ORGANIZATIONAL JUSTICE AND JOB SATISFACTION AMONG EMPLOYEES

IN CHINA NATIONAL OFFSHORE OIL CORPORATION IN UGANDA.

A MULTINATIONAL COMPANY.

BY

YVETTE KABAGAMBE MUYINGO

14/MMSHRM/34/065

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT IN PARTIAL

FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF A MASTERS

DEGREE IN MANAGEMENT STUDIES (HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)

OF UGANDA MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE

MARCH, 2018

1
 DECLARATION

1, Yvette Kabagambe Muyingo, do hereby declare that, this study is original and has not been

published and/or submitted to any other institute or university for any award before. All the

information presented here is the result of my personal work unless otherwise stated and/or quoted.

Signed…………………………………………… Date…………………………………….

Yvette K Muyingo

i
 APPROVAL

This dissertation by Yvette K Muyingo has been submitted to Uganda Management Institute with

our approval as Supervisors.

Signed…………………………………………… Date…………………………………….

Dr. Maria Barifaijo

Uganda Management Institute

Signed…………………………………………… Date…………………………………….

Ms. Maria Kafeero

Uganda Management Institute

ii
 DEDICATION

This book is dedicated to my Mother (Ms. Doreen L. Kabagambe) for believing in me, without

you I would not be where I am and to my Father (Mr. Andrew B. Muyingo). My daughter (Andree

Helena S. Musumba) who is my main motivation for whatever I do, I hope this makes you proud

and may you achieve even greater heights. My siblings who I love dearly and finally to my Partner

and friends who shared this journey with me. I hope this book inspires you all in one way or another

and may it be a beginning to a better chapter.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

iii
Special thanks go to my Supervisors: Dr. Maria Barifaijo and Ms. Maria Kafeero who provided

detailed guidance and encouragement throughout the course of preparing for, conducting the

research and finally writing the dissertation. Their belief that it was, indeed, possible to finish kept

me going.

I am greatly indebted to our Lecturers, Consultants and Supervisors especially Clare Namarome,

Fred Alinda, Dr. Barigye, Dr. Lugemoi Wilfred Bongomin, Dr. Gerald Karyeija Dr. Mary

Muhenda, Dr. Rose Namara who supported me throughout the workshops and research.

I would also like to extend my sincere gratitude to the management of CNOOC Uganda Limited

for allowing me to undertake this study. Many thanks go to my workmates for accepting and

sparing time to make this report a reality, my classmates (Agnes Natukunda, Rose Kyotungire, and

Racheal Ashaba) for their encouragement and team work. Lastly, but not least, I also wish to thank

the staff of our Partner Company who assisted in testing the validity of my questionnaires. God

bless you all abundantly.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iv
DECLARATION............................................................................................................................ i
APPROVAL .................................................................................................................................. ii
DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................... iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................. xii
CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................... 1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background of the study ........................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Historical background ............................................................................................................ 1
1.1.2 Theoretical background ......................................................................................................... 3
1.1.3 Conceptual background ......................................................................................................... 4
1.1.4 Contextual background .......................................................................................................... 5
1.2 Statement of the problem .......................................................................................................... 6
1.3 General objective ...................................................................................................................... 7
1.4 Objectives of the study.............................................................................................................. 7
1.5 Research questions .................................................................................................................... 8
1.6 Hypotheses of the study ............................................................................................................ 8
1.7 Conceptual framework .............................................................................................................. 9
1.8 Significance of this study ........................................................................................................ 10
1.9 Justification of the study ......................................................................................................... 10
1.10 Scope of the study ................................................................................................................. 11
1.10.1 Geographical scope ............................................................................................................ 11
1.10.2 Content scope ..................................................................................................................... 12
1.11 Operational definitions.......................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................ 14

v
LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................... 14
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 14
2.1 Theoretical review .................................................................................................................. 14
2.1.1 Equity theory........................................................................................................................ 14
2.2 Related literature ..................................................................................................................... 17
2.2.1 Distributive justice and job satisfaction ............................................................................... 17
2.2.2 Procedural justice and job satisfaction ................................................................................. 19
2.2.3 Interactional justice and job satisfaction .............................................................................. 22
2.3 Job satisfaction ........................................................................................................................ 24
2.4 Summary of literature ............................................................................................................. 26
CHAPTER THREE .................................................................................................................... 27
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................. 27
3.2 Research design ...................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Study population ..................................................................................................................... 28
3.4 Determination of sample size.................................................................................................. 29
3.5 The Sampling techniques and its procedures .......................................................................... 30
3.5.1 Stratified sampling ............................................................................................................... 30
3.5.2 Simple random technique .................................................................................................... 30
3.5.3 Purposive sampling .............................................................................................................. 31
3.6 Data collection methods .......................................................................................................... 31
3.6.1 Questionnaire survey ........................................................................................................... 31
3.6.2 Face to face interview .......................................................................................................... 32
3.7 Data collection instruments..................................................................................................... 32
3.7.1Questionnaire ........................................................................................................................ 32
3.7.2 Interview guide .................................................................................................................... 33
3.8 Validity and reliability ............................................................................................................ 33
3.8.1 Validity ................................................................................................................................ 33
3.8.2 Reliability............................................................................................................................. 34
3.9 Procedure of data collection.................................................................................................... 35
3.9 Data analysis ........................................................................................................................... 35
3.9.1. Qualitative data analysis ..................................................................................................... 35

vi
3.9.2. Quantitative data analysis ................................................................................................... 36
3.10. Measurement of variables .................................................................................................... 36
3.11 Ethical issues ......................................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 38
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS ...................... 38
4.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 38
4.1 Response rates ......................................................................................................................... 38
4.2 Background characteristics of respondents ............................................................................. 39
4.3 Empirical findings ................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Descriptive statistics for employee job satisfaction ............................................................. 41
4.3.2 To establish the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction among employees in
CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). ........................................................................................................ 44
4.3.2.1 Hypothesis one: Relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction .............. 47
4.3.2.2 Regression analysis for distributive justice and employee job satisfaction ................................ 48
4.3.3 To analyze the influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction among employees in
CNOOC Uganda ltd. ..................................................................................................................... 48
4.3.3.1 Hypothesis Two: Relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction among
employees in CNOOC (U) Ltd. .................................................................................................... 51
4.3.3.2 Regression Analysis for procedural justice and job satisfaction ................................................. 52
4.3.4 To assess the influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction among employees in
CNOOC Uganda Ltd..................................................................................................................... 53
4.3.4.1 Hypothesis Three: Relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction ......... 55
4.3.4.2 Regression Analysis for interactional justice and job satisfaction .............................................. 56
4.3.5 Overall influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction ...................................................... 57
CHAPTER FIVE ........................................................................................................................ 59
SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................................ 59
5.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 59
5.1 Summary of findings............................................................................................................... 59
5.2 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction ................................................................ 59
5.2.1 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction .............................................................. 60
5.2.2 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction ........................................................... 60

vii
5.3 Discussion of findings............................................................................................................. 61
5.3.1 Influence of distributive justice on pay satisfaction of employees in CNOOC (U) Ltd ...... 61
5.3.2 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction in CNOOC (U) Ltd .............................. 64
5.3.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction in CNOOC (U) Ltd ........................... 68
5.4 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 70
5.4.1 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction ............................................................. 70
5.4.2 Influence of procedural justice on justice on job satisfaction .............................................. 71
5.4.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction ........................................................... 71
5.5. Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 71
5.5.1 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction ............................................................. 72
5.5.2 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction .............................................................. 72
5.5.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction ........................................................... 72
5.6 Recommendations for further study........................................................................................ 73
5.7 Limitations of the study .......................................................................................................... 73
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 73
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 78
Appendix i: Study Questionnaire ............................................................................................................ 78
Appendix ii: Interview Guide ................................................................................................................. 80
Appendix iii: The Krejcie & Morgan Table............................................................................................ 81
Appendix iv: Introductory letter from UMI ............................................................................................ 82
Appendix v: Approval of Proposal Letter from UMI ............................................................................. 83
Appendix vi: Anti-plagiarism Report ..................................................................................................... 84

viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Sample size and techniques of collection ....................................................................... 30

Table 2: Reliability Results ........................................................................................................... 34

Table 3: Showing the Response Rate............................................................................................ 38

Table 4: Background information of the respondents................................................................... 39

Table 5: Summary descriptive statistics for employee job satisfaction ........................................ 41

Table 6: Results for distributive justice ........................................................................................ 44

Table 7 : Relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction ...................................... 47

Table 8 : Regression between Distributive Justice and job satisfaction ....................................... 48

Table 9: Results on influence of procedural justice ...................................................................... 49

Table 10: Correlation for procedural justice and job satisfaction among employees ................... 52

Table 11: Regression results for procedural justice and job satisfaction ...................................... 52

Table 12: Results on effect of interactional justice on job satisfaction ........................................ 54

Table 13: Correlation between interactional justice and job satisfaction ..................................... 56

Table 14: Regression results for interactional justice and job satisfaction ................................... 56

Table 15: Multiple regression results for organizational justice and job satisfaction................... 57

ix
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of organizational justice and job satisfaction among employees
in China National Offshore Oil Corporation. A multinational company........................................ 9

x
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

CNOOC: China National Offshore Oil Corporation Uganda Limited

NEC : National Executive Committee

IV : Independent Variable

DV : Dependent Variable

HR : Human Resource

SPSS : Statistical Package for Social Scientists

xi
 ABSTRACT

This study examined the influence of organizational justice in three dimensions: distributive,

interactional and procedural justices on job satisfaction using a case study of China National

Offshore Oil Corporation Uganda limited. This was because job satisfaction at CNOOC was in

balance. The study specifically sought to establish the influence of distributive justice on job

satisfaction among employees in CNOOC, to analyze the influence of procedural justice on job

satisfaction among employees in CNOOC and to assess the influence of interactional justice on

job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC. The study adopted a case study, cross sectional

survey research design. Using a self-administered questionnaire, data was collected from 49

respondents. The findings of the study indicate that there is a significant positive relationship

between distributive justice and job satisfaction. The study also found a significant positive

relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction. A positive significant relationship was

found to exist between interactional justice and job satisfaction. The study concludes that greater

distributive justice leads to higher level of job satisfaction. The study also concludes that greater

interactional justice results into higher level of employee job satisfaction. The study also concluded

that the more the organization practices in procedural justice, the greater the levels of employee

job satisfaction. The study therefore recommends that multinational organizations like CNOOC

should enhance their organizational justice in order gain the benefits of highly satisfied and

motivated employees to enable it realize its goals and objectives.

xii
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

The study was initiated to examine the phenomenon of Organizational Justice conceptualized to

be the Independent variable (IV) and Job Satisfaction as the Dependent variable (DV) of

Employees in Multinational Companies, the case study being China National Offshore Oil

Corporation Uganda Ltd (CNOOC). Organizational justice in the study was conceived as the IV

and job satisfaction was conceived as the as the DV. The study established the relationship among

three dimensions/ aspects of justice namely; distributive, procedural and interactional justice while

job satisfaction was measured in three aspects namely; commitment/involvement of employees,

attitude towards work and turnover intention.

Chapter one covered the background of the research, the problem statement, objectives, research

questions, hypothesis of the study, the conceptual framework, justification and significance of the

study, scope, definitions and finally assumptions and limitations.

1.1 Background of the study

1.1.1 Historical background

The concept of justice was written about by great scholars like Plato and Aristotle way back in the

20th century. Plato in his writings wrote about the concept of justice in his republic and later

Aristotle made an analysis on what exactly can be regarded as fairness in issues relating to the

distribution of resources among individuals. After some time, theologians integrated these

seemingly good ideas into religious faith given the fact that issues to do with fairness had their

manifestation in both the new and old testaments of the bible. These then manifested further in the

1
teachings of Saint Thomas which greatly dominated cultures all the over the world for centuries

and is still of great influence today (Alford and Naughton, 2001).

In a study by Culquitt et al (2005), it was reported scholars started writing about the social

processes of psychology in the second half of twentieth century. Moreover, aspects like normative

including prescriptive dimensions of ethics were fundamentally entangled with difficulties which

could not easily be avoided given the ethical diversity that characterized the livelihood of unbiased

judgment which in most cases is denied (Chesterton, 2004).

Social scientists of the 20th century made additional submissions to this disabled intellectual

dialogue on justice by taking a descriptive direction which is entirely concerned with how

individuals respond to a given outcome, technique or relational communication so most of the

modern day approaches concerning justice majorly concentrate on the personalities interpretation

of justice, the considerations they make and finding out the individual considerations to a given

circumstance. If such an approach is applied, then it would be considered as being fair not that it

should be but because someone takes it to be so (Croanzono et al, 2005).

