COMPROMISE GRIEVANCE HANDLING AND ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY OF OIL AND GAS COMPANIES IN PORT HARCOURT
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between examine the relationship between compromise grievance handling and organizational sustainability in oil and gas companies in Port Harcourt. Strategic sustainability, product sustainability and personnel sustainability as measures of organizational sustainability. The study adopted a cross-sectional survey in its investigation of the variables. Primary data was generated through structured, self- administered questionnaire. The population was a total of 2305 employees of five (5) oil and gas companies in Port Harcourt. The study sample was 341 employees calculated using the Taro Yamane’s formula for sample size determination using simple random technique. The research instrument was validated through the supervisor’s vetting and approval while the reliability of the instrument was achieved by the use of the Cronbach Alpha coefficient with all the items scoring above 0.70. The hypotheses were tested using the Spearman rank order correlation Coefficient. The tests were carried out at a 95% confidence interval and a 0.05 level of significance. The findings of the study confirmed that there is a significant relationship between compromise grievance handling and organizational sustainability of oil and gas companies in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. The study recommended that there is need for top managers in the oil and gas industry to adopt compromise as a strategy since the study have established that compromise style can have a positive impact on the organization. Workers must not be isolated especially when they have good ideas that could make organizations more productive.
Keywords: Compromise Strategy, Organizational Sustainability Strategic Sustainability, Product Sustainability and Personnel Sustainability
CITATION: Ngei, A. O. (2019). Compromise grievance handling and organizational sustainability of oil and gas companies in Port Harcourt. The Strategic Journal of Business & Change Management, 6 (4), 1435 – 1446.
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Ambrose, M.L. &Arnound, A. (2005). Are procedural justice and distributive justice conceptually distinct? In Greenberg J, at Colquit J.A (editors) Handbook of Organizational Justice (59-84) New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Beadle, R. &Moore, G. (2006). MacIntyre on Virtue and Organization. Organization Studies, 27, 323–340.
Blackledge, P. & Knight, K. (2011). Virtue and Politics: Alasdair MacIntyre’s Revolutionary Aristotelianism. University of Notre Dame Press.
Blaga, S. (2013).Rethinking business sustainability. Review of Economic Studies and Research
Carroll, A. B. (2008). History of corporate social responsibility: Concepts and practices in Crane et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19–46.
CIPD (2012).Responsible and Sustainable Business: HR leading the way – A collection of
Colbert, B. &Kurucz, E. (2007). Three conceptions of triple bottom line business sustainability Crane et al. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Social Responsibility. Oxford:Oxford University Press, 19–46.
Eccles, R., Ioannou, I. &Serafeim, G. (2011).The Impact of a Corporate Culture of
Ford (2012). http://corporate.ford.com/doc/corpgov_sustainability_committee_charter.pdf.
Gordon, M.E., &Fryxell, G.E. (1993).The role of justice in organizational grievance Systems.
Grattan, L., 2000. Living strategy: putting people at the heart of corporate purpose. London: Pearson Education.
Kanter, R. M. (2011). How great companies think differently, Harvard Business Review,89(11), Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Profile and Interpretive Report. USA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
MacIntyre, A. (1985). After Virtue, 2nd edn. London: Duckworth.
Oslon- Buchanan, J. (1996).Voicing discontent: What happens to the grievance filer after the grievances? Journal of Applied Psychology, 81 (1), 52-63.
Porter, M. & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1–2), 62–77.
Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R.H. (1974). In Thomas, K.W. & Kilmann, R.H. (2001). Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument: Profile and Interpretive Report. USA: Consulting Psychologists Press Inc.
Tjosvold, D. &Morishima, M. (1999). Grievance resolution: perceived goal interdependence and interaction patterns. Relations Industrielles, 54(3), 527-548
Van de Ven, B. (2008). An ethical framework for the marketing of Corporate Social Responsibility, Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 339–352.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.61426/sjbcm.v6i4.1479
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
PAST ISSUES:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.