, and regarding resource allocation to departments and staff, a wide gap is noticed. Let me tell you one thing. Each department's staff prepares research and project proposals. After a round of evaluations, the budget will be finalized and allotted to each. But now, for the last two or three years, my department projects have not received enough budget, even though some staff members have done them well. But when you go to other departments, you can see that faculty are working on their research and projects that received an adequate budget from the university. (Discussant 6)
In connection with this, the following thought may be the reason for this practice. The interview with Interviewee 2 mentioned that: “Although there is a guideline which directs how research and project funds could be allotted, they [he mean college-level leaders] offer resources primarily to those groups they are close to, and probably they will be part of the work.” The mentioned perspectives may indicate that there is biased treatment in terms of just distribution of resources. In a similar vein, discussions with participants in most of the FGDs suggest that there is a lack of fairness in benefiting from institution-based projects since they are resources that could be equitably presented to all faculty without partiality. One participant from FGD2, for example, perceived this practice as follows:
A large number of projects are coming from both foreign and domestic partners to facilitate academic activities. It may surprise you, but there is a trend that we have not been even noticed about the result of projects, let alone known where they come from. We don’t know who is using it, which budget lasts for how long, we don’t know how much budget it came with. We perceive that only a few individuals who hold positions at the college and department level may manipulate it. (Discussant 1)
This perspective shows that there is a tendency for hidden information that would have been given by top-level leaders to faculty regarding available benefits and the way how they could benefit from them justly.
Additionally, most of the participants in both FGDs and interviews expressed their feeling that they know cases where facilitating and coordinating funded professional training and development opportunities have been given to faculty, even though they do not meet the required qualifications, simply because they have close relationships with leaders. Discussion with participants in FGD1 and FGD4 showed that most of the faculty believed that there is a presence of hijacking done by college-level leaders because of what they call the existence of “a chain-of-benefits.” One participant from FGD1 shared his observation, which is actually shared by most of the participants, that:
Currently, there is a huge project that our department has implemented in collaboration with foreign donors aimed at helping abroad students to pursue their master’s and PhD education here. All learning facilities and professors are from my department, but the person who leads all the project activities and budget was assigned from another college intentionally, who has no connection to that project. When we asked this question, they threatened us to only teach if we wanted; otherwise, they said that they would bring teachers from another respective university and run the project too.
The situation described above points to top-level leaders attempting to intervene and take control of projects that would be managed by certain departments. Participants observed that leaders sometimes assign projects to individuals who have no direct connection to the work, selecting them instead based on their personal ties. This implies that only people who have some kind of relationships and benefit-loyalties to leaders will benefit more in such kinds of benefit chains. Benefits tend to flow to those with established relationships and loyalties to leadership.
Opacity in Allocation Processes
Furthermore, several participants in FGDs linked distributive injustice directly with scholarship opportunities, noting perceived biases in giving faculty equal and equitable opportunities to benefit from them. Here are sample quotes reflecting that concern. One participant in FGD2 remarks that: “Although available domestic and foreign scholarship opportunities are posted for everyone on the university’s notice board and accessible on online platforms, sometimes, we don’t even know who got the foreign scholarships, which makes the process seem unfair and secretive” (Discussant 3). Similarly, interviews with Interviewees 3, 7, and 8 also shared their perspective that even though notices are widely shared, it’s unclear how decisions are made. Many believe favouritism influences scholarship awards, which undermines trust in the fairness of the system. Meeting with participants in FGD4 also showed that there is supposed to be merit-based selection for scholarships available for faculty, but in reality, it feels like connections matter more. The lack of transparency about the recipients only adds to the frustration. In terms of distributive injustice, these quotes and perspectives imply that faculty perceive the allocation of available scholarship awards as unfair and biased. Despite formal postings, the actual distribution appears to favour certain individuals, undermining the principle of equitable access based on merit. This perceived favouritism results in an uneven distribution of valuable academic opportunities, which are critical for professional development and career advancement. Such inequities contribute to feelings of resentment and demotivation among faculty members who believe that they are unfairly excluded from such opportunities.
