EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING AND

ITS IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY: AN APPRAISAL OF GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS AND TWO OTHER

PRIVATE PUBLISHING FIRMS IN ENUGU

BY EZENNAYA NJIDEKA PRISCA PG/MBA/09/53804 DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ENUGU CAMPUS MAY, 2011

i

TITLE Employee Participation in Decision Making and its Impact on Productivity: An Appraisal of Government Printing Press and two Other Private Publishing Firms in Enugu By Ezennaya Njideka Prisca PG/MBA/09/53804 A Research Project Submitted to the Department of Management Faculty of Business Administration University of Nigeria Enugu Campus In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of a Master of Business Administration Degree with Specialization in Management. May, 2011

ii

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this research work by EZENNAYA NJIDEKA PRISCA with Matriculation Number PG/MBA/09/53804

presented to the Department of Management was submitted in

Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of Master of

Business Administration (MBA) Degree with the Specialization in

Management

............................. ................... Mr. C.O. Chukwu Date ............................ .................... Dr. U.J.F. Ewurum Date ............................ .................... External Examiner Date

iii

APPROVAL PAGE

This project work has been read, approved and accepted as

meeting the requirement of the Department of Management,

University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the award of Masters of Business Administration. ............................. ................... Mr. C.O. Chukwu Date

iv

DEDICATION

This research work is dedicated to the author and giver

of all good things our Lord Jesus Christ.

v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I am very grateful to God Almighty for the gift of life and the

courage and strength to complete this stage of education.

My thanks go to my project Supervisor, Mr. C.O. Chukwu,

for his valuable contribution, for creating time out of his ever tight

schedule to give this project the most befitting guidance and

offered suggestions and amendment where needed. My sincere

thanks and appreciation also go to all my lecturers who have

taught me in one course or another throughout the duration of my

study.

I owe gratitude to every member of my family for their

constant support, morally and financially all through the period of

my course.

I am particularly grateful to my Daddy, Late Mr. P.O.C.

Ezennaya whose words of encourage can never ever be forgotten.

May your gentle soul rest in perfect peace, Amen.

Also, I am grateful to all my friends and well wishers for their

unflinching support, uncompromising love, their encouragement

and prayers, throughout the period of my study. May God bless

you all.

vi

Finally, I remain indebted to all the authors of materials I

have used in this study. I appreciate and I am saying thank you to

everyone of your and may God bless you all in Jesus name,

Amen.

N.P. Ezennaya

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title.................................................................................................... i

Certification ...................................................................................... ii

Approval .......................................................................................... iii

Dedication ....................................................................................... iv

Acknowledgement ........................................................................... v

Table of Contents ........................................................................... vii

Abstract .......................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................ 1

1.2 Background of the Study ........................................................ 2

1.3 Statement of Problem............................................................ 7

1.4 Objectives of the Study .......................................................... 8

1.5 Statement of Hypothesis ....................................................... 9

1.6 Significance of the Study ..................................................... 10

1.7 Scope and Limitation ........................................................... 11

1.8 Definition of Terms ............................................................... 11

References............................................................................ 13

viii

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................... 14

2.2 Concept of Participation ...................................................... 15

2.3 Expressed views concerning Employee

Participation ......................................................................... 18

2.4 Leadership Styles and Degree of Participation .................. 28

2.5 Conditions and Influences on Participation.......................... 34

2.6 Arguments for Participative Management ........................... 44

2.7 Arguments against Participative Management ................... 49

2.8 Methods of Involving Employees in Decision

Making................................................................................... 52

2.9Enhancing Productivity Through Participation .......................... 59

References ........................................................................... 65

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design .................................................................. 68

3.2 Population of the Study ........................................................ 68

3.3 Sampling Procedure ............................................................. 69

3.4 Instruments for Data Collection ............................................ 71

ix

3.5 Method of data Collection ..................................................... 71 3.6 Reliability/Validity of Test ...................................................... 72 3.7 Data Analysis Techniques .................................................... 72 References ........................................................................... 74 CHAPTER FOUR PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA 4.1 Presentation of Data from Managers' Responses ............................................................................ 75 4.2 Presentation of Data from Employees' Responses .......................................................................... 88 4.3 Testing of Hypothesis ........................................................ 100 CHAPTER FIVE DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF FINDINGS 5.1 Introduction ........................................................................ 109 5.2 Discussion of Findings ...................................................... 109 5.3 Summary of Findings ........................................................ 114 5.4 Conclusion ......................................................................... 115 5.5 Recommendations ............................................................ 116 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 118 APPENDIX ............................................................... 123

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:Managers' Response on their perception of

Participative Management ........................................ 76

Table 2:Manager's Responses on the Rating

of employees' decisions ..................................................... 77

Table 3:Managers Response on whether the time and money

invested in the practice of employee

Participation reflect on increased

productivity ................................................................ 78

Table 4:Manager's responses on whether

participative management is advantageous

to their organization .................................................. 79

Table 5:Managers responses on the rate

at which employees' decisions are

made use of .............................................................. 80

Table 6:Managers responses on whether

they think employees in organisations

fully participate in any decision

making ...................................................................... 81

Table 7:Managers responses on the type of

employee participation that is allowed ..................... 82

xi

Table 8:Managers response on the main

objectives they intend to achieve

by involving subordinates in the

decision making process of the

organization .............................................................. 84

Table 9:Managers response on whether the

present level of workers participation

is enough to motivate them

towards job satisfaction and

improved productivity. .....................................................

Table 10:Response on managers efficiency as

a result of employee involvement in

decision making ........................................................ 86

Table 11:Responses on the advantages that

accrue to the organization as a

result of participation ................................................. 87

Table 12Employee Response on their

perception of participative management .................. 89

Table 13:Employees response on whether their

perception of participative management

is in line with the firms policy .................................... 91

xii

Table 14:Employees response on whether

managers seek their opinion on

consider them in decision making. ........................... 92

Table 15:The reaction of the manager/boss

when a subordinate brings up an

opinion ....................................................................... 93

Table 16:How employees react when the supervisor

insists only on his own way of

accomplishing tasks ................................................. 94

Table 17:The level at which employees are

allowed to participate in decision

making ...................................................................... 95

Table 18:Whether employees feel trapped by a

feeling that opposition to view of

supervisors might be seen as a sign

of disloyalty ................................................................ 96

Table 19:If Employees inform managers who they

feel there is a better way of doing a

particular job than the firms stated way .................... 97

xiii

Table 20:Considering employee involvement in

decision making as a major reason to

improve productivity .................................................. 98

Table 21:Contingency ................................................................. 101

Table 22: contingency ............................................................. 104

Table 23:Managers response on whether the

time and money invested in the

practice of employee participation

reflect on increased productivity ............................. 106

xiv

ABSTRACT

This study has examined employee participation in decision making and its impact on productivity. Three publishing outfits in Enugu were studied, namely: Government Printing Press, ROCANA Nig Ltd and GOSTAK Nig Ltd. The population consisted of managers and employees in the three elected firms in Enugu Urban. The sample for the study was 137. Out of the 137 questionnaires administered, 105 were returned. Oral interview was also used to obtain responses from some managers and employees. The outcome of the study was analyzed by the use of tables and percentages while the three hypothesis formulated were tested by the use of chi-square. The study reveals that; a)Participative decision making does not involve participation at

all levels of management. b)There is a positive relationship between participative management

and productivity i.e to say participative management results in increased productivity. c)The investment effort in the practice of participation has not been

yielding the desired out put i.e increased productivity. d)There are diverse perceptions of participation among the workers and

managers. e)The pressing problems facing the practice of participation is that

employees and managers misconstrue participation in decision making.

Indeed participative management should be seen as an inevitable tool in any organization both public and private. The following recommendations were also put forward. a)Managers should put more efforts in encouraging their employees to

contribute to decision making and incorporate them into the organizational policy.

b)Managers should allow increased level of workers participation in decision making since they are the centre of operations and can say better on issues bearing on those areas.

c)Participative management should be redefined and properly applied so that peoples understanding and perception of what it is all about will be improved.

d)The operators of businesses should take steps to set specific measurable objectives that participative management should aim to achieve.

1

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the practice of organizational management

demanded that employer/management would expect that workers will

do the work that is set before them. While this was a perfectly typical

method of getting results through others in the early days of assembly

line and scientific management, it is no longer true of today's business.

The trend has changed in that management expects more from its

workers than doing simply what is put before them. It has also changed

in that workers expect that more can be got from them by simply

working according to the direction of the boss.

However, with the rise of such theories as "participative

management" and with increasing recognition that employees often

have something valuable to contribute (beyond the accepted units of

their normal job duties) . Many companies are now actively seeking

ways of getting employees to participate more in decision affecting

them. The worker on the other hand expects to be asked how he feels

about his job, and what his ideas are on how the work can be done

more easily, better and faster. The reason for this change in emphasis

is

2

that management has discovered that there are tangible business value

in soliciting and using the ideas of people at all levels in the

organization.

As the main objective of every business organization is long-term

survival and in addition to have a competitive advantage over and

above its competitors rather than being like the biblical seeds that fell

on the way side and perished. The secret of having this competitive

advantage over others then lies on the productivity of the enterprise.

The increase in productivity can only be achieved mainly through the

organizational workforce. Increase in work life and productivity in an

enterprise starts with the mind. It starts with the improvement of an

individual self-esteem and self worth. It starts with helping an

employee develop a higher degree of self-regard.

1.2 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In tracing the background of this concept of employee

participation in decision making, one can infer it to be a household

name in many countries of the world. Japan's success in the business

world is attributed to employee

3

participation. Decision making is shared at all levels of management.

It is observed that decision making in Japanese firms are focussed on

defining questions or issues rather than on finding solutions. Thus all

levels of the organization are involved in this process. In the United

states, industrial democracy is practiced, employees are encouraged to

buy shares in companies thereby enabling them to have a say in the

management of their organization. In other developed countries like

Britain, Yugoslavia and Germany, participatory management is popular.

In Britain and Yugoslavia, it is known as joint consultation and self

management respectively while in Germany, it is known as co-

determination.

In Nigeria, participatory management has come a long way. The

Nigeria Military Government in 1977 decided to democratize industrial

ownership in Nigeria by promulgating the Nigerian indiginisation decree

part of which provides "that 10 percent total equity share of any

enterprise on schedule, 2 and 3 should be reserved for workers". This

is to ensure that workers have a sense of belonging in their respective

organizations.

4

Both the state and Federal government of Nigeria have in the

past involved its citizenry in the management of affairs of the state.

Ejiofor and Aniagor (1984) stated that the state represents both

enterprise and workers and other social and economic institutions.

Based on this argument, the researcher sees

the state as representing management while the citizenry represent

workers. Everybody is working for the state because everything you

do, be in the private or public sector, is contributing to the national

development. It is in recognition of the significance of participation that

the federal military

government of Nigeria sometime invited the entire citizenry to

participate in deciding whether Nigeria should accept the IMF loan or

not. After a heated debate by "well meaning" Nigerians, the idea was

cancelled.

Apart from the Federal and State government being aware of the

need to involve citizens in the management of affairs of the state, many

companies in Nigeria mostly the multinationals are practising

participative management A.G. Leventis, United African Company

(UAC), United Trading company and John Holt call it consultation

committee. Suggestion boxes and

5

House journals are means through which employees are represented

on the Board of Nigeria Ports Authority.

Despite these evidences of the existence of participative

management in the Nigerians industrial set up, some people in other

countries and some Nigerians are of the view that real participatory

management does not exist and cannot exist due to under

development, inexperience in democratic process, political instability

and economic instability caused by frequent changes in economic

policy by the federal government. Participative decision making can be

well practiced only in a stable economic environment because of its

time consuming nature and investment in training to enable workers

have a contributing capacity. Also the negative attitude of the Nigerian

worker to work does not encourage participatory management. They

are more interested in what they will get from the employer in terms of

salaries and other employment benefit and not the job itself. Such

attitudes definitely cannot give rise to effective participation.

Ukandu Damachi (1990) is of the view that participative decision

making can be possible in a certain sector of the economy and not in all

government owned enterprises and

6

parastatal because of the government intention to mobilize popular

support for development purposes. He goes further to say that workers

participation in the multinational companies, on the other hand has at

best remained elusive. Most of these

companies are controlled by and depend on their parent bodies abroad

for policies and decision. Among the indigenous employers,

particularly the small and medium sized organization, their attitude to

workers is paternalistic and authoritarians . Their activities are often

shrouded on secrecy. They are suspicious of the workers and therefore

cannot afford to share information and decision with them. We have

experiences of some managers that fail to delegate, as they do not go

on leaves, where some go, they are on working leave; still attending

work,some while on leave lock up certain jobs/documents in their

drawers, thus making such pending till they resume, whereas

participative management involves nothing more than sharing

information with subordinates.

In the light of the above, Government Press and some selected

Private Publishing firms in Enugu being among the organizations in

Nigeria that practice participative management will be examined to

show whether the organization practice

7

real participation. Managerial problems which require decision making

in the company will be identified to show the extent employees are

allowed to participate, the effects of participation on overall productivity

and problems encountered in the practice of participative management.

1.3 STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.

The issue of whether participative decision making exists in the

Nigerian industrial set-up is very controversial. Some companies in

Nigeria practice participative decision making and the government has

in the past encouraged participative decision making through

legislation. On the contrary, some management writers in Nigeria are

of the opinion that it does not exist and where it does it is not real. Their

reason is that the necessary prerequisite conditions to encourage

participation in Nigeria are not available.

