Upload
dangtuong
View
227
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
PARTICIPATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF ORGANISATIONAL LEADERS:
THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BHUTANESE CORPORATE SECTOR
By
Tandin Chhophel
A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Master of Business (Research)
School of Management
QUT Business School
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
(2015)
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders i
Author : Tandin Chhophel
Title : Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders:
The Perspective of the Bhutanese Corporate Sector
Degree : Master of Business (Research)
Research Supervisors: Associate Professor Vicky Browning
Professor Lisa Bradley
Month/Year : March, 2015
Number of Pages : 140
Style Manual Used : American Psychological Association, 6th
edition
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders ii
Abstract
For-profit organisations in emerging economies are increasingly facing the challenges
of global business environment coupled with resources and leadership constraints.
Consequently, building organisational competitiveness demands enhanced leadership
practices (Bruton, Ahlstrom & Obloj, 2008). To garner support and commitment from
employees in building organisational competitiveness, participative decision making
(PDM) is widely applied. However, the Western initiative of PDM both in theory and
practice has little evidence of being studied in the context of emerging economies.
This research, therefore, aims to contribute to our understanding of leaders‟
participative behaviour within the PDM practices in the organisations of emerging
economies. Specifically, this research study investigates the relationship of age,
propensity for participative decision making (PPDM) and belief in the level of power
distance with the participative behaviour. Participative behavioural dimensions are
examined in terms of verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative
behaviour.
With a quantitative research design, this research study adopted a cross-sectional
survey method of data collection with a sample size of 72 leaders and 362
subordinates in the Bhutanese corporate sector. Two separate sets of previously tested
and validated self-administered survey instruments were used to collect data from the
leaders and the subordinates. Multiple linear regression analysis and independent
samples t-test were conducted to test the hypotheses.
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders iii
Results revealed that leaders engaged more in verbal participative behaviour than
consultative participative behaviour. Amongst the three subscales of PPDM,
organisational effectiveness was found to significantly predict the variability in verbal
participative behaviour. Leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance significantly but
negatively predicted the variability in both verbal participative behaviour and
consultative participative behaviour. Age did not show relationship with participative
behaviour. Significant difference was found between leaders‟ self-assessment and
subordinates‟ assessment of the leaders‟ participative behaviour.
This research study has theoretically contributed to our understanding that Bhutanese
corporate leaders engage more in verbal participative behaviour than consultative
participative behaviour. Further, the research incrementally contributes to the PPDM
model through operationsation and addition of participative behavioural dimensions.
Thus in totality, this research study has extended our understanding of leaders‟
participative behaviour within the PDM literature in the context of emerging
economies.
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders iv
Keywords
Bhutan, Corporate Sector, Organisational Leadership, Participative Behaviour,
Participative Decision Making (PDM), Power Distance, Propensity for Participative
Decision Making (PPDM)
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders v
Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii
Keywords ...................................................................................................................... iv
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v
List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii
Statement of Original Authorship ................................................................................. ix
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ x
Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background to the Research ............................................................................ 1
1.2 Significance of the Research ........................................................................... 2
1.3 Bhutan: The Context of an Emerging Economy.............................................. 3
1.4 Research Gaps ................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Research Objectives ......................................................................................... 7
1.6 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................... 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................... 10
2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Participative Management ............................................................................. 10
2.3 Participation in Decision Making .................................................................. 12
2.3.1 Dimensionality of PDM ................................................................................. 15
2.3.2 Operationalisation of PDM ............................................................................ 16
2.3.3 Conditions for Participative Decision Making .............................................. 19
2.4 Organisational Leadership ............................................................................. 28
2.5 Leadership Behaviour .................................................................................... 29
2.6 Leaders‟ Participative Behaviour .................................................................. 30
2.6.1 Leadership Communication ........................................................................... 31
2.6.2 Leaders‟ Verbal Participative Behaviour ....................................................... 34
2.6.3 Leaders‟ Consultative Participative Behaviour ............................................. 35
2.6.4 Factors Affecting Leadership Behaviour…………………….…………..34
2.6.5 Individual Drive towards Participative Behaviour ........................................ 37
2.7 Leaders‟ Age and Participative Behaviour .................................................... 38
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders vi
2.8 Leaders‟ Individual Belief in the Level of Power Distance (PD) and
Participative Behaviour ................................................................................. 40
2.9 PDM Practices in Emerging Economy .......................................................... 41
2.10 Leaders‟ Behavioural Assessment ................................................................. 44
2.11 Research Aim and Summary of Research Gaps ............................................ 48
Chapter 3: Research Methodology ........................................................................... 54
3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 54
3.2 Survey Method ............................................................................................... 54
3.3 Sampling ........................................................................................................ 55
3.4 Participants .................................................................................................... 57
3.5 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 59
3.6 Instruments .................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results ............................................................................... 66
4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 66
4.2 Assumptions and Parametric Tests ................................................................ 66
4.3 Adaptation of Scale ........................................................................................ 67
4.4 Factor Analysis..……………………………………………………….....…64
4.5 Hypotheses Testing ........................................................................................ 74
4.6 Gender and the Participative Behaviour ........................................................ 81
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................... 83
5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 83
5.2 An Overview of the Findings ........................................................................ 83
5.3 Major Findings............................................................................................... 85
5.4 Related Findings ............................................................................................ 94
5.5 Theoretical Contributions .............................................................................. 96
5.6 Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................ 100
5.7 Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................... 101
5.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 104
References ................................................................................................................. 105
Appendices ................................................................................................................ 125
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders vii
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Escalator of Employee Participation…………………………...…….....18
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Model……………………………………………..….…......51
Figure 5.1 Relationship between the Variables……………………..……………....84
Figure 5.2 Relationship PPDM subscales and Participative Behaviours……….......88
Figure 5.3 PPDM Model…………………………………………………………….97
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders viii
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Demographic Variables (Leaders)……………………….………......…...58
Table 3.2 Demographic Variables (Subordinates)……………………...………...…59
Table 4.1 Cronbach‟s Alphas and Factor Loadings of the PPDM Subscales…….....68
Table 4.2 Cronbach‟s Alphas and Factor Loadings of Power Distance and
Dependent Variables………………………………………………….......70
Table 4.3 Bivariate Correlational Table……………………………………………..73
Table 4.4 Leaders‟ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders‟ Verbal
Participative Behaviour………………………….………………..……….75
Table 4.5 Leaders‟ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders‟ Consultative
Participative Behaviour…....……........................................................……76
Table 4.6 PPDM Subscales with the Leaders‟ self-assessment of Verbal Participative
Behaviour……………………………………………………….……........78
Table 4.7: PPDM Subscales with the Leaders‟ self-assessment of Leaders‟
Consultative Participative Behaviour……………………………………..79
Table 4.8: Bivariate Correlations between the Leaders‟ and
Subordinates‟ Assessments………………………………..…...……….…80
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders ix
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best
of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or
written by another person except where due reference is made.
Signature :
Date : 27th
March, 2015
QUT Verified Signature
Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders x
Acknowledgements
This thesis stands as an ultimate testimony of the immeasurable support and sacrifices
bestowed upon me by all the individuals concerned. I sincerely thank the Queensland
University of Technology (QUT) and the Royal Government of Bhutan (RCSC) for
the joint project that has provided me an opportunity to pursue a higher degree of
study at the QUT.
At the very core of this research resides my Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor
Vicky Browning, and Associate Supervisor: Professor Lisa Bradley, who have
tirelessly guided me throughout this research, attending meticulously to every
faltering step I naively took. I sincerely extend my deepest gratitude for their
painstaking guidance despite their important administrative responsibilities and prior
engagements. I thank Professor Acram Taji for guidance and support both at the
personal level and in her capacity as the Director of International Graduate Research.
I thank Dr Jonathan Bader for his valuable comments during various stages of my
research journey. I also thank the HDR officials for their necessary and timely
support.
I remain indebted to my Director General and Deans of Gaeddu College of Business
Studies who kindly assisted me with their time and facilities for this mix-mode based
study. I thank my family for their moral support which inspired me to continuously
stand steadfast till the end of this journey. Finally, I thank Mr. Jonathan Furneaux for
meticulously proofreading my thesis and guiding me to present it as a better scholarly
piece of work.
Chapter 1: Introduction 1
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Background to the Research
Competitive global business environments require corporate sector organisations to
enhance their competitiveness (Shirokova, Berezinets & Shatalov, 2014). Owing to
aggressive marketing strategies, diverse and quality goods, and services at
competitive prices, corporate sectors in emerging economies face challenges of global
competitiveness both at national and international levels (Aulakh & Katobe, 2008;
Mudambi & Hill, 2010). The corporate sector in emerging economies is viewed as an
important economic growth engine (Rehman, Zhang, & Ali, 2014). Consequently,
there is increasing demand for the corporate leaders to enhance organisational
competitiveness and enhance capability to conduct business on the global stage.
Bhutan provides an interesting research context to investigate corporate leadership
practices. Bhutan opened its economy to the world in the 1970s and the growing
corporate sector is the key economic performer of the nation. With the advent of the
21st century, Bhutan‟s major political and economic reforms have required corporate
leaders to build organisational competitiveness. The corporate sector plays a lead role
in the country‟s economic development. Therefore, investigation into organisational
leadership behaviour is significant in the context of an emerging economy both from
scholarly and practical perspectives.
Chapter 1: Introduction 2
1.2 Significance of the Research
Globalisation in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in a rapid increase of emerging
economies with major economic reforms (Singh, 2012). Particularly, emerging
economies are moving from a centrally planned system to a market-based system
through deregulation of state-owned companies (Cieslik & Kaciak, 2009; Hitt,
Ahlstrom, Dacin, Levitas & Svobodina, 2004). With economic policy reforms and the
information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution, organisations in
emerging economies are forced to adopt efficient corporate practices for survival and
sustained growth (Goldstein & Pusterla, 2010). Therefore, effective leadership is
extremely important in leading organisations which can have a direct impact on the
development and implementation of appropriate organisational practices.
Rapid industrialisation (Pearce & Conger, 2003) and ever-changing business
environments in the 21st century has increased the roles and importance of leadership
(Li, 2001). Leaders today face challenges of workforce diversity and subordinate
empowerment. There is a need for leaders to engage subordinates in the decision
making process for quality decisions and subordinate commitment (Abugre, 2012;
Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013; Northouse, 2004). Faced with daunting tasks and
complexities, effective organisational leadership is key to organisational success
(Ahn, Adamson & Dornbusch, 2004).
Leadership needs to be flexible and adaptable to effectively deal with the uncertainties
and develop commitment amongst employees for organisational success (Marti, Gil &
Barrasa, 2009). In contemporary organisations, leadership is viewed as a shared
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
responsibility (Uhl-Bien, 2006). A key consideration is leaders‟ willingness within the
context of shared leadership to engage in specific participative behaviours with
subordinates (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Consequently, this research in the context of
Bhutan as an emerging economy will focus on identifying what drives leaders‟
willingness to engage in participative behaviour with subordinates that underpins
participative decision making, and what specific participative behaviours they are
most-likely to engage in.
1.3 Bhutan: The Context of an Emerging Economy
Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom, remained isolated for several generations due to
geographical adversities. Historically, this subsistence agrarian economy has had
limited foreign trade relations confined to neighbouring countries such as India, Tibet,
and Nepal. In a significant political landmark, in 2008 the century-old monarchical
system changed to a democracy. Consequently, the peoples‟ participation in the socio-
economic development of the country has increasingly gained importance due to the
decentralisation of the planning and implementation of developmental activities.
The Bhutanese economic development gained impetus with the commencement of the
first Five Year Plan in 1961 (Shah, 1989). Subsequently, the fourth king of Bhutan:
Jigme Singye Wangchuck, initiated economic development with social and spiritual
wellbeing (Mathou, 1999). Economic progress is guided by the unique philosophy of
Gross National Happiness (GNH) (Bates, 2009). The principle of GNH is that the
country‟s economic development must be holistic and encompass sustained economic
progress with social wellbeing (Ura & Galay, 2004). GNH as a development
Chapter 1: Introduction 4
philosophy goes beyond the conventional economic yardstick of gross national
product, incorporating national happiness as an important goal of overall development
initiatives. Bhutan‟s development framework stands on the four pillars of GNH
(Mathou, 1999; Thinley, 2005): (1) equitable and equal socio-economic development,
(2) preservation and promotion of cultural and spiritual heritage, (3) conservation of
environment and (4) good governance. Although further discussion on the GNH
concept is beyond the scope of this research, it is important to take the unique
synergistic approach of the four GNH pillars into consideration when understanding
the nation‟s approach towards development. A cautious and conservative approach
towards economic development perhaps, presents a potential conflict between GNH
and increasing corporate agenda such as profit maximisation. However, considering
the long term sustainability of natural resources and social wellbeing of the Bhutanese
citizens, Bhutan‟s economic development continues to be guided by the philosophy of
GNH.
Bhutanese socio-economic development through good governance, along with the
promotion of culture and preservation of natural environment, makes citizens more
responsible and accountable for the decisions they make. At an organisational level,
the GNH concept can influence participative decision making initiatives by taking a
holistic view of employees to ensure organisational success. Participative decision
making can promote a sense of inclusion and happiness both at individual and
organisational levels (Spreitzer, 2007).
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
As a part of economic reform measures, many state-owned companies, through a
process of deregulation, now operate within the corporate sector. Initially,
organisations in the Bhutanese corporate sector were led by senior bureaucrats who,
as civil servants, strongly upheld the culture of hierarchy and bureaucracy. But over a
period of time, as employees of these organisations have moved into leadership
positions, the corporate sector is now believed to have a broader mix of leaders in
terms of age, gender and qualification. Corporate leaders, however, have to be more
responsive to the need for their organisations to stay competitive. Organisational
competitiveness is a key indicator of sustainability and growth in a highly competitive
business environment.
1.4 Research Gaps
Participative leadership and decision making is a Western initiative linked to
improved decision quality, enhanced employee commitment, increased perception of
control, and acceptance of organisational change for overall organisational success
(Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings, 1988; Parnell & Crandall,
2003; Scott-Ladd & Marshall, 2004; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Despite a growing
body of literature, participative decision making has remained in the domain of the
Western developed world (Dundon, Lewin, Gollan, Marchington, Ackers &
Wilkinson, 2010). A recent trend in the literature indicates the practice of participative
decision making in some of the emerging economies (Miller, 2011) but research still
needs to explore the types of behaviours leaders engage in that contributes to
participative decision making and the suitability thereof in emerging economies.
Chapter 1: Introduction 6
Parnell and Crandall (2001) recognise the success or failure of participative decision
making is largely dependent on leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative
decision making. Successful leadership to a large extent can be attributed to leaders‟
influential behaviour and ability to engage in participative decision making with
subordinates in organisations (Bass, 1990; Larsson & Vinberg, 2010; Yukl, 2002).
Therefore, there is a need for a deeper understanding of what influences leaders‟
willingness to engage in specific participative behaviour and whether this leaders‟
willingness necessarily leads to participative behaviour (Yukl, 2012).
Some research studies have focused to establish a relationship between leaders‟
willingness to engage in participative decision making with factors such as age and
individual leader‟s belief in the level of power distance (Kakabadse, Kakabadse &
Myers, 1998; Oshagbemi, 2001; Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Findings on the
impact of age on leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour are inconsistent. For
instance, younger leaders are found to exhibit more participative behaviour than their
older counterparts (Kelly & Khozan, 1980) but some other studies report that younger
leaders are not as participative as the older leaders (Oshgabemi, 2004). Age as an
antecedent to leaders‟ participative behaviour still remains important to be examined
to understand whether it has a relationship with specific leadership behaviour in PDM
implementation (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2004). Earlier research
studies consistently found that individual leader‟s belief in the level of power distance
discourages leader‟s participative behaviour. There is, however, no research in the
context of a growing corporate sector in emerging economies, for example, Bhutan.
Chapter 1: Introduction 7
Power distance as a national cultural dimension is based on the premise of power
inequality amongst people (Hofstede, 2001). At an individual level, power distance is
concerned with an individual‟s belief in the level of power inequality with members
in organisations and society. High power distance typically denotes a society with a
culture of obedience and respect to superiors, by subordinates. In the context of
participative decision making practices in organisations, high power distance is
consistently found to be a major impediment (Pasa, 2000; De Cremer, 2007; Wood,
1985). High power distance could be an impediment to participative decision making
if this should exist in the Bhutanese corporate sector discouraging subordinates from
participation in decision making (De Cremer, 2006).
This research responds to these research gaps through the investigation of the
relationship between the leaders‟ willingness or propensity to engage in participative
decision making, with their participative behaviour. Leaders‟ age and their belief in
the level of power distance will also be examined in relation to leaders‟ participative
behaviour.
1.5 Research Objectives
The objectives of this research are:
a) To identify the type of leaders‟ participative behaviour when leaders engage in
organisational decision making.
Chapter 1: Introduction 8
b) To investigate the relationship between leaders‟ willingness or propensity to
engage in participative decision making, and leaders‟ participative behaviour
in organisational decision making.
c) To investigate the relationship between leaders‟ age and belief in the level of
power distance, with the leaders‟ participative behaviour in organisational
decision making.
1.6 Thesis Structure
This thesis is structured into five chapters for coherent and systematic understanding
of the research study. The first chapter outlines the background and significance of the
research, highlighting key research gaps to be addressed as per the research
objectives.
The second chapter presents a review of the existing literature on participative
decision making and organisational leadership; leading to a focus on organisational
leaders‟ participative behaviour as the key concept to be investigated in this research
study. Literature on relevant factors affecting leaders‟ participative behaviour is
reviewed in the context of emerging economies. The chapter concludes with the
research aim and hypotheses to be investigated.
The third chapter presents a detailed description of the quantitative research approach
applied in this research study to test the proposed hypotheses in chapter two. The
Chapter 1: Introduction 9
chapter also rationalises the application of survey methods and finally, provides
justifications for the use of previously tested research instruments.
The fourth chapter provides the results of the quantitative analysis conducted to
investigate the hypothesised relationships between the variables. The chapter
commences with an assumption of parametric tests and adaptation of scales based on
reliability tests and factor analysis. The results of multiple regression analysis and
bivariate correlations are presented.
