Final Reserch Paper

8/14/2019 Final Reserch Paper

1/22

Islamabad campus

Research Paper

Topic

Participative Management

Prepared By:

Ali [email protected]

0345-5556933

Mohammad Sajid [email protected]

0346-5042798
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/22

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on studying the effect of participative management style on

motivational level of the staff. The two variables were further assessed on the basis of

their sub-variables identified in the study. For research purposes four major companies ofmobile service provider industry in Pakistan were chosen. Questionnaires were used to

collect information from a random sample of 100 permanent employees of four selected

companies in Islamabad region. The results are interpreted in terms that employees

having participative managers have a high level of motivation. Implication are for

making use of these results in designing better human resource policies to keep the

employees motivated and developing participative approach among managers for

creating a powerfully motivated team of employees.


3/22

Impact of Participative Management style on Motivational level

Chapter 1

Introduction

A good quality workforce can make or break a corporation. The most essential part of a quality

workforce is its motivational level. The methodology, approach, techniques and manner of

working of a manager play a vital role in determining and enhancing their motivational level.

Managers are like leaders who have to guide their organization. While traditional management

style can accomplish impressive short-term results, the long term consequences can be

devastating. De-motivated employees may vent their frustrations by performing poorly, quitting,

or complaining to upper management. Stanton (1995)

Motivation is the key to performance improvement. There is an old saying that you can take a

horse to the water but you cannot force it to drink; it will drink only if it's thirsty so is with

people. They will do what they want to do or otherwise motivated to do either by them or through

external stimulus.

Participative management has been useful in motivating the employees to work towards realizing

organizational goals. Its a managements job to keep their workforce motivated and update in

order to perform successful. If workers can be motivated and given the opportunity to participate

in the organizations decision-making, suggestion system and goal setting, their job performance

should improve. To be effective, managers need to understand what motivates employees within

the context of the roles they perform. Of all the functions a manager performs, motivating

employees is arguably the most complex. This is due, in part, to the fact that what motivates

employees changes constantly, David et al (1995)

RATIONALE:The ability lead a successful workforce which is competent depends on various factors and one

major key area is motivation. What are the effects of motivation and how it enhances theworkforces productivity?


4/22

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The ability lead a successful workforce which is competent depends on various factors and one

major key area is motivation. What are the effects of motivation and how it enhances theworkforces productivity can only be found out through our research that is:

Which management style enhances motivation among the Pakistani Cellular Companiesworkforce?

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

What is the basic criterion to call an individual motivated?

What factors make a person motivated intrinsically and extrinsically?

Which management style consists of these contributing elements need to increase

motivation?

Limitations of the Study

This study was undertaken as a requirement for the course Advance Research Methods. Due to

availability of limited time, pressure for other course work and in sufficient knowledge ofstatistical techniques for skewed populations, this report has been prepared with some limitations.

Following are the limitations of the study due to which the results cannot be generalized to thepopulation:

1. Small sample size

2. Convenience sampling

3. Sampling done in Islamabad only which may not be representative of the whole country

4. One of the questionnaires was not pre-tested. This may result in missing of out of some

further information that could be used in the analysis of results.

Lack of knowledge of the statistical techniques applicable to skewed distributions. Hence, the

planned association relationships could not be studied in depth.


5/22

Chapter 2

Literature Review

After study of extensive literature available to find previous researches on the impact of

participative style of management on employee motivation we came across the following:

PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT STYLE

Participative management is a process whereby the employees are involved in the decision-

making of the organization through formal and informal means.(Lewis & Renn, 1992)The contingency factor plays an important role in the success or failure of participative approach.

These factors are Psychological Contingencies (values, attitudes and expectations of employees);

Organizational Contingencies (organizational complexities, organizational climate and

leadership); Environmental Contingencies (competition markets, technology, and government).

This analysis provides some principles which are helpful in designing and implementing

participative approach in the organization. Marshall Sashkin (1976). Studies have suggested the

potential of participative management. Strategy and organizational behaviour researchers have

found, for example, that involving employees with diverse perspectives can improve decision-making Cosier, (1978); Eisenhart(1989); Schweigeret al (1989). Participation enables the

employees to exercise control over their own working environment Enid Mumford (1983). Locke

and his associates have concluded that there is much less research support for the value of

participation on quality decision-making than commonly proposed Locke et al.

(1986).Researchers have long considered employee participation in decision-making worthy of

Empirical attention and proposed that it is highly valuable for organizations and employees Heller

and Wilpert (1981); Miller and Monge (1986) Although evidence indicates that participation is

associated with positive affect, job performance, and reduced turnover Heller and Wilpert(1981);

Millerand Monge(1986); Spector(1986), findings are not uniformly supportive of participation.