However, research into leadership style has exposed employee's

desire for involvement in decision making in their

various organizations. Employees are at the same time important

elements of the accomplishment of the organizational goals, and thus

organizational survival. The reason basically

8

rests on the fact that employees are operators and are in better position

to know the problems they encounter in doing a particular task and

how best to solve them.

The problem mainly lies on the fact that participation though

obtained has not been clearly understood as well as its benefits. Some

of the managers feel that the decision making process is their sole

prerogative and as such should be protected. Again top management

likes to remain aloof from its employee as to build an all important air

around themselves.

In the light of the above, this study therefore is set to determine

the extent of practice of participative decision making in government

Press and few other firms and its influence on productivity as well as

ascertaining the benefits and problems arising from such practice.

1.4 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Specifically, the researcher intends to;

1)Examine the perception of workers towards participative

management policy in an enterprise.

2)Ascertain the level of workers participation in decision making of the

organizations.

9

3)The type of decisions employees are involved in.

4)Verify if employees opinions are made use of after being collected.

5)Determine if participative management is considered a major factor

for productivity by management.

6)Determine the problems encountered in the practice of participative

decision making.

1.5 STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS

1. Ho :Participative decision making does not involve participation

at all levels of management.

H1 :Participative decision making involves participation at all

levels of management.

2. Ho :Productivity is not independent of employees participation in

decision making.

H1 :Productivity is independent of employees participation in

decision making.

3. Ho :The investment effort on the practice of participative decision

making does not reflect on increase in productivity.

10

H1 :The investment effort on the practice of participative decision

making reflects on increase in productivity.

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is designed to provide information to the populace on

how Government Press and other few selected firms have faired in their

practice of participative decision making and its contributions to

productivity, thereby enhancing organizational efficiency. It is expected

that this study will be beneficial to the management by giving enough

insight into the benefits of employee participation in decision making,

make clear to managers what participative management stands for

hence, reducing the fear often harboured by these managers. Workers,

students of business Administration and the society at large are equally

the potential beneficiaries of this study.

It is equally my hope that the study would provide a basis on

which further research could be carried out.

11

1.7 SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This study is about participatory management. The extent of

employee participation, the effect on satisfaction and productivity of

employees and the problems encountered in its practice will be

examined.

Government Press and a few other selected private publishing

firms in Enugu will be the limit of this study. This is due to limited time

and finance being faced by the researcher. And also unwillingness of

some managers in using their organization for research. Despite these

limitations, the study will explore every necessary available information

to attain its set objectives.

1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS

Employee/Worker

For the purpose of this study a worker is taken to mean any person who

has undertaken to place his gainful activity in return for a

remuneration, under the direction of another person who may be

an individual, a private or public company or a corporation, who

is styled the employer. (Akpala 1990)

12

Productivity

The output per unit of a factor of production is called the "productivity"

of that factor. Imaga (1996)

An organization's ability to transform inputs to output at the lowest

possible cost is its productivity, Unamka & Ewurum (1995).

Participation

This will be regarded as the process by which people contribute ideas

towards the solution of problems affecting the organization and

allied matters.

Employee Participation

This will be taken to be when those below the top of an enterprise

hierarchy take part in the managerial function of enterprise.

Decision Making

This could be taken to mean an art considering and making a

judgement concerning a particular issue or issues.

13

REFERENCES 1) Alexander, Philip (1981) "Learning from the Japanese" Personnel Journal August, p. 616 2) Agwu Akpala(1990) Management: An introduction and Nigerian Perspective p.23 3) P.N. Ejiofor (1984) "Managing the Nigerian Worker" Longman Nig Ltd Ibadan, p. 104 4) Sufermeister, Robert A (1976) People And Productivity New York: McGraw - Hill p. 86. 5) U. Damachi "Worker participation in management in Nigeria" Nigerian Institute of Management Journal Vol. 9 No. 1 Oct

1987 p.26 6) Wadia Maneck (1980) "Participative management: Three common problems" Personnel Journal, Nov. p.927. 7) Unamka & Ewurum (1995) Business Administration. Precision Printers and Publishers Enugu p.7. 8) Imaga E.U.L. (1996) Theory and Practice of Production Management: Gostak Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. Enugu-Nigeria p.

18.

14

CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 INTRODUCTION

For a clear cut understanding of this study, the review of related

literature will be made in this chapter which in turn will create a focus

and better direction. In this light, the literature will discuss first the

concept of participation, highlight of expressed views concerning

employee participation will be made. Other segements of the literature

as leadership style and degree of participation, conditions for

participation, influences on participation, arguments for participation,

arguments against participation and productivity improvement through

participative management and others etc. will be discussed.

Management, as defined by Mary Parker Folliet is the art of

doing things through people to achieve an objective. A vital concept

towards attaining objectives is decision making - making a choice out of

alternatives. The choice should conceptually benefit the manager, of

the business, the subordinates, the owners of the business and more

importantly the public. Decisions made by management and

implemented

15

through people, that is, the subordinates. The question then is, should

the one to implement the decision have a say in what he should

implement.

2.2 CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION

Several management strategies have been developed to enable

organizations attain their objectives, one of which is participatory

management.

Adeola S. (1994, p. 23) defines participation as the active

involvement of subordinates of followers in the making of decisions that

directly affect them in the work place. Participation in decision making

is generally regarded as a sign of enlightened and democratic

management. It may be through of the giving and receiving of

information, achieve and suggestion and the sharing of experience

among members of an organization.

In management, Murew (1967 p. 83) opined that "participation

particularly applies to allowing the employees) to have a voice in

shaping policies, procedures and processes that directly or indirectly

affect". It is therefore a process of sharing among managers and

employees. Though the use of

16

participation also, individual members are involved in a wide range of

objective setting, problem solving, and decision-making activities of the

organization.

Davis (1981 p.156) stated that participation is a mental and

emotional involvement of persons in group situations that encourage

them to contribute to group goals and share responsibility for them.

Lewin (1969 p. 21) defined it as a mode of organizational

operation in which decision as to activities are arrived at by the person ,

who are to execute those decisions.

However, participation from my own point of view, I can say is a

process in which two or more parties influence each other in making

decisions. The parties to the decision making process may be in their

capacities as individuals or as groups.

In participatory management, management selectively shares,

some of its powers with employees. It takes into consideration the

wishes and suggestions of the members as well as those of the leader.

It is a human relations approach where all members of the group are

seen as important contributors to the firm's decisions.

17

Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1979) concluded that participation is

really a middle-class value, and grows out of the prior expectations of

those being supervised.

Vroom (1964) points out two distinctions in the definition of

participation. The first he calls "physchological" (you think you are

participating in the decision that affect you), and the second "objective"

(you actually participate strongly in the decisions that affect you

whether you know it or not). Vrooms study is essence shows or

through some interesting light on how follower personalities affect

participation.

Rush (1973) maintains that "a concept of participation can be seen as a means of humanising work

and of gaining grater employee involvement".

Participation per se, is not a programme but rather a

dramatic change in the way most companies take decisions and

operate on a day-to-day basis, which efficiency and productivity by

managers of organizations and on the other hand a way of getting

the best out of human resources employed in any business

organization.

18

Lundgren (184) says that "the intent of participation as with many leadership approach is to

inspite high productivity and maintain a satisfied work force.

The concept of participation in an organization can therefore

be summarized as a process by which an organization attempts to

unlock the creative potentials of its people by involving them in

decisions affecting their work lives. It is a structured effort to

enable employees at all levels in an organization to use their

knowledge, skills and abilities more effectively in their work and to

participate more fully in decisions about their work life.

2.3EXPRESSED VIEWS CONCERNING EMPLOYEE

PARTICIPATION

Different views have been expressed regarding employee

participation. These views range from outright rejection of the idea

to religious belief that only participation will make companies

productive and competitive. Labour leaders and workers while

continuing to press primarily for increased economic benefits and

related gains in working conditions, have become increasingly

persistent in demands for more direct

19

involvement in the decision making processes of the companies

that employ them. Politicians have allied themselves to the union

for political gains. Participation has become a familiar focus of

political debates in a number of countries where its backers seek

legislation to establish new participation formats or expand existing

procedures in companies to include more participation. Some

executives on the other hand have held on to the belief that worker

participation has no place in the enterprise.

In the light of the above McFarland (1968 p.502) tells us that

the root of participative decision making lies in the company

philosophy and managerial style and in the overall organizational

climate. Organizational climate as used by McFarland includes

people, laws, economic and market conditions and technology.

Likert and his associates who conducted elaborate research

studies at the institute for social research of the University of

Michigan stressed and prescribed participative group management

system as universally acceptable which is characterized by high

degree of trust, confidence and participation. Here there is a great

deal of interaction between

20

managers and subordinates and there is extensive upward and

lateral communication. He goes further to say "The leadership

and other process of the organization must be such as to insure a

maximum probability that in all interaction and in all relationship,

within the organization, each number in the light of his background,

values, desires, and expectations will view the experience as

supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of

personal worth and importance".

McGregor (1960 p. 33) follows this theme by emphasizing

the desirability of replacing the authoritative theory X by the more

democratic participative theory Y. This theory assumes grater

motivation and increase fulfilment of both individual needs and

organizational goals. This theory assumes grater motivation and

increase fulfilment of both individual needs and organizational

goals. The individual will assume responsibility freely and easily,

exercise self direction and self control. Such organization that

operate on this assumption would readily distribute responsibility

widely among its managers and would want an individual to

participate in setting goals for himself and for the organization.

21

In other words this theory emphasizes participation management

rather than management by control.

Akpala (19990 p. 55) believes that MBO (Management By

Objective) to a certain degree can be called a participative

management system. Its operation calls for manages at any level

to join with their subordinates or their superior to plan the

objectives of the respective levels of management. That is, the

manager and the subordinate collaborate in setting goals for the

subordinate with the understanding that the extent to which these

objectives are attained will be the major factor in evaluating and

rewarding subordinates performance.

Lundgren (1984) says that "the intent of participation as with

many leadership approach is to inspire high productivity and

maintain a satisfied work force".

To him, participation seeks to achieve these goals through

the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process.

This concept is contingent on the presumption that participation

will increase satisfaction, stimulate interest and thus provoke high

productivity. Lundgren however draws attention to the varying

degree of participation that can be allowed. He holds that a

manager may simply invite questions

22

with respect to a decision he has already, made; or he may allow

subordinates full freedom to make decisions written to prescribed

limit. He goes further to opine that participation result in decision

that are perceived as being fair. This is based on the belief that

everybody gets a chance to express his views and to appraise the

views of others. "For a group that feels involved is more satisfied

an more productive than one that does not feels involved". Globe

(1972).

Maslow (1943) also extended his theory of motivation to

emphasize the importance of providing an organizational

environment in which the individual can achieve maximum self

actualization.

This is manifested in workers or employees performing their

jobs on a daily basis, knows the taste and distaste of particular

jobs, hence the problem associated with them. Therefore, they

are in a better position to identify such problems, their magnitude,

extent and ramification.

They should therefore be allowed to make contributions towards

solving such problems or where they cannot provide solutions to

such problems they should be allowed to make suggestions on

how they would be solved because two heads

23

are better than one. This is based on the fact that participation is

pulling of resources (human) together, either individually or

collectively, leading to identification and elimination of a particular

problem or problems.

Heller (1981) states that participation is the most

organizational problem of our time because individual members

felling of well being and their self realization are related to

participation and its consequences.

Kloeze, Molencamp and Reolof (1980) have suggested that

participation needs to be explained in terms of degree and

direction. The degree of participation in an organization explains

the amount of involvement that each individual employee will have

in both formulation and implementation. This will be partly

determined by the way authority is delegated and also be

determined by how influential the participation will be. In other

words whether the employees are truly allowed to be involved and

are allowed to make decisions or whether they are merely allowed

to have some input which is not fully incorporated in decision

making (Pseudo-participation) depends largely on the spelt out

degree of participation in that organization.

24

Ellon (1960) describes participation as "a man's basic

biological process".

To him, man being a social creature seeks continuous

interaction with other people, his work let alone his attitude is

bound to be affected by those interactions. This is because, to a

large extent, organizational procedures not only impinge on his

task but determine the specification of his role and

responsibilities.

A study was undertaken to find the effects of participation in

government organization. The result of the study indicated that

increase involvement in the decision making process resulted in

higher worker morale. But the productivity did not rise. The

researcher Powell and Schlacter (1971) suggested that the

principal reason for the lack of increase in productivity was that

many of the workers were not ready to participate.

According to them, the workers preferred the dependent

relationship found in an authoritarian leadership style. The

researchers also pointed out that it takes time for people to

become involved and that when they do the vary nature of their

involvement which they asserted as follows:

25

"The increasing number of relationship and interest, the development of multiple objective and the possible loss of informal leadership are factors which tends to hamper improvement in productivity".

The key to effective use of participation the researchers

suggested, is the "manager" being able to find out the trade-off

point between participation and moral on one hand, and

productivity on the other hand which gives him the best overall

result. Participation they asserted is one of the most

misunderstood ideas that have emerged from the field of human

relations.

Waldman (1986) put forth that participation of employee is

praised by some, condemned by others. He opines the difference

in point of view between its proponents and its critics are about as

great as those between leaders of "iron curtain" countries and

those of the free world when they use the term `democracy'.