The final chapter highlights the key findings, theoretical contributions, and practical
implications of the findings concluding with the limitations and future directions for
research. Chapter 2 will now introduce the literature which has informed this research.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 10
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
This chapter commences with a focus on the research in the area of participative
decision making. This critical review of the literature highlights the importance of
participative decision making in an organisational context. The chapter then discusses
verbal participative behaviour and consultative behaviour as integral part of
participative decision making followed by three key factors that could influence
leaders‟ engagement in participative decision making: their propensity for
participative decision making, their age and their belief in the level of power distance.
Next, the chapter highlights participative decision making practices in the context of
Bhutan as an emerging economy. Finally, the chapter concludes with an identification
of the key research gaps and research objectives. A conceptual model is presented to
provide an overall framework for the research, identifying the hypotheses to be
explored in this research study.
2.2 Participative Management
The appeal of participative management dates back to 1937 where Carey (1937)
developed the concept of „consulting supervision‟ defining superior-subordinates
participation to decide on matters pertaining to employees‟ welfare or organisational
policies (Mudacumura, 2000). Since then, participative management has developed
into a practice engaged in by leaders in organisations (Powell & Schlacter, 1971).
Participative management is a process in which influence is shared amongst leaders
Chapter 2: Literature Review 11
and subordinates via information sharing, decision making and problem solving
endeavours (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Wagner, 1994).
Participative management continues to capture the attention of both research scholars
and practitioners because it entails building human capacity, ownership, and
responsibility in organisations (Ahiauzu & Amah, 2013; Kelly & Khozan, 1980). It is
also a means to increase employee morale, productivity, to change organisational
culture (Margulies & Black, 1987) and to improve the engagement of employees in
decision making.
Holland (1995) proposed a model focusing on the planning, setting objectives and on
the quality of decisions which he titled as the POQ (planning, objectives and quality)
model of participative management. Although POQ model is yet to receive further
empirical support, the model provides clarity in the understanding of participative
management implementation for a Bhutanese context. Firstly, the model clarifies that
not all subordinates are required to engage in participative management at all times
but it emphasises planning and the defining objectives of decisions. Secondly, the
model emphasises the behavioural change of the organisational leaders. The leaders‟
full commitment to the principles and practices of participative management for
organisational excellence is imperative. In summary, leaders have a critical role in
initiating participative management which is primarily concerned with the
participation of organisational members in decision making.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 12
2.3 Participation in Decision Making
Participative decision making (PDM) is defined as “the process of involving
employees in decisions typically made by managers and usually involves the
cascading of control and decision making responsibility from managers to
subordinates” (Russ, 2011, p. 827). PDM is equally concerned with encouragement,
resource provision, support and influence of employees (Miao, Newman, Schwarz &
Xu, 2013). For over half a century, PDM has been a topic of enquiry for researchers
and scholars in the area of multidisciplinary organisational research (Reeves, Walsh,
Tuller & Magley, 2012; Russ, 2011).
PDM is increasingly reported to have positive outcomes such as collective and quality
decisions, job satisfaction, enhanced employee commitment and productivity, and
reduction in resistance to change and absenteeism (Lashley, 2000; Legge, 2005;
Shipper & Manz, 1992; Wood, 1985). PDM also contributes to a positive influence on
employees‟ psychological wellbeing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall &
Jennings, 1988; Fisher, 1989; Smith & Brannick, 1990).
The two broad underlying rationales for the popularity of PDM are stated from two
different perspectives: the democratic approach and pragmatism (Margulies & Black,
1987). Leaders driven by the rationale of a democratic perspective are inclined to
involve subordinates in the decision making processes. They believe that every
individual has a right to participate in the decisions that affect their work. On the other
hand, the pragmatic rationale perspective focuses on efficiency and productivity to
realise organisational goals. Organisational leaders who are driven by a pragmatic
Chapter 2: Literature Review 13
rationale strive to achieve predetermined goals through consistent participative
behaviour involving subordinates in the decision making practices to ensure quality
decisions and implementation. By being engaged in decision making, subordinates are
clear that their work and decisions contribute to the overall achievement of
organisational goals; and consequently, they respond with a heightened level of
motivation and commitment at their workplaces (Somech, 2002).
Literature describes that employees desire to participate in the matters pertaining to
their work related decisions. According to the principle of McGregor‟s Theory Y
introduced in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise (Carson, 2005),
employees are fundamentally willing to participate in decision making, which in turn
enhances their work commitment and attachment to the organisation (Northouse,
2004). Abugre (2012) supports the necessity of PDM in organisations in order to
recognise the views of employees for effective decision making in organisations.
When employees are deprived of the opportunities to be involved in the decision
making process of rigidly structured organisations, they feel stifled and alienated
(Kelly & Khozan, 1980). Nevertheless, it is argued that not all employees are equally
motivated to participate in organisational decision making (Alutto & Belasco, 1972).
Alutto and Belasco (1972) argue that at an individual level, an employee‟s desire to
participate may undergo any of the following three decisional conditions: (1)
decisional deprivation–participation in fewer decisions than desired, (2) decisional
equilibrium–participation in as many decisions as desired; and (3) decisional
saturation – participation in a greater number of decisions than desired. Participative
Chapter 2: Literature Review 14
decision making entails leader-subordinates interaction, and the subordinates‟
decisional conditions may influence leaders‟ participative behaviour.
Some employees desire to participate more, but participate in fewer decisions than
expected. They, therefore, feel deprived of participation in decision making. Some
employees desire less participation, or choose not to participate at all; but when they
are made to participate, they experience a state of decisional saturation. Some
employees desire to participate, and are able to participate as much as they desire;
these employees are in state of decisional equilibrium. In summary, the level of desire
to participate in decision making differs at an individual level. However, this does not
rule out that employees in general desire to participate in the decision making
affecting their work (Collings, Demirbag, Mellahi & Tatoglu, 2010).
PDM draws from many theoretical frameworks including democratic theory, socialist
theory, and the productivity and efficiency theory (Ejiogu, 1983). The author states
that the democratic and socialist theories treat participation as a social phenomenon
where members actively participate in the organisation. The human growth theories
focus on the satisfaction of higher order needs such as self-esteem and self-
actualisation (Ejiogu, 1983). The productivity and efficiency theories postulate the
decision making roles of the members pertains to their work and the need to increase
productivity (Ejiogu, 1983). These theoretical frameworks underpin the multi-
dimensionality of PDM construct where participative behaviour of organisational
members relates to increased productivity and efficiency.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 15
The contingency theory of human behaviour has also provided a basis for the
development and understanding of PDM since the 1950s (Steers, 1977). Heller,
Drenth, Koopman and Rus (1983) propose that earlier theories trying to explain PDM
were focused on the rationale process of consciously choosing the most preferred
decision alternatives. The rationale process approach is constrained by limited
decision alternatives that are referred to as „bounded rationality‟. Under the condition
of bounded rationality: personal values; knowledge and experience; and intuition of
the decision makers, may bias or guide the decisions (Betsch & Haberstroh, 2005;
Schwenk, 1984). Organisational members, therefore, are required to be mindful of
circumstantial and personal factors in optimising decisions. This is the basis of the
contingency model of decision making (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983).
Further, an enquiry into the theoretical underpinning of the PDM has also led to the
discussion on the dimensionality of the PDM.
2.3.1 Dimensionality of PDM
Much of the earlier literature in the 1960s and 1970s viewed PDM as a
unidimensional construct (Abdel-Halim, 1983; Vandervelde, 1979). Cotton, Vollrath,
Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall and Jennings (1988) reviewed literature from the 1960s to
1980s and critiqued the earlier research for referring to PDM as a single concept that
was conceptually and operationally inconsistent. They proposed that PDM has been
overly simplified as a single faceted concept, overlooking situations under which
PDM outcomes differ (Ashmos & McDaniel, 1996; Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley &
Bauer, 1990). In the 1980s, many organisations favoured PDM but the effects of
participation on organisational performance became increasingly disputed (Parnell &
Chapter 2: Literature Review 16
Crandall, 2001) due to the multidimensionality of PDM and the context in which it
was employed (Cotton, 1993; Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings,
1988). Cotton et al. (1988) identified six different dimensions of PDM: participation
in work decision, consultative participation, short-term participation, informal
participation, subordinate ownership and representative participation. The
multidimensionality approach makes the PDM concept more interpretable at
individual dimensional level. Individual PDM dimension can be studied in depth for
clearer theoretical and practical purposes.
2.3.2 Operationalisation of PDM
The earlier proponents of PDM in the 1970s and 1980s regarded PDM as critical to
organisational success (Ramsdell, 1994). However, the use of different terms to
describe PDM such as: engagement, voice, involvement, empowerment, etc., have
often led to confusion. Additionally, these terms have often had different meanings in
different countries (Dundon, Lewin, Gollan, Marchington, Ackers & Wilkinson,
2010). Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington and Lewin (2010) have operationalised the
PDM concept into „degree‟, „level‟, „range‟ and „form‟.
The degree refers to the extent to which subordinates are able to influence managerial
decisions; this ranges from a simple sharing of decisional information to actually
making a decision (Black & Gregersen, 1997). Higher degree of PDM is expected to
increase job performance and satisfaction amongst the subordinates/participants but
evidence suggests a moderate positive relationship between the degree of participation
and the performance (Graham & Verma, 1991; Jenkins & Lawler, 1981). The level
Chapter 2: Literature Review 17
indicates work group, the departmental or the corporate level. It relates subordinate
PDM to an appropriate managerial decision; for example, a decision on future
corporate strategy at a work group level may be inappropriate (Wilkinson, Gollan,
Marchington & Lewin, 2010).
The range refers to participation from an informally to formally structured PDM on
various issues by the subordinates. Cotton et al. (1988), and Dachler and Wilpert
(1978) emphasised the importance of formal and informal PDM structures. Formally
structured PDM systems function with explicit rules and procedures concerning
participation while informal PDM systems have fewer rules (Black & Gregersen,
1997). However, evidences in extant literature argue that formal PDM is more
common in organisations where PDM is viewed as an individual‟s right in decision
matters affecting their lives (Strauss, 1982).
Finally, the form refers to how this process takes place. Forms can include: direct
face-to-face participation; written or electronic communication; indirect participation
through representatives and financial participation such as profit sharing (McShane &
Von Glinow, 2005). Although there is unanimity amongst scholars on the importance
of direct and indirect forms of PDM (Cotton et al., 1988; Dachler & Wilpert, 1978),
evidence in the literature argues that direct forms of participation lead to more
effective engagement in participation than indirect participation through workers‟
representatives (Nightingale, 1981).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 18
Some scholars operationalise the PDM on the basis of law and rules. For example,
Ahiauzu and Amah (2013) differentiate PDM on the basis of voluntary PDM and
statutory PDM. Voluntary participation is usually informal without the force or law.
Statutory PDM occurs when the government legislates participative activities.
Statutory and formal PDM may entail leaders‟ participative behaviour for compliance
while voluntary and informal PDM may lead to more genuine participative behaviour
on the part of leaders.
Despite the importance of various facets of PDM, what concerns employees the most
in organisations is the degree of influence that they can have on the decisions. Dachler
and Wilpert (1978) argue that the degree of participation in decision making is
construed along a continuum from autocratic decision making, information sharing,
consultative decision making to democratic decision making. Similarly, the escalator
of participation in Figure 2.1 illustrates progressive upward participation of
employees from mere information sharing within the organisation to actually taking
decision control; these schemes can overlap and coexist in organisational decision
making (Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington & Lewin, 2010).
Figure 2.1. Escalator of employee participation.
Adapted from The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations (p.11) by
A. Wilkinson, P.J. Gollan, M. Marchington & D. Lewin, 2010, London: Oxford
University Press.
Information
Codetermination
Communication
Consultation
Control
Chapter 2: Literature Review 19
In most cases, PDM takes the intermediate position in the continuum where
employees make a conscious choice considering policies and operational problems
requiring their participation (Ramsdell, 1994). Thus, this research will focus on verbal
communication and consultation as forms of PDM. In reference to Figure 2.1,
information sharing does not amount to PDM because employees do not get to
influence decisions; while codetermination and employees taking a full decision
control, is likely to be absent in the context of Bhutan. Probably, the leaders who
believe in maintaining high power distance invariably avoid listening to suggestions
from their subordinates. Such leaders may not accept their subordinates taking full
control over the organisational decisions. On the other hand, subordinates taking more
independent decision making responsibilities from their leaders could also depend on
the level of maturity of corporate organisations in the emerging economy. Mature
corporate organisations are expected to have adopted PDM as those organisations
would have experienced the need for PDM. On the other hand, leaders in newer
Bhutanese corporate organisations may take more time in allowing their subordinates
to take full control over decision making. The reason could be either leaders
maintaining high power distance or organisations have less complex decisions to be
made and subordinates accept their leaders making decision without engaging them.
2.3.3 Conditions for Participative Decision Making
The effectiveness of PDM is subject to participative conditions both at individual and
organisational levels (Margulies & Black, 1987). For instance, at an individual level,
leaders‟ trust in subordinates and their engagement in a more democratic approach
contribute to PDM success (Kearney & Hays, 1994; Kelly & Khozan, 1980). Both
Chapter 2: Literature Review 20
leaders‟ and subordinates‟ desire and preparedness to be involved in PDM, with win-
win expectations, are key conditions for the successful implementation of PDM
(Kearney & Hays, 1994). At an organisational level, PDM policies and organisational
structure contributes to the success or failure of PDM (Locke & Schweiger, 1979).
Setting up PDM practices entails clarity of purpose and procedures amongst leaders
and subordinates supported by regular training and workshops. Sashkin (1976) asserts
that it is important to provide clear choices for employees who show a desire for PDM
and develop a greater individual job responsibility. The organisational structure needs
to also have minimum levels facilitating leaders-subordinates involvement in decision
making. In summary, the success of PDM is contingent upon both individual and
organisational variables. Successful implementation of PDM relies on employees‟
readiness to engage in PDM, supported by PDM polices and a suitable organisational
structure.
Despite the laudable benefits of PDM, there are also criticisms on the proposed
relationship between PDM and positive organisational outcomes. For example, the
productivity in organisations is not always consistent with the practice of PDM
(Pollock & Colwill, 1987). PDM is viewed as a cause of declining leaders‟ decisional
power (Parnell, 2010). Also, evidence in the literature is that success or failure of
PDM depends on leaders‟ willingness to accept and implement PDM (Cotton, 1993;
Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings, 1988). Parnell and Crandall
(2001) describe this willingness as a as propensity to participate in decision making.
Their model facilitates investigation of PDM as a multidimensional construct in
relation to behavioural dimensions such as verbal participative behaviour and
Chapter 2: Literature Review 21
consultative participative behaviour. To sum up, this research proposes to study
further whether leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of organisational outcome,
willingness to share decisional power and participate in decision making have a
relationship with the leaders‟ participative behaviour in organisational decision
making.
2.3.4 Propensity to Participate in Decision Making (PPDM)
PPDM is defined as “a manager‟s proclivity or propensity to solicit subordinate
participation in decisions” (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012, p. 281). In reference to
participative behaviour, leaders have certain motives or propensity to participate in
decision making (Lowin, 1968; Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Ideally, in organisations
where PDM is implemented, subordinates and leaders are more willing to engage in
open discussion and constructive participation (Lowin, 1968). However, the question
is: what could motivate leaders to implement and participate in PDM? Parnell and
Crandall (2001) state that the success of PDM implementation is influenced by
leaders‟ propensity to participate in decision making. They examined PPDM using
four subscales: (1) leaders‟ willingness to share decisional power with subordinates
(Parnell & Bell, 1994); (2) leaders‟ genuine commitment in PDM implementation
(Parnell & Crandall, 2001); (3) leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of organisational
effectiveness through PDM (Parnell & Bell, 1994) and (4) the prevailing
organisational culture of participation that encourages leaders to engage in more PDM
(Parnell, Bell & Taylor, 1991).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 22
Parnell and Crandall (2001) emphasise that the practicality of the PPDM model is
useful in helping organisational leaders to identify problems associated with any of
the subscales (i.e., organisational effectiveness, organisational culture, power sharing
and commitment), and rectify for effective participative decision making. Parnell and
Crandall (2001) suggest that a multivariate regression equation can be used to
ascertain the problem areas as follows:
PPDM = B0 + B1 (organisational culture) + B2 (organisational effectiveness)
+ B3 (power sharing) + B4 (commitment)
In the following paragraphs, the subscales are discussed for ascertaining how each
subscale relates and contribute to the overall PPDM model.
Organisational Culture
Organisational culture is a broad concept with diverse definitions (Henri, 2006), but
commonly reflects the notion of shared values and beliefs, as well as assumptions and
significant meanings, amongst employees (Green, 1988). Organisational culture
sometimes originates from the founders or leaders who implement personal values
and beliefs leading to patterns of behaviour that subordinates learn (Bechtold, 1997;
Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Mathur, Aycan & Kanungo, 1996). Organisational culture is
influenced by social, cultural, economic, and political environmental factors (Mathur,
Aycan & Kanungo, 1996). For instance, in a society with high power hierarchy and
obedience to authority, the organisational culture may reflect less participation in
decision making (Mathur, Aycan & Kanungo, 1996).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 23
Daft (2009) classifies organisational culture into four dimensions: flexible culture –
characterised by flexibility and change in response to the external environmental
factors such as customer needs; mission culture – an emphasis on clear objectives
driven to achieve goals; bureaucratic culture – a culture that has internal focus and a
sustainable direction for a stable environment; and participative culture – focus on the
involvement and participation of individual members. The classification provides
conceptual clarity, but the dimensions are not mutually exclusive.
Rousseau (1990) argues that the operationalisation of organisational culture can often
be confusing. To overcome this limitation, based on the work of Parnell and Crandall
(2001), organisational culture in the present research specifically focuses on shared
organisational goals, involving subordinates, as well as promoting and applying PDM.