Participation in decision making (PDM) is associated with different outcomes. i.e. motivation,

productivity, job satisfaction, employee behaviour and attitude etc. participation is a multi-

dimensional concept. Earlier it was considered as a Unitary Concept. John L Cotton (1988).

Participative leaders consult with employees, ask for their suggestions, and take their ideas


6/22

into consideration before making decisions. Researchers have interpreted inconsistent findings to

suggest that participation provides opportunities for employees to use their skills to contribute to

solving problems but whether they do depends upon how they and their managers use these

opportunities Tjosvold et al(1987); Glew (1995). Participative leaders meet with employees and

together they discuss issues and make decisions. Participation is typically operationalized in

terms of employee beliefs that they have an opportunity to discuss problems and influence

organizational decisions Stanton (1993); Emery (1995). Participative system has five

characteristics. Firstly; Participation is a formal intervention strategy. Secondly; it includes direct

involvement of parties. Thirdly; both the parties have he right to make the final decision.

Fourthly; participative system emphasize on important issues and lastly; participative system

involves stakeholders in their problems and the extent of their involvement depends on the

situation.

Research Paper Reviews

Employee Participation:

Different forms and Different Outcomes

John L Cotton : The Academy of management review

Vol 13, No 1(Jan 1988)

Literature Review

According to this paper different forms of participation in decision making (PDM) are associated

with different outcomes. i.e. Motivation, productivity, job satisfaction, employee behaviour and

attitude etc. A classification scheme was constructed which identifies three properties of PMD

they are formal-informal; direct-indirect; and hoe much access organizational members have in

decision making. Six forms of PDM are Participation in work decision; Consultative

participation; Short term participation; Employee ownership; Representative participation: all of

them have a different effect on the properties of PDM.

The result shows that participation is a multi-dimensional concept. Earlier it was considered as a

Unitary Concept.


7/22

Changing Participative Management Approach

A Model and Method

Marshall Sashkin, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 1 No, 3 (July1976)

Literature Review

This research paper focuses on Participative approach which have been applied n the

organizational settings. Four types of participative approaches are, Participation in goal setting;

Participation in decision making; Participation in solving problems; Participation in development

and implementation of change in the organization. Participation may be implemented on

individual dyadic (superiors supervisor) or group basis. The different types of methods of

participation are designed at different employees needs, function in different ways and have

different outcomes.

The contingency factor plays an important role in the success or failure of participative approach.

These factors are Psychological Contingencies (values, attitudes and expectations of employees);

Organizational Contingencies (organizational complexities, organizational climate and

leadership); Environmental Contingencies (competition markets, technology, and government).

This analysis provides some principles which are helpful in designing and implementing

participative approach in the organization.

Participative Systems Design: Practice and Theory

Enid Mumford; Journal of Occupational Behaviour; Vol. 4, No.1

Literature Review

This research paper explains participation is a significant part of system design.

Participation enables the employees to exercise control over their own working

environment. Participative method involves users at all the levels in the design process of

the new technical system. All employees enhance their skill and knowledge in design

process and take decisions at each stage of design process from defining the problem to

implementing the new system. This paper also describes that the organizations that uses

participative systems design proves fruitful results.


8/22

Affect as a Source of Motivation in the Workplace: A New Model of Labor Supply, and

New Field Evidence on Income Targeting and the Goal Gradient

Lorenz Goette (University of Zurich, CEPR and IZA Bonn), David Huffman (IZA Bonn)

Literature Review

In this research paper a new, dual-process model of labour supply, which incorporates both

cognitive and affective aspects of decision-making are proposed by the authors. With evidence

from neuroscience, the worker may experience conflicting cognitive and affective motivations

during the workday. In particular, the affective system values effort more highly as long the

workers performance is below a personal goal, or income target, and becomes increasingly

aroused as the goal approaches. As a result, affect can distort effort decisions relative to a fully

cognitive benchmark, in a way that is consistent with evidence on loss aversion, and with the so-

called goal-gradient effect, a tendency for animals and humans to increase effort as a goal

approaches. In contrast to a standard model of labour supply, our model can predict a goal

gradient, and predicts that workers may actually lower total daily effort in response to a

temporary increase in the wage. Also, within-day windfall gains may have an impact on a

worker's effort profile over the workday.