Some have claimed that participation of employee is the

answer to organizational problems because it helps to eliminate

conflicts and disagreement. Others think of participation as a form

of managerial abduction.

26

According to such critics participation of employee is a

dangerous ideal that will undermine managerial prerogatives and

weakens management effectiveness.

McGregor et al opines that some group of managers look at

participation as a useful item in their bag of managerial tricks. To

such managers, participation is a manipulation device for getting

people to do what they want under conditions that delude the

participators into thinking that they have had a voice in decision

making. In criticising such manager he says that participation

used in such narrow sense would be incorrect. In this view, the

effective use of participation is a consequence of managerial point

of view which includes confidence in the potentialities of

subordinates and the desire to avoid some of the negative

emphasis on personal authority.

Elton Mayo realised that group activities are effective only

when each individual sees his interests as parallel to those of the

group. This theory conceptualized in what is generally known as

the "Hawthorne Experiments". argues that individual see

themselves as part of a specific group or clan rather than

members of society as a whole. Management therefore should

27

follow this clan principle by encouraging workers to work as a

group which they can identify with.

Usilaner (1986 p. 73) has this to say "a remarkable thing about participation is that it encourages

people to accept responsibility for an activity".

This happens because participators are self involved in the

group so that they want to see that what they participated in works

successfully, Clearly, as individuals begin to accept responsibility

for group activities, they become more interested in and receptive

to team work. This is because they see it as a means of

accomplishing a job for which they are responsible.

Davis (1981) says that a person who is actively involved in

something is naturally more committed to carrying it out on his

own.

Such an individual creates responsibility rather than having it

forced upon him by delegation. Thus by making himself

responsible, the individual gains a measure of indpendence and

dignity as a person making his own decisions though these

decisions may be heavily influenced by his group environment.

28

All other views regarding participation of employee in the

workplace have revolved around these opinions with little or no

variation. However, time and experience have taught us that for

an organization to survive in today's complex economy, it needs

the support and active participation of its employees.

2.4 LEADERSHIP STYLES AND DEGREE OF PARTICIPATION

Leadership as defined by Packard (1989) is the process of

influencing others to achieve specific objectives in specific

situations. However, excluded from leadership are such unduly

coercive methods as influencing people with acts of violence.

Without this exclusion muggers and hostage - takers are leaders.

Leadership refers to something a person accomplishes rather

than to his or her personal characteristics. However,

characteristics may be used to influence people. The leadership

definition presented in this context implies that leader has a sense

of direction and the effectiveness of one's attempts to influence is

contingent upon unique situational factors.

In the light of this Dubrin (1989 p. 330) states that effective

organizational leaders are relatively consistent in the

29

way they attempt to influence the behaviour of group members.

The manager who makes all the major decisions in one situation is

not likely to share decision making in another. Also, the manger

who is considerate in one situation is not likely to be insensitive in

another. He goes further to say that the relatively consistent

pattern of behaviour that characterizes a leader is his or her

leadership style.

Although the behaviour of most managers is too complex to

be described by a single style, and some managers modify their

styles is still useful.

The classical method of classifying leadership styles

arranges leadership behaviour along a continuum of the amount

of authority exerted by the leader. Although the origins of this

approach are over forty years old, most new approaches to

leadership style are rooted in the leadership continuum which

begins through the autocratic style, passes through the

participative style and ends with the free-rein or democratic style.

Lester Richard (1981) goes to define these concepts as

Autocratic leader he says maintains most of the authority by

issuing orders and telling group members what to do without

30

consulting them. To the autocrat, the basis for leadership is formal

authority.

A democratic leader he states confers final authority on the

group. He or she functions as a collector of opinions and takes a

vote before making a decision.

A participative leader, is one who shares decision making

authority with the group. Participative leadership occupies enough

space on the continuum to warrant it been recommended in the

management literature dating back to the early 1950s.

The nature of an organization determines the degree of

participation. A manager does not simply choose to use, or not to

use participation. In practice we find varying degrees of influence

by subordinates on decisions. Participation on a specific problem

may fall anywhere between two extremes: complete centralization

of decision making, whereby the manager merely announces his

conclusion and tries to get the subordinates to carry out the plan.

The degree of participation therefore depends on (a) who initiated

ideas; (b) how completely a subordinate carries out each phase of

decision making-diagnosing, finding alternatives, estimating

31

consequences, and making the choice; (c) how much weight an

executive attaches to the ideas he receives. The greater the

initiative, the more complete the coverage, and the greater the

weight assigned the higher the degree of participation. (Newman,

Summer and Warren 1967 p. 534).

Participation in decision making is highly situational and is

largely a matter of degree. It should not be though of as single

process or actively but rather a whole range of process and

activities.

Kloeze, Molencamp and Reolofs (1980) suggested that

participation needs to be explained in terms of degree and

direction. The degree of participation explains the amount of

involvement that each individual employee will have both

formulation and implementation. This will be part determined by

the way authority is delegated and also be determined by how

influential the participation will be. In other words whether the

employees are truly allowed to be involved and are allowed to

make decisions or either they are merely allowed to have some

input which is not fully incorporated in decision making (Psedo-

participation).

32

Elvis (1995) warns of the dangers of "pseudo participation".

This is participation which looks like but is not real participation.

True participation means that people can be observed to be

spontaneous and free in their discussion.

Benard (1992) referred to pseudo-participation as a

manipulative device used by management, that is , while

maintaining a theory X philosophy, they only recognize the

subordinates' inputs only when they conclude with the decision

they (management) have already made.

According to Guest and Fatchett (1973) the situation where

there is said to be sharing of decision making may be no more

than a means whereby management controls the situation. The

work force (employees) are allowed to "say" as long as what they

say has the agreement of management. When they disagree with

management, then they are taken away. For participation to

effectively take place, the employees exertion of control should

always lead to management alteration or abandonment of

proposed plans that affect the employees.

There is much controversy over the question of how much

autonomy subordinates should have in shaping own

33

goals, as well as those of the unit in which they work, and how

strongly the boss should impose his or her views when it comes to

goal setting with subordinates.

In essence, at one extreme is the position that subordinates

should be asked to set their own goals and those of their work unit.

The rationale for this approach, according to its advocates, is that

it motivates subordinates to do more or be more productive. At the

opposite pole are those who take the view that if the boss doesn't

know what to expect from subordinates, he or she shouldn't have

them on the payroll and therefore should tell people what to do,

and when and how to do it (Odiorne 1979, p.285)

Actually, neither extreme is a universally applicable style of

management, or goal setting. A research evidence indicates that

the use of participative management is a discriminatory skill. In

short, it shows that participative management works with some

kinds of situations and followers and does not work with other

kinds of situations and followers.

Onuoha has this to say in the light of the above; MBO has

been hailed by the advocates of "power equalization" because of

the possibilities it holds for the exercise of participative

34

management. Now it is true that participative management is

perfectly acceptable as one method of goal setting in

management. By Objective (MBO) system. As a system,

however, management by objectives works also by autocratic or

top down goal setting. The choice of which method to use, or

when to mix them is determined more by the demands of the

situation, especially the expectations of subordinates, than by the

basic nature of the system itself. Infact the system is really neutral

to such value judgement (Onuoha 1994).

2.5 CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ON PARTICIPATION

Certain prerequisite conditions are necessary for

participation to succeed in any organization. Some of these

conditions exist in the environment while some actually occur in

the individual. These conditions as stated by Davis (1981) are as

follows:

1.There must be adequate time to participate before action

required for participation is hardly appropriate in emergency

situations.

2.The subject of participation must be relevant to the employee

environment, otherwise employees will look

35

upon it merely as busy work.

3.The participants should have the ability such as intelligence and

knowledge to participate. For example, it is unreasonable to

ask security men in a product manufacturing organization to

participate in mapping out marketing plans for their products.

4.The participants must be able, mutually, to communicate (to talk

each other's language) in order to be able to exchange

ideas.

5.There should be no feeling of threat to either party. If workers

think their status will be adversely affected they will not

participate. Similarly, if managers feel that authority is

threatened, they will not allow participation.

6.The potential benefit of participation should be greater than its

cost. Participation should not be done at the expense of the

organization's work.

7.Participation can take place within the area of job freedom. Job

freedom for an individual or a department is its area of

discretion after all restraints have been applied. Restraints

in this context include the framework within which the group

makes decisions and such

36

decision cannot violate policy.

If these conditions as stated by Keith Daries are followed

rigidly and blindly, that is, all of them must obtain in one company

before one concludes that participation is not necessary. It is

sufficient that some of them must exist in the organization before

participation can be practiced.

Tannebaum and Schemidt cited in Ike (1996 p. 18) also

identified conditions given greater use for participatory

management on the part of subordinates, as follows:

-The subordinates have relatively high needs for independence

-They are ready to assume responsibility for decision making.

-They have relatively high tolerance for ambiguity.

-They are interested in the problems and felt they are important.

-They have the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with

the problems.

-They have learnt to expect to share in decision making.

Participation then, is like so many other management

concepts we can put it to excellent use, provided we apply it

37

to the right problems and circumstances. Economic relatives, the

interest of participants, the personality characteristics of

participants, the time available for discussion, and the desirability

of voluntary cooperation all need to be considered when we

decided how far to carry participation (Newman, Summer and

Warren 1971).

Bennis (1985) also has this to say "Another criterion we

should pay attention to when we decide whether participation is

desirable or not deals with the characteristics of potential

participants. For instance, high mental ability is desirable. A

participant need not be exceptional in all respects, but he needs

strength in at least one of the following intellectual quantities.

Originality, penetrating analysis good memory, or balanced

judgement. Participation for unintelligent subordinates clearly

must be restricted to limited phases of simple problems.

He goes further to highlight that self-confidence also helps

make a good participant, that a man with confidence in his own

ideas feels freeier to express them to his boss and other senior

officials, even though his views may not be in harmony with what

already has been said. While a particular problem may be so far

removed from chief interests of

38

subordinates that they are not willing to devote effort to

participating in its solution.

Another condition is that participative leadership requires

employees who want to participate and who have worthwhile input

necessary for the success of using particiaptive decision making

depending largely on the situation, it may be appropriate in a

particular industrial setting and inappropriate in another setting ,

cultural differences in the followers and the situation may be

inappropriate in determining the appropriate conditions for

successful participation (Mary 1996 p. 24),

The economic, social and psychological facts of life have

dictated the unassuming factors that influence the practice of

participative management in different organizational setting. This

is possibly because as stated by Burt (1981) changing from an old

style of management to a new way that involves employee opinion

takes time and money. It also requires a great deal of

commitment from management and the employees. Employees

involvement, management commitment and the willingness of the

organization to invest their time and money; these are the major

factors that influence participation.

39

According to Guest and Fatchett (1973), the situation where

there is said to be sharing of decision making may be no more

than a means whereby management controls the situation. The

work force (employees) are allowed to `say' as long as what they

say has the agreement of management then they are taken away.

For participation to effectively take place, the employees exertion

of control should always lead to management alternative or

abandonment of proposed plans that affect the employees.

Above all, there are inherent factors that effect the effective

practice of participation which could be seen as either

requirements or prerequisites for participation. These includes the

following:

2.5.1 Education

In the past pros and cons of employee participation, many

preconceived ideas exist on this issue, and these blases and fears

need to be identified so that they can be resolved. The executives,

will ultimately need to support the attitude change, and they need

to be as committed as possible to the concept.

40

To achieve this committments, they must be educated about

what to expect, and in particular, cautioned not to count on

changes in a matter of few weeks. They must be advised that

there will be more money spent in training, dramatic increases in

the number of meetings and many frustrated managers and

employees along the way (Joseph and Pool 1982).

However people who want to contribute to issues should not

be ignorant of issues at stake,. The implication I think is that

workers must be educated to enable them give a conceptual

outlook on issues.

Rohlen (1987) while reviewing the books "The Japanese

Schools lessons for industrial America" and The Japanese

Educational challenge: a commitment to children" demonstrated

that Japan's economic success stem from an educational system

superior to their own (America). They made education a priority

and established national standards, allocated resources evenly,

accorded teachers high status, and emphasized continuous

improvement.

41

2.5.2 Willing Subordinates

The manager can gain from the subordinates who is willing

to co-operate and contribute. Before turning decision making

responsibility over to a subordinate group the manager should

consider group effectiveness, that is how effective its members

work together as a unit.

Feldman (1983 p. 289) indicates that participative

management is most useful where subordinates expect that they

will have an opportunity to participate in the decisions affecting

them or in setting their own goals. And on the other hand where

subordinate managers already have shown themselves to be of

independent temperament . Such people will expect to participate

in establishing their goals.

It is on this note that Summer (1971) says that a person's job

assignment and the strength of this identification with his

department or his company strongly affect his response to an

opportunity to participate on a given problem. But if an alert and

self confident person is merely indifferent rather than subjective to

a motivational deadlock, participation may kindle his interest in a

problem.

42

2.5.3 Stable Environment

In a turbulent environment where things change too

frequently (government, competition, economy and consumers)

participatory management is derived only in a stable environment

where participants are with relevant knowledge, information

experience and willingness to participate . Mary et al notices that

in Nigeria, the benefits of participatory management cannot be fully

derived because of constant changes in economic policies and

frequent industrial disputes which has characterized the Nigerian

employee management relations in recent times.