Parnell and Crandall (2001) argue that organisational culture plays a critical role in
the selection of participative management styles and eventually, influencing the
leaders‟ propensity for participative behaviour in the decision making. Leaders exhibit
supportive behaviour and encourage subordinates in a participative organisational
culture; while in a culture of centralised decision making, leaders discourage
subordinate participation (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Therefore, leaders‟ propensity
for participative behaviour in decision making is influenced by the organisational
culture (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Leaders are more likely to have a higher
propensity for PDM when there is a culture of support for participation.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 24
Organisational Effectiveness
Organisational effectiveness is a broad concept and encompasses multiple
constituents for measuring organisational performance (Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013;
Katarina, Rastogi, & Garg, 2013). Organisational effectiveness is often understood in
terms of organisations producing quality products and are resilient to business
adversities (Katarina, Rastogi, & Garg, 2013). However, varying size of organisations
with multiplicity of goals makes organisational effectiveness difficult to measure and
define (Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013). In the current research context, organisational
effectiveness is defined as, a leader‟s potential engagement in PDM when he/she
believes that PDM will increase organisational productivity and decision quality i.e.,
organisational effectiveness (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Further, leaders have greater
tendency to promote PDM when they believe that organisational effectiveness could
be improved through increased engagement of subordinates in decision making
(Parnell & Bell, 1994). Organisational effectiveness is measured in terms of a leaders‟
belief that PDM will improve decision quality, resolve subordinate differences,
promote a feeling of self-worth and effective organisational communication.
Power Sharing
Studies on decisional power sharing have been prevalent since the initial work of
Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) and Coch and French (1948). The willingness on the
part of organisational leaders to share power with the subordinates continues to
feature as an important factor for effective subordinate participation in decision
making (Jesaitis & Day, 1992; O‟Toole, 1995). Hakimi and Knippenberg (2010)
define leaders‟ power sharing as leaders‟ behaviour involving delegation of authority
Chapter 2: Literature Review 25
and responsibilities to subordinates. Coleman (2004, p. 299) defines power sharing as,
“the act of enhancing, supporting, or not obstructing another‟s ability to bring about
the outcomes he or she seeks”. Essentially in the PDM process, leaders share their
decisional influence with rest of the members in the organisation, not limiting it to
those who have formal power positions (Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003).
Leaders‟ power sharing includes sharing information and knowledge with
subordinates, enabling them to make influential decisions and helping subordinates to
realise their full potential (Hakimi & Knippenberg, 2010).
Intrinsically motivated leaders engage in sharing decisional power with subordinates,
thus empowering subordinates to participate in decision making (Lee & Koh, 2001).
Heller, Drenth, Koopman and Rus (1983) empirically confirmed that different
categories of employees use decisional power for different effects at different stages
of decision making. For instance, leaders were found to exert more decision
influential power during the initial conception on the decision problem and selection
of optimal decision solution. Whereas middle managers and professional staff
exercise more influence on the decision process. The participation by the lower level
staff was entirely limited to decision implementation.
The proponents of power sharing argue that power sharing is a „positive-sum
approach to power‟ (Park, 1997). By empowering subordinates, leaders do not lose
power but overall power in the organisation is increased (Lee & Koh, 2001). Sharing
decisional power with subordinates also provides management with more time to
consider broader strategies and the long-term objectives of the organisation (Baird &
Chapter 2: Literature Review 26
Wang, 2010). Bottom-up authority is more appropriate for the implementation of
PDM rather than the top-down imposition of decisions on subordinates which
discourages them from participating in decision making (Kearney & Hays, 1994).
Tannenbaum (1956) states that there are two independent aspects of power: total
power in the organisation, and the distribution of the power. His argument is that
power is an expandable phenomenon, total power in the organisation increases with
PDM as every member is empowered through participation in the decision making.
Pollock and Colwill (1987) found that Tannenbaum‟s (1956) model of power
expandability remains valid, and argue that declining power as a result of participative
decision making lacks empirical evidence. Power sharing is found to reduce worker
alienation, reduce superior-subordinate conflicts, promote mutually agreeable
decisions and increase subordinate morale (Pollock & Colwill, 1987).
Despite a wide acceptance of decisional power sharing amongst organisational
leaders, some research has highlighted conditions where power sharing is ineffective
(Collins, 1994; Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999). Power
sharing has been found to be superficial and rhetoric when organisational leaders still
retain the power (Argyris, 1998). Moreover, higher level strategic decisions can be
viewed as a management prerogative without involving subordinates (Wilkinson,
Gollan, Marchington & Lewin, 2010). Power sharing enhances the implementation of
PDM, however, the effectiveness of power sharing is found to be strongly determined
by leaders‟ willingness to share power.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 27
Organisational Commitment
For the successful establishment of PDM in organisations, leaders must embrace
PDM with long-term commitment and with serious efforts to enhance the entire
organisational system (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). The widely used three-
component model of organisational commitment distinguishes three „mindsets‟ that
characterises the relationship that members have with their employing organisation
(Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013). The authors define the first mind set as
affective commitment: an individual‟s feelings of emotional attachment towards the
organisation. The second mindset, normative commitment, is concerned with the
individual‟s moral obligation to remain with the organisation. The third mindset,
continuance commitment, refers to the individuals‟ economic attachment to the
organisation; it is a perceived cost to a member for ending the membership of the
organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990).
In the context of this research study, normative commitment is concerned with what
might be expected of leaders in the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Being
leaders, they are obliged to commit to the practices of PDM and influence other
members in a manner that is more likely to engage in participation. Leaders‟
commitment to PDM could be an antecedent to leaders‟ engagement in participative
behaviour. This research study, therefore, will examine PPDM subscales in relation to
leaders‟ participative behaviour in decision making.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 28
2.4 Organisational Leadership
Organisational leaders continuously provide a supportive role to build and maintain a
cohesive group that performs well for organisational success (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).
It is, therefore, important to understand the nature of the behaviour that leaders
engage in relationships, particularly as it relates to decision making (Yukl, 2012).
Leadership has been extensively investigated with many different definitions and
theories (Eddy & Van Der Linden, 2006). Hogan and Kaiser (2005) state that
leadership is one of the most important topics in the human sciences, but is
historically one of the more poorly understood topics. An understanding of leadership
can be focused on individual leadership traits, leaders‟ behaviour and relationships, a
leaders‟ influence over subordinates, task goals and on organisational culture
(Chaudhari & Dhar, 2006).
In the context of organisational leadership, Tannenbaum, Weschler, and Massarik
(1961) defined leadership as a process of interpersonal influence exercised in a
situation and directed through the communication process towards the attainment of
specific goal or goals. Organisational leadership is a social process focused on
building effective interpersonal relationship through multiple interactions with
individuals (Uhl-Bein, 2006; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002). Importantly, leaders‟
relationships with subordinates through exhibition of communicative or interactive
behaviours relates to the context of the present research study.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 29
2.5 Leadership Behaviour
Leadership is expressed in the form of behavioural patterns in various functions and
situations while working with followers (Randeree & Chaudhry, 2012). The
behavioural approach to leadership studies dates back to the 1940s when the Ohio
State University in the United States identified two groups of leadership behaviours:
relations-oriented behaviour and task-oriented behaviour (Yukl, Gordon & Taber,
2002). Later in the 1990s, change-oriented leadership behaviour became prominent,
owing to increasing societal and organisational pressure for change (Ekvall & Arvon,
1994; Yukl, 1999, 1997). Change-oriented leadership behaviour includes
encouragement of subordinates for innovative thinking, taking risks to promote
necessary changes in the organisation, proposing new vision and monitoring the
external environment (Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002).
Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002) assert that these three leadership behavioural
dimensions are not mutually exclusive. Leaders may engage in all these behaviours at
one point in time to achieve the desired outcomes within their relationships and
exercise of leadership. For example, leaders recognising and complimenting (relation-
oriented behaviour) a subordinate for a significant contribution to the unit primarily
motivates a subordinate; while identifying tasks (task-oriented behaviour) focuses the
subordinates on achieving organisational objectives. As such these behaviours work
to complement each other within a constructive leadership relationship. Furtado,
Batista, and Silva (2011) also assert that leaders‟ behavioural pattern combines task
behaviour and relation-oriented behaviour. Task-oriented behaviours of the leaders
are primarily used to improve the work efficiency of the subordinates (Yukl, 2006);
Chapter 2: Literature Review 30
whereas relation-oriented behaviour concerns the emotional and moral support of
subordinates.
In the understanding of effective leadership behaviour, individual behaviour and
interrelatedness amongst the behaviours are examined for more clarity. For example,
monitoring is effective when combined with other behaviours such as problem
solving, coaching and motivating (Yukl, 2012). As we develop an understanding of
effective leadership behaviour, it is useful to determine the behaviours that positively
influence the achievement of organisational outcomes (Yukl, 2012). Leadership,
concerning subordinates as the core of organisational success can influence leaders‟
interactive behaviour. Leaders in this instance would be more inclined to engage in
participative behaviour with subordinates (Kearney & Hays, 1994).
2.6 Leaders’ Participative Behaviour
Typically, leaders‟ participative behaviours is seen in the form of openness and
appreciation for subordinates‟ inputs, interests, concerns, and willingness to act on
subordinates‟ suggestions; all of which strongly determines subordinates‟
participation in the decision making of the organisation (Detert & Burris, 2007).
Leaders‟ participative behaviour is influential towards subordinates‟ performance
contributing to organisational productivity (Mehrabi, Safaei & Kazemi, 2013).
Leaders sharing discretionary power at the work places, being more supportive,
informative, resourceful and consulting in decision making process motivates
subordinates (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Nystrom, 1990).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 31
Leaders‟ participative behaviour is motivated by an expectation for better decisional
inputs from subordinates for quality decisions and better leaders-subordinate
relationship leading to organisational success. The expectancy model of PDM
explains that leaders exhibit an inclination towards participative behaviour when they
expect this will lead to a more effective performance and a resulting reward (Schuler,
1980; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Leaders who expect better decisions as a reward for
their engagement in participation could be more likely to engage in participative
behaviour.
Leaders‟ participative behaviour concerns sharing responsibility with subordinates for
concerted efforts and quality decisions. The premise of shared leadership theory
explains shared responsibility and collective effort. Shared leadership is defined as a
“dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in work groups in which
the objectives is to lead one another to the achievement of groups goals” (Pearce &
Conger, 2003: p. 286). Essentially, shared leadership is a process of interdependent
social relationship where individual employees share the behaviours and roles of the
leaders (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Merat & Bo, 2013; Pearce & Conger,
2003). Evidently, shared leadership espouses a behavioural-based social process that
involves collective decisions and an effort for the achievement of organisational goals
in which leaders‟ participative behaviour plays a critical role (Kocolowski, 2010).
2.6.1 Leadership Communication
The essence of communication within the organisation resides in providing
performance and strategic directives to employees (Bamel, Rangnekar, Rastogi &
Chapter 2: Literature Review 32
Kumar, 2013). Communication helps in the identification of problems and solutions
(Bamel, Rangnekar, Rastogi & Kumar, 2013). Leadership communication is a means
of information dissemination amongst employees and provides timely feedback on
performance. Importantly, leadership communication provides emotional support to
the members and helps in resolving conflict, mistrust and workplace politics (Bamel,
Rangnekar, Rastogi & Kumar, 2013).
Tozer (2012) describes four distinct channels of leadership communication. Although
competing views on Tozer‟s (2012) channels of leadership communication is not
evident in the literature, the concept is used in describing how leaders communicate in
different ways in the organisations (Men, 2014; Mohr & Nevin, 1990). The four
distinct channels of leadership communication include: (1) Formal and direct
(meetings and announcement) where leaders interact and checks understanding of
subordinates through questions and answer sessions. (2) Informal and direct
(concerning day-to-day work and organisational affairs) where leaders are involved in
regular and informal conversation with subordinates. (3) Formal and indirect
(consequences of policy, systems and structure) where leaders are involved in formal
and focused discussion; and (4) Informal and indirect (socializing, rumour and media)
where through social conversation, leaders ensure that subordinates are well-informed
with accurate and helpful information. The multiplicity of leadership communication
channels is extremely important to facilitate quality decision making. Leaders exhibit
distinct communicative behaviour based on the choice of specific channel of
leadership communications (Tozer, 2012). For example, leaders‟ communicative
behaviour in a formal meeting will be more structured through questions and answers,
Chapter 2: Literature Review 33
while informal communicative behaviour will be demonstrated in an informal social
conversation.
The leaders‟ communicative behaviour is an important aspect of leadership (Galanes,
2003). Hackman and Johnson (1996) define leadership as communication behaviour
that affects the behaviour of subordinates for the achievement of group or
organisational goals. The most common goals of leaders is to maintain a holistic
perspective of organisation through established communication infrastructure, such
as: regular meetings; openness to information exchange; and discussion and dialogues
where leaders seriously listens and focuses on subordinates ideas, wishes and views
(De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). Leaders‟ communicative
behaviour is important in sharing organisational goals; clarifying the fulfilment of
standards; and providing feedback to subordinates eventually leading to successful
leadership. Nearly half of the daily working time of leaders is spent in communicating
for information exchange and influencing subordinates (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008).
However, it is important that the communicative behaviour is intended for
organisational success. More communicative behaviour cannot be always equated
with better communication for organisational success (Keyton, Caputo, Ford, Fu,
Leibowitz, Liu & Wu, 2013). Leaders need to focus more on the quality of their
communication rather on the quantity of communication while communicating with
their subordinates.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 34
2.6.2 Leaders’ Verbal Participative Behaviour
Amongst the various modes of communication, leaders tend to prefer verbal
communication (Yukl, 2002). Face-to-face verbal communication allows leaders to
exercise more influence with subordinates, thus, subordinates tend to judge their
leaders‟ effectiveness through verbal communication (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008).
Verbal communication with subordinates reduces the hierarchical distance between
leaders and subordinates, providing a more personal touch (Denton, 1995). In the
organisational context, verbal communication is important for the effective sharing of
information and providing feedback to subordinates by leaders. It is also an important
means of receiving feedback from subordinates by leaders.
Verbal communication is participative as both leaders and subordinates are involved
in the communication process. Subordinates want to hear from leaders, and want
leaders to listen to them (Denton, 1995). Leaders‟ listening skills are equally as
important as explaining. This is because, through listening, leaders are able to better
understand the needs, concerns and feelings of subordinates (Denton, 1995).
Therefore, verbal communication encourages participation of subordinates in decision
making, as well as solving work and personal related issues. As verbal participation is
founded on the principle of two-way communication, when subordinates are
enthusiastic on verbal participation, reciprocal behaviour on the part of leaders to
engage in verbal participation is equally important. This study will focus on leaders‟
verbal participative behaviour to engage subordinates in participative decision
making.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 35
2.6.3 Leaders’ Consultative Participative Behaviour
The term „consultation‟ refers to joint decision making that includes leaders and
subordinates, and allows subordinates to influence decisions (Yukl & Fu, 1999).
Consultation is a systematic approach of formal meetings where both leaders and
subordinates discuss mutual concerns (Denton, 1995). Studies have determined a
strong link between leaders‟ consultative behaviour, and subordinates‟ motivation in
the form of putting forward innovative ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).
Consultation, according to the Vroom-Yetton model developed in 1973, is feasible
when goal congruence is high because subordinates share leaders‟ task objectives and
cooperate in providing information needed to make good decisions (Yukl & Fu,
1999).
Consultative leaders hold regular meetings where leaders and subordinates prioritise
tasks and goals that lead to successful teamwork. A lack of consultative participation,
however, undermines subordinates‟ motivation and deprives both leaders and
subordinates of fresh ideas in decision making (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).
Consultative leaders listen to subordinates prior to making decisions and create an
environment for subordinates to speak out their ideas freely (Kabasakal & Bodur,
2007). Leaders also empower subordinates through negotiations and joint problem
solving, leading to a mutually acceptable compromise (Yukl & Fu, 1999).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 36
Consultation is conducted primarily in a formal setup such as preplanned organised
meetings. Both leaders‟ verbal communication and consultation can have an
influential impact on organisational decisions that may encompass a wide range of
organisational issues from individual, to corporate levels (Hollander & Offermann,
1990). However, the difference between verbal communication and consultation lies
in the context of participation practices. In consultative participation, leaders‟
interactive behaviour involves engaging with a group of immediate subordinates in a
formal setting. In verbal participation, leaders engage in a dyadic, informal and
conversational behaviour, seeking decisional inputs from individual subordinates.
2.6.4 Factors Affecting Leadership Behaviour
Leadership behaviour is subject to influence from internal and external organisational
factors. On a daily basis, leaders are challenged by many internal factors, such as
diverse workforce, changes from stable individual jobs to new strategic teams,
increasing job-related expectations of subordinates and the concern for outcomes
besides profits such as ethical actions (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983; Kur &
Bunnin, 2002; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010).
External factors that leaders face include changes from simpler to complex global
enterprises, rapid technological change, changing cultural values, more use of
outsourcing, new forms of social networking, increased use of virtual interaction,
environmental impact and sustainability (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983;
Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). In the context of these internal and external environmental
factors, the leaders have to constantly interact with subordinates for information
Chapter 2: Literature Review 37
exchange and maintain subordinate involvement and motivation. Consequently,
leaders are increasingly challenged to maintain relation-oriented and participative
behaviour with subordinates.
The type of behaviour that leaders engage in can also be determined by the size and
structure of an organisation (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). In smaller organisations, with
less hierarchical structure, leaders‟ interactive behaviour with subordinates could be
more frequent and amicable than in larger organisations. Leaders‟ engagement in
specific participative behaviour is also subject to subordinate maturity. The situational
leadership theory underpinning the dynamics of subordinate maturity describes two
components (Goodson, McGee & Cashman, 1989): the job maturity (technical skills
needed to do a task) and psychological maturity (self-confidence in one‟s abilities).
Leaders adopt tight supervisory behaviours with subordinates of lower level maturity
in terms of work skills. Leaders‟ behaviour is visible in the form of providing
instructions and directions for task performance. For more mature subordinates,
leaders are seen to exhibit less supervisory behaviour combined with greater
participatory behaviour (Furtado, Batista & Silva, 2011).
2.6.5 Individual Drive towards Participative Behaviour
Leaders‟ drive to engage in a participative behaviour could be as a result of intrinsic
motivation, a sense of accomplishment, or external motivational factors such as
expected monetary reward (Analoui, 2000). Taking a process rather than a content
approach to motivation, motivation to engage in participative behaviour could be the
Chapter 2: Literature Review 38
result of the dynamic interaction with subordinates, resulting in stronger leaders-
subordinate ties.
Leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour is also guided by their belief in the
role of leaders. Organisational leaders who are driven by a belief of achieving
predetermined goals, persistently exhibit participative behaviour and involve
subordinates to ensure quality decisions and implementation. Similarly, leaders driven
by the democratic principles of respecting subordinates rights, will be inclined to be
involved in participative behaviour with subordinates (Ejiogu, 1983). Therefore,
leaders‟ proclivity towards participative behaviour is also guided by their beliefs or
values.