The Motivational Effects of Participation versus Goal Setting on Performance

Gary P. Latham; Timothy P. Steele

The Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26, No. 3. (Sep., 1983), pp. 406-417.

In this research paper the authors after studying the work of Coch and French found that

participation at a job redesign in a manufacturing plant was effective in increasing productivity

levels or levels that occurred when employees were allowed no say in the redesigns of their jobs.

Employee participation also led to greater increases in productivity than those occurring when

employee delegates or representatives participated in the decision making on the redesign. In

short performance was directly proportional to the amount of employee participation in decision

making.

The extent to which participation would affect performance in the absence of goal setting is not

clear. Goal setting theory (Locke, 1968) states that participation can affect motivation only to the

extent that it influences a persons goal that is acceptance/commitment). Consequently, much

subsequent research has focused on participation as a method for goal setting.


9/22

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH

3.1 FRAMEWORK

Participative

Management Style

Supervisory guidance

Importance of OpinionSupervisory

CompetencySupervisory FairnessRespectful Treatment

Decision Making

AuthoritySuggestion System

Goal Setting

Quality Circles

Increases

Employee Motivation

Work Autonomy

Timely Information

Job Commitment

Job EffortWorkplace Boredom

Work InterestSelf Competency


10/22

METHODOLGY

3.2 SAMPLE SELECTION

The data used to test this model were collected from a survey of four mobile service proving

companies located in Islamabad with approximately 300 employees. Questionnaires were

completed and returned by 100 employees, with 100 percent response rate. Using these criteria,

data from a total sample size of n=100 employees were included in the analysis.

3.3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

Cluster sampling technique was used to collect the data. We selected a sample containing a

random selection of the elements (employees) from clusters i.e. Mobilink, Zong

, Warid and Telenor that were they selected randomly from the population (Mobile Service

Provider Industry).

3.4 INSTRUMENTS

Questionnaires:

The questionnaires were designed in a pattern to determine the motivation levels amongst

employees and assess whether there is participative style of management being practiced. The

questionnaire asked participants to rate the importance of twelve factors that motivated them

in doing their work and nine factors to rate their supervisors style of management using a

Likert Scale ranging from 5= Strongly Agree to 1=Strongly Disagree. The questionnaires

provided written comprehensive form of data, which was decoded to deduce our findings.

Internet:

Various research engines were used to find related theories and articles to help develop an

understanding of the history and literal findings on participative management style and

employee motivation.

Data from Books and Journals:

From books and journals we gathered previous researches & theories of motivation and

participative management style to get an idea of practical implications of the two variables in

work environment.

Descriptive study Our research study is descriptive in nature

as previous work has been done regarding this topic. We further analyzed that

participative style among managers enhances the motivational levels of employees.


11/22

Chapter 4

DATA ANALYSIS

4.1 PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT STYLE

For our research we have chosen participative management style as an independent variable. To

facilitate a comprehensive understanding of its dimension, we further classified it into nine sub-

variables each having a significant contribution in determining the participative style of

management.

Shown below are the frequencies of each sub-variable along with their interpretations:

a) Supervisory Guidance

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 5.0

Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 10.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 18.0

Agree 28 28.0 28.0 46.0

Strongly Agree 54 54.0 54.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result shows that majority employees are of the opinion that their supervisors guide and assist

them in the accomplishment of their tasks. It means that the supervisors use participative style.

Some employees disagree with this fact reason being supervisory biasness or communication gap.

The ratio of the neutral results is very low which indicates that there is lack of communication

and employees are doubtful indicating a need for better interaction between managers and

employees.

b) Importance of Opinion


12/22


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 8 8.0 8.0 15.0

Neutral 12 12.0 12.0 27.0

Agree 21 21.0 21.0 48.0

Strongly Agree 52 52.0 52.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result indicates that the majority of the employees strongly agreed that their supervisors

considered their opinion in the delivery of tasks. This ensures participative management style.

However very few employees disagreed this fact. Minority is uncertain of how their opinion is

regarded by the management.

c) Supervisory Competency


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 6 6.0 6.0 12.0

Neutral 5 5.0 5.0 17.0

Agree 17 17.0 17.0 34.0

Strongly Agree 66 66.0 66.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result shows that majority of the employees agreed that their supervisor is competent and he

has the ability to convey the knowledge properly, enhance full range of skills and accept variety

of challenges. Very few employees are of the opinion that their supervisors are not competent so

they are de-motivated. The neutral result indicates that the employees are uncertain so they

should communicate their problems with the supervisors.