Emerging but Uneven Reforms
Despite ongoing concerns about distributive injustice, some participants acknowledged gradual improvements in how resources are allocated through the direct and strict observance by the highest university-level leaders, though they stressed that progress remains slow and inconsistent. One participant shared his observation that: “In recent times, I have noticed efforts to follow up colleges’ practices of fair allocation of resources by the specific department under the vice president for academic affairs of the university, though the progress is slow and uneven” (Interviewee 2). Another also remarked, “While there are still challenges, there seems to be attention given by the highest-level leaders to ensuring scholarships and grants are not concentrated in the same hands” (Interviewee 5). In line with this, one discussant explained that: “We now see colleagues who were previously overlooked being considered for scholarships and research support” (FGD1, Discussant 6). These perspectives together suggest a cautious but growing recognition of efforts to promote fairer access to academic opportunities and resources. Yet optimism was often tempered by doubts about consistency and sustainability. A participant stated, “Change is happening, but it feels patchy in that some units are moving forward while others remain stuck in old habits” (Interviewee 1). Collectively, these perspectives highlight that although progress towards securing distributive justice is evident, faculty members remain vigilant and cautious, urging institutions to accelerate and deepen this progress to ensure distributive justice.
Faculty’s Perceptions on Issues of Procedural Justice
Procedural justice, encompassing the fairness of policies, the consistency of procedures, and the transparency of decisions made by college and department-level leaders, has generated a variety of views and concerns among participants. Their perceptions and experiences were presented as follows.
Inconsistency and Arbitrariness in rule Application
Many of the participants expressed frustration with the unclear and inconsistently applied procedures, which undermined their confidence in institutional fairness. Several participants (Interviewees 2, 4, 7, and 8) pointed out that working procedures such as workload allocation and promotion guidelines should have been standardized and applied fairly within the university but were, in reality, different from department to department. The reason for this practice can be found in the following views. Meeting with FGD1 pointed to the influence of informal networks on the application of procedures: “Sometimes the way rules are applied depends on who you are and who you know, rather than being fair to everyone” (Discussant 8). Another participant also added that: “The procedures sometimes seemed arbitrary. You can see one person being rewarded for certain behaviour that another person is being punished for, without any clear justification. It creates confusion and perceptions of unfairness” (Interviewee 6). This inconsistency undermines procedural legitimacy and encourages scepticism about institutional governance.
Exclusion from Decision-Making
Transparency in decision-making emerged as another critical concern of procedural justice, prominently reflected in participants’ accounts. Most participants noted that the degree of transparency and participation in decisions varied significantly depending on the nature of the decision. During discussions with FGD1 and FGD3, most of the discussants emphasized that while transparent and participatory decision-making is essential to ensuring justice, they have observed considerable gaps in practice. One participant in FGD1, for example, expressed as follows:
A variety of projects and scholarship opportunities come across within the institution and abroad from sponsors. But it is not known to whom they will be given; it is not clear how the beneficiaries of such a scholarship will be recruited or how the decision will be made, or who makes it. I believe this kind of process is being hijacked by certain groups rather than being done based on the relevant procedures. (Discussant 4)
This perspective suggests that important decisions that demand a wider voice are made by a small group of people without input from the wider faculty. This is an indication of a lack of transparency in the most important decisions that can benefit or harm the wider faculty and the institution. Furthermore, many participants felt excluded from decisions regarding important issues. A participant shared, “One of the biggest frustrations is our exclusion from decision-making processes. Policies and procedures are announced with little notice or explanation, and we rarely get a chance to contribute our views” (FGD 1, Discussant 3). This sense of exclusion was commonly reported, reflecting a hierarchical organizational culture where faculty felt marginalized.
Hierarchical Override of Departmental Autonomy
In a similar sense, meeting with FGD1 revealed that most of the time, matters that can be overseen at a given lower administrative level (e.g., departments) would be improperly overturned by colleges. One discussant in this FGD shared his experiences that:
Several times, if a person [a faculty member] requests a transfer from another university to work here with us and claims that the department does not want to admit him/her due to reasonable facts, for example, overemployment, that person’s transfer request can be accepted directly with a thin letter [he means by the direct order of higher-level leaders] as long as they want. Contrarily, it is clear that sometimes they will not accept and approve it unless they want them, even though the person is in good standing to fit the job position here.
As stated above, the statement about transfer opportunities is another example of how decision-making can be unfair and opaque. This can lead to a situation where qualified people are denied opportunities, while others who are less qualified are given preferential treatment. From this perspective, it is possible to say that decisions made at the college and department levels are based on the needs of a few individuals rather than the majority. This may lead to several problems, such as decisions being based on personal or some other considerations rather than on merit; faculty who are affected by decisions may not have a voice in the process, and decisions may not be in the best interests of the institutions as a whole.
Faculty's Perceptions on Issues of Interactional Justice
Faculty perceptions of interactional justice, which concerns the fairness of interpersonal treatment and communication, revealed a complex mix of negative experiences.