However, questions are raised as to how consistent or authentic leaders are when
engaging in particular participative behaviour (Westhuizen, Pacheco & Webber,
2012). For example, leaders may engage subordinates without genuine concern for
subordinates‟ decisional inputs (Ritchie & Miles, 1970). One of the key underlying
factors influencing leaders‟ participative behaviour is leaders‟ intrinsic motivation to
genuinely involve themselves and subordinates in PDM. In addition, leaders‟ drive
towards the achievement of organisational goals can also influence their engagement
in participative behaviour with subordinates.
2.7 Leaders’ Age and Participative Behaviour
In the study of organisational leadership, age is one of the important demographic
variables (Oshagbemi, 2004). Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Myers (1998) highlight that
Chapter 2: Literature Review 39
age has considerable influence in shaping the behaviour of leaders in organisations.
Empirical evidence confirms that younger leaders differ significantly from older
leaders in their behavioural approach to participative decision making (Oshagbemi,
2004).
Young American managers in the 1970s who grew up under the democratic system of
the 1960s were found to be actively involved in participative management (Kelly &
Khozan, 1980). A study in India by Mathur, Aycan and Kanungo (1996) found that
younger leaders were more resourceful, goal driven and optimistic. These leaders
emphasised mutual help, support and involvement in decision making.
However, younger leaders were also found not as participative as older leaders in the
context of the UK (Oshagbemi, 2004). It is possible that younger leaders have
different attitude towards decision making from older leaders. Younger leaders take
both decisional risk of making wrong decisions and take the reward of pride in
making successful decisions (Oshagbemi, 2004).
Evidently, age as a predictor of participative behaviour is inconsistent. It is possible
that influence of age on participative behaviour can be explained in specific context.
For example, the participative behaviour of younger American managers was found to
have been influenced by a democratic system of governance. Similarly, participative
behaviour of younger Indian leaders can be attributed to the era of economic reforms
in India in the 1990s where the leadership approach was expected to be more
participative (Ahluwalia, 2002).
Chapter 2: Literature Review 40
Overall, the current literature has not established age as a consistent predictor of
leaders‟ participation in decision making, but was found to vary in the context of the
study being conducted. In the present research study, leaders‟ age is examined as a
potential antecedent of leaders‟ participative behaviour.
2.8 Leaders’ Individual Belief in the Level of Power Distance (PD) and
Participative Behaviour
Beliefs that are based in values are fundamental in guiding an individual behaviour
(Chang & Lin, 2008). “A value is a person‟s internalised beliefs about how he or she
„should‟ or „ought‟ to behave” (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998, p. 354). Jing and Graham
(2008) assert that there are invisible values (beliefs) and visible manifestations (such
as symbols, heroes and rituals) that are at the core of individual behaviour. Therefore,
leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance could influence their participative
behaviour. For example, leaders‟ belief in a higher level of power distance could lead
to behavioural manifestation of not engaging in PDM with subordinates.
Leaders with high power distance orientation are behaviourally more directive and
avoid subordinate participation (Pasa, 2000). For example, leaders are often seen
displaying dominating or pushy behaviour, thus limiting group members‟
participation in decision making processes (De Cremer, 2006). In the decision making
process, high power distance leaders are also seen to force decisions upon other group
members (De Cremer, 2007). This type of leadership behaviour does not lead to
favourable work outcomes (Huang, Shi, Zhang & Cheung, 2006). On the other hand,
leaders with low power distance exhibit behaviours of sincerity and friendliness
Chapter 2: Literature Review 41
towards their subordinates (Sorrentino & Field, 1986). Therefore, power inequality is
an obstacle to leaders-subordinate interaction for PDM (Wood, 1985). In
organisations of high power distance culture, subordinate participation in decision
making is self-censored for fear of undesirable reprisals (Wood, 1985). Consequently,
subordinates prefer decisions made by their leaders, instead of PDM. These
subordinates expect to be told what to do and prefer not to take on additional
responsibilities (Khatri, 2009).
Under the condition of high power distance, a communication gap exists between
leaders and subordinates due to their belief in maintaining hierarchical distance
(Khatri, 2009). Bhutan, traditionally known for its hierarchical social structure
(Mathou, 1999), provides an interesting context to investigate the influence of
leaders‟ belief in power distance, on the leaders‟ participative behaviour. In the
Bhutanese corporate context, leaders‟ who believe in maintaining high power distance
may engage in low level of participative behaviour than those leaders who believe in
maintaining low power distance.
2.9 PDM Practices in Emerging Economy
Emerging economies are characterised by economic liberalisation initiatives and
reform measures. These countries are also dependent on developed nations for
financial aids and technical know-how support. During the 1980s and 1990s, rapid
globalisation and economic reforms resulted in the rise of emerging economies
(Singh, 2012). The proponent of the term „emerging economies‟, Antoine W. Van
Agtmael of the International Finance Corporation in 1981 states that countries
Chapter 2: Literature Review 42
classified under the category of emerging economies embark on economic
development and reform programmes irrespective of their size and economic
resources (in Heakal, 2009: p.1).
Emerging economies face many challenges. There is increased domestic
consumption, weak infrastructure, underdeveloped technology, a requirement for
major financial reforms, increased pollution, unemployment, security and political
instability (Morfaw, 2012). For the transformation of these challenges into economic
opportunities, political will is important for the translation necessary at an
organisational level.
The collective views of employees to muster organisational strength through
cooperation and commitment should be reflective of political philosophy. For
example, in an advanced level of democracy such as the USA, there is a greater
tendency towards PDM in the organisations than in emerging democratic nations
(Parnell, Koseoglu, & Dent, 2012). In emerging economies with a democratic form of
governance, PDM in organisations may gain importance due to the broader political
philosophy of participation. In view of this discussion, Bhutan as the youngest
democratic nation and an emerging economy, provides a relevant and interesting
context within which to study PDM practices in the corporate sector.
Growth of the Bhutanese corporate sector in the late 1990s began with the
deregulation of state-owned companies. The corporate sector was initially managed
by the senior bureaucrats who were accustomed to hierarchical power inequalities.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 43
Top-down command works in public organisations which are hierarchically structured
(Paradine, 1996). Driven by the motive of social welfare, profit generation is not a
priory for public organisations. Corporate organizations, on the other hand, are subject
to dynamic environmental factors and are concerned with the judicious use of
resources for good returns. A structural change facilitating participative management
practices would be advisable in corporate organisations (Zhou, Tse & Li, 2006).
These changes would require Bhutanese corporate leaders to be involved more in
participative behaviour for the achievement of organisational goals.
Research into PDM has been primarily confined to the developed nations in North
America and Europe (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Dawkins & Frass, 2005).
Little research in PDM is evident in the context of emerging economies such as Asia,
Europe and the Middle East (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Parnell, Koseoglu
& Dent, 2012). Moreover, Bhutan is the least studied nation, with no literature in the
area of organisational leadership and PDM.
Bhutan is also a useful context for studying the role of an individual leader‟s belief in
power distance. Ugyel (2013) found that Bhutan is a relatively moderate power
distance nation (below world average, but above Australia). Ugyel (2013) also asserts
that the social structure of patronage and the loyalty system will have influence on
organisations in terms of their hierarchical structure. The culture of hierarchy and
loyalty could influence individual leader‟s beliefs in the level of power distance
influencing leaders‟ participative behaviour in decision making.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 44
In a societal culture of hierarchical order, people accept high power distance
(Hofstede, 1984a). In the Bhutanese context of hierarchical social culture,
organisational leaders could be more likely to exhibit a higher level of power distance
which impact on their willingness to engage in participative decision making with
their subordinates. Subordinates, on the other hand, will accept power inequality.
Subordinates will be more receptive of the opinion of their leaders and chose not to
participate in the decision making process.
2.10 Leaders’ Behavioural Assessment
Assessment of leaders‟ behavioural dimensions in an organisation has become
necessary because it contributes to leaders‟ development and organisational growth
(Manning & Robertson, 2011; Tiuraniemi, 2008; Tornow, 1993). Assessment of
leaders‟ behaviour by self and others is useful because leaders‟ performance is
dependent upon interactions with others, particularly subordinates; so it is important
to assess leader's level of self-awareness as well as how others see their behaviour
(Atwater, 1992).
Self-assessment
A leader‟s self-assessment is important for the understanding of his/her own
performance and creates optimal conditions for self-guiding leadership behaviour
(Tiuraniemi, 2008). Self-assessment indicates the degree of self-awareness about
one‟s behaviour through the difference between self-observation and self-evaluation
(Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Self-observation is new information or a perceived
behavioural standard against which a leader compares his/her behaviour.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 45
“Consequently, the self-aware leaders is more cognisant of how he/she is perceived by
others, which results in more accurate self-assessment” (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992:
p. 143). It is also reported that high performing leaders who are more meticulous in
their work and achieve organisational goals are able to more accurately assess their
workplace behaviour (Church, 1997). This is due to their self-awareness of detailed
behavioural engagement at the workplace.
Although, self-assessment is a commonly used behavioural assessment technique, (Oh
& Berry, 2009), there are criticisms of its accuracy (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone,
2002; Poksakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). Leaders with
high self-esteem rate themselves high because they value themselves with positivity,
and contrarily leaders with low self-esteem rate themselves low (Ashford, 1989;
Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Cooper & Johnson, 2014).
Therefore, considering the limitation of a single-source of self-assessment that may
fail to comprehensively capture a specific dimension of leadership behaviour,
subordinates‟ rating is commonly also used as an alternative source of assessing
leaders‟ participative behaviour (Bergman, Lornudd, Sjoberg & Von Thiele Schwarz,
2014). Thus leaders‟ behaviour in relation to subordinates is also more suitably
assessed by subordinates (Oh & Berry, 2009).
Subordinates’ Assessment
Evidence shows that leaders‟ behavioural assessment by immediate subordinates
improves leaders‟ behaviour (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995). A leader‟s
Chapter 2: Literature Review 46
awareness of how subordinates evaluate his/her behaviour is the key to the
effectiveness a leader‟s performance and also has implications in a leader‟s pay and
advancement decisions (Tiuraniemi, 2008).
Differences between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment
An objective of subordinates‟ assessment of leaders‟ behaviour is to find the degree of
difference with leaders‟ self-assessments (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). In the past,
difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟ assessments had been
thought of as error variance that should be reduced or eliminated (Fleenor, McCauley
& Brutus, 1996). But the differences between two assessments are a useful indicator
of leadership effectiveness (Tiuraniemi, 2008). For example, Bass and Yammarino
(1991) found that for successful leaders, difference between the assessments was
smaller while less-successful leaders displayed greater discrepancies.
The degree of difference between the two assessments is influential in the future
participative behaviour of leaders (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). For example,
leaders who overrate are less likely to improve their participative behaviour because
they feel they are more participative. Secondly, leaders with more accurate self-
ratings in agreement with the rating of the subordinates are likely to alter their
behaviour accordingly (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Thirdly, leaders who
underestimate their participative behaviour may be under pressure to alter their
behaviour (Ashford, 1989). Thus, for the effective implementation of self-assessment
and subordinates‟ assessment, proper communication and understanding of leaders‟
behaviour assessment, becomes a necessary condition. Such an approach may entail
Chapter 2: Literature Review 47
regular in-house training and deliberation for clarity in the organisations (Foti, 1990).
In the absence of the clarity on the purpose and procedure of leaders‟ behavioural
assessment, difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟
assessments are common (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995), resulting in negative
reactions from leaders (Brett and Atwater, 2001).
The differences between the two assessments occur because leaders and subordinates
have different cognition of leaders‟ behaviour. For example, more intelligent and
capable individuals exercise better judgment on leaders‟ participative behaviour
(Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Leaders are expected to be more aware of their own
participative behaviour and to provide more accurate self-assessment. However, this
is just one perspective. Subordinates on the other, may rate their leaders‟ participative
behaviour low when faced with limited understanding of their leaders‟ participative
behaviour differently but both ratings are important for understanding leadership
behaviour. It is two different perspectives on the same behaviour.
Carlson (1998) states that leaders‟ self-assessment is more purposeful and accurate
when used for personal development and accept subordinates‟ assessment. When self-
ratings are meant for pay and promotion, leaders tend to rate themselves high leading
to wider discrepancies between self-assessment and subordinates‟ assessment
(Carlson, 1998). In the current research, the leaders‟ willingness to engage in
participative decision making is measured through two approaches: leaders‟ self-
assessment and assessment by their immediate subordinates. The measurement
accuracy of either of the assessments cannot be determined. However, the research is
Chapter 2: Literature Review 48
a more robust study of leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative decision making
by having two different perspectives.
2.11 Research Aim and Summary of Research Gaps
There is limited research into PDM in emerging economies (Ejiogu, 1983; Parnall,
Koseoglu, & Dent, 2012). Further study in a variety of emerging economies could
increase our understanding of the practice of PDM in different countries. Bhutan, as
an emerging economy, provides a context of research on PDM and leaders‟
participative behaviour, owing to its growing corporate sector for economic
development.
In connection to the importance accorded to the corporate sector in Bhutan, the
younger generation of corporate leaders aspire to take on key leadership positions.
Contrary to the older bureaucrats who initially headed organisations in the emerging
corporate sector, the younger leaders have worked in a corporate culture that supports
collective practice and team work amongst employees in order to improve
organisational effectiveness. The younger leaders are viewed as more proactive, open-
minded and participative in their behaviour. However, there is limited evidence to
support that younger organisational leaders exhibit more participative behaviour
(Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2004). Consequently, the current
research examines age as an antecedent of organisational leaders‟ participative
behaviour.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 49
Besides age, leaders‟ belief in a level of power distance in relation to subordinates
could also influence leaders‟ participative behaviour. The leaders‟ belief in high
power distance is consistently seen as an impediment to leaders‟ participative
behaviour (De Cremer, 2007; Pasa, 2000). Power distance is more pronounced in
developing nations with a hierarchical social structure (Abugre, 2012). The author
argues that PDM is possible only if subordinates have unimpeded access to their
leaders. Further, his work confirmed that high power distance leaders with a top-down
approach of managing organisations rarely exhibit participative behaviour for the
benefit of the subordinates. The context of a newly established democracy with
economic reforms emphasising the growth of corporate sector in Bhutan provides a
relevant research opportunity to investigate the influence of power distance on PDM.
Past studies applying PPDM model in emerging economies indicate willingness
amongst leaders to engage in participative behaviour (Coffey & Langford, 1998;
Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012: Parnell,
Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003). The premise of the PPDM model (Parnell &
Crandall, 2001), asserts a synergistic relationship amongst the four principal subscales
contributing to PDM success. Firstly, organisational culture in which PDM is a part of
an organisation‟s modus operandi, secondly organisational leaders‟ long-term
commitment to PDM; thirdly, organisational leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of
organisational effectiveness through participation, and lastly, organisational leaders‟
willingness to share decisional power with subordinates, are all proposed to contribute
to the PDM success.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 50
The PPDM model proposes that leaders with a propensity for participation in decision
making will engage in participative decision making. However, available literature on
the PPDM model applied in different contexts and countries has not examined
whether leaders‟ PPDM necessarily results in specific participative behaviours
(Coffey & Langford, 1998; Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell,
Koseoglu & Dent, 2012: Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003). Thus, the present
research studies will examine the relationship of PPDM with verbal participative
behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.
The effective implementation of PDM also relies on the leaders‟ participative
behavioural assessment. Self-assessment assists leaders to reflect and improve their
participative behaviour (Keyton, Caputo, Ford, Fu, Leibowitz, Liu & Wu, 2013).
Leaders‟ self-assessment is balanced and informed by the assessment of immediate
subordinates (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). This research study will advance our
understanding of the degree of difference or congruence between leaders‟ self-
assessment and assessment by subordinates of leaders‟ participative behaviour.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 51
Age of Leaders
Power Distance
PPDM
Organisational Culture
Organisational Effectiveness
Power Sharing
Commitment
Verbal & Consultative
Participative Behaviour
Leader‟s Self-
assessment
H1
H2
H3
Subordinates‟
Assessment
H4
Independent Variables Dependent Variables
Description of the Conceptual Model
Figure 2.2 outlines the conceptual model being investigated by this research study.
Figure 2.2: Conceptual Model
Independent Variables
Leaders’ Age: The chronological age of leaders.
Power Distance (PD): Leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance (Javidan,
Dorfman & House, 2006). Power distance indicates leaders‟ belief in power equality
(low PD) or power inequality (high PD) in the organisation.
Propensity for Participative Decision Making (PPDM): Leaders‟ PPDM refers to the
leaders‟ willingness to participate in decision making practices in the organisations
(Parnell & Bell, 1994). PPDM is measured with four subscales: organisational culture,
organisational effectiveness, power sharing and commitment.
Chapter 2: Literature Review 52
Dependent Variables
Leaders’ Participative Behaviour: Refers to leaders‟ participative behaviour in
organisational decision making. The leaders‟ participative behaviour is
operationalised in terms of verbal participative behaviour and consultative
participative behaviour:
Verbal Participative Behaviour: Verbal participative behaviour of leaders is
described as the leaders‟ involvement of subordinates at an individual level in
decision making practices through a verbal communication process.
Consultative Participative Behaviour: Is described as leaders‟ participative
behaviour with subordinates, in groups, encouraging subordinates to express
ideas and suggestions. Leaders ensure adequate opportunity for all group
members to express views in a consultative process.
Hypotheses
Hypotheses are stated to investigate the relationship between the variables as
illustrated in the conceptual model. A hypothesis is a declarative sentence that
predicts the results of a research based on existing knowledge, stated assumptions,
and responds to research objectives (Lipowski, 2008). Accordingly, four research
hypotheses are put forward:
Chapter 2: Literature Review 53
H1: Younger leaders will engage in a higher level of verbal and consultative
participative behaviour than older leaders.
H2: Leaders with a higher level of PPDM will engage in more verbal and
consultative participative behaviour.
H3: Leaders who believe in a high level of power distance will exhibit a lower
level of verbal and consultative participative behaviour.