Such imaginative alignment of social science scholars on the subject of justice is reproduced in a

succession of many other areas. It has been mostly applied in areas of organizational psychology

giving work place interest priority one. Such kind of orientation is in most cases likely to provide

answers for confusions emanating from contradicting goals in the organization that could be in

form of tension between concerns for either the business or the organizations human resources

(Cropanzano et al 2001). Sections in the organisation that deal with people’s behavior and

management of human resource came up with theoretical tools that could be applicable and

suitable in the analysis of different facets of justice in the organization. The concern of employees

2
with respect to fairness in the distribution of resources, fairness in decision making process which

referred to as procedural justice ( Thibaut and Walker , 1975, leventhal, Karuza & Fry, 1980). The

other chief concern to some of the stakeholders is the way in which relational treatment that is got

from others which is commonly known as inter relational justice (Bies & Moag 1986). The three

dimensions of procedural, relational and distributive justice were compounded into one word -

organizational justice (Greenberg 1987) just intended to give a description of an individual’s

perceptional of organizational justice (Greenberg & Colquitt 2005)

1.1.2 Theoretical background

Equity theory was earlier conceptualized in 1963 by Adams J Stacy. Adam J (1965) asserted how

staff sought to maintain fairness and or equity between what they contribute to their work and what

they rewarded from it against the perceived inputs and rewards of others. The equity theory

assumes that; staff expect an equal reward for what they bring and give to their job. This he

conceptualized as equity norm. Staff he noted established what their inequity return should be

following comparison of their inputs and rewards with those of their coworker. This he

conceptualized as social comparison. Then for staff who felt that they were being in an inequitable

situation develop a feeling of guilt and sought to reduce the unfairness either by distorting what

they contributed and/or outcomes in their own minds and physically of the left the company. Miner

(1980).

This section highlights the theory that was used to explain how organizational justice can affect

employee job satisfaction including the application in the study. Therefore, borrowing from the

Equity model they are some factors that are considered to drive organizational justice namely;

3
fairness in distribution of resources, fairness in processes that determine outcomes and

interactional justice.

1.1.3 Conceptual background

According to Greenberg (1987), organizational justice represents individuals’ perception and

reactions to fairness towards the organization. Organization justice was studied in three (3)

dimensions, distributive, procedural and interactional justices. Distributive justice focused on

fairness in regards to distribution or division of resources and the decision outcomes and these

resources could be tangible and intangible like salary or recognition. Procedural Justice focused

on the processes and procedures which were utilised to determine the end results in the company.

While Interactional justice focused on the employees’ perception of interpersonal behavior

displayed during the representation of decisions and procedures like a supervisor responding with

respect and dignity, showing empathy and attention to employee’s concerns.

According to Wanous and Lawler (1972) citied by Travis (2004), there is no singular definition of

job satisfaction and no generally accepted theory on best way to measure it. Locke (1976)

conceptualized job satisfaction as a positive emotional or pleasurable state culminating from

evaluation of one’s work or work experiences. This means that job satisfaction can be measured

by personal traits.

This study examined three measures of job satisfaction namely; commitment and involvement,

attitude towards work and turnover intention. Employee commitment focused on the psychological

attachment and the resulting loyalty of an employee to an organization. Attitude refers to one’s

opinion, beliefs and feelings about aspects to work environment. Pay satisfaction focused on the

amount of positive or negative feeling that individuals have towards their pay. While turnover

4
intention focused on whether employees planned to leave their current employment or whether

employers planned to remove employees from their current jobs. The assumptions of the study are

that Distributive justice is a stronger determinant of pay satisfaction compared to procedural justice

in CNOOC, there is a relationship between procedural justice and employee commitment and

turnover intention in CNOOC and Distributive justice is a stronger determinant of job satisfaction

than interactional justice in CNOOC.

This section provides definitions of major variables used in this study and their attributes.

Organizational Justice’s (IV) three aspects; distributive, procedural and interactional justice and

job satisfaction (DV) attributes of commitment and involvement, attitude towards work and

turnover intention.

1.1.4 Contextual background

This section explains the problem that has aroused interest in the study. The study was conducted

in China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Uganda Limited (CNOOC), a Multinational

Company with its Headquarters in Beijing- China, CNOOC is a leading oil and gas exploration

and Production Company that was established in Kampala -Uganda in February 2012 and partners

with Tullow Oil Pty. CNOOC is an international company in a fairly new and lucrative industry.

It was the first oil and gas company to ever gain a production license to operationalize the oil fields

and therefore has already gained more expertise in Uganda than its partners. CNOOC mainly has

two groups of employees: Expatriates that account for 27% and National employees that account

for 73% of the employees with expatriates holding senior and line managerial positions.

In a bid to gain job satisfaction, the Company designed a number of unique policies and procedures

to ensure transparency and equal opportunity. It also set up a committee under its Speak-up policy

5
to create a platform resolving employee issues. Despite these good initiatives, including the

Company investing a lot in recruitment, training and development of its staff. Just after nearly four

years of existence CNOOC had a number of challenges that has caused this study. Firstly would

be the increased turnover rate. According to HR records from 2012 to 2014, the Company received

an average turnover rate of 5.5% but as of July 2015 this rate has gone up to 20%, (CNOOC (U)

Ltd, Annual management report 2015). Secondly, is lack of involvement and dissatisfaction in pay

of many employees. Several complaints registered to the Human Resource department through its

Speak-up policy such as unequal pay, unfair treatment and exclusion of national staff in company

meetings and activities but majority haven’t been addressed. Additionally, the Auditor General’s

2014 annual general report which highlighted salary discrepancies; high range between expatriate

and nationals pay. Thirdly, is lack of commitment of many employees in the Company. This was

observed by the leakage of highly confidential company information to the media in 2014 which

was intended to force management’s hand to improve conditions of employment.

1.2 Statement of the problem

Organizations are social systems that have human beings as an asset and they need effective and

efficient employees and employers to accomplish their goals. Hence, employee job satisfaction is

a very important variable for organizations to succeed, it impacts on employees’ behaviors and

attitudes. Sageir, Rafat and Agarwal (as citied by Suzuki et al, 2006) asserted that employees are

more productive when they are satisfied and that satisfied employees positively affect organization

performance.

The situation as it is today in CNOOC, there are low levels of job satisfaction evidenced by highly

disgruntled employees who are always complaining during conversations (Masanga n.d) reporting

6
to the Company Speak-up Committee. Issues like dissatisfaction in salary ranges highlighted in

the Attorney General’s 2014 report (citied in New vision newspaper, April 2015 P,7) noted a very

steep range between expatriate pay and employees average monthly pay. Little commitment from

employees as evidenced by several leakages of confidential company information to the media

houses and external public in 2014, negative attitude towards work by employees evidenced by

over twenty (20) complaints lodged in 2014 through the Company’s HR speak-up policy, fairly

high turnover rate from 2013 to 2015 poor attitude at work including rudeness in communication

amongst colleagues. Although a number of factors could be responsible for the low levels of

employee job satisfaction, it was worthwhile investigating the influence of organizational justice

on job satisfaction in CNOOC. The study therefore sought to examine the relationship of

organizational justice and job satisfaction in CNOOC with a view of suggesting possible

recommendations to improve employee job satisfaction.

1.3 General objective

To determine the influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction among employees taking a

case study of China National Offshore Oil Company in Uganda.

1.4 Objectives of the study

The study targeted to achieve the following objectives:

1. To establish the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction among employees in

CNOOC Uganda Ltd.

2. To analyze the influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC

Uganda Ltd.

7
3. To assess the influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC

Uganda Ltd.

1.5 Research questions

The study addressed these questions:

i. What is the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction among staff in CNOOC

Uganda Ltd?

ii. What are the positive effects of procedural justice on job satisfaction among staff in

CNOOC Uganda Ltd?

iii. What is the influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction among employees in

CNOOC Uganda Ltd?

iv. What is the establish the relationship between organizational justice and job satisfaction

among employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd

1.6 Hypotheses of the study

The study was led by the following hypotheses:

i. There is a relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction among employees

in CNOOC Uganda Ltd.

ii. Procedural justice has a positive impact on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC

Uganda Ltd.

iii. Interactional justice has a positive impact on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC

Uganda Ltd.

8
 iv. Organizational justice has a significant influence on employee job satisfaction.

1.7 Conceptual framework

The conceptual diagram below depicts the Independent variable (IV) which is Organizational

justice having a relationship with the Dependent Variable (DV) which is Job satisfaction.

Organizational Justice (IV) Job Satisfaction (DV)

1. Distributive Justice

 Rewarding employees based on their contribution

 giving benefits aligned with a staff’s personal need

2. Procedural Justice  Pay satisfaction

 Processes determining results (employee selection
processes)  Involvement and
Commitment to work
 Consistency/fair treatment of all employees
Decision based on accurate information  Turnover/attrition rate
 Ethics; professional conduct

3. Interactional justice

 Treating employees with dignity, respect and

courtesy

 Sharing relevant information with employees

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of organizational justice and job satisfaction among employees

in China National Offshore Oil Corporation. A multinational company

Adopted from: Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007), Adam J Stacy’s Equity theory (1963)

and modified by Researcher

Figure 1 conceptualizes how organizational justice (IV) dimensions such as procedural justice,

distributive justice, and interactional justice might influence job satisfaction (DV). The study

9
presumes that for an organization to attain job satisfaction, involvement and commitment, positive

attitude towards work and a lower turnover intention by its employees, employers must practice

fair distribution of resources, establishment and implementation of equitable procedures that

determine outcomes and interactional justice. The underlining assumption is that implementation

of organizational justice is more likely to have a profound effect on job satisfaction, when

employers equitably distribute resources, equitably design and implement policies and procedures

and practice interactional justice with all employees.

1.8 Significance of this study

On successful completion the researcher believes this study could contribute substantial awareness

and reduction of the knowledge gap to a number of people including policy makers and Human

Resource Managers/Practitioners in both private and public sectors in methods of achieving high

levels of job satisfaction.

Understanding the factors which influence organizational justice with job satisfactions will guide

Human Resource Managers in developing strategic policies and measures to enhance job

satisfaction necessary to improve the Company’s productivity, corporate imagine and employee

loyalty.

This study will help policy makers gain more knowledge to guide their decision making in relations

to identification and resolving of the issues and opportunities.

Successful completion of this study would pave way for the award of my master’s degree in

management studies with a bias in human resource management.

1.9 Justification of the study

10
The management of CNOOC Uganda limited (CUL) through its Speak-up policy is concerned

with enhancing employee job satisfaction because dissatisfaction seems to have a negative impact

on the organizational performance and employee commitment.

CUL is a new organization in a highly lucrative Oil and Gas industry that is yet to become highly

competitive as more companies are soon to be awarded operational licenses by the Government of

Uganda. Therefore, given that there are limited skilled personnel in this fairly new industry, CUL

needs to gain competitive advantage by ensuring employee satisfaction to maximize profits and

organizational performance while minimizing its costs. The costs affiliated to employee

satisfaction would range from lawsuits, high turnover/recruitment costs, Public relations

campaigns and sabotage. Therefore, this study is important to build on the knowledge gap of the

factors that influence employee job satisfaction in multinational company settings so better

policies are designed.

1.10 Scope of the study

1.10.1 Geographical scope

Geographically the study was conducted in Kampala District in a company called CNOOC.

Kampala District in located in Central Uganda and it is bordered by Kira Municipality to the East

and Wakiso District to the South, West and North. Its coordinates are: 00 19N, 32 35E. The reason

this scope is selected is because of the availability of data, resources and its accessibility to the

researcher.

11
1.10.2 Content scope

The content of the study was the influence of organizational justice as Independent Variable (IV)

using procedural justice, distributive justice, and interactional justice on employee job satisfaction

as Dependent Variable (DV) in CNOOC.

1.10.3 Time Scope

The study utilized data for the previous 3 years since February 2012 when the company was

established to date. This period is appropriate because the problem regarding job satisfaction can

well be measured through the various stages of employment from the beginning of employment

e.g contracts and benefits to terminations of employment and most job satisfaction concerns were

raised in 2014 by employees and government (Auditor General’s 2014 report).

1.11 Operational definitions

Organizational Justice: refers to how an individual perceives and reacts to fairness in the

organization.

Distributive Justice: refers to the equity in distribution of resources and fairness in decision of

rewards.

Procedural Justice: refers to processes used by the organization/ employer when determining

outcomes in the organization.

Interactional Justice: is staffs’ perception of interpersonal behavior by the employer/supervisor

when making procedures or decisions. i.e a supervisor responding with respect and dignity,

showing empathy and attention to employee’s concerns.

Job satisfaction: refers to positive and negative attitude that employees have towards work

12
Employee commitment: this is the emotional affection and the subsequent faithfulness of an

employee to an organization.

Turnover intention: While turnover intention is focused on whether some staff have intention of

leaving their current employer in search of similar jobs in other originations. .

13
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

This chapter covers the review of literature that relates to the variables that was investigated. The

purpose of this review was to further examine the concepts in this study and the gaps that it might

add more knowledge to. This literature review involves opinions and views of other Scholars and

researchers that are related to the topic. This chapter is presented in accordance with the study

objectives in Chapter One and included the theoretical review, related literature on the variables

and ended with a summary of the literature review.

2.1 Theoretical review

The theory which guided the study on examining the relationship among three aspects of

organizational justice and job satisfaction is Equity Theory of Adam J Stacy (1963).

2.1.1 Equity theory

“Organizational justice is concerned with the fair treatment of employees” Randeree (P.57, 2008).

Greenberg (1988) coined organizational justice as individual’s feelings and reactions to equity

towards an organization. Perceptions of equity in organizations could involve issues of equity in

salary, employee selection process and equal opportunities while injustices may include, unequal

systems of pay for employees doing same job or performance review processes.

The Equity theory emerged in 1963 by J Adams Stacy following in the footsteps of “Homans

(1961)’s rule of distributive justice” and according to Adams’ (1965) organizational justice is a

combination of three aspects; distributive justice, interactional, procedural justice (both

14
interpersonal and informational justice). The Equity theory is the perception of equability and in-

equitability that motivates people to be satisfied in their jobs. He asserted that staff seek to maintain

equity between their contributions which they bring to their occupation and the reward and

recognition given from it against the perceived contributions and rewards of others. Greenberg

(1999) also confirmed that several times unfairness can leads to hikes in absenteeism and

resignation of staff.