2.5.4 Non Routine Decision and Orientation Practice

Participative decision making should not be routine. To

invoke participatory management for mundane everyday

operational decision would bring business to a halt. Participative

management is suitable for decisions that are not made on daily

basis. Group takes much longer time than individual to make

decisions. Okonkwwo (1991 p. 31) asserts that "The ideal new

employee will be a self start who has demonstrated a willingness

to work hard; is not easily

43

frustrated, has experience with terms and groups and has the self

confidence, flexibility and leadership to contribute to the goals of

the organization. The organizations orientation programme must

clearly communicate its culture and expectations to new

employees.

For the subordinates, however, time will be saved only if

they are concerned with all phases of a problem. Otherwise they

may spend hours listening to other people talk about matters on

which they can contribute little or nothing.

2.5.5 Wide Communication Success and Unbiased Data

Bulletin boards, news letters, meetings and other attention

getters all help reinforce the message that participative

management is important. All parts of an organization should

know what is being done in various other areas to improve the

operation as a whole. Recognition for special contribution is also

important. If company problem on the other hand are shared with

all through open and honest communication efforts, employees will

see for themselves that issues need their immediate attention.

44

By involving employees in discussions of company issues, they

develop a state in resolving those issue and can become even

more committed to the practice of participation (Okonkwo et al).

2.6 ARGUMENTS FOR PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT

Social scientists have done extensive research in the

subjects of leadership, organization, and communications. Some

of their discoveries have been widely hailed as break through in

management, or new patterns that will eventually supplant existing

methods of managing. Most of these work have been extended to

the prescriptive conclusion that participative decision making is

better than non participative decision making.

Perhaps the leading exponent of participative decision

making has been Douglas McGregor. In describing how

management by objectives works he says "Genuine commitment

is seldom achieved when objectives are externally imposed.

Passive acceptance is the most that can be expected,

indifference resistance are the more likely consequences"

McGregor (1960).

45

The participative style of leadership has been recommended

in the management literature dating back to the early say 1950s.

Many organizations today are achieving good results with

participative management. A case in point as noted by William

(1989 P.332) is Cipher Data Products. He says within one year of

implementing participative leadership throughout the firm, the

company experienced a 10 percent increase in customer-quality

acceptance in every product line. However Cipher used

participative leadership styles effectively through careful planning,

including a training program and frequent monitoring of results.

Participation I can say leads to better decisions because it

encourages a spirit of co-operation among those participating but

the effect on morale should be regarded as a by-product. Unless

the primary aim of a manager in using participation is improved

decision making his sincerity will be challenged and the long-run

effect on morale may be harmful rather than helpful.

Newman (1971 P.538) has also noted that participation is a

convenient way for a manager to top the diverse knowledge

different viewpoints, and complementary abilities of

46

his subordinates. As with many good things, however, these

benefits come at some sacrifice and only under favourable

circumstances.

Peter (1993) maintains the desirability of participative

management and supports his argument as he says "The value of participation had been seen as a contributing

factor to optimization of individual freedom and self determinant within a collective context".

To him, man being a social creature seeks continuous interaction

with other People, his work let alone, his attitude is bound to be

affected by those interactions. This is because to a larger extent,

organizational procedures not only impinge on his task but

determine the specifications of his role and responsibilities.

Group participation can also be a powerful means for

arriving at an integrated decision. By this we mean a decision that

takes into account the needs of the various division of the

company and one that each participant personally accepts as the

best that can be worked out in the circumstances. Such

integration results from effective participation, because everyone

present; manager and subordinate is influenced by

47

the facts, information and feelings of every one else. Integration of

decision also reflects a balancing of power as various ideas and

information flow among participants. If the manager has the power

of the formal organization, if the subordinates can put pressure on

the manager, and if the group can exert power on deviant

members, then out of all these influences and ideas can come a

balanced decision that, although it may not please everyone fully,

is more effective and workable in the long run than one arrived at

in any other way (Summer, Newman and Warren (1971 p. 544).

Participative management as seen by the researcher

creates a work environment where less resistance to new methods

may result and the problem solving process may produce

innovation, technical skills and increased flexibility are equally

developed both in the managers and subordinates. Some specific

advantages of participative management as advanced by Onuoha

et al include the followings.

-Auditing in implementation: Since employees have influenced

on corporate decision, they are happy to implement to the

core and there are less resistance to management action.

48

-Elevation of Employee Morale

The workers morale and drive to work towards attaining

organizational goals are elevated with participating

management in practice.

-Personnel Development

Employees are afforded adequate training and opportunity to rise

when need arises.

-Correction of Underemployment

Workers potentials are fully tapped when forum for expressing

their views are provided. This occurs mostly in a brain

storming session.

-Facilitation of Effective Control

Managers as directors are guaranteed when participatory

management is in place.

-Improved Communication

The free movement of information is ensured between

management and employees. Management is opportuned

to know what is going on in the lower levels.

Finally, since research evidence shows that participative

management probably does no harm, and often helps, especially

in managing people from middle class backgrounds

49

and similar value systems, the appeal that there may be long run

social value in participation has not fallen on deaf ears. In this

essence, many business manages lead the social scientists in

their confidence in the values of participative management, even

though they may doubt its efficacy as an infallible spur to

productivity.

2.7 ARGUMENTS AGAINST PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT

The usual arguments against participation tend to revolve

around the contingency approach ranging from the system of the

organization to capabilities and capacities of that organization in all

ramifications.

For this reason, Bisocos (1990) suggest that; "Every

executive should be aware of the help he might obtain from his

subordinates in his planning. Diverse knowledge, different view

points, and complementary skills are strong supports when tough

decisions have to be made. But participation is not always

desirable. If economic realities or other forces restrict possible

alternative, an executive should not try to fool his subordinates that

they are helping to reach what is a foregone conclusion. In

addition, the capacity and willingness

50

of subordinates to contribute may limit the degree of participation

that is feasible, and the pressure of time may prevent its use.

Benson (1994 p. 16) argues that "As other companies have

learned, participative leadership does create some problems. One

executive noted that some mangers personally feel a loss of power

when participative management is implemented and that another

problem is that participative leadership requires employees who

want to participate and who have worthwhile input".

It has been noted also that participation would mean costly

delays. Even when there is no emergency pressure, the time

required for participation may be a serious obstacle to its use.

Hence, on small matters, one should ask him or her self whether

participation is worth the time it takes away from other work.

Particularly, on the hand, has no claim to being the core of a new

pattern of management by objectives (MBO) that will guarantee

high productivity if universally adopted by managers.

Nwosu (1989, p. 15) tries to disprove the feasibility of

participation, yes-men are found in an organization when he

51

says thus: "A highly dependent person who typically looks to others for help

in solving problems is unlikely to provide fresh ideas. Moreover, such a dependent person often gets trapped by a feeling that opposition to views of supervisor is a sign of disloyalty".

Vroom et al on the other end poses that highly authoritarian

personalities, on the other hand, perform better when they don't

have any participation, but are simply told what to do, when to do

it, and how to do it.

The specific disadvantages of participation as noted by

Onuoha are as follows:

Crisis Situation

The concept becomes a no issue in particularly crisis situation.

This means that it does not have an "all weather application".

Nigerians socio-economic situation in recent items has imposed

hardship on the use of this system for some organizations.

Imposition on Training

Extra costs are borne by mangers to build employees up for the

concept to be relevant to them. It is however, believed that the

investment is worth it.

52

Information Leakages

Consultation may lead to leakages of secretes and this can pose

threat to organization's survival knowledge and professional

judgement are simply not adaptable in any meaningful sense to

participation for democratic purposes.

Complexity of Decision

Decisions that require complex knowledge and profession

judgement are simply not adaptable in any meaningful sense to

participation for democratic purposes.

2.8METHODS OF INVOLVING EMPLOYEES IN DECISION

MAKING

Several method of involving employees in an organization's

activity has been identified by management writers amongst which

are:

2.8.1 Consultation

This involves seeking opinion of employees on matter

affecting the job. Mangers consult with their employees in order to

encourage them to think about issues and contribute their own

ideas before decisions are made. It would also mean

53

briefing the employees on decisions that have been taken and

explaining why such action has been taken in order to gain their

co-operation. The implication, however is that employees

suggestions are subject to approval and disapproval of managers.

Consultative management has the advantage of managers

consulting with his employees at any time without having to go

through the red tape required by committee procedures. Also the

manger can consult with any number of employees ranging from

one to a whole group.

2.8.2 Job Enrichment

This is increasing vertically the responsibilities of employees;

asking them greater discretion to make decision affecting their

work without reference to the superior. The essence of job

enrichment is to make use of the individual's talent and at the

same time giving him increased participation in decision making.

An enriched job is seen as the key to improve performance. It

involves expanding the decision making capacity of employees. It

is only suitable for high level managerial, professional and crafts

jobs where the potential for enriching jobs is greater. It has also

been found that trade

54

unions dislike job enrichment. A trade union leader in his reaction

to dislike for job enrichment said. if you want to enrich the job,

enrich the pay packet, the better the

55

wage the greater the job satisfaction (Ofstad 1989).

2.8.3. Board Representation

This is the peak of employee participation when employees

are represented at the board of a company. It is a new form of

employee participation in decision making that emerged in recent

times and is gaining much ground though most in the advanced

countries. The board is the key decision taker for the organization

as they define the corporate objectives and board polices to guide

organizational actions. Strategic decision also influences the

decisions of the people in the government so that appropriate laws

are passed to protect the organization. Committment to achieve is

ensured when employees send someone to be part of the

directors. Appointment of employees to company boards should

be according to efficiency and competence although experience in

labour organization might constitute sufficient evidence of

competence (Fatchett 1974).

56

2.8.4 Collective Bargaining

Collective bargaining or joint consultation is essentially an

autonomous system of making job rules between employers and

trade unions. It is a situation whereby employees representatives

meet with employers' representatives to haggle and agree on

matters affecting employees at work or a process whereby a part

in industrial relations makes proposals or demand to another

discussing, criticising explaining, exploring the meaning and efforts

of the proposals, seeking to secure acceptance. The negotiation

centre around wages and salaries and other conditions such as

housing, transport, leave allowances, medical care, pension,

gratuity etc.

Akpala (1982) defined it as a process of negotiation between

workers and employers through their organizations of a contract of

employment for the best possible working conditions and terms of

employment. The rationale for collective bargaining is agreement

but if an agreement was not reached, the action which took place

is not less collective bargaining than if the process had ended in

agreement.

Thus, collective bargaining takes place when one collective

actions is involved whether or not agreement is

57

reached so long as the two parties have made genuine efforts to

reach agreement.

The Nigerian Employer's Consultative Association (NECA)

in redefining collective bargaining states that "Collective bargaining

is a process of decision making. Its overriding purpose is the

negotiation of an agreed set of rules to govern the substantive and

procedural rules or terms of employment relationship between the

bargaining parties".

2.8.5 Consultative Councils

This is where employees' representatives meet at intervals

to obtain and send information relating to organizational activities

and proffering suggestions on how things are to be done.

The council is not supposed to be biased, that is, fighting for

the interest of the employers, management may identify a group of

managers, say line managers' conference where papers are

delivered by some of them and the board would be interested in

subject matter of the papers.

58

2.8.6 Management by Objectives

The concept of management by objectives may also fall in

line with participatory management, in that goal congruence takes

place when superior and subordinates agree on objectives and

performance criteria to judge subordinates' activities. Employees

are integrated at taken decisions through management by

objectives.

Management by objectives is planning done cooperatively

between two levels of management, the top level with the middle

level with the lower levels to participate in taking decisions that set

out corporate, departmental or specific objectives, policies,

procedures etc as the case may be (Lawler 1986).

2.8.7 Work Ownership Scheme

This is a situation where employees are not just employees,

but part owners of the business. In other words, employees are

given right and opportunity to own shares in the business

enterprise. The implication is that they (employees) consider any

effort as being done for themselves and not for the managers or

owners of the business. Shareholding is aimed at democratizing

ownership. (Benjamine 1990).

59

2.8.8 Individual Contact

John (1987 p. 28) opines that this involves day-to-day and

face to face exchange of opinions, ideas, information and

experience between the manages and his employees on an

individual basis, there is no formal preparations required and the

employee is made to feel that he is valued both as an employee

and as a person. Inspite of these advantages there are inherent

disadvantages, this is depicted in employees being reluctant to

express themselves concerning their job probably due to fear of

loosing their groups and the work situation. Also some managers

feel asking the advice of their employees shows weakness in their

leadership ability.

2.9 ENHANCING PRODUCTIVITY THROUGH PARTICIPATION

Productivity on its own as a concept has been defined as the

output per unit of a factor of production (Imaga, 1996). However,

amongst all other productivity measures, labour productivity has

received the maximum attention. Labour we know is the most

basic or fundamental factor of production. Productivity on the

other hand can be improved or enhanced through so many factors

for which participative decision

60

making is considered crucial ie. through people.

It is on the light of this that, Flippo and Munsiger (1983)

reported that the need for involving subordinates in decision

making process in the organization are mainly for productivity and

morale. In essence, improvement in productivity arises when

subordinates' ideas are stimulated involving them in greater

participation on decision-making.

To maximize productivity, management must value and

nurture its most important assets, namely, people (workers)

Authoritative secretive and formal relationships have to be

replaced by an environment whereby the importance of every

employee is reflected (Knowles 1982 p. 19).

Esler (1989, p. 127) also reports that better communication

between employees and management will be the key factor in

separating successful companies from those that will fail in future

years. He goes further to state that certain large multinational

cooperation such as IBM, and General Motors have come to

appreciate the value of keeping their personnel "involved, informed

and interested in company

matters... improving productivity will be the single most important

factor in determining industry success.