H4: A leader‟s self-assessment of verbal and consultative participative
behaviour will differ from the assessment of his/her immediate subordinates.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 54
Chapter 3: Research Methodology
3.1 Introduction
The current chapter presents the research methodology used in conducting this
research. The research aims to investigate the relationship of three key independent
variables: leaders‟ age, leaders‟ propensity for participative in decision making, and
leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance with leaders‟ engagement in participative
behaviour in decision making. To achieve the research aim, a quantitative research
design was employed to test the hypothesised relationships between variables
presented in the conceptual model in the previous chapter. Quantitative method
includes the use of self-administered survey questionnaires for data collection (Veal,
2005) which was considered appropriate for this research. The following sections
outline in more detail the quantitative approach taken in this research. Other sections
of the chapter include justifications of sampling design, data collection methods and
measurement instruments used in this research.
3.2 Survey Method
A survey method was used to collect primary data using questionnaires with reliable
measures from the previous studies. Data was used to determine the relationship
between the variables (Roberts, 2012). Quantitative data collected through a survey
can be counted or analysed (Hoe & Hoare, 2012). Consequently, the quantitative data
in the present research was analysed using parametric statistics such as Pearson
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 55
correlation, multiple regression, and independent samples t-test in order to test the
relationship between the variables.
A cross-sectional survey was used, as it facilitated data collection from a group of
participants pertaining to phenomena such as behaviour at a single point of time (Hoe
& Hoare, 2012; Roberts, 2012). The use of survey method is cost effective, quick and
convenient for both researcher and participants when primary data collection involves
a large sample (Roberts, 2012; Zikmund, 2007). The use of self-administered survey
questionnaires involving minimal interaction between the researcher and the research
participants was suitable as participants responded at their free will independent of the
researcher (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Zikmund, 2007). Therefore, survey
research was reliant on the participants‟ willingness to participate in the research. Due
importance was given to time and convenience to encourage participation (Roberts,
2012). These are the justifications behind the use of cross-sectional survey method in
this research, as the Bhutanese corporate participants were spread far across different
regions and the sample was quite large.
3.3 Sampling
Prior to the discussion on sampling, it is important to ascertain the target population in
the research process. It is helpful in defining appropriate sources from where the data
can be collected (Zikmund, 2007). The target population for the research included all
the corporate sector employees in Bhutan.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 56
For valid representation of the corporate sector, stratified sampling was adopted in the
selection of eleven organisations. Stratified sampling is a process of dividing the
population into homogeneous subgroups. Accordingly, the corporate sector was
stratified into banking, manufacturing, hydropower, telecommunication, media,
service, and civil aviation sectors. The list of organisations was generated from two
reliable sources, i.e., Royal Security Exchange of Bhutan Ltd. (RSEBL) and Druk
Holding and Investment Ltd. (DHI). DHI is a holding company of the economically
important companies. Further, the reason for the selection of eleven organisations was
based on their strategic roles in the Bhutanese economy. These organisations have
larger investments and more qualified employees with a well-defined organisational
structure. The divisional units and departments are headed by senior managers with a
group of immediate subordinates. Such structural arrangements were expected to
facilitate superior–subordinates interaction and engagement in frequent decision
making.
In the next phase, non-probability convenience sampling was adopted for the selection
of organisational leaders who were available at the time of the survey period and who
could commit to participate. The number of immediate subordinates differed amongst
departments and organisations ranging from four to fifteen. Therefore, a simple
random sampling technique was adopted while selecting immediate subordinates.
Using Microsoft Excel functions, a list of random numbers were generated, which
were arranged in ascending order. Following the list of ascending numerical values,
the first 90% of the participants corresponding to the numbers were selected for the
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 57
survey. Finally, filled-in survey questionnaires from 72 organisational leaders and 362
subordinates were used for the research.
3.4 Participants
The participants in this research were the middle and the senior level managers and
their immediate subordinates in the corporate sector. Considering the different nature
of decisional problems, the top corporate executives were excluded for two reasons.
Firstly, given the nature of their job, they were often not available for participation in
the research; secondly, they were mostly involved in the long-term strategic decisions
that are less frequent when compared to senior and middle level managerial decision
making. Involvement of organisational members in the assessment of PDM practices
who lack adequate PDM experiences often lead to erroneous assessment (Smith &
Brannick, 1990). Therefore, an important criterion for the selection of both leaders
and subordinates was a minimum of six months of tenure in their current position.
The criterion of six months of employees‟ experience in the organisations was applied
to ensure that all participants have had fairly good experience of PDM in their
respective organisations. Previous studies (eg. Hodson, 1996; Rad &
Yarmohammadian, 2006) have also included an appropriate length of six months in
related organisational studies.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 58
Demographic Variables
The demographic variables of the sample are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.
Table 3.1: Demographic Variables (Leaders)
Number Percentage
Gender Males 60 83
Females 12 17
Age Below 25 0 0
26-35 23 32
36-45 32 45
46-55 16 22
Above 56 01 01
Level of Education
Higher Secondary School 0 0
Diploma 08 11
Bachelor‟s Degree 35 49
Master‟s Degree 28 39
PhD 01 01
The leaders‟ category in Table 3.1 shows more male participants than females. The
leaders‟ educational qualification was dominantly a Bachelor‟s Degree, followed by
Master‟s Degree, Diploma and only one leader with a PhD qualification. An average
number of years in the leadership position held by the leaders was approximately 10
years (M=9.71, SD=5.52).
As per the Labour Force Survey Report, 2013 conducted by the Department of Labour
(2015), Ministry of Labour and Human Resources, Bhutan, there were 16521
employees in the Bhutanese corporate sector. There were 12100 (73.24%) males and
4421(26.76%) females. Considering their educational qualification, only 2.5%
account for Master‟s Degree and PhD, 10.56 % with Bachelor‟s Degree, 0.66% with
diploma and equivalent courses, 17.41% with Higher Secondary School while the rest
hold a qualification below Middle Secondary school.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 59
Therefore, in reference to these demographic variables of the Bhutanese corporate
sector, the sample for the current research is a reasonable representation of the
population.
Table 3.2: Demographic Variables (Subordinates)
Frequency (%)
Gender Males 219 60
Females 143 40
Age Below 25 46 12
26-35 210 58
36-45 68 19
46-55 32 09
Above 56 06 02
Level of Education
Higher Secondary School 102 28
Diploma 52 14
Bachelor‟s Degree 177 50
Master‟s Degree 31 08
PhD 0 0
In the Table 3.2 subordinates category, males outnumbered the females. The highest
percentage of the subordinates was with the educational qualification of a Bachelor‟s
Degree, followed by Higher Secondary School, Master‟s Degree and none with PhD.
They had spent approximately 9 years as an average number of years in their current
position (M=7.89, SD=2.23).
3.5 Data Collection
Prior to visiting the target organisations for survey, formal letters were sent to the
Chief Executive Officers (CEO) seeking approval for the survey as per approved
procedure of the QUT‟s Human Research Ethics Committee with the ethics approval
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 60
number: 1400000155. Setting the ground for the survey included identifying the
leaders and their immediate subordinates. This was done in consultation with the
Human Resource personnel or Administrative Officers to whom the CEOs had
delegated the task of assisting the researcher. The leaders who were available in their
respective organisations at the time of survey were included for participation in
survey. As participation by subordinates was contingent upon the participation of their
immediate leaders, subordinates whose immediate leaders were not the participants
were excluded from the survey. It was as per the research design to elicit data from
leaders and their immediate subordinates only. After the name list was finalised with
leaders and immediate subordinates, every questionnaire was coded with a two digit
number for leaders and four digit number for subordinates to identify participants,
which was kept confidential only to the researcher. For instance, 01 was for a leader
and 0101, 0102, 0103 and 0104 were the codes assigned to four immediate
subordinates for the first leader. The questionnaire was then enclosed in an envelope
bearing the same identifier code written in the inner cover of the envelope to facilitate
distribution of questionnaires by the researcher to the right participant. Upon
respondents‟ completion of filling in the questionnaires, they securely enclosed the
questionnaires in envelops and returned them to the researcher. In most cases, the
enclosed questionnaires were dropped at the reception of the organisation by the
participants and collected by the researcher later.
Response Rate
In the eleven selected organisations, 85 organisational leaders were approached to
participate in the survey and 73 returned the filled-in questionnaires. In the data
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 61
cleaning process, data in one questionnaire was found to have been incorrectly
entered and was excluded from the analysis. The response rate for the organisational
leaders was 84.71%. Of the total number of 536 questionnaires distributed to the
subordinates, 368 were returned. Four questionnaires had to be excluded from the
analysis due to incorrect data entry by their leaders and accordingly, the repose rate of
the subordinates was 67.54%. Considering the size of corporate organisations in
Bhutan, the aggregate response rate is fairly high and a good representative sample of
the corporate employees.
3.6 Instruments
Two sets of questionnaires for leaders and subordinates were administered separately.
This research used the questionnaires tested and applied by previous researchers that
were found highly reliable (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades & Drasgow, 2000; Mohr &
Wolfram, 2008; Parnell & Crandall, 2001; Yoo, Donthu & Lenartowicz, 2011).
Leaders
The questionnaire for the leaders was structured into four parts (see Appendix A for
full leaders‟ questionnaire): Part A was the profile of participants requiring details of
age, gender, educational qualification, and number of years in the leadership position;
Part B, on propensity for participative decision making (PPDM); Part C, on leaders‟
belief in the level of power distance; Part D (i), on self-assessment on leaders‟ verbal
participative behaviour and Part D (ii) self-assessment on leaders‟ consultative
participative behaviour. The details of the number of items and response scales are
provided below.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 62
Measurement of Leaders’ PPDM (Part-B)
The survey instrument of Parnell and Crandall (2001) was used. This was originally
tested with 220 lower and middle levels managers of the two Fortune 500 companies
in the USA. Their Coefficient alpha was calculated at .92 indicative of high reliability.
The four-subscales (leaders‟ proclivity to share power with subordinates, leaders‟
commitment towards PDM implementation, leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of
organisational effectiveness through PDM and organisational culture of PDM
implementation) comprising 18 items, was administered in this research to explore the
organisational leaders‟ PPDM. Examples of the measuring items were: “Participative
decision making gives too much power to the subordinates”, “Participative decision
making is an effective communication tool”, “My boss frequently solicits my
participation in his or her decision” and “Participation works in some cases, but most
of the time the manager should make the decision based on his or her expertise and
information”. The original 6-point Likert scale was used, where every item was
measured from a strong disagreement to a strong agreement: 1 (strongly disagree) to 6
(strongly agree).
Instrument for the Measurement of Power Distance (Part-C)
For the measurement of leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance, the instrument
tested by Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowicz (2011) was used in the present research with
original measurement scale. Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowicz (2011) developed a scale
to assess Hofstede‟s (1984b, 2001) cultural dimensions at the individual level which
are referred to as Individual Cultural Values Scale (CVSCALE). Originally, the
power distance questions were administered to 196 participants in the US on a 5-point
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 63
Likert scale anchored as 1=“strongly disagree‟ to 5=“strongly agree”. Examples of
measuring items include: “People in higher positions should make decisions without
consulting the people in lower positions” and “People in lower positions should not
disagree with decisions made by the people in higher positions”. When Yoo, Donthu
and Lenartowicz (2011) applied the instrument in a comparative study between two
samples of American adults and Korean adults, the Cronbach alpha value was .91
(M=2.10, SD=0.93) and .79 (M=2.00, SD=0.58) respectively. It indicates that the
instrument is reliable and can be applied in different cultural context.
Measurement of Leaders’ Verbal Participative Behaviour [Part D (i)]
A six-item instrument used to measure the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour was
tested by Mohr and Wolfram (2008) with a reliability of 0.81 (M=3.94, SD=0.61).
The items were measured on a five-point rating scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). The six-item measuring instrument was reworded to facilitate self-
assessment of verbal participative behaviour by leaders and the items were: “I ask for
the views of my subordinates”, “I encourage subordinates to speak up about matters
that are important to them”, “I precisely note subordinate‟s contribution”, “I give
opportunities for the subordinates to ask questions”, “I constructively criticise
subordinates” and “I willingly explain when subordinates ask”.
Kitchenham and Pfleeger (2002) suggest that rewording of items in questionnaires is
important but often risks changing the meaning of the item. In the current research
study, rewording of items were carried out to suit to the perspectives of either leaders
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 64
or subordinates. The reworded items were read and compared with the original items
to ensure that meanings were not changed.
Instrument for the Measurement of Leaders’ Consultative Participative
Behaviour [Part D (ii)]
For the self-assessment of the leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour, a six-item
five-point scale instrument developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000)
was used in the present study. The scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly
agree. Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000) found the instrument reliable with
a Cronbach alpha value of 0.86 (M=3.75, SD=0.75). The measuring items were: “I
encourage work group members to express ideas/suggestions”, “I listen to the work
group‟s ideas and suggestions”, “I use work group‟s suggestions to make decisions
that affect us”, “I give all work group members a chance to voice their opinions”, “I
consider the work group‟s ideas when I disagree with some subordinates” and “I
make decisions that are made based on my own ideas”.
Subordinates
The questionnaire for the subordinates was structured into three parts (see Appendix
B for full subordinates‟ questionnaire): Part A was the profile of participants requiring
details of age, gender, educational qualification, and number of years in their current
position. Part B pertained to the assessment of leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour
and Part C on the assessment of leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour. The
number of items and response scale remained same as for the leaders.
Chapter 3: Research Methodology 65
Subordinates’ Measurement Instrument of Leaders’ Verbal Participative
Behaviour
Leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour was measured by a six-item instrument
developed by Mohr and Wolfram (2008). It was the same instrument used for the
leaders but reworded to enable the subordinates to assess their leaders‟ verbal
participative behaviour from their perspective. The items were: “My boss asks for the
views of his/her subordinates”, “My boss encourages me to speak up about matters
that are important to me”, “My boss precisely notes my contribution”, “My boss gives
me opportunities to ask questions “, “My boss constructively criticises me” and “My
boss willingly explains when I ask”.
Subordinates’ Measurement Instrument of Leaders’ Consultative Participative
Behaviour
For the measurement of leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour, the six-item
five-point scale instrument developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000)
was used. The same instrument used for the leaders was reworded for the
subordinates. The measuring items were: “My boss encourages work group members
to express ideas/suggestions”, “My boss listens to work group‟s ideas and
suggestions”, “My boss uses work group‟s suggestions to make decisions that affect
us”, “My boss gives all work group members a chance to voice our opinions”, “My
boss considers work group‟s ideas when he/she disagrees with some of us” and “My
boss makes decisions that are based only on his/her own ideas”.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 66
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results
4.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to present data analysis and results. The chapter
commences with a discussion on the preparation of data which includes testing the
underlying assumptions for Pearson product-moment correlation, multiple linear
regression, and independent samples t-tests. SPSS version 21 was used for the
statistical analysis. The chapter also highlights the reliability of the instruments used
in a different context and justifies adaptations with statistical evidences and reasoning.
The discussion of the results is presented in the following chapter.
4.2 Assumptions and Parametric Tests
The data for the multiple linear regression analysis requires the fulfilment of certain
assumptions such as random and independent selected sample, normally distributed
data, residual analysis and homoscedasticity of the data (Cohen, 2003; Osborne &
Waters, 2002). Since normality assumption is indispensable in many parametric
statistical methods (Noughabi & Arghami, 2013), the normality of the data was tested
by calculating the z-scores of skewness and kurtosis statistics. The z-scores within ±
1.96 confirmed the normality of the dataset. The normality of the data was further
confirmed with visual inspection of Q-Q plots, histograms and box-plots. The
decision of the normality of data is also guided by the sample size. If the sample size
is small (n<100) in a correlational study, the z-scores for Skewness and Kurtosis
within the range of ± 1.96 is accepted as normally distributed. Further, the central
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 67
limit theorem also accepts the assumption of normality of a dataset if a sample size is
at least 30. The given dataset with 72 organisational leaders and 364 subordinates
fulfilled the condition of normality. For the homoscedasticity (homogeneity of
variance), a test was conducted using One Way ANOVA and the Levene‟s statistics.
The test showed that variances were not significant from each other fulfilling the
criteria of homoscedasticity for parametric tests (Kuye & Sulaiman, 2011).
4.3 Adaptation of Scale
The six-item organisational culture subscale of PPDM had a Cronbach‟s alpha of .62
and the table of total–item statistics indicated that with the deletion of the fourth item,
„I am free to make decisions as I wish in my organisation‟, the overall reliability of
the subscale marginally improved to the extent of .64 as shown in Table 4.1. Based on
the statistical evidence, the items were revisited. The fourth item warranted deletion
because it purported to elicit views from the leaders as an individual discerning the
principle of participative decision making as compared to other items in the subscale.
Accordingly, the fourth item was deleted. The three-item power sharing subscale had
Cronbach‟s alpha of .570 but deletion of any of the remaining items indicated no
substantial improvement. The items were revisited and found coherent to one another.
With these adaptations, the original scale was retained and alpha derived was
considered appropriate for the study as in the case of a similar study conducted by
Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin and Langford (2003). One subscale of the PPDM i.e.,
„organisational commitment‟ had a poor reliability ( =.371) and how this was
addressed is discussed in the next section under 4.4 Factor Analysis.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 68
Table 4.1: Cronbach’s Alphas and Factor Loadings of the PPDM Subscales
Items Alpha
Factor
Loadings
PPDM: Organisational Culture (n=72) .641
Organisational Culture1
.472
Organisational Culture2 .485
Organisational Culture3 .804
Organisational Culture5 .874
Organisational Culture6 .375
PPDM: Organisational Effectiveness (n=72) .869
Organisational Effectiveness on Decision Quality1
.660
Organisational Effectiveness on Decision Quality2 .896
Organisational Effectiveness on Productivity .876
Organisational Effectiveness on Subordinate Self-efficacy .776
Organisational Effectiveness on Communication .885
Organisational Effectiveness on Positive Relationship .793
PPDM: Power Sharing (n=72) .570
Power: Degree of Mutual Trust
.736
Power: Transfer of Power .708
Power: Information Dissemination .547 n=number of respondents
Table 4.1 presents Cronbach‟s alpha values and the factor loadings of the three
subscales of PPDM from the modified analyses. Cronbach‟s alpha value of .6 or .7 is
the desired threshold of reliability test (Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003).