The fundamental idea is that partners do not have to receive equal rewards or make equal

contribution as long as the ratio between these outcomes and inputs is similar. Carrel and Dittrich

(1978) conceptualized this as social comparison it meant that staff evaluate their own contribution

and/or outputs on comparison with the contribution and/or output of other employees. Inputs

typically include; staff’s time, experience, accreditation/qualifications, expertise, job effort, social

status, commitment, tolerance and personal sacrifice, skills, interpersonal skills and intangible

personal qualities. Outputs referred to in this theory by Adams include; pay, intrinsic rewards,

seniority, job security, recognition, benefits, praise and flexible work environment.

Therefore, this equity theory will be useful to management in perceiving what drives staff

Berkowitz (1965). Human resource managers need to consider issues of equity when managing

employees whether it is in allocation of resources, designing policies and procedures for selection

of employees, promotions, appraisals, recognitions, dissemination of information, career

development and establishment of the work environment and culture if they wanted to achieve job

satisfaction.

The Equity theory has been used several times to test the relationship between Employees and

employers who are believed to be in a marriage of sorts and employees expect equitable ratio for

15
the contributions they contribute to the relationship and the benefits they are given. Research has

also tested parts of the theory which included effects of over and underpayment, payment equity,

and equity sensitivity. Hence where organizations are expecting high and consistent levels of

performance, commitment, self-managing and autonomy, a sense of justice becomes

imperative/essential for the organization to stay together and maintain teamwork, Cropanzano &

Kacmar (1995).

The equity theory has three (3) main assumptions and the first is conceptualized as the Equity

Norm which is that Employees want an equal return for what they input to their jobs. Therefore a

low return to employees would create dissatisfaction. Secondly is the Social Comparison concept

which is that staff determine what their equitable return should be from comparing the contribution

and benefits with those of their fellow workers. Otherwise, staff would try to take action to reduce

the discrepancy ration between their return and their coworkers. Thirdly, the equity theory assumes

that staff who felt were being in an unfair situation will aim to decrease the unfairness by either

distorting contributions and or rewards in their own minds ("cognitive distortion"), physically or

by exiting the company. (Carrell and Dittrich, 1978)

According to Adams (1965), anger is induced by inequity. When employees feel underpaid for

their contribution it will result into the employee being hostile to the organization and might result

into underperformance and the opposite, if an employee feels equitably rewarded or just merely

recognized for their job performance, it will cause a feeling of satisfaction and therefore result into

better outcomes. Rice (citied in Cropanzano & Kamar 1995) commends Equity theory further for

not being too broad or too narrow. That it focuses on what makes employees satisfied and since

they input something they should hence expect something back and that the equalization of the

16
relationship will make employees feel satisfied. However, there are some limitations and criticism

to this theory. Firstly, the theory does not account for other forms of justice such as spatial justice

which refers to the perception associated with the geographical distance and access to resource

within the workplace like for a company that has site operations like CUL. Another criticism to

this theory is that it does not account individual difference demographic and psychological factors

or variables that may contribute to an employee’s satisfaction levels. Therefore, although the

Equity theory provides a very useful framework for this study to explain the relationship between

organization justice and job satisfaction, more research is needed to understand the relationship

between the three dimensions and individual and organizational outcomes and which dimension

has more variance with job satisfaction, pay satisfaction, commitment and turnover .

2.2 Related literature

2.2.1 Distributive justice and job satisfaction

In a study by Mcfarlin and Sweeney (1992), it was found out that distributive incline to be a strong

and significant factor of the likely outcomes. A related study by Lee and Farth (1999), it was noted

that a section of organization employees especially women do concentrate a lot on distribute justice

as compared to procedural justice for purposes of addressing the difference in the past payment

packages obtained by employees.

Studies carried out by scholars like Lee (2000), indicated that in most cases distributive justice

positively influences the level of job satisfaction among employees but have a negative influence

on employees turnover. Similarly, Deconinck and Stillwell (2001) noted that distributive justice

in most cases has a direct effect on the satisfaction of employees in terms of pay. It was also found

out that distributive justice can significantly be a good predictor when it comes to assessing the

17
attitude of the employees towards their supervisors when it comes to treatment in relational to

resources allocated to them as compared to the rest.

In a study by Lambert (2003), it was noted that distributive justice is concerned with the results

that related to the job and organizational goals. He further revealed that distributive justice has a

significant effect on the attitude of individuals just as job satisfaction is. A case in point are the

allocation patterns in both America and Mexcico since these are somehow similar in the way

resources and other common goods are allocated to the respective communities (Fadil et al 2004).

Motivation of employees in the United States is given great attention and consideration as this in

most cases is liked with pay performance as the opposite is true for Mexico where aspects like

egoism and individualism has no single effect and relationship when allocating resource

communities (Fadil et al 2004).

In a study by Hedtedt (2005), it was established that the exercise of laying off staff/ downsizing

has a significant effect on the employee attitude and behavior which in turn affects the type of

justice to ensure organizational committeemen (Hegtedt 2005). Similarly Warmer et all (2005) in

their study noted that downsizing staff significantly affects their conduct for fear of following suit

and this in turn affects the form of justice as well as shaping their conduct.

Lambert et al (2007) conducted a study on distributive justice and established it has a significant

effect on stress. It was also found out those employees who experience low levels of distributive

justice, they are in most cases stressed on their jobs. This is made worse if such employees are

given heavy workloads in comparison to other employees in the organization. In some cases,

employees leave their homes for work with family related matters, and thus the situation is made

18
worse when they cite incidence of unequal distribution of tasks at the work place. The

consequences would be irritation, discomfort and poor work performance.

There are situations when improvements need to be made in cases where allocation of tasks and

the corresponding rewards are not uniform among employees (Rego et al 2009). Research shows

that in some situations, and different perceptions in relation to the unfair distribution of tasks may

exist among employees with anticipation for unequal and fair distribution rewards. In a study by,

Elanian (2009), it was found out that some employees whose jobs require expertise, feedback and

skills are more likely to sense a high level of distributive justice resulting into better results from

accomplishments.

In a study by Zubi (2010), it was noted that if the manager practices distribuive justice, it would

in one way imply that employees could be having a negative attitude towards heavy workloads

given to them in comparison to the pay which may not be so attractive. However, if they are paid

well, then there would be a positive attitude and employees would always be motived to work.

Earlier studies carried out by scholars’s like Chang 2002, Change & Hahn 2008, Elamin &

Alumuim 2011, showed that distributive justice is stronger predictor of employee performance in

the organization as the case still continues to be even up to today. A fair distribution of workloads

among employees accompanied with uniform pay motivates employees to work.

2.2.2 Procedural justice and job satisfaction

Ten years after Adams 1965 study, Thibaut and Walker (1975) found a new aspect of

Organizational justice known as procedural justice which stated that, if staff had a choice to

participate in the process or procedures for to reaching outcomes then they might perceive the

outcomes as just. Folger & Konvsky (1989) describe Procedural justice as the fairness on the
19
remuneration processes/procedures or its fairness of the methods utilized for making decisions

about the benefits. Greenberg (2004) argues that the degree to which an employee perceives the

performance-based pay system and distributive injustices as harmful depends on his or her

appraisal of the processes utilized to award the salaries as well as all other procedures surrounding

the reward system itself, like performance management and appraisal (Burney et al. 2009).

According to Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007) components of procedural justice in an

organization include; consistency meaning all employees are treated equal, there should be lack of

bias of any single person or group, decisions should be based on accurate information, the

organization should be ethical and professional in its conduct and they should be a process of

appeal and mechanisms for fixing incase mistakes are made. In fact Folger and Konovsky (1989)

asserted that people are influenced by perceived equity of such procedures regardless or the

perceived equity of the decision in itself. Therefore, procedural justice exists when staff feel that

the organization procedures and processes include issues of precision, indiscrimination,

consistency, ethicality and inclusion then they will be a change in attitude such as organizational

commitment loyalty and turnover intention leading to increased job satisfaction.

In a study by Folkman (2004), an employee who feels that his performance has been underpaid is

likely to make an evaluation of the extent to which he or she is potentially harmed by the

compensation scheme. In this regard, the employee will evaluate the fairness of the organizational

procedures related to it, including the degree to which pay decisions have been made based on

accurate, consistent and bias-free information and rules as well as the degree to which employees

were able to express their opinions and views in goal setting procedures and performance

evaluations and to appeal errors of judgment on part of supervisors (Greenberg 2004; Burney et

al. 2009).

20
Pettijohn et al. (2011) noted that when employees perceive that their payment has been based on

accurate information and that they have had a fair chance to express their views during the

evaluation or goal setting procedures, stress reactions from distributive injustice or other

dissatisfactions from the compensation scheme can be buffered. However, when employees

perceive unfair payments and unfair procedures surrounding the compensation scheme, they are

likely to get a feeling of unease regarding their labor situation.

A supervisor who makes decisions based on favoritism for instance, may be a signal for concern

and can cause dissatisfaction (Greenberg 2004). The impact of procedural justice can also be

explained through the value appraisal theory of Locke (1969). In this context, a discrepancy

between what an employee values as fair procedure and how the organization actually implements

procedures based on the employee’s perception can increase the level of job dissatisfaction.

The perception of procedural unfairness in form of denied participation in goal setting, the absence

of fair hearing or the use of biased information can cause job dissatisfaction among employees

because they will feel helpless, alienated and at the mercy of those procedures that ultimately

determine their income (Furnham 2005; Folger et al. 1992, McClausland et al. 2005; cited in Ismail

et al. 2011).

Studies carried out by earlier scholars on organization justice shows that the different dimensions

including procedural Justice are positively correlated to Job, Trembly et al (2001), Al-Zu’bi

(2010). According to Mcfarlin and Sweeney (1992), Procedural justice is also a stronger predictor

of turnover than distributive justice, Fernandes and Awamleh (2006) also found that when

employees feel that they are treated unfairly it leads to low commitment and high turnover and a

21
study by Masterson et al (2000) confirmed that procedural justice has more impact on withdrawal

of employees than interactional justice.

Previous research was carried out on the relationship on procedural justice and pay levels and this

was carried out in laboratory experiments. Therefore, this study examined the relations of

procedural justice, distributive justice, interactional justice and job satisfaction of employees in a

multinational oil and gas company in Uganda.

2.2.3 Interactional justice and job satisfaction

Based on the study by Folkman’s (2004), an employee who feels harmed by distributive and

procedural injustices of organizational justice will judge his or her opportunity to rectify or at least

reduce the harm encountered. In this regard, the employee will seek more information in order to

understand the underlying organizational procedures that appear threatening. Therefore, the

employee will turn to those organizational authority figures who are directly concerned with the

compensation scheme, such as the immediate supervisor (Greenberg 2004). The perceived fairness

of this encounter is defined as interactional justice and is comprised of informational and

interpersonal justice (Lawson et al. 2009). Whereas interpersonal justice refers to the degree to

which employees are treated with respect and politeness during the interaction with the supervisor,

informational justice refers to the extent to which employees receive open, accurate and timely

information and explanations regarding decision-making processes, outcomes and procedures

(Ismail et al. 2011; Lawson et al. 2009; Colquitt 2001).

Greenberg (2004) and Ismail et al. (2011) argue that employees who feel that they have been

treated with respect and consideration during a performance evaluation procedure and who

perceive that their supervisor has provided them with detailed information and explanations

22
concerning how the pay was determined and why, perceive higher levels of job satisfaction. The

reason is that employees feel that they are valuable members of the organization who are worthy

of getting detailed information and feedback. Furthermore, open information-sharing creates a

feeling of trust in employees, which in turn lowers anxiety feelings related to income insecurities

and procedural unfairness (Greenberg 2004) thus, interactional fairness can buffer the job

dissatisfaction effect of organizational justice including distributive and procedural injustices. This

is in accordance with previous research results mentioned by Ismail et al. (2011). However, when

employees perceive that pay decisions have been made without explanations or when important

information regarding appraisal or goal setting procedures have been withhold, employees are

likely to experience lower job satisfaction. This is also the case when employees feel that

supervisors have treated them with little respect and dignity by making inappropriate or unpleasant

remarks (Greenberg 2004). In this case, employees will realize that their supervisor is not going to

reduce their unease and will in turn feel unable and helpless to rectify the situation and the

procedures that put their income at stake. Withholding information and explanations will increase

feelings of anxiety and concern related to distributive and procedural injustice and employees will

be dissatisfied with their current job (Greenberg 2004).

The impact of interactional justice can also be demonstrated through the value appraisal theory

of Locke (1969). In this context, issues between staffs’ expectation of how they should treated by

supervisors during their day to day work related to organizational justice and how they are

actually treated based on their perception can decrease the level of job satisfaction.

Previous research on organization justice shows that the different dimensions including

Interactional justice are positively correlated to Job satisfaction Trembly et al (2001); Al-Zu’bi

(2010). Studies by Blodgett, Wakefield and Barnes, (2005); Hocutt, Chakraborty and Mowen,

23
(2007) also indicate that there is a strong influence of interactional justice on customer satisfaction

for instance Sparks and Bradley (2007) reported that communication style and effort influenced

post recovery satisfaction in a hotel context. An organization that rates low on any one of the

justice dimensions might limit severely the potential for employee satisfaction with the service

recovery (Tax and Brown, 2000) hence the hypothesis that distributive justice is stronger

determinant of job satisfaction than interactional justice in CNOOC Uganda Ltd examined in this

study was accepted. This study is to help understand which justice dimension has more variance

on job satisfaction.