61

Wight (1983) advanced that undoubtedly, "the greatest

productivity improvement will come from using our human

resources better-from taking the obstacles away from people so

that they can do their jobs more effectively. From involving them in

the affairs of the organization that concerns them. The real

secrete of productivity is people.

Japanese success is partially dependent upon their ability to

accept ambiguity, uncertainty and imperfection in organizational

life. They are more willing to invest in people to develop their

value orientation and help them gain diverse business experience.

This attitude shows that Japan as a country in their business

dealings are particiaptive in nature. They adopt collective decision

making and also collective responsibility (Beben 1981).

A Vice President of a company once said: One thing that makes us successful is people. Our people are

not necessarily more talented than our competitors, but they do seem to be more dedicated, more motivated and more integrated to the organization's system,.

When one actually examines the people that work in

excellent companies, one finds out that they are fairly normal

people rather than outstanding ones. The difference is that

62

their companies reinforce degrees of winning rather than degrees

of loosing.

Peter and Waterman (1982) reported that "nothing is more

enticing than the feeling of being needed which is the magic that

produces high expectations".

Lundgren 91984) also says that "the intent of participation as

with many leaders approach is to inspire high productivity and

maintain a satisfied workforce".

To him, participation seeks to achieve these goals through

the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process.

This concept is contingent on the presumption that participation

will increase satisfaction, stimulate interest and thus provoke high

productivity.

Hayes (1981) has this to say

"We increase productivity by producing more output with a

given number of inputs resources".

This implicitly means that the input resources is the human

resources which is rated highest in all other resources

and every other factors is determined by it in every organization.

63

According to Drucker (1964) "to be productive and efficient,

the enterprise needs the abilities, initiative and co-operation of

every member more than any previous system of production, its

human resources are its greatest asset, and the one least used".

It all shows that when an employee is allowed to participate

in the organizational decision making, he personally derives joy in

seeing what he suggested being implemented. This increases this

morale and of course productivity of his organization.

Odiorne (1979 p. 90) noted that in the early days of the

movement towards more particiaptive management, social

scientists were often heard proclaiming the democratic values of

permitting workers to take part in shaping the decisions affecting

them. But this particular line has practically been abandoned by

the new "behavioral scientists" who have steered their studies in

the direction of proving that participative management increases

productivity.

It is pertinent therefore to note that participative

management probably does no harm, coupled with the fact that it

offers social values in which business should be interested,

64

it can be assumed that it is wise for the manager to try it first, in

preference to mere dictatorial methods. It should be recognized,

however, that this is hardly a strict application of science in the

modern sense.

65

REFERENCES 1)Adeola S. (1994), Corporate Decision Making, "Must Workers have a Say" Corporate Diary, Financial Guardian, 4th

April p. 23. 2)Akpala A. (1982), Industrial Relations Model for Developing Countries, The Nigeria System: Fourth Dimension

Publishers, Enugu. 3)Akpala A. (1990), Management: An Introduction and Nigerian Perspective P.23 4)Benard M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press. 5)Benson T.E. Destination: (1990), Total Employee Investment". Industry Week; September 3, vol 239. 6)Bisocos S.K. (1990), Employee Participation without Pain" Human Resources Magazine 10 April. 7)Burt N. Leaders' New York Harper and Row. 8)Davis K. (1981), Organizational Behaviour; McGraw Hill Books Ltd, New Delhi, P.156 9)Drucker P. The New Society. (1964), The Anatomy of the Industry Chicago. Greenwood Press. 10)Dubrin J.A Ireland & William J.C (1989), Management and Organization. South-Western Publishing Company

Cincinnatis, Ohio U.S.A. 11)Eilon S. (1968), Aspects of Management; Pergamon International Library. 12)Elton M, (1985) Autonomy, Productivity and Leadership' Research Institute Report for the Executive, July 9

66

13)Elvis R. (1995) Motivational Influences on Productivity: An article on the Guide Newspaper 14 June (1995)

14)Feldman D.C and Hugh. J.A (1983) Management Industrial and Group Behaviour in Organizations: McGraw-Hill

Book Company New York. 15)Globe F. (1983), Getting and using the ideas of People" Industry Week Vol.239. 16)Guest & Fatchest (1974) Worker Participation, Individual Control Performance; Institute of Personnel Management,

London, 17)Heller F.A (1981) Competence and Power in Managerial Decision Making; John Willy and Sons Ltd Chictrester, P.46 18)Ike O.I Leadership & Employee Performance: The Government Perspective. 19)Imaga E.U.L (1996) Theory and Practice of Production Management Gostak Printing & Publishing Co Ltd Enugu Nigeria

p.18 20)Lester I.R (1981), "Leadership" Some Principles and Concepts: Personnel Journal Vol 60 No 11 November 21)Cawler, E.E (1986) High-Involvement Management Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance

Josse-Basg, San Franciscan 22)Lewin K.(1968)"Forces Behind Good Habits and Methods of Change" Sociology; of Work and Occupation. vol 2 No 6 23)Lundgrem E.E (1982) Organizational Management System and Processes Canfield Press. San Francisco.

67

24)Maslow A. (1965) Eupsychian Management: Homewood. Illinois, Richard D. Imin 25)McGregor D. (1960) The Human Size of Enterprise; Mc Graw Hill Book Company. 26)McFarland D.E (1968) Personnel Management, Theory and Practice The Macilliaan Company, London. 27)Muraw A.J (1967), Management by participation Harpers and Row. New York, P.83

68

CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 DESIGN

The research design adopted for this work is survey

research design. Sample of the population of the publishing firms

was drawn. Also a sample of respondents was taken from the

population of the managers in these firms. These samples were

drawn using appropriate sampling techniques and procedures.

3.2 POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The population of this study is the number of publishing firms

in Nigeria, but because of the size of the country, the large number

of publishing firms and the high cost in time, effort and the difficulty

in obtaining reliable statistics, the researcher decided to narrow the

study to Enugu state.

The population of the respondents therefore consists of the entire

management staff and a selected number of employees in these

publishing firms.

69

3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

A sample of three publishing firms was chosen, one public

and two private namely:

1) Government Printing Press

2) ROCANA Nigeria Ltd.

3) Gostak Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.

The chosen of these publishing firms is based on the fact

that all publishing firms in Nigeria operate under similar political,

social and economic millieu. It is hoped therefore that a fair

generalization will be made.

A representative sample of the employees in the

organization were used, while entire managers in the three

organizations were used, this is because of their small size.

The sample size of the respondents were drawn using the

following formular: n = Z2 p(1 - p) e2

Where n = sample size required

z = level of confidence desired

p = the estimated true proportion of success

e = the sample error permitted.

70

With 90% level of confidence, 5% permitted error and the

estimated true proportion of success of 85%, the sample size was

estimated thus;

Given that:

z = 90% (1.64)

p = 85% (0.15)

e = 5% (0.05) n = (1.64)2 0.85 (1 - 0.85) (0.05)2 = 137

The distribution of the sample size among the three chosen

firms is as follows: No. of

Respondents

Government Press 60

Rocana Ltd 40

Gostak Printing And Publishing Co. Ltd

37

The apportionment of the figures was based on the strength

of each firm.

71

3.4 INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION

Two instruments, namely; questionnaire and interviews were

used to collect data used in analysis.

The questionnaire was developed to contain the relevant

questions that would elicit necessary responses from the

responses. In addition to the questionnaire, oral interview was

also advanced to help in efficient collection of data. These

interview have a target of creating a forum whereby reports so got

establish with the respondents and the researcher being able to

elaborate on questions and terms which are not too clear to the

respondents.

3.5 METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

The data collection was predominantly done through primary

source of data involving the use of questionnaire and interview.

Some documentary sources in the library were also consulted

during the literature review.

The copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the

management and the subordinates or the employees and the

information so collected formed the thrust of the data analysis.

72

In the questionnaire design, it consists of three sections.

The first section consists of personal data of managers, the

second section consists of the general questions for managers

while the third section consists of the questions for the employees

(subordinates).

3.6 RELIABILITY/VALIDITY OF TEST

To enhance reliability/validity of the data generated, efforts

were made to ensure that only the respondents who fall within the

identified group (i.e, managers and employee (subordinates) were

given the questionnaire since they are sure would give the relevant

responses. Also the sample size and plan as empirically

determined were kept.

All these, not-withstanding the research has a tolerable error

margin of 5%

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Descriptive statistics which involves the collections,

presentation and characterization of a set of data in order to

properly describe the various features of that set of data, was

employed. Hence extensive use of percentages was made.

73

In addition, inferential statistics was employed to make

conclusions concerning the population based only upon sample

results. However, chi-square test was used to test the hypothesis.

The chi-square is denoted by: X2 = Σ (oi - ei)2 ei

where

X2 = chi-square

oi = observed frequency

ei = expected frequency

Σ = summation.

74

REFERENCES 1. Nworgu, B.G. (1991) Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology, Ibadan Wisdom Publishers Ltd. 2. Osuala, E.C. (1987) Introduction to Research Methodology Onitsha: African - Feb. Publishers 3. Nwabuokei, P.O. (1986) Fundamentals of Statistics. Enugu: Koruna Book. 4. Ikeagwu E.K. (1996), Groundwork of Research Methods and Procedures' Unpublished Mimeograph. Department of

management, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.

75

CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

This chapter presents and analyses the findings from the

research. It will proceed in two stages.

1. The discussion of the research questions

2. presentation of data on the testing of hypothesis.

4.1 PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM MANAGERS' RESPONSES Research question 1:

What is the general perception of participative management policy

in your enterprise?

Questions 1, 5, 10 and 11 in the questionnaire for managers were

used to test this research question.

76

Table 4.1.1Managers' response on their perception of participative management.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) It helps eliminate conflict and disagreement

4 (44.5) 3 (60) 2 (50)

b) A way of shifting responsibility to subordinates

2 (22.2) - - - -

c) It weakens the Management 1 (11.1) - - - -

d) It enriches decision 2 (22.2) 2 (40) 2 (50)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

The above table shows that 4 out of 9 respondents

representing 44.5% in Government Press agreed that participation

eliminates conflicts and disagreement. 2 representing 22.2% sees

it as a way of shifting responsibility of subordinates, while 1

constituting 11.1% agreed that it weakens the management as 2

representing 22.2% supports that will enrich decision.

Out of 5 managers in ROCANA 3 representing 60% agreed

that participation eliminates conflicts and disagreement while 2

representing 40% of the manager respondents

77

indicated that it enriches decisions. on the other hand in GOSTAK

2 out of 5 constituting 50% is of the view that participation

eliminate conflict and disagreement while 2 also representing 50%

agreed that it enriches decisions.

Table 4.1.2Manager's responses on the rating of employees'

decisions

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Satisfactory 2 (22) 4 (80) 4 (100)

b) Fairly Satisfactory 4 (45) 1 (20) - -

c) Unsatisfactory 3 (33) - - - -

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

Table 4.1.2 indicates that in Government Press 2

representing 22% indicated that their employee decisions are

satisfactory while 4 out of a 9 constituting 45% rated employee

decision as fairly satisfactory and 3 making up 33% rated it

unsatisfactory. In ROCANA, 4 out of 5 constituting 80% of the

respondents rated employees 'decisions as satisfactory while 1

representing 20% rated it fairly

78

satisfactory. On the other hand all the managers respondent in

GOSTAk agreed that employees' decisions are satisfactory.

Table 4.1.3Managers responses on whether the time and money invested in the practice of employee participation reflect on increased productivity.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 5 (56) 4 (80) 4 (100)

b) No 2 (22) - - - -

c) Not Sure 2 (22) 1 (20) - -

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

The table above shows that out of 9 managers respondents

in Government Press, 5 constituting 56% agreed that time and

money invested in the practice of employee participation is worth

the outcome. 2 representing 22% are not sure of this. However,

of the 5 manager respondents 4 making up 80% in ROCANA

agreed to the fact that time and money invested in the practice of

participation is worth the outcome where as 1 constituting 20% is

not sure of this.

In GOSTAK, all the respondent managers agree that time

and money invested in the practice of participative

79

management is worth the outcome.

Table 4.1.4Manager's responses on whether participative management is advantageous to their organizations.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 4 (45) 4 (80) 3 (75)

b) No 3 (33) - - - -

c) Not Sure 2 (22) 1 (20) 1 (25)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

Table 4.1.4 indicates that 45% of 9 respondent managers in

Government Press agreed to the fact that participative

management is advantageous to their organization as opposed to

33% (2) that disagreed to this fact while 3 constituting 22% of them

are not sure of this fact. In ROCANA 4 representing 80% of 5

respondents while 1 constituting 20% is not sure of this opinion.

Out of 4 respondents in GOSTAK 3 representing 75% agreed that

participative management is advantageous to their organization

while 1 constituting 25% are negative to this opinion.

80

Research question 2

Are workers opinion on decision making sought and

incorporated into the company's plans as management policy.

Question 4 in the questionnaire for managers was used to test this

research question.

Table 4.1.5 Managers responses on the rate at which employees' decision are made use of.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Always 5 (56) 5 (100) 4 (100)

b) Rarely 3 (33) - - - -

c) Never 1 (11) - - - -

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

In the above table it is indicated that out of 9 respondents in

Government Press, 5 representing 56% agreed that employees'

decisions are always made use of as 3 constituting 33% of them

believed that employees' decision are rarely made use of while 1

representing 11% said that they are never made use of.