However, Cronbach‟s alpha value of .5 is accepted when the instruments are
administered to cross-cultural audiences (Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003;
Peng, Lu, Shenkar & Wang, 2001). Thus, the Cronbach‟s alpha value of power
sharing that was slightly lower than .6 (as shown in Table 4.1) still fulfills the
reliability condition.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 69
In addition to the PPDM subscales, an individual leader‟s belief in the level of power
distance and the two dependent variables were tested for reliability as shown in Table
4.2. Power distance with the Cronbach‟s alpha .681 was retained as the items read
consistently and the test did not indicate the necessity of any further action.
Pertaining to the dependent variable, verbal participative behaviour, the test indicated
that the deletion of the fifth item would improve the reliability of the subscale from
.858 to .912. The items were revisited and the fifth item, „I constructively criticise
subordinates‟ did not read consistently with the other five items of the verbal
participative behaviour. In a similar vein, the test indicated that the deletion of the
sixth item in consultative participative behaviour variable would improve the alpha
value. The item, „I make decisions that are based only on my own ideas‟, did not bear
compatibility with the remaining five items because all other items relate to
involvement of subordinates in group for participative decision making.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 70
Table 4.2: Cronbach’s Alphas and Factor Loadings of Power Distance and
Dependent Variables
Items Alpha Factor
Loadings
Power Distance (n=72) .681
Individual Belief in Power Distance1 .885
Individual Belief in Power Distance2 .686
Individual Belief in Power Distance3 .660
Individual Belief in Power Distance4 .404
Individual Belief in Power Distance5 .557
Verbal Participative Behaviour (n=72) .912
Verbal Participative Behaviour1 .846
Verbal Participative Behaviour2 .875
Verbal Participative Behaviour3 .889
Verbal Participative Behaviour4 .881
Verbal Participative Behaviour6 .809
Consultative Participative (n=72) .907
Consultative Participative Behaviour 1 .870
Consultative Participative Behaviour 2 .884
Consultative Participative Behaviour 3 .860
Consultative Participative Behaviour 4 .891
Consultative Participative Behaviour 5 .763
n=number of respondents
4.4 Factor Analysis
The four subscales of PPDM (organisational commitment, organisational culture,
organisational effectiveness and power sharing) were factor analysed with principal
component extraction method in order to examine the properties of the scales. The
results from the factor analysis in conjunction with the Cronbach alpha analysis were
considered in order to make final decisions on scale adaptation. The eighteen-item
subscales were forced onto a four-factor solution with Oblimin Kaiser Normalisation
rotations in order to examine the factor loadings of all items. All the items of the
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 71
organisational effectiveness and power sharing loaded separately from each other onto
their respective factors with loadings from .547 to .896. The organisational
commitment items Com1 and Com2 loaded onto the organisational effectiveness
factor while the third item Com3 loaded onto the fourth power sharing factor.
Therefore, organisational commitment in totality was removed due to poor reliability
and factor cross-loadings. The other three subscales of the PPDM (i.e., organisational
culture, organisational effectiveness and power sharing) accounted for 59.31% of the
total variance explained.
The factor solutions of the two dependent variables loaded well with the exception of
two items. Firstly, the fifth item of verbal participative behaviour had a weak factor
loading of .096 and cross-loaded onto the power distance factor with .297. The item
was also found inconsistent with other items, affecting the reliability, and was deleted
from further analysis. Secondly, the sixth item in consultative participative behaviour
cross-loaded onto other factors and when forced onto a single un-rotated factor
solution, the item weakly loaded with .268. The alpha value of consultative
participative behaviour also improved upon the removal of the item (as was discussed
above) and accordingly it was discarded.
In summary, the research study by Parnell, Shwiff Yalin and Langford (2003)
indicates that factor loading of .302 with no significant cross-loadings is acceptable to
proceed for further statistical analysis. The adapted PPDM subscales in the current
research surpassed the minimum acceptable factor loading and alpha values.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 72
Table 4.3 presents a summary of the bivariate correlations amongst the variables with
means and standard deviations. However, it is worth focusing on the correlation of
independent variables with the dependent variables. Firstly, power distance was
negatively correlated with verbal participative behaviour and consultative
participative behaviour. Secondly, PPDM significantly correlated with verbal
participative behaviour and not with consultative participative behaviour. PPDM was
also significantly correlated with all three subscales of organisational culture,
organisational effectiveness, and power sharing. These relationships will be
investigated further in the following hypotheses testing section.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 73
Table 4.3: Bivariate Correlational Table
Variables Mean SD Org.
Culture
Org.
Effect.
Power
Sharing
Power
Distance
Verbal
Behaviour
Consultative
Behaviour
PPDM
Organisational
Culture 4.12 .76 1.00
Organisational
Effectiveness 4.70 .96 .36** 1.00
Power Sharing 3.15 .94 .09 .02 1.00
Power Distance 2.02 .70 .17 -.03 .33** 1.00
Verbal Behaviour 5.29 .63 .27* .31** .09 -.26* 1.00
Consultative
Behaviour 4.36 .47 .12 .14 .06 -.21 .67**
1.00
PPDM 3.90 .59 .68** .72** .59** .23 .34** .16 1.00
Leaders‟ Age 2.93 .78 .17 -.09 -.06 .05 -.07 -.06 -.01
**. Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at p< 0.05 level (2-tailed)
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 74
4.5 Hypotheses Testing
Hypotheses were tested with multiple regression analysis, independent samples t-test
and Pearson correlation.
4.5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis
Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictability of the
independent variables of leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance in the variance of
the dependent variables i.e., verbal participative behaviour and consultative
participative behaviour. The regression analyses were sequenced in the following
order:
Leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with the leaders‟ self-assessed
verbal participative behaviour.
Leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with the leaders‟ self-assessed
consultative participative behaviour.
PPDM subscales with leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal participative
behaviour.
PPDM subscales with leaders‟ self-assessment of consultative participative
behaviour.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 75
Table 4.4: Leaders’ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders’ Verbal
Participative Behaviour
a) Model Summary
Model R R2 Adjusted R
2
Std. Error of the
Estimate
.489a .240 .206 .557
a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance
b. Dependent Variable: Verbal Participative Behaviour
b) ANOVA
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 6.649 3 2.216 1.140 .000b
Residual 21.108 68 .310
Total 27.758 71 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance
c) Coefficients
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Model B Std.
Error
Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 4.247 .528 8.050 .000
Age of Leaders - .037 .085 -.046 -.432 .667
PPDM .451 .116 .422 3.878 .000
Power Distance -.318 .097 -.357 -3.278 .002
a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour
b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 76
Table 4.5: Leaders’ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders’
Consultative Participative Behaviour
a) Model Summary
Model R R2 Adjusted R
2
Std. Error of the
Estimate
. 303a .092 .052 .458
a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance
b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour.
b) ANOVA
a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Behaviour.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance
c) Coefficients
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Model
B
Std. Error
Beta
T
Sig.
(Constant)
4.098
.434
9.432
.000
Age of Leaders -.029 .070 -.047 -.406 .686
PPDM .175 .096 .217 1.824 .073
Power Distance -.175 .080 -.259 -2.176 .033 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour.
These statistical results in reference to Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 are used to test the
hypotheses of the study.
Hypothesis 1
H1: Younger leaders will engage in higher level of verbal and consultative
participative behaviours than older leaders.
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 1.444 3 .481 2.287 .086b
Residual 14.311 68 .210
Total 15.755 71
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 77
In the first hypothesis, leaders‟ age was used to predict the variability in verbal
participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. The result indicated
that age did not significantly predict the variability in the leaders‟ participative
behaviour. Therefore, the finding did not support hypothesis 1.
Hypothesis 2
H2: Leaders with a higher level of PPDM will engage in more verbal and
consultative participative behaviours.
PPDM was found to be a significant predictor of verbal participative behaviour
indicating a positive relationship, but PPDM was not a significant predictor of
consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was
partially supported and the null hypothesis was rejected.
Hypothesis 3
H3: Leaders who believe in high level of power distance will exhibit lower
level of verbal and consultative participative behaviours.
Power distance was a negative and significant predictor of verbal participative
behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was
supported.
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 78
Table 4.6: PPDM Subscales with Leaders’ Self-assessment of Verbal
Participative Behaviour
a) Model Summary
Model R R2 Adjusted R
2
Std. Error of the
Estimate
. 362a .131 .093 .596
a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing
b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.
b) ANOVA
a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing
c) Coefficients
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant) 3.786 .494 7.656 .001
Org. Culture .149 .101 .180 1.478 .144
Org. Effectiveness .156 .079 .241 1.985 .051
Power Sharing .051 .076 .076 .673 .503 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.
Further the regression analysis was conducted at PPDM subscales level to investigate
the predictability of each subscale in the variability of verbal participative behaviour.
Of the three subscales, only organisational effectiveness was found to significantly
and positively predict the variability in the verbal participative behaviour.
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 3.633 3 1.211 3.413 .022b
Residual 24.125 68 .355
Total 27.758 71
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 79
Table 4.7: PPDM Subscales with Leaders’ Self-assessment of Consultative
Participative Behaviour
a) Model Summary
Model R R2 Adjusted R
2
Std. Error of the
Estimate
. 163a .026 -.017 .475
a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing
b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour
b) ANOVA
a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour
b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing
c) Coefficients
Unstandardised
Coefficients
Standardised
Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
(Constant)
3.839
.394
9.739
.000
Org. Culture .047 .080 .075 .586 .560
Org. Effectiveness .052 .063 .107 .834 .407
Power Sharing .025 .060 .050 .415 .679 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour
In the regression analysis on PPDM subscales in relation to consultative participative
behaviour, none of the PPDM subscales accounted for the variability in consultative
participative behaviour.
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression .416 3 .139 .615 .608b
Residual 15.339 68 .226
Total 15.755 71
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 80
Difference between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment
H4: Leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal and consultative participative
behaviours differ from the assessment of his/her immediate
subordinates.
To test hypothesis 4, leaders‟ self-assessment of participative behaviour and
assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour by subordinates are compared.
Bivariate correlations and independent samples t-test were applied for comparison.
Table 4.8: Bivariate Correlations between the Leaders’ and Subordinates’
Assessments
To examine the overall correlation between the assessment of the leaders and the
subordinates on the two dependent variables, bivariate Pearson correlational analysis
was conducted. An individual leader‟s self-assessment of verbal participative
behaviour and consultative participative behaviour were correlated with the average
values of immediate subordinates‟ assessment. A total of 72 leaders were correlated
with 72 groups of subordinates. The results were not significant as shown in Table
4.8. On the other hand, the leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal participative behaviour
Variables Mean SD (SV) (SC) (LV) (LC)
Subordinate‟s Assessment of Verbal
Participative Behaviour (SV) 4.36 1.26 1.00
Subordinate‟s Assessment of Consultative
Participative Behaviour (SC) 3.66 0.92 .82**
1.00
Leaders‟ Self-Assessment of Verbal
Participative Behaviour (LV) 5.29 .63 -.07 -.02 1.00
Leaders‟ Self-Assessment of Consultative
Participative Behaviour (LC) 4.36 .47 -.15 -.21 .70** 1.00 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 81
with consultative participative behaviour were significantly and positively correlated.
Similarly, the correlation between the subordinates‟ assessment of leaders‟ verbal
participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour was significant.
Further, to examine the difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟
assessment based on the two dependent variables i.e., verbal and consultative
participative behaviours, independent samples t-test was conducted. The leaders‟
(M=5.29, SD=.63) self-assessment and the assessment by immediate subordinates
(M=4.41, SD=1.20) on verbal participative behaviour indicated a significant
difference, t (193.73) = 9.16, p=.000), two tailed. Again when the leaders (M=4.36,
SD=.47) self-assessment and the assessment by immediate subordinates (M=3.69,
SD=.92) on consultative participative behaviour was examined, the result of
independent sample t-test indicated significant difference, t (197.05) = 9.04, p=.000),
two tailed. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported.
4.6 Gender and the Participative Behaviour
Since both males and females participated in the research from the both groups of
leaders and subordinates, it was important to examine whether males and females
differ in their assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour. To examine differences
in the assessment of verbal participative behaviour and consultative behaviours based
on gender amongst the leaders, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The
preliminary assumption of normality was not violated as the Levene‟s test was non-
significant in the assessment of verbal participative behaviour by male leaders
Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 82
(M=5.33, SD=.63) and female leaders (M=5.13, SD=.57). Thus, equal variances are
assumed. The test showed no significant difference, t (16.84) = 1.05, p=16.84), two
tailed. Similarly, the difference between male leaders (M=4.37, SD=.48) and female
leaders (M=4.30, SD=.45) in relation to their assessment of consultative behaviour
was non-significant, t (16.45) = .49, p=16.45), two tailed. Although, the number of
female leaders is low when compared to male leaders, at an average, female leaders
did not differ in their assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour from the male
leaders. Consequently, no significant difference was found between the two samples.
The gender difference amongst the subordinates was also examined in relation to the
two dependent variables. The normality assumption was not violated as the Levene‟s
test was non-significant. Accordingly, equal variances are assumed. In the assessment
of verbal participative behaviour, male subordinates (M=4.39, SD=1.23) and female
subordinates (M=4.42, SD=1.16) did not show significant difference, t (316.43) =-.23,
p=.822), two tailed. In their assessment of the leaders‟ consultative participative
behaviour, male subordinates (M=3.67, SD=.94) and female subordinates (M=3.37,
SD=.89) did not show significant difference t (316.67) = -.67, p=.504), two tailed.
Therefore, it was concluded that males and females did not differ in their assessment
of the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.
Similarly, independent samples t-test did not show significant difference between
males and females leaders in terms of their views on PPDM subscales: organisational
culture, organisational effectiveness and power sharing.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 83
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion
5.1 Introduction
The chapter discusses of the findings of this research study. In the first part of the
chapter, the discussion focuses on the major findings of the research relating to the
research objectives and hypotheses. The research investigated the relationship
between leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with leaders‟ participative behaviour.
In the second part, important theoretical contributions are discussed. This section
highlights the operationalisation of the PPDM model and measuring verbal
participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour as sub-dimensions of
the dependent variable: PDM. The third part of the chapter presents practical
implications in the context of an emerging economy, emphasising an approach to HR
development for the implementation of PDM. Finally the chapter closes with the
research limitations and directions for future research.
5.2 An Overview of the Findings
The overall research findings show that the independent variables: PPDM and leaders‟
belief in the level of power distance, accounted for more variance in verbal
participative behaviour than in consultative participative behaviour. The key findings
on the hypothesised relationships between the variables in this research are illustrated
in the Figure 5.1. The arrows with darker lines indicate significant relationships
between the variables and dotted lines indicate non significant relationship. The
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 84
nature of each relationship is indicated with mathematical notations of (+) for positive
relationship and (-) for negative relationship.
Figure 5.1 Relationship between the variables
The leaders‟ age did not impact either of the dependent variables i.e., verbal
participative behaviour or consultative participative behaviour. PPDM was found to
significantly influence leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour. However, when PPDM
was examined at the three subscale levels i.e., organisational culture, organisational
effectiveness and power sharing, organisational effectiveness was the most influential
in the variability of verbal participative behaviour. Pertaining to power distance, the
study found that leaders who believed in a higher level of power distance tend to
exhibit a lower level of both verbal participative behaviour and consultative
participative behaviour. The relationships between these variables are discussed under
section 5.3 and 5.4 in conjunction with the respective hypotheses.
Leaders‟ Age
PPDM
Power Distance
Verbal
Participative
Behaviour
Consultative
Participative
Behaviour
(+)
(-)
(-)
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 85
5.3 Major Findings
Verbal Participative Behaviour and Consultative Participative Behaviour
The first objective of the research study was to examine whether organisational
leaders engage in specific participative behaviour within the implementation of PDM
in corporate organisations in emerging economies. Interestingly, the research revealed
that leaders‟ PPDM and power distance significantly predicted verbal participative
behaviour than consultative participative behaviour. Plausible reasons are examined
supporting this finding below.
Firstly, employee behavioural patterns and practices in organisations draw influence
from macro-environmental factors such as societal culture (Stamper & Fitzsimmons,
2014). Informal two-way leader-subordinate verbal participation on work-related
matters (Wilkinson, Townsend, & Burgess, 2013) depicts an influence of societal
culture in the Bhutanese corporate context. Culturally, the Bhutanese maintain strong
social bonds at an individual level which could influence leaders having more
engagement in verbal participative behaviour. The Bhutanese are sensitive to the
feelings of others and censor contradictory issues in formal meetings. As a result,
employees feel more comfortable to discuss matters informally and verbally, rather
than in formal group meetings (Wilkinson, Townsend, & Burgess, 2013).
Consequently, when the organisational practice of verbal participation is dominant as
an important facet of PDM, leaders would tend to engage more in such behaviour.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 86
Secondly, the growing corporate sector in Bhutan is at a stage of implementing
corporate practices such as PDM. In making a transition from public to corporate, it
takes time to shed old bureaucratic habits and inculcate new corporate practices of
collective decision making. Until the corporate sector matures and PDM practices
become well established, the leaders may continue to engage more in verbal
participative behaviour than consultative participative bahaviour.
Thirdly, verbal participative behaviour can be seen in the context of a dyadic
interaction between a leader and a subordinate enabling leader to engage in one on
one conversation gaining a deeper understanding of individual subordinate‟s inputs to
inform decisions (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008; Yukl, 2002). Subordinates will feel that
leaders give due importance and consideration for their inputs. For example, when
leaders ask subordinates for their opinion, leaders are conveying their respect for their
subordinates‟ expertise (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008). Subordinates will, therefore, feel
motivated to accept and practice PDM in the organisations. Verbal participative
behaviour also promotes an understanding of leaders-subordinate collective effort
towards the achievement of common goals, and reinforces their relationship.
On the other hand, consultative participative behaviour requires leaders to engage
with a group of subordinates in a decision making process, for example, a formal
meeting at the work group level, departmental or organisational level (Wilkinson,
Townsend & Burgess, 2013). Formal consultative participative decision making
alienates leaders-subordinate connectivity at the individual level as leaders interact at
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 87
a group level. Generally, employees have a tendency to avoid formal PDM
arrangements such as in groups (Townsend, Wilkinson & Burges, 2013). Bhutanese
leaders in corporate sector might find it difficult and in contradiction to their cultural
ways to engage in consultative participative behaviour: a formal form of PDM
arrangement.