2.3 Job satisfaction

In a way, job satisfaction has been said to have a direct link or association with performance of

employees in an organization and also that low productivity is equally associated with

dissatisfaction. Also low output, poor quality, absenteeism and turnover could symbolize

dissatisfaction (Dex 2005).

In a study by Neumum (2008) while carrying out social research established that power perception

which could be manifested at the time of making decisions has a positive significant influence of

job satisfaction however, in physical sciences, the result may be different. Hudson (2009) also

noted that the manner in which rewards are assessed also has a great influence on job satisfaction,

this hypotheses was found to be true both in the social and physical research. However, other

studies carried out for instance on gender, it was found out that job satisfaction has small deviations

among women and men. Women in most cases tend to have greater satisfaction when they are

given heavier workloads and more especially those that have children. This is due to the fact it is

24
in common practice for women not to like heavy jobs. Also women derive a lot of satisfaction

when they are doing female related jobs, Hudson (2009)

In another study by Leung et al (2006) carried out on employees in section of hotel in China, it

was established distributive and procedural justice was related to job satisfaction. By taking a

closer look at the relationship that existed at the work place, supervisors and managers were seen

to be exercising low procedural justice and could pay small amounts inform of compensation to

employees all of which could exhibit distributive justice as compared to workers in hotels that are

owned by the state. It was also established that people that were working in the Chinese or the

Japanese immigrant hotels in the east displayed low levels of satisfaction than those working in

the west.

Also in a related study by Harvery and Haines (2005), findings from the study revealed that any

awareness of reasonable processes by employees and the decisions taken by the human resource

department in times of a crisis may forecast future work perceptions for instance dissatisfaction of

employees.

In study carried out by Suliamn (2007), it was noted that a member of the organization who seemed

to be more satisfied with the organizational procedures tended in most cases to have positive

attitude. Similar studies carried out in Middle East indicated that managers have to understand the

role played by justice in an effort to impact on the behavior of the employees and the likely results.

In studies carried out by Mcauuliffe et al (2009), a strong positive relationship was found to exist

between job satisfaction and health working relationship with middle level employees especially

where knowledge and information is derived to them concerning the decisions made in the

organization. This clearly shows that salary/pay may not be the only sole element that brings job

25
satisfaction to employees. Other things like promotions, new assignments given to lower cadres’

staff would lead to employee job satisfaction.

Lambert et all (2010) in their study noted that the distributive and procedural justice is a noticeable

force in fostering job satisfaction. A positive significant relationship is found to exist between

distributive and procedural justice with job satisfaction, burnout and intention to leave. These

studies have all shown that procedural justice is a stronger predictor of life satisfaction though in

some instances distributive and procedural justice was found to have negative relationship with

employee burnout which in most means stress (Lambert eta al 2010).

Elanain (2010) carried out a study in the United Arab Emirates and the Middle East to explore the

influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction, turnover intention and organizational

commitment, study findings showed that organizational justice had a positive relationship with

employee work outcomes. The moderating part of distributive and procedural justice with

employee work related results communicates to managers that focus should be on the processes

that are used in distributive results with an aim of enhancing the perception of employees about

distributive justice that has a positive impact on job satisfaction.

2.4 Summary of literature

This chapter reviews the available studies on the equity theory, its assumptions, its relevance,

applications and shortcomings. Additionally, literature related to the objectives and variables of

the study were reviewed ,it explained how the three dimensions of organizational justice;

Distributive Justice, Procedural Justice and Interactional Justice tended to influence Job

satisfaction basing other academicians views and arguments and empirical evidence from studies

carried out earlier on.

26
The literature reviewed also indicated a positive relationship between most of dimensions and

attributes in this study above but the strength of the effects of the Organizational Justice (IV) on

Job satisfaction (DV) varied in the literature reviewed. While reviewing the literature some other

variables came up like appropriateness in distribution of time such as personal time and martial

time and appropriateness of distance such as geographical. However, this study identified gaps

like sometimes inputs and outputs might not easily be measurable or seen like one’s loyalty to the

organization in the external public. Also, certain factors such as the employee demographic should

be analyzed as one of the factors that could lead to job satisfaction. Additionally, this study was

one of the first studies to be carried out in the oil and gas industry in Uganda in UMI society

therefore, it will hopefully set foundation for other researchers.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

27
3.1 Introduction

This chapter details the approaches and procedures that the researcher followed in collecting

research data for the research problem. This chapter includes the Study design, population of the

study, determination of sample, sampling techniques to be used, data collection methods to be

utilized and instructions, validity and reliability, procedure for data collection, how the data will

be analyzed and measurements of variables.

3.2 Research design

The study used a case study, cross sectional survey design adopting both quantitative and

qualitative approaches. The cross sectional study design was used because the information on

organizational justice and job satisfaction was collected from a sample of the population at one

point in time over a cross-section of many people. The cross section design was equally used

because the study had to be completed in a short period of time and due to inadequate financial

and non-financial resources available. The quantitative approach was used to quantify incidences,

the existing conditions and to investigate the relationships between organizational justice and job

satisfaction using information gained from the questionnaire. The qualitative approach was used

to gain an explanation on the study variables under investigation using interviews (Amin, 2005).

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (1999) Triangulation of methods helps the research enrich

the interpretation of findings of the study.

3.3 Study population

28
The study targeted seventy seven employees of CNOOC Uganda Limited, Management, technical

and non-technical staff. The reason for this selection is because the management functions at

CNOOC Uganda limited is filled with over 90% expatriates which is significantly high compared

to other similar organizations in the industry. Expatriates account for senior management positions

and majority of line manager positions. Therefore they are in a position to understand how

organization justice influences job satisfaction in the workplace. Of the twenty eight Managers

only fifteen are presently available to the project. There are also policy implementers that are

responsible for channeling Company information. The other reason for this selection is because

national employees that account 64.8% of the total population fill all the subordinate staff

positions. These subordinate staff positions include of supervisors, coordinators, administrators

and field staff whom are most times affected by organizational justice.

3.4 Determination of sample size

According to Amin (2005) a sample of the population is selected whose results will be generalized

to the entire population. With this in mind the population was clustered, stratified and categorized

into three sub groups; Management, field staff(technical/site staff) and office staff (other technical

and non-technical staff). This stratified sampling catered for the differences and classifications

within the entire staff of CNOOC Uganda Ltd according departments and hierarchical positions

and to give an equal chance for respondents’ participation in the study and eliminate bias, the

representatives of each stratum were randomly selected.

29
Table 1: Sample size and techniques of collection

Category Total population Sample size Sampling technique

Managers 15 14 Purposive

Field Staff 10 10 Stratified random

Office staff 52 40 Stratified random

Total 77 64

Source: CNOOC Uganda Limited employee Summary List

3.5 The Sampling techniques and its procedures

3.5.1 Stratified sampling

The Krejcie and Morgan (1970) sampling formula table was utilized to determine the total sample

size of 64 respondents for this study. Thereafter Proportionate stratified sampling was applied to

each stratum to get the sample sizes above.

This type of sampling takes into account consideration of the heterogeneous nature of the

populations to be sampled, Amin (2005). So this method was used to study the population

categories of field staff and office staff. Then the simple random sampling technique was used to

select elements of the different strata to obtain a sample.

3.5.2 Simple random technique

According to Sekaran (2003) Simple random sampling is a strategy where items in a population

have a fifty fifty chance of being selected as a subject. This technique was used to select field and

office staff so it could give every staff member a chance to participate in the study. The researcher

gave a random number to every member of the accessible sample size, placing the number in a

30
box and picking any at random and the subject corresponding to the number was included in the

sample. The process was repeated until the required number is obtained, Amin (2005).

3.5.3 Purposive sampling

According to Sekaran (2003), purposive sampling technique is where the information required is

gathered from specific/special targets of people on a rational basis. This technique was used to

select line managers.

3.6 Data collection methods

The research employed two (2) types of data collect methods to collect primary data. These

included questionnaire survey and face to face interviews. According to Creswell (2008)

triangulation of data is important to enhance accuracy of the study.

3.6.1 Questionnaire survey

A questionnaire survey is a research method for collecting information from selected group using

standardized questionnaires, Amin (2005). The questionnaire was self-administered and it was

designed using a five point Likert scale, rank order and it also entailed one set of questions i.e

close ended and open ended type of questions. This questionnaire method was used to collect

qualitative and quantitative data from CUL Managers, Field and Office staff and whereas

questionnaires might not adequately collect some information. It is chosen because large amounts

of information can be collected quickly and quantified as recommended by Mugenda and Mugenda

(1999).

31
3.6.2 Face to face interview

This type of interview was utilized to collect data from respondents. According to Mugenda and

Mugenda (2003), this face to face interaction between research and respondent provided in-depth

data to the researcher which was not possible using a questionnaire. This method was used to

collect data from the Manager human resources because it can generate both standardized

quantifiable data and more in-depth qualitative data through probing by asking question to gain

further information on each variable in the study. Semi structured interviews were designed to

collect this data and open ended questions were used in this method. This method is more effective

and because it involves verbal and non-verbal communication.

3.7 Data collection instruments

To collect more accurate data, two (2) types of data collection instruments were designed;

questionnaire guide and interview guide. The interview guide and questionnaire were used to

collect primary data from respondents.

3.7.1Questionnaire

A questionnaire is an instrument/tool designed carefully for collecting data linking with

specifications of research questions and hypothesis, Amin (2005). This questionnaire was self-

administered and it was designed using a five point Likert scale. This scaled ranged from lowest

to highest i.e strongly disagree, disagree, not sure, agree, strongly agree rank order , therefore

having a five point rating scale. According to Hacque and Taher (2008) this rating style is believed

to be an easier approach to collecting data. It also included a mix of structured and semi-structured

questions and each question in the questionnaire was designed to address a specific objective/

research problem.

32
3.7.2 Interview guide

According to Sarandakos (1998), this is an instrument used by the researcher to gather data

within the interview method. It guided the research on how to systematically ask face to face

questions to the respondent in order to get first hand data. This method was used for the Heads of

department cluster as they were few and had firsthand information about the variables.

3.8 Validity and reliability

3.8.1 Validity

Validity is the ability to produce findings that are in agreement with conceptual values so as to be

able to produce accurate research results. The interview guide and questionnaire were pre tested

prior to guarantee that the instruments were able to bring forth the correct results. Content validity

was applied as recommended by (Mugenda & Mugenda 2003). For quantitative data the researcher

applied a Content Validity index (CVI).

The formula is: CVI = Number of rated relevant items

Total number of items

25
CVI = = 0.9
30

The average index was 0.9 which acceptable and implies that the research instrument was good

enough as the instrument to be accepted as valid, this average index should be 0.7 or above, (Amin,

2005).The researcher enlisted the help from her direct supervisors from the Department of Higher

Degrees to ascertain if the questionnaire were valid, and consulted with colleagues to check the

questionnaire and their input were incorporated in the final tools which were used.

33
3.8.2 Reliability

The study instrument was pretested for its reliability on a sample of 10 respondents to examine

individual questions as well as the whole questionnaire very carefully (Amin, 2005). Reliability of

a tool indicates the level to which it is objective and or without bias and hence it produces

consistent measurements across the variety of items in the statement and across time. Therefore, it

meant that the results would be consistently the same should the study be replicated (Mugenda &

Mugenda, 1999). In this study a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to compute and it showed

reliability of the data using Software Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and the findings are

shown in table 3 below.

Table 2: Reliability Results

Variable Total No of items Valid items Cronbach’s Alpha

Distributive Justice 8 6 0.75
Procedural Justice 8 7 0.87
Relational Justice 6 5 0.83
Job Satisfaction 8 7 0.87
Source: Primary Data

Table 3 above shows that Distributive Justice yielded Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.75, Procedural

Justice yielded alpha value of 0.87; Relational Justice yielded alpha value of 0.75 while Job

Satisfaction yielded alpha value of 0.87. Since all variables yielded an alpha value higher than 0.70

accepted for social sciences, therefore the instrument was found to be consistent in measuring

organizational justice and job satisfaction.

34
3.9 Procedure of data collection

An introductory letter was obtained from Uganda Management Institute Authorities department of

Higher Education which the researcher presented to the relevant authorities in CNOOC Uganda

Ltd (CUL) for consideration on data collection from respondents in the organization and to look

through relevant documents. The researcher also sought consent from the respondents before the

exercise begins. Thereafter, the researcher was able to collect data from the chosen respondents

according to the agreed schedule which was then analyzed and prepared into a meaningful report.

However throughout the whole exercise the researcher carried out her duties ethically and

exercised the highest degree of impartiality.

3.9 Data analysis

Amin (2005) stated that statistical analyses are used to describe an account for the observed

variability in the behavioral data and it involves analyzing the collected data. Data analysis

involved identifying patterns, consistencies and relationships in the interviews and questionnaires.

Reasons for the occurrences with a view of establishing and explaining the relationship between

organizational justice and job satisfaction were established. Data analysis therefore, involved

qualitative and quantitative analysis techniques (Amin, 2005).

3.9.1. Qualitative data analysis

For qualitative analysis, the researcher organized statements, and responses to generate useful

conclusions and interpretations on the research objectives (Sekaran, 2003). Qualitative analysis

involved identifying categories and patterns that emerge in the responses on organizational justice

and job satisfaction dimensions as were outlined in the questionnaire and were reported in a

narrative form.