In ROCANA, all (5) of the respondents believed that

employees' opinions are always made use of. Similarly, all the

81

respondents in GOSTAK agreed that in their organization

employees' decisions are always made use of. Research question 3:

What is the level of workers participation in decision making in an

organization ?

Question 2 and 9 in the questionnaire for managers were used to

test this research question.

Table 4.1.6Managers responses on whether they think employees in organizations fully participate in any decision making.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 5 (56) 3 (60) 3 (75)

b) No 1 (11) 1 (20) - -

c) Not Sure 3 (33) 1 (20) 1 (25)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

The table above depicts that out of 9 managers in

Government Press, 5 representing % agreed that their employees

participate fully in any decision making, 1

respondent representing 11% disagreed on this issue while 3

representing 33% were not sure of this opinion. In ROCANA,

82

3 out of the 5 respondents, representing 60% indicated that the

employees in the organization full participate in any decision

making. 1 representing 20% disagreed on this issue while 1 also

representing 20% were not sure of this fact. Out of 4 respondents

in GOSTAK 3 constituting 75% believed that employees in

organization fully participate in any decision making not sure of the

fact that employees fully participate in any decision making.

Table 4.1.7Managers responses on the type of employ participation that is allowed.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a)Suggestion Boxes 2 (22) - - - -

b) Individual Participation 3 (33) 1 (20) 1 (25)

c) Work Design 3 (33) 3 (60) 3 (75)

d) Shop Floor Participation 1 (12) 1 (20) - -

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

The above obviously indicates that out of the 9 managers

that responded in Government Press 2 constituting 22%

opinions that the type of participation that is allowed is through

suggestion boxes, 3 making up 33% said is individual participation

as 3 also representing 33% ascertained that it is work design while

1 constituting 12% agreed that it is shop

83

floor participation. In ROCANA 1 out of 5 managers making up

20% agreed that their participation is individually, then 60% of

them said is through work design while 20% also agreed is shop

floor participation.

However, in GOSTAK 1 out of 4 of the respondents agreed

that it is individual participation while 3 representing 75% indicated

that it is through work design.

Research question 4

Is participation in decision making considered a major factor for

productivity ?

Questions 3,7,8 and 12 in the questionnaire for managers were

used to analyse this research question.

84

Table 4.1.8 Managers response on the main objectives they intend to achieve by involving subordinates in the decision making process of the organization.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) To seek and compare decision options in task accomplishment

2 (22) 1 (20) - -

b) To enable subordinates share in responsibility

4 (45) 1 (20) - -

c) To boost employee morale for increased productivity

3 (33) 1 (20) 2 (50)

d) All of the above - - 2 (40) 2 (50)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

The table above shows that 22% of 9 respondents in

Government Press agreed that their objectives of involving

subordinates into decision making process is to seek and compare

decision options in task accomplishment, 4 representing 45%

agreed that their main objective is to enable subordinates share in

responsibility as 3 constituting 33% believe that it is to boost

employee morale for increased productivity. The evidence in the

table also shows that 1 out 5 respondents in ROCANA agreed

their main objective is to

85

seek and compare decision options in task accomplishment,

another 20% believe that it is to enable subordinates share in

responsibility as another 20% said is to boost employee morale for

increased productivity, while 2 representing 40% said that all the

options constituted the objectives. On the other in GOSTAK 2 out

of 4 making up 50% agreed that their main objective is to boost

employee morale for increased productivity while another 50%

agreed on all the options to be their main objectives.

Table 4.1.9Managers response on whether the present level of workers participation is enough to motivate them towards job satisfaction and improved productivity.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 4 (45) 4 (80) 4 (100)

b) No 3 (33) - - - -

c) Not Sure 2 (22) 1 (20) - -

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

Table 4.1.9 depicts that 4 respondents representing 45%

agreed that the present level of workers participation is enough

86

to motivate them towards job satisfaction and improved

productivity, 3 making 33% disagreed to this issue while 22% of

them were not sure of the situation. In ROCANA 4 out of 5 i.e,

80% agreed the fact as 20% of them were not sure. All the

respondents in GOSTAK agreed to this that the present level of

participation is enough to motivate them towards job satisfaction

and improved productivity.

Table 4. 1.10 Response on managers efficiency as a result of employee involvement in decision making.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 5 (55.6) 3 (60) 3 (75)

b) No 1 (11.1) 1 (20) - -

c) Indifferent 3 (33.3) 1 (20) 1 (25)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

It has been seen from the above table that 55.6% of

respondents in Government Press agreed that employee

involvement in decision making results in manager efficiency as

11.1% oppose to this fact while 33.3% were indifferent to this

issue. In ROCANA 60% agreed this, 20% disagreed while 20%

again was indifferent to it. 3 constituting 75% in

87

GOSTAK agreed that employee involvement in decision making

results in efficiency while 25% of them disagreed to it.

Table 4.1.11Responses on the advantages that accrue to the organization as a result of participation.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Increased employee acceptance of responsibility

1 (11.1) - - - -

b) Increased employee efficiency

3 (33.3) - - - -

c) More creative thinking in employees

1 (11.1) 1 (20) 1 (25)

d) Improved productivity 4 (44.5) 2 (40) 1 (25)

e) All of the above - - 2 (40) 2 (50)

Total 9 (100) 5 (100) 4 (100)

It is depicted in the table above that 11.1% of the

respondents in Government Press believed that increased

employee acceptance of responsibility is an advantage accrued to

then as a result of participation, 33.3% agreed that the advantage

is increased employees efficiency as 11.1% agreed that it is more

creative thinking in employees while 44.5% said

88

is improved productivity. The table also reveals that out of

managers in ROCANA 20% said it is more creative thinking in

employees that is the advantage as 40% of them agreed is

improved efficiency while another 40% believe that all the listed

advantages in the table are accrued to them as a result of

participative management. However in GOSTAK 25% of 4

respondents said increased employee efficiency is their advantage

but 25% of them also said is improved efficiency while 50% of

them agreed that all the advantages in the are obtainable as a

result of employee participation.

4.2PRESENTATION OF DATA FROM EMPLOYEES'

(OPERATIVES) RESPONSES Research question 1:

What is the general perception of participative management policy in your enterprise?

Questions 1 and 2 in the questionnaire for operatives were used to

analyse this research question.

89

Table 4.2.1Employees Response on their perception of participative management

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Allows an employee to take thorough decision on a given task.

- - 2 (7) 3 (16)

b) Welcomes employee initiation to accomplish a given task

10 (25) 12 (43) 11 (58)

c) Erodes the powers of superior

3 (7.5) - - - -

d) Joints decisions by subordinates and managers in line with organizations objectives

20 (50) 14 (50) 4 (21)

e) Allows subordinates do a task the way they feel and then inform the manager

7 (17.5) - - 1 (5)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

The evidence in the above table reveals that in Government

Press 10 representing 25% of the respondents sees participation

as a of welcoming employees initiation to accomplish a given task

75% believe that it erodes the powers

90

of superiors as 50% said is joint decision by subordinates and

managers in line with organizations objectives while 17.5% agreed

that it allows subordinates do a task the way they feel and then

inform the managers. In ROCANA 7% of the respondents agreed

that they see participation as an avenue to allow employee take

thorough decision on a given task, 43% of them said it welcomes

employee initiation to accomplish a given task while 50% of them

believe that is a joint decision by subordinates and managers in

line with organizations objectives.

On the other hand of the 19 respondents in GOSTAK, 16%

see it as a way of allowing an employee to take thorough decision

on a given task, 11 ie, 58%of them believe that it welcomes

employee initiation to accomplish a given task as 21% opined that

is a joint decision by subordinate and managers while only 5%

agreed that it allows subordinates do a task the way they feel and

then inform the manager.

91

Table 4.2.2 Employees response on whether their perception of participative management is in line with the firms policy.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 10 (25) 12 (42.9) 10 (52.6)

b) No 17 (42.5) 9 (32.1) 7 (36.9)

c) Not Sure 13 (32.5) 7 (25) 2 (10.5)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

Table 4.2.2 that 10 constituting 25% of the respondents

agreed that their perception of participation is in line with the firms

policy in Government Press, 42,5% of the 40 respondents was on

the negative side of this issue while 13 being 32.5% was not sure

of the this fact. In ROCANA 12 out of 28 respondents being

42.9% agreed that their own perception falls in line with the firms

policy as opposed to 9 ie, 32.1% that remained negative to this

while 25% was not sure.

However in GOSTAK 10 out of 19 being 52.6% believe that their

perception is in line but 7 being 36.6% remained negative to this

while 10.5% were not sure.

92

Research question 2

Are workers opinion on decision making sought and

incorporated into the company's decision and plans ?

Question 3,9,and 10 in the questionnaire for employees were used

to analyse this research question.

Table 4.2.3Employees response on whether managers seek their opinion and consider them in decision making.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 15 (37.5) 16 (57.1) 10 (52.6)

b) No 13 (32.5) 8 (28.6) 6 (31.6)

c) Not Sure 12 (30) 4 (14.3) 3 (15.8)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

The table above reveals that out of 40 employees

respondents in Government Press 37.5% agreed that their opinion

are sought and considered in decision making, 32.5% disagreed to

this while 30% were not sure of this. In ROCANA 57.1% of 28

respondents agreed that their opinion are sought and considered

in decision making but 28.6% did not agree to this while 14.3%

were not sure. Out of 19 disagreed while

93

15.8% of them were not sure that such is obtainable.

Table 4.2.4 The reaction of the manager/Boss when a subordinate brings up an opinion.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) He insists his own way of

accomplishing the task is the best

19 (47.5) 5 (17.9) - -

b) He welcomes it and makes it part of

the decision

17 (42.5) 20 (71.4) 17 (89.5)

c) He is usually indifferent 4 (10) 3 (10.7) 2 (10.5)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

Table 4.2.4 presents that in Government Press 47.5% of 40

respondents said that the boss insists his own way of

accomplishing the task is the best, but 42.5% of them agreed that

he welcomes their opinion and makes it part of the decision while

4 being 10% of them believed that he is usually indifferent

whenever such opinion is brought up. On the other hand, out of 19

respondents in GOSTAK 17 being 89.5% believe that he

welcomes their opinion and makes it part of the decision while

10.5% of them remained indifferent to the opines being raised.

94

Table 4.2.5 How employee react when the supervisor insists only on his own way of accomplishing tasks.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) I feel highly dejected - - 11 (39.3) 7 (36.8)

b) I feel demoralized 29 (72.5) 14 (50) 7 (36.8)

c) I feel happy 2 (5) - - 1 (5.3)

d) I'm often indifferent 9 (22.5) 3 (10.7) 4 (21.1)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

The table above shows that when the supervisor insists only

on his way of accomplishing tasks, 72.5% of 40 respondents in

Government Press feel demoralized, then 5% feel happy while 9

being 22.5% were often indifferent to this matter. In ROCANA

39.3 feel highly dejected as 50% of the 18 respondent there feel

demoralized while 3 constituting 10.7% were often indifferent.

Similarly in GOSTAK 36.8% of 19 respondents feel highly dejected

where as 36.8% also feel demoralized, 5.3% feel happy while 4

representing 21.1% said they are often indifferent to it.

95

Research question 3

What is the level of workers participation in decision making?

Question 6, 7 and 8 in the questionnaire for employees were used

to analyse this research question.

Table 4.2.6The level at which employees are allowed to participate in decision making.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Top Management Level 4 (10) 3 (10.7) 2 (10.5)

b) Middle Management Level 18 (45) 11 (39.3) 9 (47.4)

c) Lower Management level 6 (15) 11 (39.3) 6 (31.6)

d) All of the above 12 (30) 3 (10.7) 2 (10.5)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

The above table indicates that 4 respondents being 10% of

40 in Government Press believe that employees participate in

decision making at the top management level, 45% of them said

is at the middle management level as 15% agreed is lower

management level while 30% believe that the participation is at all

levels. In ROCANA 10.7% of its 28 respondents said

96

that the participation is at the top level, 39.3% believe is at the

middle. But also 39.3% said is at the lower level while 10.7% of

them agreed is at all levels enumerated above. Out of the 19

respondents in GOSTAK 10.5% said is at the top level, 47.4%

agreed is at the middle level and 31.6 indicated that it takes place

at the lower while 10.5% believe is at all levels.

Table 4.2.7Whether employees feel trapped by a feeling that opposition to view of supervisors might be seen as a sign of disloyalty.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 22 (55) 16 (14.3) 2 (10.5)

b) No 18 (45) 24 (85.7) 17 (89.5)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

In table 4.2.7 55% of 40 respondents in Government Press

agree that they feel trapped by a feeling that opposition to views of

supervisors might be seen as a sign of disloyalty which 45% of

them say no this. In ROCANA 14.3% of the 28 respondents

agreed to this while 85.7% said no to this statement. Hence out of

19 respondents in GOSTAK 10.5% was on the positive side while

89.5% remained negative to this feeling.

97

Table 4.2.8 If employees inform managers when they feel there is a better way of doing a particular job than the firms stated way.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 26 (65) 24 (85.7) 16 (84.2)

b) No 14 (35) 4 (14.3) 17 (15.8)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

The above table shows that when there is a better way of

doing a job than the firms stated way 65% of 40 respondent

employees in government press said they inform the managers

while 35% do not do so. In ROCANA 85% of the 28 respondents

said they inform the managers while 14.3% said they don't do so.