Emotional Toll of Unsupportive Interactions
Several participants reported experiences of dismissive and disrespectful treatment that undermined their morale and sense of fairness. During the interview, one participant shared his experience as, “Sometimes when I raise concerns, I am brushed off and ignored. It feels like my opinions don’t matter, which is very demoralizing” (Interviewee 4). Another participant also observed that, “There is a general lack of recognition for our work. We rarely receive genuine appreciation, and that affects our motivation” (FGD 2, Discussant 10). Participants also described the emotional toll of unsupportive interactions, with one stating, “Dismissive attitudes from some leaders create stress and make faculty reluctant to engage fully in their roles” (Interviewee 3). In addition to this, during the discussion with FGD3, participants shared their observations that represent the above-quoted perspectives on how leaders handle complaints of unfair treatment. Particularly, one discussant explained that:
A leader who is placed somewhere at this university is like what a proverb is said to be: “Let not the king be accused; let not the sky be ploughed.” Although there are a lot of directives that govern the duties and responsibilities of every individual and leader, no one holds anyone accountable if they act illegally. This is exactly how the institution failed. And to be honest, I feel really bad about it. (Discussant 4)
The proverb, “Let not the king be accused; let not the sky be ploughed” means that it is almost impossible to hold a powerful person accountable for their actions. This is often interpreted as a warning against challenging leaders, even if what they do is wrong. In this context, Discussant 4 feels that even though there are rules and regulations in place, no one is willing to enforce them if they work their job without reference to those regulations. This creates an atmosphere of impunity, where those individuals can do whatever they want without fear of consequences. Such a situation impacts the faculty’s well-being.
Poor Enactment and Communication of Governing Procedures
Furthermore, during the FGDs, it is prevalent that individuals can be treated unjustly, and their rights and responsibilities can be violated if they do not know the rules that govern their bosses’ actions. This is why universities need to ensure that their decisions, policies, and procedures are communicated effectively to all staff. In this regard, participants in FGDs stressed that one of the major gaps and sources of other unjust and unfair practices stems from interactional injustice. One participant from FGD1, for example, mentioned two basic sources for this issue: the lack of proper formulation of university rules and regulations and poor enactment. He described these as:
I do not believe that we faculty have enough understanding of most of the rules and regulations that govern not only the university’s actions at the highest level but also the colleges’ and departments’ routine activities at the grassroots level. I can mention two reasons for this. First, I do not believe that the higher body [university top-level leaders] will formulate them in a proper and participatory manner. Second, I do not believe that even after laws and procedures are enacted, they are properly communicated to the wider faculty for enhancing clarity about how to apply them (Discussant 9).
He expanded his explanation by adding an example that clarified his point and showed how the practice appears in real work while completing tasks.
For example, let me raise a concern regarding my friend who is appointed to a leadership position [department headship]. Although he took the position, he didn’t have all the required guidelines with relevant training by which the department is managed. He is asking someone when he is doing some work rather than referring to directives. As a result, I noticed that his actions without support from guidelines are exacerbating the sources of conflict with faculty members in the department (Discussant 9).
This incident shows that everyone may not have enough understanding of all the rules and regulations that govern actions. It made the faculty particularly lose their trust in their leaders and caused a breakdown in communication between the faculty and their immediate leaders.
Discussion
This section of the study provides valuable insights into faculty perceptions and experiences on the issues of justice practised by their immediate leaders within higher education, highlighting a nuanced interplay of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice concerns by comparing and contrasting them with theoretical literature and previous empirical studies.
The study shows that faculty perceive unfair distribution of resources, including research funding, project budgets, and scholarship opportunities. These concerns stem from unclear policies, weak accountability, and the influence of informal networks. This aligns with Adams’ (1965) Equity Theory, which holds that perceptions of inequity emerge when input–outcome ratios are viewed as imbalanced (Cropanzano et al., 2007). The presence of distributive injustice highlights a critical challenge for higher education institutions and can be examined through the lens of distributive justice, which emphasizes fairness in the outcomes that individuals receive relative to their contributions (Adamovic, 2023; Greenberg, 2011).