35
3.9.2. Quantitative data analysis

Quantitative data was presented in form of descriptive statistics using frequencies, mean and

standard deviations for each of the variables used in the study. Pearson’s correlation analysis was

used to establish the relationship between the dimensions of the independent variable on the

dependent variables while the regression analysis was also used to identify the level to which

distributive justice predicted the variance in job satisfaction (Amin, 2005). The correlation

technique included Pearson’s coefficient (+ or – to show the direction of the relationship between

the variable) and significance tested at 99% and 95% confidence levels based on two tailed

correlation and significant more than or equals to 0.05. A positive correlation between the

variables indicates a direct positive relationship while a negative correlation indicates a negative

or inverse relationship between them. The regression analysis used the adjusted R2 values, beta, t

values and significance values to determine the magnitude of the influence of the independent

variables on the dependent variable (Amin, 2005).

3.10. Measurement of variables

The variables were measured by operationally defining concepts. The questionnaire was developed

to find out from respondents about distributive justice, interactional justice, procedural justice, and

job satisfaction. These were channeled into observable and measureable elements to enable the

development of an index of the concept. A five- Likert scale namely: 5-Strongly agree; 4- Agree;

3- Not sure; 2- Disagree; 1- Strongly disagrees, were used to measure both the independent

and dependent variables. The 5-point Likert scale leads to the measurement of the variables to be

ordinal-numeric and thus, the analysis was largely quantitative.

3.11 Ethical issues

36
Throughout the study the researcher ensured confidentiality and accuracy of information collected

from the study, ensure the respondents consent to participation in the study before it was carried

out and that their participation in the study is voluntary and no one is coerced. This was achieved

through assigning respondents codes instead of using actual names. The researcher also made

relevant acknowledgement to authors when reviewing literature

37
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction

This study examined the influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction. This chapter of the

study presents data, analysis and interpretation of results. The presentation was guided by the

specific objectives and hypotheses of the study. This chapter presents the response rates followed

the background information of the respondents, the summary descriptive statistics for all the study

variables and finally the descriptive and inferential statistical results along the three study

objectives.

4.1 Response rates

Table 3 below presents summary statistics for response rates to the study.

Table 3: Showing the Response Rate

Respondents Target Sample Actual Response Response Rate

Managers 14 12 85.7%

Field Staff 10 8 80.0%

Office staff 40 29 72.5%

Total 64 49 76.6%

Source: Primary Data

Out of the 64 questionnaires that were distributed 49 useable questionnaires were returned giving

a response rate of 76.6%. In research studies, a response rate above 60% is good for analysis and

reporting basing on Mugenda and Mugenda’s (2003) guidelines. They assert that a response rate

of 50% is adequate for analysis and reporting; while a response rate of 60% is good; and a response

rate of 70% and above is very good.

38
4.2 Background characteristics of respondents

This subsection presents the demographic information of respondents in terms of gender, level of

education and length of service. The results are summarized in Table 4 below:

Table 4: Background information of the respondents

Characteristics Category Frequency Percentage

Gender Male 29 59.2

Female 20 40.8
Total 49 100.0
Age group <25 years 13 26.5
26- 35years 27 55.1
36years above 9 18.4
Total 49 100.0
Level of Education Diploma 5 10.2
Degree 28 57.1
Post graduate 9 18.4
Master’s degree 7 14.3
Total 49 100.0
Tenure in CNOOC Less than 1 year 4 8.2
2-3years 25 51.0
4years above 20 40.8
Total 49 100.0
Source: Primary Data

The findings in Table 2 showed that most respondents (59.2%) were male and only 40.8% were

female. The finding is less surprising given the fact that most formal workplace stations, both in

the public and private sectors in Uganda, tends to be dominated by males as indicated in Uganda

Bureau of Statistics UBOS Report (2007).

39
Most respondents (55.1%) were in the age category 26- 35 years, 26.5% of the respondents were

less than 25years of age while 18.4% were of 36years and above. This means that most respondents

in this study were mature, and could be relied upon to provide objective and reliable information.

In terms of the highest education qualification possessed by an individual, most respondents had

either a Bachelor’s Degree (57.1%) or an Advanced Level Certificate (18.4%). This means that

most respondents were literate, and could be relied upon to understand questions contained in the

questionnaires and interview guides.

Finally, most respondents (51%) had worked in the hospital for 2 – 3 years, followed by those who

had worked for 4 years above (40.8%). This means that most respondents were experienced and

considered knowledgeable; therefore, they could be trusted to reveal reliable information related

to the study.

40
4.3 Empirical findings

The empirical findings are presented in form of descriptive statistics, correlation coefficients and

regressions statistics in accordance with the specific objectives of the study.

4.3.1 Descriptive statistics for employee job satisfaction

Table 5 below presents the summary descriptive statistics for the items under job satisfaction.

Table 5: Summary descriptive statistics for employee job satisfaction

Statement Agree Not Sure Disagree Mean Std. Dev

In general, I am satisfied with 32(65.3%) 3(6.1%) 14(28.6%) 3.9 .99

my current job.
I find that my opinions are 39(79.6%) 2(4.1%) 8(16.3%) 3.3 1.04
respected at my workplace.
Most people in this type of job 42(85.7%) 2(4.1%) 5(10.2%) 4.1 .045
are very satisfied with it.
I am satisfied with the 45(91.9%) 1(2.0%) 3(6.1%) 4.3 1.52
recognition I receive for the
work I do
I am satisfied with my pay in 43(87.7%) 4(8.2%) 2(4.1%) 4.2 1.68
comparison with that for similar
jobs in other companies.
I am satisfied with the personal 41(83.6%) 5(10.2%) 3(6.1%) 3.0 .48
relationship between my boss
and 1.
I am satisfied with the way my 46(93.9%) 2(4.1%) 1(2.0%) 2.5 1.53
boss handles other employees.
Source: Primary Data

Findings from Table 3 above indicate that 32(65.3%) of the respondents were in agreement with

the assertion that in general, they are satisfied with their current job. This is further supported by

the higher (3.9) mean values which is in support of the statement. This implies that notwithstanding

some of the weaknesses in the system, employees view a lot of fairness in most of the things and

41
events that they are exposed to for instance the rewards that they receive in return to their effort,

their involvement in the decision making process and participation in the planning and

implementation not forgetting policy making and implementation.

A big percentage (79.6%) of the respondents were in agreement with the statement that in most

cases, their opinions are respected at work implying that management at CNOOC (U) seem to be

applying the participatory approach when it comes to devising mechanisms on how to improve the

functionality of the organization in order to achieve their goals and objectives. A participatory

approach requires that stakeholders that are likely to be affected or influence a certain outcome be

part of the intervention and take an active part in its formulation and implementation. Since this is

the case at CNOOC Uganda, it brings in a sense of belonging among the stakeholders and forces

them to own the project and as well work for its progress.

Study findings also indicated that majority (85.7%) of the employees at CNOOC Uganda are really

satisfied with their job implying that the facets of fairness, justice are highly upheld in the

organization. One of the key informants had this to say:

I don’t regret my time here, everything is going on well, I am well paid, working with an

international company with prospects of being transferred to another country since even

my salary scale is good. The only key determinant is to ensure that I continue giving my

best to the satisfaction of my employers.

The above qualitative and quantitative findings revealed to the researcher that most of the

employees in this company are satisfied with their roles, jobs and the amount of rewards that are

given to them in return to their efforts hence keeping them satisfied with the job.

42
A vast majority (91.9%) of the respondents noted that they are satisfied with the recognition they

get for the work done. This means that employees at CNOOC (U) are fully recognized for their

effort rendered especially when one skillfully and tactfully accomplishes his task as noted by KI

In most cases, our bosses accord respect and recognition when it is due. This is another

way of motivating us to work hard as such kind of recognition such the best employee of

the month would stifle hard work among other staff members in the organization.

It was also revealed that most of the employees are satisfied with the way their pay compares with

that for similar jobs in other firms since majority (87.7%) and the corresponding high mean value

(4.2) were all in support with the assertion. This would mean that in comparison to other firms,

CNOOC has a relatively good scale that actually motivates employees to work hard and making

them develop no need of leaving the company for other jobs in search for better pay.

Most (83.6%) of the respondents were in agreement that they are satisfied with the personal

relationship between their immediate supervisors and their bosses as well. The implication would

be that there is cordial working relationship with creates an environment of motivation among the

employees than viewing them as subordinates. This makes them feel that they are part of the

organization and thus work towards its progress.

An overwhelming majority (93.9%) of the respondents noted that they are satisfied with the way

their boss handles fellow employees. This means that employees are approached by their in a

friendly manner and viewed as a relevant force in ensuring that assignments allocated to them in

a particular period are executed timely and in a satisfying manner to achieve the intended results.

43
4.3.2 To establish the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction among employees

in CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL).

The sub section presents the summary descriptive statistics for items to establish whether

distributive justice has an influence on Job satisfaction of employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd

(CUL). Responses with ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were combined into ‘agree,’ while those with

‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ were combined into ‘disagree as below.

Table 6: Results for distributive justice

Statement Agree Not Sure Disagree Mean Std. Dev

The company’s benefit structure 14(28.6%) 7(14.3%) 28(57.1%) 1.1 1.03

is uniform to all employees.
The company’s salary scale 12(24.5%) 3(6.1%) 34(69.4%) 1.3 1.62
motivates me to work hard.
The work environment in my 5(10.2%) 4(8.2%) 40(81.6%) 1.0 1.61
organization encourages hard
work
I feel the rewards received are 7(14.2%) 6(12.3%) 36(73.4%) 1.8 1.26
commensurate to my efforts
My benefits is quite fair 33(67.3%) 12(24.5%) 4(8.2%) 4.9 .99
compared to those in similar jobs
in other firms
Resources and decision 5(10.2%) 2(4.1%) 42(85.7%) 1.3 1.95
outcomes are fairly distributed in
my organization
Source: Primary Data

According to Table 3 above, 33(67.3%) of the respondents agreed with the assertion that

organizations benefits are quite fair compared to those in similar jobs in other firms so the mean

value of 4.9 is consistent with this finding because it indicates a tendency towards an agreement

with a particular item. Since majority agreed, this implies that in relative terms, the amount of

44
money in form of salary and other benefits received by the employees of CNOOC are much better

than those of the employees in other settings as noted by one of the key informants:

“I would like to agree that our salary scale is quite fair compared to that of other employees

holding similar positions in other organizations given the disparities in training and level of

expertise in the oil industry given the fact that oil business has not so much been explored in

Uganda” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

Majority 42(85.7%) of the respondents were in disagreement with the assertion that resources and

decision outcomes are fairly distributed in the organization. The mean value of 1.3 supports this

finding because it reflects a tendency to disagree with a given item. Since majority of the

respondents could not agree with the assertion that resources are evenly distributed in the

organization, this implies that some employees are much advantaged than others, taking much

inform of salaries and allowances and with much power and authority compared to others as noted

by one of the respondents:

“there is a great imbalance in terms of pay and privileges among employees of this company

whereas the expatriates earn much, us national get peanuts and in most cases we are not

involved in the decision making process yet most of the decisions that are made directly affect

us” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

A big proportion 36(73.4%) of the respondents refuted with the allegation that they feel the rewards

received are commensurate to their efforts. The low mean value (1.8) in this case is consistent with

this finding as it shows a tendency of disagreement with that particular item. Since majority of the

respondents disagreed, it implies that the efforts directed towards work do not tally with the amount

of motivation given to employees.

45
Majority 40(81.6%) disagreed with the assertion work environment in their organization

encourages hard work. The findings are in line with the findings concerning the mean value (1.0)

which reflects a tendency of disagreement. Since majority disagreed, it means that the work

environment at CNOOC Uganda limited demotivates employees hence affecting their level of

performance as noted by one of the respondents:

“really the work environment is not conducive at all, managers and supervisors are too harsh,

decisions made by management are just imposed upon us making life extremely hard for us as

employees” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

A big fraction 34(69.4%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement that company’s salary

scale motivates them to work hard. The general tendency for disagreement among respondents

concerning this item was reflected by the mean value of 1.3. From the findings, it can be implied

that the amount of work that is done by employees is not equivalent to efforts that is injected to

ensure that they produce results save for the expatriates as noted by one of the key informants:

“I wouldn’t like to say that I work hard given the fact that I am paid well, it is just because

for the love of the profession” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

More than a half 28(57.1%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement that the company’s

benefit structure is uniform to all employees. This finding is consistent with the mean value (1.1)

which shows a tendency towards of disagreement with a particular item. Since majority disagreed,

it implies that the salary structure is somehow tilted or skewed where there are those that are

heavily paid than others in the same organization.

46
4.3.2.1 Hypothesis one: Relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction

In order to investigate the relationship between the dimension of distributive justice and job

satisfaction correlation analysis was applied. Table 7 below presents the correlation results.

Table 7 : Relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction

Distributive justice Job satisfaction

Distributive Justice Pearson Correlation 1 .831**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .831** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 7 above indicates that there is a positive significant relationship between distributive justice

and job satisfaction. The correlation between the two variables is (r=0.831, p<0.05) thus it can be

concluded that distributive justice has a significant influence on job satisfaction. This implies that

equitable distribution of benefits and rewards in CNOOC would subsequently result into a higher

level of job satisfaction among employees.

The above corresponds to the key informant interviews who also contend that it would stifle a lot

of effort and commitment among employees if there is equal treatment since all of us in most cases

work for a common cause which is achievement of organizational objectives as noted by one of

key informants:

“all organizational employees work for a common goal and for that matter if objectives are

to be achieved, they need to be motivated equitably since imbalances in workload and pay

demotivates them” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

47
4.3.2.2 Regression analysis for distributive justice and employee job satisfaction

In order to find out the extent to which distributive justice explains the variation in employee job

satisfaction, single regression analysis was conducted. Table 8 below presents the regression

analysis results for the two variable.