And in GOSTAK 84.2% of the 19 respondents agreed that they do

so while 15.8% of them do not inform the managers on this.

Research question 4

Is participation in decision making considered a major factor

for productivity ?

Questions 11 and 12 in the questionnaire for employee were used

to analyse this research question.

98

Table 4.2.9Considering employee involvement in decision making as a major reason to improve productivity.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Yes 33 (82.5) 24 (86) 13 (68.4)

b) No 4 (10) 2 (7) 2 (10.5)

c) Not Sure 3 (7.5) 2 (7) 4 (21.1)

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

Table 4.2.9 indicates that out of 40 respondents in

Government Press 82.5% agreed that employee involvement in

decision making is considered a major reason for productivity

improvement, 10% of them disagreed while 7.5% were not sure of

this fact. In ROCANA 86% of the 28 respondents believed this,

7% of them remained negative to it while also 7% were not sure.

Then in GOSTAK 68.4% of the 19 respondents said yes to this as

10.5% were negative while 21.1% were not sure of this fact.

99

Table 4.2.10Direct consequences of employee participation in decision making.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. (%) Freq. (%) Freq. (%)

a) Increased productivity. 17 (42.5) 22 (78.6) 16 (84.2)

b) Increased wastage of time and many

2 (5) - - - -

c) Cordial Manager/Subordinate Relationship

15 (27.5) 5 (17.9) 3 (15.8)

d) Weakens Management Effectiveness

- - - - - -

e) Added Responsibility to the EMployee

6 (15) 1 (3.5) - -

Total 40 (100) 28 (100) 19 (100)

Shown in table 4.2.10 above is that of 40 respondents in

Government Press 42.5% of them believe that increased

productivity is the direct out come of participative management,

5% said is increased wastage of time and money as 37.5% agreed

that it is cordial manager/subordinate employee. Out of 28

respondents in ROCANA 78.6% of them believe that the outcome

is increased productivity and 17.9% of then said is cordial

manager/subordinate relationship while

100

1 being 3.5% of them believe that the direct consequence of

participation management is added responsibility to the employee.

However in GOSTAK, not the 19 respondents, 16

representing 84.2% believe that the direct outcome of participation

is increased productivity while 3 constituting 15.8% of them said is

cordial manager/subordinate relationship.

4.3 TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS

It can be tested in a null form.

Hypothesis 1:

Ho:Participation decision making does not involve participation at

all levels of management.

Question 6 from employee questionnaire was used to collect data for the above hypothesis.

101

Table 4.4.1 (Contingency)

The level at which employees are allowed to participate in decision

making.

Options Government Press

Rocana Gostak

Freq. Freq. Freq. Total

a) Top Management Level

4 (4.1) 3 (2.9) 2 (2.0) 9

b) Middle Management Level

18 (17.5) 11 (12.2) 9 (8.3) 38

c) Lower Management level

6 (10.6) 11 (7.4) 6 (5.0) 23

d) All of the above 12 (7.8) 3 (5.5) 2 (3.7) 17

Total 40 28 19 87

Test technique: X2 = (oi - ei)2 ei Expected frequency = Column total x Row total Grand Total Row 1 cell 1: E = 9 x 40 87 = 4.1 Row 1 cell 2: E = 9 x 28 87 = 2.89 or 29 Row 1 cell 3: E = 9 x 19 87 = 1.97 = 2.0

102

Row 2 cell 1: E = 38 x 40 87 = 17.47 Row 2 cell 2: E = 38 x 28 87 = 12.2 Row 2 cell 3: E 38 x 19 87 = 8.3 Row 3 cell 1: E = 23 x 40 87 = 10.6 Row 3 cell 2: E 23 x 28 87 = 7.4 Row 3 cell 3 E = 23 x 19 87 = 5.0 Row 4 cell 1: E = 17 x 40 87 = 7.8 Row 4 cell 2: E 17 x 28 87 = 5.5 Row 4 cell 3: E = 17 x 19 87 = 3.7

103

Fo Fe Fo - Fe (Fo - Fe)² (Fo - Fe)² Fe

4 4.1 0.1 0.01 0.00

18 17.5 0.5 0.25 0.01

6 10.6 4.6 21.16 2.08

12 7.8 4.2 17.64 2.26

3 2.9 0.1 0.01 0.00

11 12.2 1.2 1.44 0.12

11 7.4 3.6 12.96 1.75

3 5.5 2.5 6.25 1.14

2 2.0 1.8 3.24 1.62

9 8.3 0.7 0.49 0.06

6 5.0 1.0 1.0 0.20

2 3.7 1.7 2.89 0.78

Σ = 10.02

Decision Rule Reject Null Hypothesis (Ho) if the computed chi-square is greater than the tabulated or critical value. Otherwise accept Ho. Degrees of Freedom = (c - 1) (R -1) = (3 -1) (4 - 1) = 6 level of significance = 0.05 (5%) At 0.05 level of significance and 6 degrees of freedom, the tabulated value is given 12.592.

104

Decision Since the computed chi-square of 10.02 is less than the tabulated or critical value of 12.592, we accept the null hypothesis conclude that participative decision making does not involve participation at all levels of management. Hypothesis 2 Ho : Productivity is not independent of employees participation in

decision making. Question 11 from employee questionnaire was used to collect data for testing of the above hypothesis. Table 4.4.2 (Contingency) Considering employee involvement in decision making as a major reason to improve productivity.

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. Freq. Freq. Total

a) Yes 33 (32.2) 3 (22.5) 13 (15.3) 70

b) No 4 (3.7) 2 (2.6) 2 (1.7) 8

c) Not Sure 3 (41) 2 (2.9) 4 (2.0) 9

Total 40 28 19 87

Expected frequency= Column total x Row Total Grand Total Row 1 cell 1: E = 70 x 40 87 = 32.2 Row 1 cell 2: E = 70 x 28 87 = 22.5 Row 1 cell 3: E = 70 x 19 87 = 15.3

105

Row 2 cell 1: E = 8 x 40 87 = 3.7 Row 2 cell 2: E = 8 x 28 87 = 2.6 Row 2 cell 3: E = 8 x 19 87 = 1.7 Row 3 cell 1: E = 9 x 40 87 = 4.1 Row 3 cell 2: E = 9 x 28 87 = 2.9 Row 3 cell 3: E = 9 x 19 87 = 2.0.

Fo Fe Fo - Fe (Fo - Fe)² (Fo - Fe)² Fe

33 32.2 0.1 0.64 0.02

4 3.7 0.5 0.09 0.02

3 4.1 4.6 1.21 0.29

24 22.5 4.2 2.25 0.10

2 2.6 0.1 0.36 0.14

2 2.9 1.2 0.81 0.28

13 15.3 3.6 5.29 1.35

2 1.7 2.5 0.09 0.05

4 2.0 1.8 4.00 2.00

Σ X² 3.25

Decision Rule Reject Null hypothesis (Ho) if the computed chi-square is greater than the tabulated or critical value, otherwise accept Ho Degrees of Freedom = (R - 1) (C - 1) (3 -1) (3 - 1) = 4

106

At 0.05 level of significance and 4 degrees of freedom, the tabulated value is given 9.488. Decision Since the computed chi-square of 3.25 is less than the tabulated or critical value of 9.488, we accept the null hypothesis and conclude that productivity is not independent of employees participation in decision making i.e, productivity is also dependent upon participative decision making. Hypothesis 3: Ho: The investment effort on the practice of participative

decision making does not reflect on increase on productivity.

Question 10 from managers' questionnaire was used to collect data for testing of the above hypothesis. Table 4.4.3Managers response on whether the time and

money invested in the practice of employee participation reflect on increased productivity

Options Government Press Rocana Gostak

Freq. Freq. Freq. Total

a) Yes 5 (6.5) 3 (3.6) 4 (2.9) 13

b) No 2 (1.0) - (0.6) - (0.4) 2

c) Not Sure 2 (1.5) 1 (0.8) - (0.7) 3

Total 9 5 4 18

Expected frequency = Column total x Row total Grand total Row 1 cell 1: E = 13 x 9 18 = 6.5

107

Row 1 cell 2: E = 13 x 5 18 = 3.6 Row 1 cell 3: E = 13 x 4 18 = 2.9 Row 2 cell 1: E = 2 x 9 18 = 1.0 Row 2 cell 2: E = 2 x 5 18 = 0.6 Row 2 cell 3: E = 2 x 4 18 = 0.4 Row 3 cell 1: E = 3 x 9 18 = 1.5 Row 3 cell 2: E = 3 x 5 18 = 0.8 Row 3 cell 3: E = 3 x 4 18 = 0.7

Fo Fe Fo - Fe (Fo - Fe)² (Fo - Fe)² Fe

5 6.5 1.5 2.25 0.35

2 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.00

2 1.5 0.5 0.25 0.17

4 3.6 0.4 0.16 0.04

0 0.6 0.6 0.36 0.60

1 0.8 0.2 0.04 0.05

4 2.9 1.1 1.21 0.42

0 0.4 0.4 0.16 0.40

0 0.7 0.7 0.49 0.70

Σ X² 3.73

108

Decision Rule Reject Null Hypothesis (Ho) if the computed chi-square is greater than the tabulated or critical value, otherwise accept Ho Degrees of Freedom = (R - 1) (C - 1) = (3 - 1) (3 -1) = 4 Level of significance = 0.05 (5%) At 0.05 level of significance and 4 degrees of freedom, the tabulated value is given 9.488 Decision Since the computed chi-square if 3.73 is less than the tabulated or critical value of 9.488, we then accept the null hypothesis and conclude that: The investment effort on the practice of participative decision making does not reflect on increase in productivity.

109

CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF FINDINGS. 5.1. INTRODUCTION This chapter discusses the results of the findings, the conclusions and the recommendation as well directions as for further research. This research work has examined the extent of participative decision making in organization through the views of workers and managers, the levels and ways of involving employees in decision making and then how it affects productivity and other factors. 5.2 DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS The following findings were made by the researcher; 1)That participative decision making does not involve participative

at all levels of management as revealed by the test of hypothesis. This result could be attributed to the diverse views on the levels of workers participative. This could arise from what Damachi (1989) refereed to as determinants of workers participation. These are the situational and the human factors. "The situational factors include the autonomy of the enterprise, technological factors, the size of the enterprise and the organizational structure of the enterprise. The human factors consists of workers attitudes and objectives in relation to participation and workers perceived power and capacities to participate.

110

This fact is manifested in the greater extent of participation in the two private firms, ROCANA and GOSTAK than in Government Press. As revealed by the responses in the interview guide/question the

managers in GOSTAK and ROCANA opined that workers in the organization have different areas of specialization in their operations and can only say better how things could be done well in such areas and therefore make necessary and relevant decisions that are always welcome in such areas for more efficiency. In the Government Press enough chances are not always given to the operatives to make relevant decisions because of the organizational structure which permits downward flow of communication.

2)Another finding was that productivity is not independent of employees participation in decision making in other words productivity to a great extent is dependent on participative management. Data analyzed in the light of this showed that workers involvement in decision making have a significant influence on productivity. In the analysis also it was found out that the majority of the respondents agreed that employee involvement in decision making is a major factor to improved productivity. It was also revealed that when

employees opinion are incorporated into decisions, there is more stimulated of ideas and greater effort and co-operation. It also raises the morale of the workers, make them have sense of belonging and the psychologically involved in the running of the organization, they will often

111

respond to shared problems with innovate suggestions and unusual efforts. All these in turn give rise to improved productivity.

This fact is also made manifest in the response of employees in the interview question (1) and (2) where they pointed out that they always feel like making suggestions in the decision making process and in the areas that concerns them most and their specialized areas. In doing this they are self fulfilled and give their best because they are recognized and made part of the organization. Even the managers also confessed that these subordinates morale are not raised if they are not recognized while making decision. This finding has agreed with the earlier finding of Lundgrem (1984) that:

"the intent of participation is to inspire high productivity and maintain a satisfied work force. Hence, participation seeks to achieve these goals through the involvement of subordinates in decision making process" Page ...

3)Another hightlight of this study is on the investment effort of time

and money on the practice of participative decision making.

Surprisingly, the test of hypothesis has it that the investment

effort on the practice of participative decision making does

not reflect on increase in productivity. Even though the

responses posed by the respondents seemed positive but

when put to test it became negative. This could be

attributed to under practice of this style of management by

the organization

112

hence, posses a problem.

It was noted earlier in this work that for an employee to involve in

deciding on issues concerning the management, he/she

must posses the contributing capacity and zeal which is

enhanced through education and training and as such these

investment is reaped in increased productivity. But

unfortunately the result revealed that the outcome is not

worth it and the time spent in trying to get the views of the

employees have not been yielding positive outcome. The

reason could be either the management or the employees

lack interest in proper investment or there is mal-practice of

this investment that has made it not to yield the desired

outcome as indicated by the hypothesis test.

However the companies used in this study were small firms

which might not have the necessary resources (time and money)

required for proper investment in this style of management.

Further discoveries were also made from the responses to

the interview questions both by the managers and the employees

or operatives. The managers generally agreed that there is always

a bit delay in decision making arising from

113

participative decision making when practiced. But they don't mind

the delay especially when the practice is fruitful and the delay does

not cause any havoc.

The things the managers consider as major problems with

participative decision making include that some of the

prerequisites are not always readily available; in that some

operatives are not always willing to accept responsibility. Some of

them again don't posses the necessary capacity of contributing in

some crucial issues. Some employees and managers also seem

not to fully understand this concept and what is all about. Another

is lack of time for full practice.