The small size of organisations in Bhutan also means that leaders will have few
formal reports and be more inclined to use informal forms of communications at an
individual level. Consequently, within the relationship between the leaders and the
subordinates, participative decision making, takes place more at an individual and
informal level. Consultative participative behaviour in groups was not a feature of
these organisational leaders‟ participative behaviour. Therefore, in the context of the
Bhutanese corporate sector, small size of the organisations is likely to have
contributed to the use of more informal forms of communication.
Propensity to Participate in Decision Making (PPDM)
Hypothesis 2 proposed that leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative decision
making will result in leaders being more involved in participative behaviour. The
findings revealed a partial support for this hypothesis with PPDM significantly and
positively relating to verbal participative behaviour but not with consultative
participative behaviour.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 88
The relationship between the variables measured at the subscale level is illustrated
below in Figure 5.2 based on a multiple regression analysis.
Figure 5.2 Relationships between PPDM subscales and participative behaviour
The arrows with dotted lines indicate no significant relationship; the arrow with a
darker line indicates a significant and positive relationship shown with the (+)
notation between the variables. Amongst the three PPDM subscales, only
organisational effectiveness was found to strongly predict leaders‟ engagement in
verbal participative behaviour. Interestingly none of the subscales predicted
consultative participative behaviour. This finding does not support synergy amongst
the subscales in relation to participative behaviour. The proponents of the PPDM
model, Parnell and Crandall (2001), state that PPDM subscales would operate
synergistically but with some possible variations due to other organisational and
personal variables. The finding here deviates from the proposed synergistic view
showing that organisational culture and power sharing did not significantly predict
both verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.
Organisational
Culture
Organisational
Effectiveness
Power Sharing
Verbal
Participative
Behaviour
Consultative
Participative
Behaviour
(+)
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 89
Organisational effectiveness was measured in terms of quality decisions, resolution of
differences amongst members, feeling of self-worth and effective communication
(Parnell & Crandall, 2001). The significant relationship between organisational
effectiveness and verbal participative behaviour indicates that the leaders who
believed in improving organisational effectiveness through participative decision
making are more likely to engage in verbal participative behaviour.
The core beliefs underpinning leadership behaviour explain certain dominant
initiatives (Sweeney & Fry, 2012). Leaders who strongly believe in the enhancement
of organisational effectiveness will initiate appropriate internal organisational
functions to improve organisational effectiveness (Muo & Oghojafor, 2012).
This aligns with the Bhutanese corporate sector mandate of highly efficient and
productive organisations. Leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour involves timely
information sharing with the subordinates and discussing issues pertaining to specific
work operation. Subordinates are clear about their task and jobs leading to timely
completion of the job contributing to the organisational effectiveness.
The PPDM subscale of organisational culture showed a low positive relation with
verbal participative behaviour. Organisational culture in the current research context is
measured based on prevailing PDM practices in organisations for the achievement of
shared organisational goals. The subordinates are viewed as informed and
experienced, and willing to participate in the organisational decision making.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 90
However, the fact that organisational culture showed a low positive relation with
leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour could be attributed to the Bhutanese corporate
organisations undergoing a process of establishing participative structures and
practices.
Participative organisational culture is promoted through empowerment of
subordinates to participate in decision making with open and egalitarian ways of
interacting with various stakeholders (Spreitzer, 2007). Perhaps at this juncture of the
Bhutanese corporate sector development, participative organisational culture is at a
formative stage and the employees are acclimatising to PDM in practice. The low
positive relation correlation between organisational culture and verbal participative
behaviour indicate that organisational culture could support leaders‟ engagement in
participative behaviour in the organisations.
Power Sharing
The next PPDM subscale, leaders‟ willingness to share decisional power with
subordinates, was examined as a predictor of leaders‟ participative behaviour. Leaders
reported engagement in verbal participative behaviour, but they show a low level of
willingness to share decisional power with their subordinates. The power sharing
subscale accepts the notion that leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative
behaviour is linked to his/her belief that participation will lead to a loss of decisional
power (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Consequently, leaders would be involved in
low power sharing with subordinates.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 91
A probable reason for the low levels of leaders‟ belief in power sharing is that leaders
could be apprehensive to share information with subordinates because of the concern
that subordinates might use it for personal gains (Al-Yahya, 2008). Leaders‟
willingness to share information requires a trust in subordinates that they will use
information for the best interest of the collective decision. Therefore, the low level of
trust amongst Bhutanese corporate leaders in sharing confidential information with
their subordinates resulted in non significant relationship between power sharing and
verbal participative behaviour.
Power Distance
This research found that leaders‟ belief in a level of power distance was inversely
related to verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. This
finding support hypothesis 3 and is consistent with the findings of earlier studies (Al-
Yahya, 2009; Ghosh, 2011; Khatri, 2009; Koc, 2013; Humborstad, Humborstad,
Whitfield & Perry, 2008). Where there is a low level of power distance, leaders-
subordinate communication and participation in decision making is more frequent.
Bhutanese corporate leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative behaviour is driven
by their belief in maintaining a low level power distance. This confirms the recent
finding of Ugyel (2013) that despite Bhutan being historically a hierarchical society,
power distance is moderately low.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 92
Age
The level of participative behaviour of the younger corporate leaders did not
significantly differ from the older corporate leaders. This resulted in showing no
difference between the younger and the older leaders in their engagement in
participative behaviours. This finding challenges the initial assumption of the research
i.e., the younger leaders would be more involved in participative behaviour than the
older leaders.
Better education and aspirations to modernise may explain the non significance of age
(Sung, 2001) and development of a more of egalitarian culture (Ingersoll-Dayton &
Saengtienchai, 1999; Sung, 2001). Such a change in the socio-cultural environment is
likely to influence organisational practices. Bhutan is no exception, given the
increasing exposure of corporate leaders to international education and organisational
cultures and practices (Mathou, 1999). The Bhutanese corporate leaders in general
could be driven by the principles of participative leadership which resulted in no
significant difference between the younger and the older Bhutanese corporate leaders
in their participative behaviour. The finding supports a recent study conducted in
Bosnia where age does not predict a leaders‟ participative behaviour (Bogdanic,
2012). Therefore, the research finding did not support hypothesis 1 which relates age
with the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative
behavior.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 93
Difference between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment
The next area of investigation in this research study is whether the subordinates‟
assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour is different from that of the leaders‟
self-assessment. When the leaders‟ self-assessment was compared with the
subordinates‟ assessment, there was a significant difference between the two,
supporting hypothesis 4. This finding is consistent with the earlier study of Atwater,
Roush, and Fischthal (1995), that leaders rated themselves high on their participative
behaviour while their immediate subordinates rated them lower.
The theory of self-esteem could explain why leaders rate themselves higher (Cast &
Burke, 2002). The premise of the theory asserts that an individual evaluates
himself/herself with an overall positive impression because of the belief of being a
competent and worthy person (Cooper & Johnson, 2014). Self-esteem theory has two
dimensions: “The competence dimension (efficacy-based self-esteem) refers to the
degree to which people see themselves as capable and efficacious. The worth
dimension (worth-based self-esteem) refers to the degree to which individuals feel
they are persons of value” (Cast & Burke, 2002, p.1042). In particular, the
competence dimension of self-esteem theory could explain why leaders see
themselves as capable of initiating and implementing participative decision making.
Their positive personal judgement could arise from their belief in their capability and
efficacy to engage in participative decision making behaviour (Cast & Burke, 2002).
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 94
On the other hand, subordinates‟ low rating of their leaders‟ participative behaviour is
subject to a number of specific factors. For example, when subordinates‟ participation
in decision making is constrained by their job responsibilities, they may get the
impression that the leaders are not participative. The lack of opportunity for the
subordinates to participate may result in them providing an unrealistically low rating
of their leaders‟ participative behaviour (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992).
Finally, despite leaders‟ indication of willingness to participate in decision making, in
reality they might not be actually engaging in participative behaviours. This could
result in the low ratings by their immediate subordinates. For example, in a large–
scale study of managers in fourteen countries including the US, Wood (1985) found
that the managers who whole-heartedly endorsed the idea of participative decision
making did not behave in a way that facilitated leaders‟ PDM. Leaders‟ endorsement
of engaging in PDM but not necessarily aligning behaviour with their belief and
commitment in PDM practice might be the case with some of the Bhutanese corporate
leaders. Therefore, they are rated lower in participative behaviour by their
subordinates.
5.4 Related Findings
In addition to the main findings regarding the research objectives and hypotheses,
there are important findings that were not hypothesised, which contribute to our
understanding of leaders‟ participative behaviour in PDM. The findings draw
attention to the effect of gender and tenure on participative behaviour.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 95
Gender and Tenure
Gender is an important demographic variable in the study of PDM. For example, the
earlier findings of Parnell and Crandall (2001) show that male and female
organisational leaders rated differently on the PPDM scales. Later, Parnell, Koseoglu,
and Dent (2012) similarly conclude that gender is influential on the PPDM
dimensions. However, in contrast to these earlier findings, the present study found no
difference between male and female leaders in terms of their views on organisational
culture, organisational effectiveness and decisional power sharing. No significant
difference was found between male and female leaders based on the two dependent
variables of verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.
There was also no difference between male and female subordinates in the assessment
of their leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative
behaviour.
This finding specifically pertaining to the organisational context of participative
decision making could support the view that there is no gender difference and is not a
strong determinant of organisational behaviour in Bhutan. This view is supported by
the findings in the Gender Pilot Study in 2001 (Planning Commission/UN Gender
Study, 2001), where Bhutan is reported to have gender equality in socio-economic
matters. It is also consistent with the finding of Bogdanic (2012) where gender does
not influence engagement in participative behaviour and assessment of participative
behaviour.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 96
In addition, the tenure of both the leaders and the subordinates did not show a
relationship with either of the dependent variables of verbal participative behaviour
and consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, it can be concluded that tenure
did not influence participative behaviour of organisational leaders.
5.5 Theoretical Contributions
The empirical findings of the research make important theoretical contributions to the
literature of leaders‟ participative behaviour. Firstly, the present research has extended
and operationalised the PPDM model developed by Parnell and Crandall (2001) by
taking into account the behavioural dimensions that make up our understanding of
PPDM as shown in Figure 5.3.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 97
Construct Variables Desired Outcome
Figure 5.3 PPDM model
Adapted from Rethinking participative decision making - A refinement of the
propensity for participative decision making scale by J.A., Parnell, & W. Crandall,
(2001), Personnel Review, 30(5-6), 523-535
Since the initial conceptualisation of the PPDM model by Parnell and Bell (1994) and
subsequent refinement by Parnell and Crandall (2001), the proposed relationship
between the subscales and engagement in participative behaviour remained to be
empirically examined. The present research specifically examined the relationship
between the variables measured by the subscales to verbal participative behaviour and
consultative participative behaviour.
The research findings contributes not only to our understanding that PPDM influences
leaders to engage in verbal participative behaviour, but that amongst the three
Organisational Dimension
Organisational effectiveness
Organisational culture
Individual Variables
Power
PPDM
Participative
Decision Making
Consultative
Participative
Behaviour
Verbal
Participative
Behaviour
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 98
subscales, organisational effectiveness and organisational culture were significantly
and positively related to verbal participative behaviour. In addition organisational
effectiveness significantly predicted leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative
behaviour. Therefore, the research has contributed theoretically to our understanding
that leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour is influenced by their perception of
organisational effectiveness and participative organisational culture. The PPDM
subscales were seen to have no significant relationship with consultative participative
behaviour.
Secondly, the research has also made a contribution to the literature of participative
decision making by investigating the extent to which the model applies to a non-
Western emerging economy. Not all the PPDM subscales could be used in the present
study, after the survey, reliability test and factor analysis were conducted on the data.
The research instruments were adapted with the deletion of a few items to suit the
present research context. Organisational commitment was deleted owing to low
reliability and cross-loadings. Similarly, the fifth item in verbal participative
behaviour, „I constructively criticise subordinates‟ was removed from further analysis
because of cross-loading and inconsistency with other items. The sixth item, „I make
decision that are based on my own ideas‟, in the measurement of consultative
participative behaviour was deleted due to weak factor loading and inconsistency with
other items. Thus, this research study reaffirms the finding of earlier studies (Coffey
& Langford, 1998; Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell, Koseoglu &
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 99
Dent, 2012; Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003) that the PPDM instrument
requires revalidation and adaptation when applied in a different context.
Thirdly, the research has added to our understanding that verbal participative
behaviour and consultative participative behaviour are viewed and treated differently
by leaders in organisations. Leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative behaviour
can reflect socio-cultural elements (Khatri, 2009); such as an informal social and
communication network that is a dominant means of information sharing and social
cohesion. These socio-cultural elements plus the small size of corporate organisations
may influence participative practices in organisations.
Fourthly, as emerging economies integrate with the global economy, they are
susceptible to the risks of global business environmental volatility (Boissot & Child,
1996; Peng & Heath, 1996). Emerging economies are challenged with resource
constraints and increased domestic consumption (Morfaw, 2012). These
environmental and domestic challenges require corporate organisations in emerging
economies to be more competitive and enhance operational efficiencies (D'Aunno,
Succi, & Alexander, 2000). Organisational adaptability to a changing environment
requires acceptance and support for collective decisions from organisational members,
thereby emphasising the need and importance of PDM (Zhou, Tse, & Li, 2006). In
this context, this research has contributed to the literature that despite hierarchical
social structure and power inequalities, organisations in emerging economies, is
beginning to engage more in verbal participative decision making.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 100
Finally, this research is the first study of PDM in the context of Bhutanese corporate
sector. The research expects to draw the attention of management scholars to the
underlying factors affecting corporate leadership behaviour in emerging economies.
The research is also expected to deepen our understanding of participatory
management in Bhutan.
5.6 Implications for Policy and Practice
The research findings also have an important implication for both policy and practice
in the Bhutanese corporate sector. The subordinates reported that their leaders were
not as participative in decision making as the leaders themselves claim. An
established organisational culture will lead to more PDM practices in the organisation.
A plethora of research studies support that PDM essentially contributes to positive
organisational outcomes (Lashley, 2000; Legge, 2005; Shipper & Manz, 1992; Wood,
1985) and employees‟ psychological wellbeing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-
Hall & Jennings, 1988; Fisher, 1989; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Therefore, for
sustainable practice and promotion of participative decision making in organisations,
a policy intervention will be necessary in the Bhutanese corporate sector. For
example, a Human Resource Development policy should foster regular in-house
familiarisation workshops on the importance and practices of both verbal and
consultative participative decision making. An iterative exercise of participative
decision making implementation and reflective assessment at the departmental level
will initially bring more clarity in the practices which can be expanded into
consultative decision making practices.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 101
Leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour could be incorporated as one of the
key performance indicators (KPI) for effective leadership in organisations. Leaders
should be encouraged to engage more in participative behaviour leading to a positive
performance evaluation for promotion and reward. Leaders‟ belief of engaging in
participative behaviour could also encourage more subordinates to engage in PDM,
promoting participative culture in organisations.
5.7 Limitations and Future Directions
The research has made contributions broadly in the area of participative decision
making behaviour. Specifically, the research has integrated the PPDM model with an
inclusion of leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative
behaviour as dependent variables. However, it is important to highlight the limitations
of this research study and directions for future research.
Firstly, further investigation into other socio-cultural and organisational factors might
help identify factors which also explain why leaders do not engage in consultative
participative behaviour. For example, do leaders feel apprehensive about group
participative decision making? If leaders are apprehensive, is it because they fear
being branded as incompetent leaders (Francesco & Chen, 2000) or are concerned of
losing socio-culturally driven informal ties with subordinates? A qualitative approach
to future research using interviews or a semi-structured survey questionnaire could
address these types of questions.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 102
Secondly, not every organisation was represented proportionately, leading to some
sampling bias. Insufficient numbers of leaders participated from some organisations;
thereby comparison between organisations on the leaders‟ participative behaviour
could not be made. Future research could address this limitation as it would be helpful
in identifying organisations with leaders engaging more in participative behaviour.
Exclusion of smaller and economically less important organisations from the study
poses another limitation. Perhaps, leaders may engage more in participative decision
making in those smaller organisations. This could have provided a different
perspective of participative decision making practices in the Bhutanese corporate
sector. Future research could address this limitation by including organisations of all
sizes to get a holistic understanding of participative decision making practices in the
Bhutanese corporate sector.
Thirdly, for the generalisability of the findings to other emerging economies, it is
important to consider doing further research using comparable parameters (Chen &
Tjosvold, 2006) such as the level of corporate sector development, diversity of the
corporate sector, and similarities in socio-cultural values.
Fourthly, the difference between leaders and subordinates on the assessment of
leaders‟ participative behaviour could be either the absence of PDM policy in
organisations or ineffective implementation of PDM practices. Future research could
include a preliminary study on the availability of PDM policy documents. This would
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 103
enable the researcher to compare and contrast the research findings with the existing
policies and practices for meaningful recommendations on the implementation of
participative decision making.
Fifthly, reliance on the self-assessment report by the leaders is questionable for
accuracy and honesty of the responses (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Poksakoff,
MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). Leaders may have a tendency to
rate themselves high on the positive attributes and to indicate they are proactive in
providing PDM opportunities to their subordinates. Future research could collect data
from alternative sources such as peers and superiors besides immediate subordinates
(Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Maloney & Federle, 1993; Poksakoff, MacKenzie). Such an
approach would add to a more accurate report on leaders‟ participative behaviour.
Lastly, while the research makes a valuable contribution to the participative decision
making literature, a future longitudinal study would be able to highlight trends in the
practice of PDM in the Bhutanese corporate sector. A longitudinal study could
establish whether verbal participative behaviour continues to be a key PDM practice
or whether there is a shift to more consultative participative behaviour or other forms
of participative behaviour. It could also explore whether PPDM, age and belief in
power distance vary in their influence over time on participative behaviours of
leaders.
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 104
5.8 Conclusion
In conclusion, this research contributes to the body of participative decision making
literature by expanding our understanding of the relationship between leaders‟
willingness to participate in decision making and leaders‟ participative behaviour.
Specifically, the research contributes to the literature from the perspective of an
emerging economy: Bhutan. The research highlights that leaders‟ desire to enhance
organisational effectiveness and organisational culture and their belief in the equality
of power are important factors influencing the leaders‟ engagement in verbal
participative decision making behaviour. These are important findings in the context
of corporate leadership practices in Bhutan.