Table 8 : Regression between Distributive Justice and job satisfaction

R Square=0.215, P=0.000
Standardized Coefficients Sig.
Beta
Distributive Justice 0.831 0.000

According to Table 8, the overall variance in employee job satisfaction explained by distributive

justice is 21.5%. Distributive justice is significantly related with employee job satisfaction (  =0

.831, p = 0.000) thus the researcher concludes that there is sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level of

significance that distributive justice influences employee job satisfaction. This implies that

CNOOC has been able to achieve their goals and objectives as a result of adhering to the principle

in distributive justice.

4.3.3 To analyze the influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction among employees in

CNOOC Uganda ltd.

The sub section presents the summary descriptive statistics to establish the influence of procedural

justice on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC (U) Ltd. Responses with ‘strongly agree’

and ‘agree’ were combined into ‘agree,’ while those with ‘strongly disagree’ and ‘disagree’ were

combined into ‘disagree as seen in table the below.

48
Table 9: Results on influence of procedural justice

Statement Agree Not Sure Disagree Mean Std. Dev

In my organization, decisions 6(12.2%) 10(20.5%) 33(67.3%) 1.3 1.32

should be based on accurate
information.
High employee turnover is 39(79.6%) 2(4.0%) 8(19.4%) 4.9 .07
attributed to biased treatment
I am fully committed because of the 5(10.3%) 2(4.0%) 42(87.7%) 1.6 1.48
higher levels of motivation.
Unfair treatment by the superiors 32(65.3%) 10(20.4%) 7(14.3%) 4.5 .89
affect the morale of employees
Decisions about jobs are applied 13(26.5%) - 36(73.5%) 1.2 1.75
consistently/fairly to all the
employees.
In my organization, I am given a 13(26.5%) 3(6.2%) 33(67.3%) 1.2 1.63
fair chance to participate processes
used to reach outcomes
The compensation process/ 7(14.3%) 3(6.2%) 39(79.5%) 1.7 1.18
procedure in my organization is fair
Source: Primary Data

A big proportion 32(65.3%) of respondents agreed that Unfair treatment by the superiors affect

the morale of employees. The mean value of this item (4.5) supports this finding as it implies a

tendency towards of agreement with a particular item. Since majority responded in the opposite,

it implies that superiors actually have a poor working relationship with their subordinated as

noted by one of the key informants:

49
 “for a supervisor to be harsh and unfriendly to the people he/she is working with is just a

minus, it would be better for such a person to have good working relationships if things are

to go on well in the organization” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

About 39(79.6%) of the respondents constituting the majority concurred with the assertion that

high employee turnover is attributed to biased treatment by their superiors. The mean value of this

item (4.9) supports this finding as it implies a tendency towards an agreement with a particular

item. Since majority of the employees were in agreement with the assertion, it implies that

employees who moreover have a lot of expertise and in addition to that being underpaid cannot

with stand such kind of work environment which isn’t conducive at all so they end up seeking for

jobs in other organizations.

“a person that is educated and with a lot of expertise cannot withstand working in an

environment that does not regard him and appreciate his efforts which is the case with this

company” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

When asked whether employees are given chance to participate in the process used to reach

outcomes 33(67.3%) of the respondents constituting the majority answered in the reverse implying

that the bosses do not give chance to employees to take part on issues that concern them as

supported by the low mean value of 1.2.

An overwhelming majority 36(73.5%) of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that

compensation process/ procedure in their organization is fair which is supported by the low (1.7)

mean value. This implies that the compensation not fair to employees as some are highly paid

while others especially the national are poorly rewarded.

50
 “there is no clear procedure that is followed in rewarding the efforts of employees in this

organization, but the only thing I know that workers from other countries are treated

differently and have better pay” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

Most 33(67.3%) of the respondents disagreed that decisions that are made in the organization are

based on accurate information. This is supported by the low mean values (1.3) which show a

tendency of disagreement with a particular item implying that management has predetermined

ways that are based on the make decisions in the organization rather than relying on the prevailing

conditions and circumstances.

A vast majority 36(73.5%) of the respondents disagreed that decisions about all jobs are applied

consistently to all affected employees in organization implying that some decisions are applicable

in certain circumstances and does not apply to all employees as noted:

“A decision to suck an employee in this organization is not based on performance since some

of the so called expatriates perform even poorer than some nationals but have never been

terminated from work”. (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd)

A vast majority 42(87.7%) of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that they are fully

committed because of the higher levels of motivation that is given to them inform of salary and

other allowances implying that their commitment is due to other factors.

4.3.3.1 Hypothesis Two: Relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction

among employees in CNOOC (U) Ltd.

In order to find out the relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction, correlation

analysis was applied. Table 10 below presents the correlation results for the two variables.

51
Table 10: Correlation for procedural justice and job satisfaction among employees

Procedural Justice Job satisfaction

Procedural Justice Pearson Correlation 1 .728**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
Job satisfaction Pearson Correlation .728** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 10 above indicates that there is a significant relationship between procedural justice and job

satisfaction. The correlation between the two variables is (r=0.728, p<0.05) thus it can be

concluded that procedural justice has a significant influence on job satisfaction. The results suggest

that CNOOC can improve on job satisfaction when the organization focused on the processes

which are used to determine the results in the organization which by implication show that

CNOOC has been able to realize the objective of making employees get committed to their jobs

by following a clearly set out procedure used to appraise good performance in organization.

4.3.3.2 Regression Analysis for procedural justice and job satisfaction

In order to find out the extent to which procedural justice explains the variation in employee job

satisfaction, single regression analysis was conducted. Table 11 below presents the regression

analysis results for the two variables.

Table 11: Regression results for procedural justice and job satisfaction

R Square=0.185, P=0.000
Standardized Coefficients Sig.
Beta
Procedural Justice 0.728 0.000

52
According to table 11, the overall variance in employee job satisfaction explained by procedural

justice is 18.5%. Procedural justice is significantly related with employee job satisfaction

explained ( =0.289 p = 0.000) thus the researcher concludes that there is sufficient evidence at

the 0.05 level of significance that procedural justice influences employee job satisfaction. The

results suggest that employee job satisfaction can be improved with greater adherence to the

principles of procedural justice. This implies that to some extent, higher considerations given to

the principles of procedural justice at the work place has in one way or the other helped them attain

some of their goals and objectives.

4.3.4 To assess the influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction among employees in

CNOOC Uganda Ltd.

The sub section presents the summary descriptive statistics for items on the influence of

interactional justice on job satisfaction among employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd. Responses with

‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were combined into ‘agree,’ while those with ‘strongly disagree’ and

‘disagree’ were combined into ‘disagree as seen in table the below.

53
Table 12: Results on effect of interactional justice on job satisfaction

Statement Agree Not Sure Disagree Mean Std. Dev

I perceive the decisions made by 5(10.2%) 4(8.2%) 40(81.6%) 1.5 1.61

the organization as fair to all
The management treats its staff 10(20.4%) 3(6.1%) 36(73.5%) 1.9 1.21
politely, with respect and dignity
In my organization, we are given 34(69.4%) 6(12.2%) 9(18.4%) 4.6 .66
work specification, work schedule
to ensure high performance.
Employees are well informed, 31(63.3%) 13(26.5%) 5(10.2%) 3.9 .24
equally addressed on
organizational issues to achieve
goals
My manager explains very clearly 35(71.5%) 3(6.1%) 11(22.4%) 4.3 .26
any decisions made about my job
or the business
Source: Primary Data

Study findings from the table above show that majority 34(69.4%) of the respondents agreed with

the assertion that employees are given work specification, work schedule to ensure high job

performance which implies that the employees performance is measured according to the level of

accomplishments given the targets.

More than half 31(63.3%) of the respondents agreed with the assertion that employees are well

informed, equally addressed on organizational issues to achieve goals implying that regardless of

the low levels of motivation for the employees, the company works hard to ensure the it achieves

its goals to remain relevant in the oil industry.

54
An overwhelming majority 35(71.5%) agreed company managers explain very clearly any

decisions made about my job or the business implying some of the decisions concerning the

organization are undertaken by the superiors hence not involving the lower cadre staff who actually

implement them as noted by a key informant:

“not all people should all the time be brought to board when deciding on some issues that

require urgent attention” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

However, majority 36(73.5%) of the respondents constituting the majority disagreed that managers

deals with them in a truthful manner when decisions are made about at the job which implies that

managers and supervisors and managers do not at times reveal to employees especially the lower

staff about what has been arrived at pertaining the running of the organization and execution of

duties as noted:

“it hard to know some of the decisions on how staff should operate in the organization until

the real time for doing work comes where some stringent rules are imposed on us without any

prior knowledge” (Key informant, CNOOC Uganda Ltd).

A vast majority 36(73.5%) disagreed that management treats its staff politely, with respect and

dignity an indication that some of the managers and supervisors disregard the lower staff and do

not treat them with respect yet they are the engine for its success.

4.3.4.1 Hypothesis Three: Relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction

In order to find out the relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction, correlation

analysis was applied. Table 13 below presents the correlation results.

55
Table 13: Correlation between interactional justice and job satisfaction

Interactional Justice Job Satisfaction

Interactional Justice Pearson Correlation 1 .663**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
Job Satisfaction Pearson Correlation .863** 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 49 49
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 13 above indicates that there is a significant relationship between interactional justice and

job satisfaction. The correlation between the two variables is (r=0.663, p<0.05) thus it can be

concluded that interactional justice has a significant influence on job satisfaction. This implies that

CNOOC Uganda Ltd has been able to ensure job satisfaction among employees by ensuring that

supervisors respond with respect and dignity compounded by showing empathy and attention to

employee’s concerns.

4.3.4.2 Regression Analysis for interactional justice and job satisfaction

In order to find out the extent to which interactional justice explains the variation in employee job

satisfaction, single regression analysis was conducted. Table 14 below presents the regression

analysis results for the two variables.

Table 14: Regression results for interactional justice and job satisfaction

R Square=0.09, P=0.000
Standardized Coefficients Sig.
Beta
Interactional Justice 0.663 0.000

56
According to table 14, the overall variance in employee job satisfaction explained by interactional

justice is 0.9%. Interactional justice is significantly related with employee job satisfaction

explained ( =0.663 p = 0.000) thus the researcher concludes that there is sufficient evidence at

the 0.05 level of significance that interactional justice influences employee job satisfaction. The

results suggest that employee job satisfaction can be improved with greater adherence to the

principles of interactional justice. This implies that to some extent, higher considerations given to

the principles of interactional justice at the work place has in one way or the other helped them

attain some of their goals and objectives.

4.3.5 Overall influence of organizational justice on job satisfaction

In order to find out the overall influence of the three dimensions of organizational justice on

employee job satisfaction, multiple regression analysis was applied. Table 15 below presents the

regression results.

Table 15: Multiple regression results for organizational justice and job satisfaction

R square = 498 F=13.213, P = 0000

Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
Beta
Distributive Justice .380 5.481 .009
Procedural Justice .487 5.418 .000
Interactional Justice .625 2.664 .000

Table 15 indicates that the overall variance in employee job satisfaction explained by the three

variables is 49.8%. The model is significant (F=13.213. P=0.000). Each of the independent

variables is significantly related with job satisfaction, distributive justice ( =0.380, p<0.05),

57
procedural justice ( = 0.047, p<0.05) and interactional justice ( = 0.625, p<0.05). The researcher

concludes that there is sufficient evidence at the 0.05 level of significance that organizational

justice significantly influence employee job satisfaction. The above results suggest that job

satisfaction can be increased with adherence to the principles of organizational justice. This

implies that CNOOC has been able to achieve its goals and objectives as a result of complying

with the principles of organizational justice including distributive, procedural and interactional

justice.

58
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction

The purpose of the present study was to establish the find out the influence of organization justice

on job satisfaction in CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). The study specifically sought to examine to

establish the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction, to analyze the influence of

procedural justice on job satisfaction and to assess the influence of interactional justice on job

satisfaction among employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd. This chapter presents the summary,

discussion, conclusion, and recommendations of the study.

5.1 Summary of findings

This sub section presents the summary of the study findings along the three study objectives.

5.2 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction

Study findings indicated that majority 33(67.3%) of the respondents agreed with the assertion that

organization benefits are quite fair compared to those in similar jobs in other firms. However,

42(85.7%) of the respondents were in disagreement with the assertion that resources and decision

outcomes are fairly distributed in the organization. A big proportion 36(73.4%) of the respondents

refuted with the allegation that they feel the rewards received are commensurate to their efforts.

About 40(81.6%) disagreed with the assertion work environment in their organization encourages

hard work. A big fraction 34(69.4%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement that

company’s salary scale motivates me to work hard. More than a half 28(57.1%) of the respondents

disagreed with the statement that the company’s benefit structure is uniform to all employees. The

59
study found a significant positive relationship distributive justice and job satisfaction (r=0.863,

p<0.05).

5.2.1 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction

A big proportion 32(65.3%) of respondents agreed that unfair treatment by the superiors affect the

morale of employees. About 39(79.6%) of the respondents constituting the majority concurred

with the assertion that high employee turnover is attributed to biased treatment by their superiors.