The study also reveals a pattern that faculty described as a “chain-of-benefits,” where resources and opportunities are distributed and circulated within closed personal networks. This reflects forms of nepotism and clientelism documented in other public sector contexts and shows how informal relationships can override formal rules that are supposed to guide resource distribution (Keles et al., 2011). Such networks weaken institutional procedures by placing loyalty and proximity to leaders above merit (Ammari & Howe-Walsh, 2025). This dynamic helps explain why faculty distrust allocation processes even when official policies exist, as the lived reality is shaped more by relational advantage than by documented standards. When faculty perceive that resources and academic opportunities are not fairly allocated, they are more likely to feel lower morale, distrust in the institution, disengagement, weakened organizational commitment, and questions about the legitimacy of institutional processes (Gollagari et al., 2024; Yalçın & Özbaş, 2021). To reduce these risks, higher education institutions could ensure that distribution of resources reflects clear and consistent principles such as equity, equality, and need, depending on the context (Ammari & Howe-Walsh, 2025). In this process, transparent communication of the criteria and rationale for allocation decisions is also essential to strengthen perceptions of fairness and reduce assumptions of bias (Assefa et al., 2024). Additionally, regular equity audits of workload, funding, and recognition systems can help uncover hidden disparities and provide evidence for corrective action. Sharing such findings and responding with concrete adjustments demonstrates accountability and reinforces institutional credibility. Furthermore, leadership training is vital, as academic leaders need skills to apply distributive justice principles consistently, recognize potential biases, and respond fairly to concerns (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2025; Khan et al., 2023). By aligning policies and practices with distributive justice principles, higher education can create a culture where faculty believe that outcomes are distributed fairly. This not only reduces perceptions of injustice but also builds trust, enhances engagement, and strengthens institutional cohesion.
The study findings also highlight how faculty perceptions of procedural justice were shaped not only by outcomes but by the fairness of the processes through which decisions were made. Concerns about the concentration of decision-making power in a small group reflect violations of core procedural justice principles such as consistency, neutrality, and voice (Abbasi & Nudrat, 2022; Leventhal, 1980). In this regard, faculty also used the proverb “Let not the king be accused; let not the sky be ploughed” to describe the challenge of questioning unfair decisions made by denying faculty a meaningful voice, limiting transparency, and decision-making processes, which reinforced a sense of exclusion that harmed morale and lowered motivation (Hosseini et al., 2025; Posselt et al., 2020). This illustrates a culture where criticizing leaders is discouraged, creating silence and limiting faculty voice. Such insight helps explain why procedural injustice persists; when faculty feel unable to challenge decisions, leaders operate with limited accountability, allowing unfair practices to remain unaddressed. In this regard, previous studies in organizational behaviour show that fear of retaliation reduces employees’ willingness to report misconduct or express concerns (Mayer et al., 2013). These patterns illustrate how perceived violations of fairness standards and decisions without accountability erode not only individual attitudes but also the legitimacy of institutional governance (Dahleez & Aboramadan, 2025). When policies are applied selectively or when individuals lack opportunities to provide input, procedures are seen as biased and untrustworthy (Yalçın & Özbaş, 2021). This aligns with research showing that procedural injustice diminishes trust in leadership and reduces organizational commitment (Malla & Malla, 2023; Qamar et al., 2022). From a procedural justice perspective, evidence shows that transparent, participatory procedures enhance acceptance of decisions even when outcomes are not favourable (Greenberg, 2011; Shkoler et al., 2021). For higher education, this underscores the importance of embedding procedural justice principles into governance structures through applying rules consistently, ensuring decisions are made with impartiality, allowing genuine opportunities for faculty voice, and clearly communicating the rationale behind choices. By institutionalizing such kinds of practices, higher education can build trust, strengthen engagement, and foster a culture of accountability that supports both faculty well-being and organizational effectiveness.
Another important finding reported in the present study was that many department heads lacked clear guidelines and formal training, which faculty saw as a source of inconsistent and arbitrary decision-making. This capacity gap directly contributes to procedural and interactional injustice, as leaders without structured preparation rely on personal judgement rather than established standards (Khan et al., 2023; Qandeel & Kuráth, 2025). This highlights the need for leadership development programmes tailored to the higher education context, focusing on policy application, communication skills, and fairness principles. Strengthening leadership capacity is essential for reducing inequities and improving faculty experiences. Furthermore, the study found that interactional justice hardly influenced faculty experiences, and they highlighted the presence of poor leader–staff relationships, marked by limited respect and weak communication, which led faculty to sense a lack of trust. Related to this, unjust treatment of staff by leaders was reported to generate stress, anxiety, and attrition, outcomes consistent with evidence that organizational injustice reduces motivation and commitment (Bakhshi et al., 2009; Teshome & Bitew, 2021). Furthermore, a recurring theme was the absence of transparent and effective communication of decisions and related issues that faculty need to hear. Prior studies emphasize that when faculty understand organizational directives and view them as fair, they are more willing to trust leaders and voice concerns without fear (Assefa et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2023; Malla & Malla, 2023). Addressing these issues requires higher education leaders to establish confidential and accessible complaint systems, strengthen accountability in handling grievances, and promote a more participatory decision-making process (Qandeel & Kuráth, 2025; Shkoler et al., 2021). Hence, higher education should also ensure clear communication of policies through multiple channels and provide training on their application. These steps can strengthen leader–staff relationships, build trust, and support a fairer and more effective academic environment.