On the part of few employees that responded to this, they

said what they consider as major problems include the

misinterpretation of the concept by some managers thinking that

employee involvement in decision making tends to whittler their

powers. Again managers help themselves with the initiatives of

their subordinates, without acknowledging them as part of the

decision making.

All these problems definitely go a long way in hampering the

proper practice of participative management in Nigeria and

therefore should be looked into to find a way out.

114

In the analysis, it was found out that Public Enterprise, make

more use of suggestion boxes and individual participation where

as in the private firms, they often use of work design and shop

floor, because of the nature of the organizations. Again

employees opinion are made use of more often in the private firms

than in the public enterprise.

5.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

In a nutshell, the findings of this study include the following:

___That the perception of management and employees about

participation are diverse and as such affect the practice of

this style of leadership in various working environments.

___That participative decision making does not involve

participation at all levels of the organization especially the

top level.

___The type of decision employees are allowed to be involved in

depends on the organization and its structure and

environment example is the private and public enterprises,

but precisely the issues or the areas of their specialization.

115

___Employees are not always encouraged to bring up

suggestions.

___Participative management is considered a major factor for

improved productivity.

It was also found out that the investment effort in the practice of

participation has not been yielding the desired output.

The problem discovered that hinder the practice of

participative management could be summarized as being

situational factors, lack of the basic prerequisites and the

perception or misconception of this leadership style.

5.4 CONCLUSIONS

Employee participation has been found to have favourable

effects on employee attitude, committment and productivity even

also on the efficiency of the managers. Thus participative

management should be seen as an inevitable tool in any

organization both public and private. However before this could be

done or undertaken, a thorough examination of the organization

policy should be looked into and amended to effect this. The little

practice should then no more concentrate on private sector.

116

5.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

In this study, some recommendations have been made to

increase the importance and benefits of employee's participation in

decision making and its recognition.

1)Managers should put more effort in encouraging their employees

to come up with suggestions and useful decisions and

endeavour to incorporate them into the organization's

decisions and policy.

2)Managers should increase the frequency and level of worker

participation in decision making considering the fact that

they are the people carrying out the main operative work as

they are in the better position to know what goes on those

areas.

3)Every organization should endeavour to create a clear-cut

understanding and notion of the concept of participative

decision making to avoid confusion and clashes of interest

between the employees and the managers.

4)More importantly is that the main objective of any scheme for

participation should be specific and exact in any organization

that care to enable workers recognize the areas their

suggestions and opinions are most needed.

117

5)Considering the importance and benefits of participative

management especially in the growth and stability of an

organization, time and money investment on it should be

made properly and wisely to avoid regrets.

Finally, the researchable aspects of the concept of

participative decision making have not been exhausted in this

work. Therefore suggestion is being put forward for further

research into the concept of participation especially in the area of

problems that limit or jeopardize the practice of participatory

management in Nigeria.

118

BIBLIOGRAPHY Akpala A. (1982) industrial Books Relations Model for Developing Countries. The Nigerian system: Fourth Dimension

Publisher Enugu. Akpala A. (1990) Management: An Introduction and Nigerian Perspective. Benard M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations New York The free Press Burt .N. (1980) Leaders' New York, Harper and Row Daris K. (1981) Organizational Behaviour Mc Graw Hill Books Ltd, New Delhi. Drucker P. (1964) The New Society:The Anatomy of the Industry. Chicago. Greenwood Press Dubrin J.A., Ireland & William J.C. (1989) Management and Organization: South Western Publishing company Cincinnatis,

Ohio U.S.A. Ellon S. (1968) Aspects of Management Pergamon International Library. Ejiofor P.N. (1984) Managing the Nigerian Worker' Longman Nig Ltd Ibadan. Ewurum U.J.F. & Unamka P.C. (1995) Business Administration Precision Printers and Publishers Enugu Feldman D.C Hugh J.A (1983)Management Industrial and Group Behaviour in Organizations: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company

New York Globe F. (1983)Getting and using the ideas of People" Industry Week Vol.239 Guest & Fatchest (1974) Worker Participation, Individual Control Performance; Institute of Personnel Management, London.

119

Heller F.A (1981) Competence and Power in Managerial Decision Making; John Willy and Sons Ltd Chictrester, Imaga E.U.L (1996)Theory and Practice of Production Management Gostak Printing & Publishing Co Ltd Enugu Nigeria Lawler, E.E (1986) High-Involvement Management Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance josse-Basg,

San Franciscan Lundgrem E.E (1982) Organizational Management System and Processes Canfield Press. San Francisco Maslow A. (1965) Eupsychian Management: Homewood. Illinois, Richard D. Imin McGregor D. (1960) The Human Size of Enterprise; Mc-Graw Hill Book Company . Mc Farland D.E (1968) Personnel Management, Theory and Practice The Macilliaan Company, London, Murew A.J (1967) Management by participation Harpers and Row. New York, (1967) Nwabuokei, P.O. (1986) Fundamentals of Statistics Koruna Books Enugu Nworgu, B.G. (1991) Educational Research: Basic Issues and Methodology Ibadan Wisdom Publishers Ltd, Nigeria Newman, W.H. Summer C.E. & Warren, K.E. (1971) The process of Management: Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New

Jersey Odiorne, S.G. (1979) A System of Managerial Leadership for the 80s Fearon Pitman Publishers,Inc. Belmont, California Osuala, E.C. (1987) Introduction to Research Methodology African-Feb Publishers: Onitsha

120

Paterman M. (1970) Participation, Achievement and Involvement on the Job, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall Peter, T.J. and Waterman (Jr.) R. (1982) In search of Excellence Harper and Row, New York Poole, M. (1975) Workers Participation in Industry Routledge And Kegan Paul (Ltd) Sutermeister R.A. (1976) People and Productivity New York McGraw-Hill Book Company Ukandi G. Damachi (1989) Industrial Relations: A Development Dilemma in Africa Development Press Ltd Lagos Usilaner, B. (1986) Human Resource Management: Student Guide, University of Maryland. Vroom, H. (1964) Work and Motivation New York, Wiley and Sons Williams, J.F. (1989) Leadership of Organizational Members South-Western Publishing Company Cincinnati Onto USA.

121

ARTICLES Adeola S. (1994) Corporate Decision Making, "Must Workers have a Say" Corporate Diary, Financial Guardian, 4th April p. 23. Benson T.E. Destination: Total Employee Investment". Industry Week; September 3, vol 239. Bisacos S.K. (1990) Employee Participation without Pain" Human Resources Magazine 10 April Elton M, (1985) Autonomy, Productivity and Leadership' Research Institute Report for the Executive, July 9 Elvis R. (1995) Motivational Influences on Productivity: An article on the Guide Newspaper 14 June Globe, F. (1983) "Getting and using the ideas of people" Industry Week Vol 239 p.10 Ike O.I. (1996) Leadership & Employee Performance: The Government Perspective. Lester I.R (1981) "Leadership" Some Principles and Concepts: Personnel Journal Vol 60 No 11 November Ikeagwu E.K. (1996), Groundwork of Research Methods and Procedures' Unpublished Mimeograph. Department of

management, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus. Lewin K. (1968) "Forces Behind Good Habits and Methods of Change" Sociology; of Work and Occupation. vol. 2 No 6 Nwosu, H. (1989) Worker Psychology and Performance An Unpublished Write-Up Ofstad, H. (1971) "The Impact of Employee Participation in the development of Pay Incentive". Journal of Applied Psychology

Dec, Vol.6

122

Okonkwo, N.V. (1991) Effects of Workers Participation in Productivity: An Unpublished write up. November Onuoha, C.D. (1995) Participatory Management: A head way An Unpublished Seminar Paper Powell & Schlacter (1971) Participative Management; A Panacea Academy of Management Journal Vol.14 Rush, A. (1973) "Worker Participation" New Voices in Management. The Conference Board Inc. Tannebnbaum R. & Schemit F. "Participation by Subordinate. In the Managerial Decision Making" Management Journal Vol. 14

123

APPENDIX QUESTIONNAIRE SECTION 1: FOR MANAGERS Personal Data: (Please Indicate Appropriately) 1) Sex: a) Male [ ] b) Female [ ] 2) Age Group: a) 18 - 25 [ ] b) 26 - 45 [ ] c) 46 - 55 [ ] d) 56 and Above [ ] 3) Marital Status a) Married [ ] b) Single [ ] 4) What is your highest educational qualification? a) SSCE/GCE/O'Level [ ] b) HND/First Degree [ ] c) Masters and Above [ ] d) Others (Please Specify) 5) What is your position in the organization?______________ 6) Your Department _____________________ 7) Length of service in your current position _____________ 1)What is your perception of participative management policy in

your enterprise (organization)? a) It helps to eliminate conflict and disagreement [ ] b) It is a way of shift responsibility [ ] c) It weakens the management [ ] d) It enriches decision making [ ] 2)Do you think the employee in organization fully participate in any

decision making? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not Sure [ ]

124

3)What is the main objective you intend to achieve by involving

subordinates in the decision making process of the organization?

a)To seek and compare employee decision options in task accomplishment [ ]

b)To enable subordinate share responsibility with the manager for success [ ]

c)To increase employees sense of belonging which boost their morale thus leading to increase in productivity [ ]

d)All of the above [ ] e) None of the above [ ] 4)How often are employee decisions made use of in your

enterprise? a) Always [ ] b) Rarely [ ] c) Never [ ] 5) How can you rate such decisions? a) Satisfactory [ ] b) Fairly Satisfactory [ ] 6)Is it a management policy to consider employee opinion in

formulating company plans? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 7)Is the present level of workers participation in your enterprise

enough to motivate employee towards job satisfaction and improved productivity?

a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 8)Do you feel you are more efficient as a result of employee

involvement in decision making? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Indifferent [ ]

125

9)What type of employee participation do you allow in your organization?

a) Suggestion Boxes [ ] b) Individual Participation [ ] c) Work Design [ ] d) Shop Floor Participation [ ] e) None of the Above [ ] 10)Do you think that the time and money invested in the practice of

employee participation reflect on increased productivity? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 11)Would you say that participative management is advantageous

to your organization? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 12)If yes, what advantages accrue to your establishment from this

employee participation? a)It encourages employee to accept responsibility for

an activity [ ] b)It increases employees efficiency [ ] c) It makes employee more craetive in thinking [ ] d) It improves productivvity [ ] e) All of the above [ ] f) None of the above [ ] SECTION 2: Questions For Employees 1)What is your perception of participative management policy in

your organization? a) It causes confusion [ ] b)It allows an employee to take decision concerning

the running of a particular task [ ] c)It ensures that an employee initiation in a particular

task will be welcome [ ]

126

d)It reodes the powers of superiors [ ] e)It ensures that the subordinates and managers take

joint decision concerning the organization objective [ ]

f)It enables the subordinate do a task the way he feels best and then informs the manager [ ]

2)Is your perception of participative management in line with the

firms policy? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 3)Do managers seek your opinions and consider them in decision

making? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 4)If Yes how do you feel about it? a) I feel satisfied which increases my tempo of work [ ] b) I feel indifferent [ ] c) I feel a sense of belonging which boosts my morale [ ] 5) If No how do you feel? a) I feel dejected [ ] b)I feel demoralized which decreases my tempo of work [ ] c) All of the above [ ] d) I feel indifferent [ ] 6)At what level of management are you usually allowed to

participate in any decision making? a) Top Management Level [ ] b) Middle Management Level [ ] c) Lower Management Level [ ] d) All of the Above [ ] e) None of the above [ ]

127

7)Do you feel trapped by a feeling that opposition to views of your supervisor might be seen as a sign of disloyalty?

a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure [ ] 8)When you feel that there is a better way of doing a particular job

than the company's stated way do you inform your manager or boss?

a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Indifferent [ ] 9)If Yes how does he react to it? a)He insists his own way of accomplishing the task is

the best [ ] b)He welcomes it and makes it part of the decision [ ] c) He insists on you using his approach [ ] d) He is usually indifferent [ ] 10)How do you react to his decision when he insists only on his

own way? a) I feel highly dejected [ ] b) I fell demoralized [ ] c) I feel happy [ ] d) I am often indifferent [ ] 11)Do you consider your involvement in decision making as a

major reason to improve productivity? a) Yes [ ] b) No [ ] c) Not sure[ ] 12)What are the direct consequencies of employee participate in

decision making? a) Increased productivity [ ] b) Increased wastage of time and money [ ] c) Cordial Manager/Subordinate Relationship [ ] d) Weakness Management Effectiveness [ ] e) Added Responsibility to the employee [ ]

128

INTERVIEW OUESTIONS FOR (MANAGERS) (1)For what type of decisions do you allow for your subordinates

contributions? ______________________________________________

(2)Do you think participative management causes delays in

decision making? _____________________________________________________

(3)Do you think employees would be less productive if they were

not involued in decision making? _________________________________________

(4)What do you consider as major problems with participative

decision matking? ____________________________________________________

(FOR EMPLOYEES/OPERATIVES) (1)Do you always feel like making suggestions in the decision

making process? ___________________________________________________

(2)If you do on what area(s) do you like making the contributions or

suggestions? ________________________________________________

(3)How do you see the welcoming or disregard for your opinion?

_____________ (4)What do you consider as the major problems with the practice

of participative decision making in your organisation? _____________________