When asked whether employees are given chance to participate in the process used to reach

outcomes 33(67.3%) of the respondents constituting the majority answered in the reverse. An

overwhelming majority About 36(73.5%) of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that

compensation process/ procedure in their organization is fair. Most 33(67.3%) of the respondents

disagreed that decisions that are made in the organization are based on accurate information. A

vast majority 36(73.5%) of the respondents disagreed that decisions about all jobs are applied

consistently to all affected employees in organization. A vast majority 42(87.7%) of the

respondents disagreed with the assertion that they are fully committed because of the higher levels

of motivation that is given to them inform of salary and other allowances. The study found a

significant positive relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction (r=0.728, p<0.05).

5.2.2 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction

Study findings show that 36(73.5%) of the respondents constituting the majority disagreed that

managers deals with them in a truthful manner when decisions are made about at the job. A vast

majority 36(73.5%) disagreed that management treats its staff politely, with respect and dignity

Majority 34(69.4%) of the respondents agreed with the assertion that employees are given work

specification, work schedule to ensure high job performance. More than half 31(63.3%) of the

60
respondents agreed with the assertion that employees are well informed, equally addressed on

organizational issues to achieve goals. An overwhelming majority 35(71.5%) agreed company

managers explain very clearly any decisions made about my job or the business. The study found

a significant positive relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction (r=0.663,

p<0.05).

5.3 Discussion of findings

5.3.1 Influence of distributive justice on pay satisfaction of employees in CNOOC (U) Ltd

The current study sought to establish the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction of

employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). It was found out that to a somewhat great extent that

organizational benefits are quite fair compared to those in similar jobs in other firms hence

corresponding with the findings of Berkowitz et al (1987) who in his study found that some

organization provide better benefits as compared to others. Greenberg 1986, Adams 1965; cited in

Burney et al. (2009) in their study noted that distributive justice was about people’s notion of how

fairly resources are distributed within the organization (Greenberg 2004), or in other words, how

fairly people perceive they have been paid in comparison to other people around them and

compared to the efforts they have put into the work. According to Adams (1965; cited in Furnham

2005), the pioneer in equity theory, people tend to engage in social comparisons with other

coworkers based on two criteria: Input and outcome. In this context, employees tend to evaluate

how much efforts they have put into their work compared to their colleagues, and how much

outcome they have received in comparison (Furnham 2005). A possible explanation for such

disparity would be the nature of the assignment and the type of deliverables that are required by

the client. The implication for this could be that some companies want to have a competitive edge

over others in the same industry by attracting and retaining highly skilled staff.

61
It was established that resources and decision outcomes are not fairly distributed in the

organization. Easy access to resources and ability to make decisions enhances employee

productivity to perform the work of the organization. Furnham (2005) in his research noted that

the equal distribution of resources in an organization plays a key role in distributive justice

especially in situations where the variable component of the salary is dependent on group

performance. When an employee perceives he has put more efforts into the work than his

colleagues, but the whole group has received the same amount of pay, this can lead to a perception

of distributive injustice.

The findings indicated that nothing is given to individual employees in appreciation of the higher

levels of effort aimed at appeasing their bosses which completely disagrees with the findings of

Drago et al. 1992; cited in Artz (2008) who noted that distributive justice based on individual

performance is likely to create higher levels of distributive fairness due to the fact that the outcome

is a more adequate reflection of the individual efforts invested.

The findings of the study established that employees feel rewards received are not commensurate

to their efforts. A good salary scheme encourages them to work hard for fear that poor performance

would lead to dismissal. The above findings are in line with the findings of Mcfarlin (1992) who

noted that if the level of financial motivation is high, employees are encouraged to work with

morale. The findings also correspond with the conclusions of Furnham (2005) who argued that

distributive justice is strongly connected to the effort-pay fairness dimension of expectancy theory

which suggests that one’s effort will result in performance and that performance will be rewarded

accordingly. Chunben (2008) in his study also noted that performance-based pay can increase the

perception of distributive justice because employees are paid according to their performance and

therefore perceive higher effort-pay fairness. The above findings are also true as Greenberg 2004;

62
Heywood & Wei 2006; cited in Ismail et al. 2011, Spell & Arnold (2007) in their study noted that

not all efforts necessarily result in performance and fair rewarding. People who feel that they have

been underpaid compared to their colleagues or compared to the efforts they have put into the

work, tend to experience higher levels of emotional exhaustion and anger, which in turn can lead

to job dissatisfaction. This assumption can be linked to Locke’s (1969) value appraisal theory

which suggests that a discrepancy between what an employee expects to get paid and what he

actually gets paid can lead to a perception of distributive unfairness, which in turn can decrease

the level of job satisfaction. It can be argued that such a discrepancy in distributive justice can be

the trigger for experiencing stress and discomfort, especially in situations where income

insecurities based on performance-based pay systems are perceived as threatening employees’

livelihood and family responsibilities (Ganster et al 2011; Green & Heywood 2008). The

implication would be that the unequal distribution of rewards in the organizations kills motivation

and morale of employees.

Study findings revealed that work environment in their organization does not encourage hard work.

Conducive work environment makes the work place enjoyable to the employees and reduces stress

and boredom. Hoppock (1935) describes Job satisfaction as any combination of any factors

psychological, physiological and environmental related that can lead to truthfully say they are

satisfied. The implication would be that employees would not be able to perform well their duties

given the poor work environment.

Study findings showed that salary scale does not motivate employees to work hard. Money is the

main motivator whereby if employees are well paid, then they are motivated to work hard. The

above findings concurs with the findings of Mcfarlin and Sweeney (1992) who in their study found

63
out that well paid employees parade higher levels of performance. The implication is that

underpayment demotivates employees.

The results of the study indicated that there is a significant positive relationship between

distributive justice and job satisfaction of employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). This suggests

that greater distributive justice leads to greater employee job satisfaction. This is supported by

Folger & Konovsky (1989), Xiaoyi & Chunben (2008), commitment Colquitt et al (2001); Kumar

et al (2009) who found that distributive justice leads to more employee job satisfaction in an

organization. Other related studies by Hocutt, Chakraborty and Mowen, (2007); Smith, Bolton,

and Wagner, (2009) strongly support the influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction for

example, Smith, they conducted an experiment in the restaurant and hotel industries and foud that

pay has a positive influence on distributive justice, which in turn lead to an increase in service

provider satisfaction. This underscores the need for increased distributive justice in an effort to

ensure employee job satisfaction in order to enhance performance.

5.3.2 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction in CNOOC (U) Ltd

The second object of the study was to analyze the influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction

in CNOOC Uganda Ltd. Study findings indicate that unfair treatment by the superiors affect the

morale of employees hence affecting the level of performance. Equal treatment to all staff

members creates a sense of unity as they all direct efforts to achieve a common goal given the

same level of motivation and treatment for the employees. This is in line with the findings of

Adams (1965), who noted that unequal treatment of employees makes them develop anger and

biased attitude towards the organization hence failure to show commitment by accomplishing

64
tasks. The implication would be that the organization may fail to attain its goals and objectives

since employee commitment makes the organization achieve goals.

It also emerged that employee turnover is attributed to biased treatment by their superiors. A good

working relationship between the employer and the employees strengthens employee relationship.

Fernandes and Awamleh (2006) also found that when employees notice that they are treated

unequally it leads to low commitment and high turnover. The implication would be that the

organization may continue to incur employee training and development costs with an effort to

bring on board new employees to replace those that would have left the organization due to unfair

treatment to employees.

Study findings showed that employees did not perceive the organization wage and salary system

as impartial hence in disagreement with the findings of Greenberg (2004) who argued that the

degree to which an employee perceives the performance-based pay system and distributive

injustices as harmful depends on his or her appraisal of the processes used to determine the reward

outcome as well as all other procedures surrounding the reward/pay system itself, such as

performance evaluation and goal setting (Burney et al. 2009).

Study findings showed that employees are not given chance to participate in the process used to

reach outcomes. Participation of the beneficiaries in a given process makes them take ownership

and become responsible for the decision arrived at. According to a study by Thibaut and Walker

(1975) it was found out that employees might perceive outcomes as fair if they were given a chance

to be involved in the proceures used to reach outcomes. The implication is outcomes may not be

easily realized since employees were not part of the planning process from the very start and only

just brought on board at implementation.

65
Findings showed that majority of the respondents disagreed with the assertion that compensation

process/ procedure in their organization is fair. Fairness in the reward and employee payment

scheme create a scenario of employee job satisfaction since if it is unfair, the underpaid would

develop a mind of searching for other jobs which may be presumed to be good paying as compared

to the current one. Folger & Konvsky (1989) describe Procedural justice as the fairness on the

compensation processes / procedures or its fairness of the means used for making decisions about

the outcomes/amounts. The implication is that employees may use their current positions as a basis

for obtaining new jobs in a similar setting given their level of experience and expertise. In a study

by Folkman (2004), an employee who feels that his performance has been underpaid is likely to

make an evaluation of the extent to which he or she is potentially harmed by the compensation

scheme. In this regard, the employee will evaluate the fairness of the organizational procedures

related to it, including the degree to which pay decisions have been made based on accurate,

consistent and bias-free information and rules as well as the degree to which employees were able

to express their opinions and views in goal setting procedures and performance evaluations and to

appeal errors of judgment on part of supervisors (Greenberg 2004; Burney et al. 2009).

It was also established that decisions that are made in the organization are not based on accurate

information. Decisions that are made basing on past information can yield better outcomes can be

taken to be objective. In a study Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007), it was established that

failure to take action while making reference to past experiences may be affected by bias and

subjectivity. Pettijohn et al. (2011) noted that when employees perceive that their payment has

been based on accurate information and that they have had a fair chance to express their views

during the evaluation or goal setting procedures, stress reactions from distributive injustice or other

dissatisfactions from the compensation scheme can be buffered. However, when employees

66
perceive unfair payments and unfair procedures surrounding the compensation scheme, they are

likely to get a feeling of unease regarding their labor situation. The implication to the current study

is that such decisions made the organization may not be objective and not based on facts.

Study findings equally indicated that there are high levels of inconsistency when it comes to

treatment of employees where non Ugandans but of Asian origin are treated differently hence

corresponding with the findings of Cropanzano, Bowen and Gilliland (2007) components of

procedural justice in an organization include; consistency meaning all employees are treated equal,

there should be lack of bias of any single person. In fact Folger and Konovsky (1989) asserted that

people are affected by perceived equality of such procedures regardless or the perceived fairness

of the decision itself. Therefore, procedural justice prevails when employees feel that the processes

in the organization include aspects of consistency, precision, indiscrimination, ethicality and

inclusion then they will be a change in attitude such as organizational commitment and turnover

intention hence job satisfaction. Greenberg (2004) noted that supervisor who makes decisions

based on favoritism for instance, may be a signal for concern and can cause dissatisfaction. The

impact of procedural justice can also be explained through the value appraisal theory of Locke

(1969). In this context, a discrepancy between what an employee values as fair procedure and how

the organization actually implements procedures based on the employee’s perception can increase

the level of job dissatisfaction.

Study findings indicated that employees are not give chance to take part in goal seating and at the

same time not given a fair hearing hence corresponding with the findings of Based Artz (2008)

and Greenberg (2004) argued that the perception of procedural unfairness in form of denied

participation in goal setting, the absence of fair hearing or the use of biased information can cause

67
job dissatisfaction among employees because they will feel helpless, alienated and at the mercy of

those procedures that ultimately determine their income.

The results indicate that there is a significant positive relationship between procedural justice and

job satisfaction which by implication suggests that procedural justice leads to greater employee

job satisfaction. This is in line with previous research on organization justice which shows that the

different dimensions including procedural Justice are positively correlated to Job, Trembly et al

(2001); Al-Zu’bi (2010). Related findings by Mcfarlin and Sweeney (1992) indicate that

Procedural justice is also a stronger predictor of turnover than distributive justice, Fernandes and

Awamleh (2006) also found that when employees feel that they are treated unfairly it leads to low

commitment and high turnover and a study by Masterson et al (2000) confirmed that procedural

justice has more impact on withdrawal of employees than interactional justice.

5.3.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction in CNOOC (U) Ltd

The third objective of this study sought to determine the effect of interactional justice on job

satisfaction. It was established that managers do not deal with employees in a truthful manner

when decisions are made about at the job. Openness is very vital in an organization especially if it

deals with its employees in a transparent manner by freely interacting with them on issues

concerning their position, contribution and the extent of their contribution to organizations success.

This finding corresponds with that of Colquitt (2001) who noted that interactional justice

pertaining elements of openness where the organization through meetings and other forum

communicates to its employees concerning their progress and the milestones that have been

attained in the due course. The implication is that such conduct of not being open and direct creates

68
a communication and knowledge gap between management and the employees both in the short

and long run.

Study findings showed that management does not treat its staff politely with respect and dignity.

According respect to an employee creates a sense of belonging where the employee considers

himself to be highly regarded and forming part of the team that works hard to ensure that a next

mile stone in terms of performance is realized. The above correspond with the findings of earlier

researchers such at Greenberg 1990 (cited by Princy and Nagalingappa (2012) who noted that

employees should be treated as part of the assets of the organization since these do a lot to ensure

that ends meet. The implication to that would mean that harsh treatment of employees would create

a very big rift between the employees only to do constructive work when under strict supervision.