Furthermore, the findings of this study have practical and policy implications for Ethiopian higher education institutions seeking to address the issues that shape faculty perceptions of organizational justice. On the practical side, department heads and deans can use the results to strengthen transparency in resource allocation, improve consistency in decision procedures, and communicate with faculty. To reduce concerns about distributive justice, leaders should use transparent and standardized criteria when allocating resources, professional development opportunities, promotions, and research support. Clear communication regarding these criteria can reduce perceptions of favouritism and strengthen trust. Procedural justice can be improved by involving faculty in decision-making through structured consultations, departmental committees, and regular feedback channels. Interactional justice should be addressed through leadership development focused on respectful communication, constructive feedback, and interpersonal skills. The study also offers policy implications for strengthening leadership preparation and accountability systems. Higher education leaders should introduce guidelines that set clear standards for distributive, procedural, and interactional fairness. Policies should require faculty participation in governance, establish monitoring systems for resource allocation, and include accountability mechanisms to address unfair practices. Leadership training should be institutionalized to ensure that department heads and deans understand and apply policies consistently. These measures can help institutions improve organizational justice, strengthen trust between faculty and leadership, and create a more supportive academic environment that enhances both faculty well-being and institutional performance.
Conclusion
This study aimed to explore faculty perspectives and experiences on issues of organizational justice as practised by their immediate leaders in Ethiopian higher education institutions, focusing on the three key dimensions: distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. The major findings reveal that faculty experience significant challenges in all three justice dimensions, though some emerging efforts offer a foundation for improving institutional justice. For example, distributive justice concerns were reflected in perceived inequities in resource distribution and career advancement provision practices, which undermined faculty trust and motivation. Procedural justice issues arose from a lack of transparency, inconsistent application of policies, and limited opportunities for faculty participation in decision-making and governance. Interactional justice is also seen in encountered dismissive and disrespectful behaviour from leadership. The implications of these findings are significant for higher education, aiming to improve faculty satisfaction and performance by increasing perceived justice practices across the three dimensions. Efforts to improve organizational justice should adopt a comprehensive strategy that ensures transparent and equitable resource allocation, fosters inclusive and consistent decision-making processes, and promotes respectful faculty treatment and communication. Such measures are likely to enable faculty to build trust, reduce perceptions of unfairness, and create a more supportive academic environment.
Limitations of the Study and Future Research Directions
Despite providing valuable insights, this study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. Understanding these limitations helps to contextualize the results and highlights areas for improvement in future research. The following points outline the key study limitations: First, this study focused only on faculty, capturing their perceptions and experiences on issues of organizational justice practice in relation to their immediate leaders, such as department heads and college deans. While this offers valuable insight into academic staff experiences, it limits the scope of perspectives to lower and middle-level leaders. Hence, future studies should incorporate the perceived organizational justice practice of other key stakeholders, such as top-level leaders, administrators, and support staff, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of organizational justice within higher education institutions. Second, this study focused exclusively on issues and challenges of organizational justice, limiting insights into positive practices that foster faculty trust, motivation, engagement and related outcomes. Hence, future research should examine the positive aspects of organizational justice, exploring practices and conditions that enhance fairness and contribute to improved staff's professional and organizational outcomes in higher education. Third, the findings are based on qualitative data with self-reported perceptions and shared experiences, representing surface-level evidence that may be influenced by individual participants’ biases and social desirability issues. Additionally, the qualitative nature of the study restricts the generalizability of the findings to other comparable higher education contexts. Therefore, future research should consider employing mixed methods, combining qualitative depth with quantitative measures to capture more diverse institutional contexts to explore how perceptions of organizational justice evolve and vary across settings. By addressing these limitations and expanding the scope of inquiry, future research can deepen knowledge of organizational justice in higher education and support the development of a more just environment that promotes faculty well-being and satisfaction.
Footnotes
ORCID iDs
Ethical Considerations
All the ethical issues have been approved by the corresponding author’s Institutional Research Review Committee (IRRC) with approval protocol number 0472/24.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from each participant verbally to be involved in the study process.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation and data collection were performed by Wossen Getahun Abera. Yalalem Assefa and Anas Ali Alhur have performed data analysis and interpretation. Shouket Ahmad Tilwani, Isa Spahiu and Huda Majeed have conducted the literature review. The first draft of the manuscript was written and organized by Yalalem Assefa, Wossen Getahun Abera and Anas Ali Alhur, and all authors commented on all versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study is supported via funding from Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University project number (PSAU/2025/R/1446).
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data supported this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.