d) Supervisor Fairness


Cumulative

Percent



13/22

Disagree 6 6.0 6.0 11.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 21.0

Agree 16 16.0 16.0 37.0

Strongly Agree 63 63.0 63.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result indicates that employees are strongly agreed that their supervisors are fair and honest

to them. Some employees are of the opinion that their supervisors are not fair to them which

shows biasness. These employees are highly de-motivated in the workplace. However few of the

employees show neutral response due to communication gap.

e) Respectful Treatment


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 10.0

Neutral 6 6.0 6.0 16.0

Agree 15 15.0 15.0 31.0

Strongly Agree 69 69.0 69.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result shows that the employees strongly agreed with the fact that they are treated withrespect. Their supervisors allow the opportunity to receive adequate respect from them and also

from the employees in other units. Those employees who were of the opinion that they are not

treated well involve the issue of biasness and politics. Some employees who were uncertain show

neutral results are indecisive and tentative.

f) Decision Making Authority


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 13 13.0 13.0 33.0

Neutral 9 9.0 9.0 42.0

Agree 29 29.0 29.0 71.0


14/22

Strongly Agree 29 29.0 29.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The frequencies show that employees strongly agreed that their supervisors allow them to make

autonomous operational decision; such employees are highly motivated as their supervisors are

using participative style. However some employees disagreed with the fact as they are not

involved in decision making due to autocratic management style. Very few have vague idea due

to lack of communication.

g) Suggestion System


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 9 9.0 9.0 23.0

Neutral 13 13.0 13.0 36.0

Agree 22 22.0 22.0 58.0

Strongly Agree 42 42.0 42.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The majority of employees strongly agreed that their supervisors allow them the opportunity to

brainstorm and bring innovative ideas and suggestions. Their suggestions are treated fairly thus

increasing their motivation level and ensuring job satisfaction . Some of the employees are of the

opinion that there is lack of suggestion system. It means that participative management style is

not adopted by the supervisor. However very few employees are indecisive of the fact due to

improper flow of communication.

h) Goal Setting


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 10 10.0 10.0 27.0

Neutral 13 13.0 13.0 40.0

Agree 23 23.0 23.0 63.0

Strongly Agree 37 37.0 37.0 100.0


15/22

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result indicates that high ratio of employees strongly agreed their supervisors involve them in

setting goals and objectives. Their opinion is considered by the supervisors. It means that their

supervisor encourages participation. Some employees who are not involved in goal setting are de-

motivated. Some employees are however uncertain as they are not given timely information

i) Quality Circles


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 11 11.0 11.0 52.0

Neutral 15 15.0 15.0 67.0

Agree 9 9.0 9.0 76.0

Strongly Agree 24 24.0 24.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result shows that large number of employees is of the opinion that there is no concept of

quality circles in their organization as it is less practiced in Pakistan. However some employees

agree that the concept of quality circles is practiced in their organization and their supervisors are

supportive, although its ratio is very low. Very few employees are unsure that whether this

concept is practiced or not, as they are not aware of this concept.

4.2 EMPLOYEE MOTIVATION

In this paper employee motivation is the dependent variable. Following the similar approach, its

divided into twelve sub-variables.

Below are given their results along with the frequencies:

a) Work Autonomy


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 11 11.0 11.0 22.0

Neutral 17 17.0 17.0 39.0

Agree 28 28.0 28.0 67.0


16/22

Strongly Agree 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The frequency charts representing the working environment indicates that it encourages the

employees to make changes in their routine work to suit organizations needs as most of theemployees either agree or strongly agree with the fact. This means that their supervisor has a

participative management style which supports the employees to make suitable adjustments. Very

few employees either disagree or strongly disagree. This can be due to any kind of personal

biasness towards the supervisor. In case of the 17% neutral result, the concept of empowerment

should be properly explained to the employees so that the uncertainty could be decreased.

b) Timely Information

Frequency Percent

Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid Strongly

Disagree11 11.0 11.0 11.0

Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 18.0

Neutral 11 11.0 11.0 29.0

Agree 37 37.0 37.0 66.0

Strongly Agree 34 34.0 34.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

This chart indicates that the supervisors are very supportive towards the employees as far as

timely information is concerned as majority of the employees gave a positive response. This is

due to the fact that the supervisors are practicing participative management style. The

disagreement level is comparatively low and this problem is present in mostly de-motivated

employees. Neutral response is due to a communication gap between the employees and