Study findings indicated that their employers and immediate supervisors are very hesitant to

provide the employees with adequate information on matters compensation scheme yet Greenberg

(2004) noted that in an attempt for employees to understand the underlying organizational

procedures that appear threatening they will turn to those organizational authority figures who are

directly concerned with the compensation scheme such as the immediate supervisor, their bosses

and if all attempts are futile or the communication is negative, they will get dissatisfied and find

ways of quitting the organization as opposed to instances where employees receive open, accurate

and timely information and explanations regarding decision-making processes, outcomes and

procedures (Ismail et al. 2011). Furthermore, open information-sharing creates a feeling of trust in

employees, which in turn lowers anxiety feelings related to income insecurities and procedural

unfairness (Greenberg 2004) thus, interactional fairness can buffer the job dissatisfaction effect of

organizational justice including distributive and procedural injustices. This is in accordance with

previous research results mentioned by Ismail et al. (2011).

69
Study findings indicated that in most cases, their bosses and immediate supervisors treat them with

a lot of impunity to the extent they are abused and failing to appreciate their level of contribution

to the organizations success which causes a lot of dissatisfaction among employees yet Greenberg

(2004) and Ismail et al. (2011) in their submission argued that employees who feel that they have

been treated with respect and consideration during a performance evaluation procedure and who

perceive higher levels of job satisfaction.

Study findings showed that management does not provide adequate explanations to employees on

decisions made yet some of them actually affect their wellbeing and level of performance but rather

come in to criticize performance and their attitude towards their bosses and the company hence in

tandem with the findings of Greenberg (2004) who noted that explanations given to employees

increase feelings of anxiety and concern related to distributive and procedural injustice and

employees will be dissatisfied with their job.

The study found a significant positive relationship between interactional justice on job satisfaction.

This study found that to a somewhat great extent, the organization follows interactional justice to

ensure job satisfaction. Previous research on organization justice shows that the different

dimensions including Interactional justice are positively correlated to Job satisfaction Trembly et

al (2001); Al-Zubi (2010). Studies by Blodgett, Wakefield and Barnes, (2005); Hocutt,

Chakraborty and Mowen, (2007) also indicate that there is a strong influence of interactional

justice on customer satisfaction for instance Sparks and Bradley (2007) reported that

communication style and effort influenced post recovery satisfaction in a hotel context.

5.4 Conclusions

5.4.1 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction

70
The first objective of the study examined the Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction of

employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). The results of the study indicated that there is a

significant positive relationship between distributive justice and job satisfaction of employees in

CNOOC Uganda Ltd (CUL). This suggests that greater distributive justice leads to greater

employee job satisfaction. The current findings add substantially to our understanding of the

influence of distributive justice on employee job satisfaction in CNOOC Uganda.

5.4.2 Influence of procedural justice on justice on job satisfaction

The second objective of the study examined the Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction

among employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd. The results indicated that there is a significant positive

relationship between procedural justice and job satisfaction which by implication suggests that

procedural justice leads to greater employee job satisfaction. The present study therefore provides

additional evidence with respect to the influence of procedural justice on employee job satisfaction

in CNOOC Uganda.

5.4.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction

The third objective of the study examined the Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction

among employees in CNOOC Uganda Ltd. The results indicated that there is a significant positive

relationship between interactional justice and job satisfaction which by implication suggests that

interactional justice leads to greater employee job satisfaction. The current findings add

substantially to our understanding of the influence of interactional justice on employee job

satisfaction in CNOOC Uganda.

5.5. Recommendations

71
This sub section presents the recommendations arising out of the study findings.

5.5.1 Influence of distributive justice on job satisfaction

Management of CNOOC Uganda limited should ensure resources and decision outcomes are fairly

distributed in the organization. Management should ensure that there is a conducive working

environment which gives employees morale and creates a sense of belonging and oneness as a

team to ensure that all work towards attaining a common goal. The Company should offer

competitive salaries that would motivate employees to work hard and retain them in the

organization as turnover has been high due to low rates. Employees with similar skills and levels

of expertise should be at the same scale with some small differences on allowances depending on

the assignments given.

5.5.2 Influence of procedural justice on job satisfaction

Employees should be given chance to take part in the process used to reach outcomes since it is

through their efforts that targets can be met. Management of CNOOC Uganda limited should

ensure that compensation process/ procedure in their organization is fair. The decision making

process in the organization should be based on accurate information. Management should ensure

that decisions about all jobs are applied consistently to all affected employees in organization. The

company should offer competitive wages to all employees according to their level of performance

and expertise as this would stifle hard work in the organization.

5.5.3 Influence of interactional justice on job satisfaction

72
Managers should deal with employees in a truthful manner when decisions are made about at the

job. Respective managers and supervisors should treat its staff politely, with respect and dignity.

Supervisors should establish good working relationships with the employees.

5.6 Recommendations for further study

The current study focused on organizational justice in only one organization. Future research

should focus on a number of organizations to determine the influence of organizational justice on

job satisfaction a cross section of projects in the oil and gas industry in Uganda.

5.7 Limitations of the study

The main limitation of this study is that it adopted a case study design, in that it focused on only

one organization which is CNOOC. The findings therefore cannot be generalized to other

organizations since every organization is unique. There is therefore need to conduct a cross

sectional study among oil and gas projects to be able to make generalizations.

REFERENCES

73
Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in

experimental social psychology, (2), 267-2296. New York: Academic press.

Al- Zubi, H. (2010). A study of relationship between organizational justice and job

satisfaction. International justice of business and management, (5), 102-109.

Amin, M.E. (2005). Social science research. Conception, methodology and analysis.

Kampala Uganda: Makerere University

Barifaijo, K.M., Basheka, C.B., & Oonyu, J. (2010). How to write a good

dissertation/Thesis: A Guide to graduate students. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere

University & Uganda Management institute.

Berkowtiz, L., Fraser, C., Treasure, F. C., & Conchran, S. (1987). Pay, equity, job

gratification, and comparisons in pay satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology,

72(4), 544-551.

Bies, R. J., & Moag, J.F. (1986). Interactional Justice: communication criteria of fairness.

Research on negotiations in organizations. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. 43-55

Colquitt, J.A., Conlon, D., Wesson, M., Porter, C., Ng, K. Yee. (2001). Justice at the

millennium: A met-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research.

Journal of applied psychology, 86, 425-445.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, Conducting and Evaluating

Quantitative and Qualitative Research. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D., & Gilliland, S. (2006). The Management of Organizational

Justice. Academy of management perspectives. 21(4), 34-48.

74
Cropanzano, S.R., & Kacmar, M.K. (1995). Organizational Politics, Justice, and Support:

Managing the social climate of the work place. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing

Group.

Fenandes, C., & Awamleh, R. (2006). Impact of organizational Justice in an expatriate

work environment, Management research news: communications news of emergent

international management research, 29 (11), 701-712.

Folger, R., & Konovsky, M. (1989). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on

reactions to pay raise decisions. Academy of management journal, 32(1), 115-130.

Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace status: a field experiment. Journal of applied

psychology, 4, 606-613.

Homans, G. (1961). Social Behavior: Its elementary forms. New York: Harcourt, Brace &

World, Inc.

Kirk, J., & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research. Beverly

Hills: Sage publications.

Krejcie, R. & Morgan, D. (1970). Determining sample size for research. Educational and

psychological measurement. University of Minnesota. 30,607-610

Locke, E. (1976). The Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. New York:

Wile.

Locke, E.A. (1976). The nature and causes of Job-satisfaction, in M.D. Dunette, handbook

of industrial and organizational psychology, Chicago: Rand McNally, p. 1300.

75
Mcfarlin, D. H., & Sweeney, P.D. (1992). Distributive and Procedural Justice as predictors

of satisfaction with personal and organizational outcomes. The Academy of

Management Journal.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (2nd edition). (1994). an expanded source book.

Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Miner, J.B. (1980). Theories of organizational behavior. Hinsdale, II: Dryden Press.

Mowday, R. (1987). Equity theory predictions of behavior in organizations. In R.M. Steers

& .W. Porter (EDs), Motivation and work behavior. New York: McGraw- Hill

P89-110.

Mugenda, O. M., & Mugenda A.G. (1999). Research methods: Qualitative and

Quantitative approaches. Nairobi: Africa center for technology studies.

Princy, T., & Nagalingappa, G. (2012). Consequences of perceived organizational justice:

an empirical study of white collar employees. Journal of Arts, Science and

Commerce, 3(3), 2 & 55.

Randeree, K. (2008). Organizational justice: migrant workers perceptions in organizational

in the united Arad Emirates. Journal of business systems, Governance and Ethics

3(4), p.57.

Robbins, S.P. (1999). Organizational behavior: concepts, controversies, applications. New

Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Limited.

Simon Muyambi (2014) Human resource management practices and job satisfaction in

Nakaseke General Hospital, Uganda., National Document Centre Uganda

76
 Management Institute . MMS(HRM)/42/2014, Pg 17.

Tremblay, M., & Sire, B. D. (2000). The role of organizational justice in pay and employee

benefit satisfaction and its effects on work attitudes. Group and organizational

management. 25(3), 269-289.

Xiaoyi. W., & Chunchen, W. (2008). The impact of organizational justice on employees'

pay satisfaction, work attitudes and performance in Chinese hotels. Journal of Human

Resources in Hospitality & Tourism, 7(2), 181-195

77
 APPENDICES

Appendix i: Study Questionnaire

INTRODUCTION

Dear respondent,
My name is Yvette K Muyingo as student of Master’s in Management Studies (Human Resource
Management) at Uganda Management Institute. I am interested in establishing the influence of
organizational justice on job satisfaction of employees in multinational companies taking a case
study of CNOOC Uganda limited (CUL). You have been selected as a respondent to provide us
with your views on this study in this company. Your views will be kept and treated confidentially
in line with the study.

SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Please tick the appropriate option

1. Gender : Male [ ] Female [ ]

2. Age group (years): 18-25 [ ] 26- 30 [ ] 31-35 [ ] 36-40 [ ] 41-45 [ ] 46+ [ ]
3. Level of education: Secondary [ ] Certificate [ ] Diploma [ ] Degree [ ] Post graduate
[ ] Others, please specify [ ]
4. Period work: <1 year [ ] 2- 3years [ ] 4years above [ ]

78
SECTION II: Organizational justice in CUL

Instructions

Indicate the extent to which you agree with the following practices in CNOOC Uganda

Please use the key below to answer the following questions by indicating: (5) for strongly agree
(4) for agree, (3) for not sure (2) for disagree (1) for strongly disagree

Distributive Justice
1. Resources and decision outcomes are fairly distributed in my organization 5 4 3 2 1
2. My benefits is quite fair compared to those in similar jobs in other firms 5 4 3 2 1
3. I feel the rewards received are commensurate to my efforts 5 4 3 2 1
4. The work environment in my organization encourages hard work 5 4 3 2 1
5. The company’s salary scale motivates me to work hard. 5 4 3 2 1
6. The company’s benefit structure is uniform to all employees. 5 4 3 2 1
Procedural Justice
7. In my organization, I am given chance to participate in the process used to 5 4 3 2 1
reach outcomes
8. The compensation process/ procedure in my organization is fair 5 4 3 2 1
9. In my organization, decisions should be based on accurate information. 5 4 3 2 1
10. Decisions about all jobs are applied consistently to all affected employees. 5 4 3 2 1
11. Unfair treatment by the superiors affect the morale of employees 5 4 3 2 1
12. I am fully committed because of the higher levels of motivation. 5 4 3 2 1
13. High employee turnover is attributed to biased treatment 5 4 3 2 1
Interactional Justice
14. I perceive the decisions made by the organization as fair to all 5 4 3 2 1
15. The management treats its staff politely, with respect and dignity 5 4 3 2 1
16. In my organization, we are given work specification, work schedule to 5 4 3 2 1
ensure high performance.
17. Employees are well informed, equally addressed on organizational issues 5 4 3 2 1
to achieve goals
18. My manager explains very clearly any decisions made about my job or the 5 4 3 2 1
business
SECTION III: Job Satisfaction in CUL
Job Satisfaction
19. In general, I am satisfied with this job. 5 4 3 2 1
20. I find that my opinions are respected at work. 5 4 3 2 1
21. Most people on this job are very satisfied with it. 5 4 3 2 1
22. I am satisfied with the recognition I get for the work I do 5 4 3 2 1
23. I am satisfied with the way my pay compares with that for similar jobs in 5 4 3 2 1
other firms.
24. I am satisfied with the personal relationship between my boss and his/her 5 4 3 2 1
employees.
25. I am satisfied with the way my boss handles employees. 5 4 3 2 1
Thank you for your cooperation

79
 Appendix ii: Interview Guide

Dear respondent,
My name is Yvette K Muyingo as student of Master’s in Management Studies (Human Resource
Management) at Uganda Management Institute. I am interested in establishing the influence of
organizational justice on job satisfaction of employees in multinational companies taking a case
study of CNOOC Uganda limited.

I kindly request you to answer the questions sincerely and accurately. The information will only
be used for academic purposes and will be treated with maximum confidentiality.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours faithfully,

Yvette K Muyingo.

1. What is your position in this organization?

2. For how long have you been in this organization?
3. What is your highest level of education?
4. How is the practice of organizational justice exercised in this organization
5. How does distributive justice impact on job satisfaction
6. How does procedural justice impact on job satisfaction
7. How does interactional justice impact on job satisfaction
8. How often does your organization engage in distributive justice.
9. If not often, what could be the possible explanation
10. What can be done to improve employee job satisfaction in CNOOC (U) Ltd.

Thank you for time

80
Appendix iii: The Krejcie & Morgan Table

81
Appendix iv: Introductory letter from UMI

82
Appendix v: Approval of Proposal Letter from UMI

83
Appendix vi: Anti-plagiarism Report

84