17/22

supervisors, this condition of uncertainty can be decreased by communicating properly when ever

information is delivered

c) Job Commitment


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 11.0

Neutral 8 8.0 8.0 19.0

Agree 18 18.0 18.0 37.0

Strongly Agree 63 63.0 63.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

This result interpret that majority of the employees strongly agree with the fact that performing

their job to the maximum level is important for them. This is because the employees are

motivated to perform the job to the best of their ability due to high level of interest in the job. A

small number of employees disagreed with the view that performing a job properly is important

for them; this is mostly the case of de-motivated employees. The neutral result by a small number

of employees indicates that these employees are unaware that at what level the job is considered

well done, this problem can be solved by proper job description and its relative importance.

d) Job Effort


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 3 3.0 3.0 8.0

Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 18.0

Agree 26 26.0 26.0 44.0

Strongly Agree 56 56.0 56.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

The result indicates that the trend is towards positive as 82% agreed that they give their bestperformance at work; this is due to high interest level in their job, and motivation towards the

organization created by the supervisors. A small ratio of negative result is in the case of highly

de-motivated employees who are not properly supervised.

e) Workplace Boredom


18/22


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 22 22.0 22.0 57.0

Neutral 20 20.0 20.0 77.0

Agree 10 10.0 10.0 87.0

Strongly Agree 13 13.0 13.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

As far as work boredom is concerned, the frequencies show that majority of the employees are

contented with their jobs. As majority gave a positive response, the reason is that the employees

are interested in the job they perform and they are satisfied with their job. On the other hand the

employees who agreed with the statement are very few in numbers; the reason of their

disagreement is lack of interest in their jobs and lack of motivation.

f) Work Interest


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 7 7.0 7.0 18.0

Neutral 12 12.0 12.0 30.0

Agree 22 22.0 22.0 52.0

Strongly Agree 48 48.0 48.0 100.0Total 100 100.0 100.0

Majority of the employees agreed with the fact that they are interested in the job they perform.

The main reason of their agreement is that the employees are in a profession of their own choice

and they are practically contented with their job. Another reason is that jobs are challenging and

allow operational autonomy. Few number of employees also lacked work interest and this is due

to the fact that their motivation level has decreased relating to the work they perform.

g) Self Competency


Cumulative

Percent


Disagree 5 5.0 5.0 8.0

Neutral 5 5.0 5.0 13.0


19/22

Agree 22 22.0 22.0 35.0

Strongly Agree 65 65.0 65.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

More than 80% of the employees agreed that they possess the relevant skills and abilities

necessary for their respective jobs. The reason is that the employees are confident about

their skills and are highly motivated for the job. The few number of employees who

disagreed faced the problem of lack of motivation to learn more. However the problem of

the employees giving a neutral response can be solved by training them and informing

them about its objectives.

4.3 CORRELATIONS

Motivation

Participative

Management

Style

Motivation Pearson Correlation 1 .848**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000

N100 100

Participative Management

Style

Pearson Correlation

.848** 1Sig. (2-tailed)

.000

N100 100

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

The results show that participative management style is strongly correlated with employee

motivation. The figure of .848 show high significance level.

4.4 REGRESSION

Model Summary


20/22

Model R R Square

Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of the

Estimate

1.848(a) .718 .715 4.704

A Predictors: (Constant), Participative Management Style

The value of R should range from 0-1. Larger value of R=.848 indicates a stronger

relationship between the two variables. The larger R squared tends to optimistically

estimate how well the fits the population.

5. Recommendations Improvement in communication to facilitate both participative

style and employee motivation

Better and clearly stated job description

Share the companies achievement and progress with the

employees regarding the companies policies

Supervisors should be unbiased

Other industries should adopt the participative style of

management as well to improve their performance by enhancing

employee motivation


21/22

REFERENCES

1. Marshall Sashkin (1976).

2. (Lewis & Renn (1992)

3. Cosier (1978)

4. Eisenhart (1989)

5. Schweigeret al. (1989).

6. Locke et al. (1986).

7. Heller and Wilpert

(1981)

8. Millerand Monge (1986)

9. John L Cotton (1988)

10. Tjosvold et al (1987)

11. Stanton, 1993;

12. David et al (1995)

13. Tjosvold (1998)

14. Poon et al.(2001)


22/22

15. Kaufman (2001)

16. Glew et al (1995)

17. William James (1890)

18. Cofer & Appley (1964)

19. Robert Woodworth (1918)

20. Maslow (1939, 1943)

21. Fredrick (1959)

22. Vrooms 'expectancy theory, Victor Vroom (1964)

23. David McClelland (1988)

24. Meyer (French et al (1966), Meyer et al. (1965)

Documents

Final Reserch Paper