References 105
References
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Power equalization, participative decision making and
individual differences. Human Relations, 36(8), 683-704. doi:
10.1177/001872678303600801
Abugre, J.B. (2012). How managerial interactions affect employees' work output in
Ghanaian organisations. African Journal of Economic and Management
Studies, 3(2), 204.doi:10.1108/20400701211265009
Adler, N.J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Publishing.
Ahiauzu, A., & Amah, E. (2013).Employee involvement and organisational
effectiveness. The Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 661-
674. doi: 10.1108/JMD-09-2010-0064
Ahluwalia, M. S. (2002). Economic reforms in India since 1991: has gradualism
worked? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 67-88.
Ahn, M.J., Adamson, J.S., & Dornbusch, D. (2004). From leaders to leadership:
Managing change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,
10(4), 112-123.
Akdere, M. (2011). An analysis of decision making process in organisations:
Implications for quality management and systematic practice. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(12), 1317-1330.
doi:10.1080/14783363.2011.625180
Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective,
continuance and normative commitment to the organisation. Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-
8325.1990.tb00506.x
Alutto, J.A., & Belasco, J.A. (1972).A typology for participation in organisational
decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 117-125.
Al-Yahya, K.O. (2008). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization,
and organizational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in
comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory: J-PART, 19(2), 385-407. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun005
References 106
Al-Yahya, K.O. (2009). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization,
and organizational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in
comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 19(2), 385-407.
Amah, E., & Ahiauzu, A. (2013). Employee involvement and organizational
effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 661-674.
doi:10.1108/JMD-09-2010-0064
Analoui, F. (2000). What motivates senior managers? Journal of Managerial
Psychology, 15(4), 324-340. doi:10.1108/02683940010330984
Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering
leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale
for measuring leader behaviours. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,
21(3), 249-269. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21
Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor's new clothes. Harvard Business
Review, 76(3), 98-105.
Ashford, S.J. (1989). Self-assessment in organizations: A literature review and
integrative model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 133-174.
Ashmos, D., & McDaniel, R. (1996).Understanding the participation of critical task
specialists in strategic decision making. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 103-
121. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00845.x
Atwater, L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership
perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance
predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 141-164. doi. 10.1111/j.1744-
6570.1992.tb00848.x
Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upwards feedback
on self and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48(1),
35-39. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01745.x
Aulakh, P.S., & Kotabe, M. (2008).Institutional changes and organizational
transformation in developing economies. Journal of International
Management, 14(3), 209-216. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2008.04.001
Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,
research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1),
421-449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621
References 107
Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., Conley, S., & Bauer, S. (1990).The dimensionality of
decision participation in educational organisations - the value of a
multidomain evaluative approach. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 26(2), 126-167.
Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Rastogi, R., & Kumar, S. (2013). Organisational process
as antecedent of managerial flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible
Systems Management, 14(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1007/s40171-013-0026-9
Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research,
and Managerial Application. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership
ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance.
Applied Psychology, 40(4), 437-454. doi:10.1111/j.1464-
0597.1991.tb01002.x
Bates, W. (2009). Gross national happiness. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature,
23(2), 1-16.
Bechtold, B.L. (1997). Toward a participative organisational culture: Evolution or
revolution? Empowerment in Organisations, 5(1), 4-15.
doi:10.1108/14634449710168750
Bergman, D., Lornudd, C., Sjöberg, L., & Von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2014). Leader
personality and 360‐degree assessments of leader behavior.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 389-397. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12130
Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (2005). The routines of decision making. Mahwah, N.J:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhatti, Z.A., Ahmad, H.G., Aslam, A., Nadeem, U. & Ramzan, M. (2012).
Leadership styles and behaviours in institutional context.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(2),
744-762.
Black, J. S., & Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration
of multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.
doi:10.1177/001872679705000705
Bogdanic, D. (2012). Expectations of participative leadership behaviour in Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness
(JEMC). 2(2), 64-68
References 108
Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1996). From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining
China's emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly,
41(4), 600-628.
Brownell, J. (1994). Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality
management task. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, 6(3), 3-10. doi: 10.1108/09596119410059182
Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging
economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in
the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1-14.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00213.x
Carey, H. H. (1937). Consultative supervision. Nation's Business, 25(4), 44.
Carlson, M.S. (1998). 360-Degree feedback: The power of multiple perspectives.
Popular Government, 63(2), 38-49.
Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of douglas McGregor's theory Y.
Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.
doi:10.1108/00251740510589814
Cast, A.D., & Burke, P.J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041-
1068. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0003
Chang, H., & Lin, G. (2008).Effect of personal values transformation on leadership
behaviour. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(1),
67-77. doi: 10.1080/14783360701601967
Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. (2006). Development of the leader behaviour assessment
profile. Irish Journal of Management, 27(2), 33-48.
Chen, Y.F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative Leadership by American and
Chinese Managers in China: The Role of Relationships. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(8), 1727-1752.
Church, A.H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in
organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281-292.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.281
Cieslik, J., & Kaciak, E. (2009).The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial
start-ups in a transition environment. Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 375-392. doi:10.1142/S1084946709001375
References 109
Coffey, M., & Langford, D. (1998). The propensity for employee participation by
electrical and mechanical trades in the construction industry.
Construction Management and Economics, 16(5), 543-552.
doi:10.1080/014461998372088
Coleman, P.T. (2004). Implicit theories of organisational power and priming effects
on managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental Study1.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 297-321.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02549.x
Collings, D.G., Demirbag, M., Mellahi, K., & Tatoglu, E. (2010). Strategic
orientation, human resource management practices and organizational
outcomes: Evidence from turkey. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(14), 2589-2613.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.523577
Collins, D. (1994). The disempowering logic of empowerment. Empowerment in
Organizations, 2(2), 14-21. doi:10.1108/09684899410061627
Coch, L., & French, J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human
Relations, 1(4), 512-532. doi:10.1177/001872674800100408
Cohen, J. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral
sciences. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Cooper, R., & Johnson, N. (2014). So close yet no agreement: The effects of threats to
self-esteem when using instant messaging and audio during seller
buyer negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 57(1), 115-126.
doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.08.005
Cotton, J.L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and
Work Attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., & Jennings, K.R.
(1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.
The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.
Cunningham, I., & Hyman, J. (1999). The poverty of empowerment? A critical case
study. Personnel Review, 28(3), 192-207.
doi:10.1108/00483489910264589
Dachler, H.P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of
participation in organisations: A critical evaluation. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1-39.
References 110
Daft, R.L. (2009). Organisation Theory and Design (10th
ed.). Mason, Ohio:
Thomson South-Western.
D'Aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional and
market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679-703.
Dawkins, C.E., & Frass, J.W. (2005). Decision of union workers to participate in
employee involvement: An application of the theory of planned
behaviour. Employee Relations, 27(5), 511-531.
doi:10.1108/01425450510612031
De Cremer, D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of
autocratic leader behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
37(6), 1385-1404. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00217.x
De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-
sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The
Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005
De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees'
innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management,
10(1), 41-64. doi: 10.1108/14601060710720546
Department of Labour. (2015). Labour force survey report: 2013. Retrieved from
http://www.molhr.gov.bt/molhrsite/?page_id=577
Detert, J.R., & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the
Door Really Open?. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-
884
Denton, D.K. (1995). Merck's face-to-face communication. American Journal of
Management Development, 1(1), 26-36.
Donaldson, S.I., & Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in
organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17(2), 245-260. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584
Dundon, T., Lewin, D., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., Archer, R., & Wilkinson, A.
(2010). Conceptualizing employee participation in organizations.
London: Oxford University Press.
doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199207268.003.0001
Eddy, P.L., & VanDerLinden, K.E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in
higher education: New visions of leadership or same old "hero" leader?
Community College Review, 34(1), 5-26.
doi:10.1177/0091552106289703
References 111
Ejiogu, A.M. (1983). Participative management in a developing economy: Poison or
placebo? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 239-247.
doi:10.1177/002188638301900303
Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1994). Leadership profiles, situation and effectiveness.
Creativity and Innovation Management, 3(3), 139–161.
Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and
leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 487-506.
doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90003-X
Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1997). The Person/Environment dynamics of
employee empowerment: An organizational culture analysis. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3), 345-369.
doi:10.1023/A:1024628711026
Foti, R. (1990). The role of cognitive categories in superior versus self-ratings. Paper
presented at the Academy of Management Conference, August, San
Francisco.
Francesco, A.M. & Chen, Z.X., (2000). Cross-cultural Differences within a Single
Culture: Power Distance as a Moderator of the Participation.
Outcome Relationship in the People’s Republic of China, BRC Papers
on Cross- Cultural Management. Retrieved from
http:// net2.hkbu.edu.hk/~brc/CCMP200007.pdf on 01/02/2012.
Furtado, L.C.D.R., Batista, M.D.G.C., & Silva, F.J.F. (2011). Leadership and job
satisfaction among Azorean hospital nurses: An application of the
situational leadership model. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(8),
1047-1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01281.x
Galanes, G.J. (2003). In their own words: An exploratory study of bona fide group
leaders. Small Group Research, 34(6), 741-770. doi:
10.1177/1046496403257649
Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W., & Cashman, J.F. (1989). Situational Leadership
Theory: A test of leadership prescriptions. Group & Organization
Management, 14(4), 446-461.
Goldstein, A., & Pusterla, F. (2010). Emerging economies' multinationals.
International Journal of Emerging Markets, 5(3/4), 289-306.
doi:10.1108/17468801011058398
Graham, J. W., & Verma, A. (1991). Predictors and moderators of employee
responses to employee participation programs. Human Relations,
44(6), 551-568. doi:10.1177/001872679104400602
References 112
Green, S. (1988). Strategy, organizational culture and symbolism. Long Range
Planning, 21(4), 121-129. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(88)90016-7
Hackman, M.Z., & Johnson, C.E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective.
2nd
ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Hakimi, N., & Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leader empowering behaviour: The leader's
perspective. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 701-716
Heakal, R. (2009). What is an Emerging Market Economy? Retrieved April 2, 2013,
from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/073003.asp
Heller, F.A., Drenth, P.J.D., Koopman, P.L., & Rus, V. (1983). A contingency model
of participative decision making: An analysis of 56 decisions in three
Dutch organisations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56(1), 1-18.
doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1983.tb00105.x
Henri, J. (2006). Organisational culture and performance measurement systems.
Accounting, Organisations and Society, 31(1), 77-103.
doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003
Hitt, M.A., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M.T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. (2004). The
institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition
economies: China vs. Russia. Organization Science, 15(2), 173-185.
doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0045
Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the workplace under participative management:
Alienation and freedom revisited. American Sociological Review,
61(5), 719-738.
Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing
Standard (Great Britain), 27(15), 52-57.
Hofstede, G. H. (1984a). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-
related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G. (1984b). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific
journal of management, 1(2), 81-99.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions, and organisations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif:
Sage Publications.
References 113
Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of
General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169
Holland, N.A. (1995). Participative management. Journal for Quality and
Participation, 18(5), 58-62.
Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:
Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179
Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., & Cheung, Y.L. (2006). The impact of participative
leadership behaviour on psychological empowerment and
organisational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The
moderating role of organisational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of
Management, 23(3), 345-367. doi:10.1007/s10490-006-9006-3
Humborstad,S.I.W., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R., & Perry, C. (2008).
Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance
organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 19(7), 1349-1364. doi:10.1080/09585190802110224
Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Saengtienchai, C. (1999). Respect for the elderly in Asia:
Stability and change. The International Journal of Aging and Human
Development, 48(2), 113-130.
Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & House, R.J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross
cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of
Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.
Jesaitis, P. T., & Day, N. E. (1992). People: Black boxes of many organizational
development strategies. Organization Development Journal, 10 (1), 63-
71.
Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1981). Impact of employee participation in pay plan
development. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
28(1), 111-128. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(81)90018-0
Jing, R., & Graham, J.L. (2008). Values versus regulations: How culture plays its
role. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 791-806. doi: 10.1007/s10551-
007-9469-2
Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2007). Leadership and culture in Turkey: A multifaceted
phenomenon. Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE
book of in-depth studies of 25 societies, 835-874.
References 114
Kakabadse, A.P., & Kakabadse, N. (1999). Essence of Leadership. London:
International Thompson.
Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse,N, & Myers, A. (1998). Demographics and leadership
philosophy: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Management
Development, 17(5), 351-388. doi: 10.1108/02621719810220225
Katarina, A., Rastogi, R., & Garg, P. (2013). Organizational effectiveness as a
function of employee engagement. South Asian Journal of
Management, 20(4), 56-73.
Kearney, R.C., & Hays, S.W. (1994). Labour-management relations and participative
decision making: Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration
Review, 54(1), 44-51.
Kelly, J., & Khozan, K. (1980). Participative management: Can it work? Business
Horizons, 23(4), 74-79.
Keyton, J., Caputo, J.M., Ford, E.A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T. & Wu, C.
(2013).Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors.
Journal of Business Communication, 50(2), 152-169.
doi:10.1177/0021943612474990
Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations.
Vision, 13(1), 1-9.
Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. (2002). Principles of survey research part 4:
Questionnaire evaluation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,
27(3), 20-23. doi:10.1145/638574.638580
Koc, E. (2013). Power distance and its implications for upward communication and
empowerment: Crisis management and recovery in hospitality services.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19),
3681-3696.
Kocolowski, G.D. (2010). Shared leadership: Is it time for change? Emerging
Leadership Journeys, 3(1), 22-32.
Kotter, J.P., & Heskett, J.L. (1992).Corporate culture and performance. New York:
Toronto, Free Press.
References 115
Kur, E., & Bunning, R. (2002).Assuring corporate leadership for the future. Journal
of Management Development, 21(10), 761-779. doi:
10.1108/02621710210448039
Larsson, J., & Vinberg, S. (2010). Leadership behaviour in successful organisations:
Universal or situation-dependent? Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 21(3), 317-334. doi: 10.1080/14783360903561779
Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: A case study of TGI Fridays
restaurants. Personnel Review, 29(6), 791-815.
doi:10.1108/00483480010297211
Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 684-695.
doi:10.1080/713769649
Legge, K. (2005). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and realities. New York:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in
experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.
Li, H. (2001). Leadership: An international perspective. Journal of Library
Administration, 32(3-4), 177-195. doi:10.1300/J111v32n03_11
Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies,
contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook
of Qualitative Research, 4, 97-128.
Lipowski, E.E. (2008). Developing great research questions.
American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy: AJHP : Official Journal
of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 65(17), 1667-
1670. doi:10.2146/ajhp070276
Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more
look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp.
265-340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and
prescriptions for research. Organisational Behavior and Human
Performance, 3(1), 68-106. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(68)90028-7
Maloney, W.F., & Federle, M.O. (1993). Practical models for organizational
assessment. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(1), 64-81.
References 116
Manning, T., & Robertson, B. (2011). The dynamic leader revisited: 360-degree
assessments of leadership behaviours in different leadership situations.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(2), 88-97.
Margulies, N., & Black, S. (1987). Perspectives on the implementation of
participative approaches. Human Resource Management, 26(3), 385-
412.
Marti, M., Gil, F., & Barrasa, A. (2009). Organisational leadership: Motives and
behaviours of leaders in current organisations. Spanish Journal of
Psychology, 12(1), 267.
Mathou, T. (1999). Political reform in Bhutan: Change in a Buddhist monarchy. Asian
Survey, 39(4), 613-632. doi:10.1525/as.1999.39.4.01p0015q
Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1996). Indian organizational culture: A
comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and
Developing Societies, 8(2), 199-222.
McConnell, C.R. (1998). Mixed motivations: The leadership contradiction. The
Health Care Supervisor, 17(2), 63-75.
McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2005). Organizational behavior. Boston:
McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Meglino, B.M., & Ravlin, E.C. (1998). Individual values in organisations: Concepts,
controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351-389.
doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80065-8
Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership,
communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management
Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284.
Merat, A. & Bo,D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: The links between
knowledge management and leadership. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 17(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1108/13673271311300697
Merkin, R. S. (2006). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of Intercultural
Communication Research, 35(2), 139-160.
doi:10.1080/17475750600909303
Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2013). Participative leadership and
the organisational commitment of civil servants in China: The mediating
effects of trust in supervisor. British Journal of Management, 24(3),
S76-S92. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12025
References 117
Miller, G.R. (2011). Gender and participation in decision making in labor-managed
firms: The context of the USA. Economic and Industrial Democracy,
32(1), 87-113. doi: 10.1177/0143831X10376420
Mohr, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A
theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 36-51.
Mohr, G., & Wolfram, H. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness in the context of
gender: The role of leaders' verbal behaviour. British Journal of
Management, 19(1), 4-16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00521.x
Morfaw, J.N. (2012). Seminar presentation topic: The Implementation of the National
Vision of Emergence. Retrieved from
www.cafrad.org/Workshops/Tanger24-26_09_12/2426092012
cafrad/5_Morfaw.pdf
Mudacumura, G. M. (2000). Participative management in global transformational
change. International Journal of Public Administration, 23(12), 2051-
2083. doi:10.1080/01900690008525538
Mudambi, R., & Hill, T.L. (2010). Far from silicon valley: How emerging economies
are re-shaping our understanding of global entrepreneurship. Journal of
International Management, 16(4), 321-327.
doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.003
Muo, I. and Oghojafor, B.E.A. (2012). OHAZURUME: The Philosophy and Practice
of Decision Making and Consensus Building among the Ndigbo of
Nigeria. American Journal of Business and Management, 1(3), 154-161.
Nightingale, D. V. (1981). Work, formal participation, and employee outcomes. Work
and Occupations, 8(3), 277-296.
Northouse, P.G., (2004). Leadership Theory and Practice. 3rd
ed. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Noughabi, H.A., & Arghami, N.R. (2013). Testing normality using transformed data.
Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 42(17), 3065-3075.
doi:10.1080/03610926.2011.611604
Nystrom, P.C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organisational commitments of
American business managers. Group & Organisation Management,
15(3), 296-312. doi: 10.1177/105960119001500305
References 118
Oh, I.S., & Berry, C.M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial
performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance
ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498–1513.
doi:10.1037/a0017221
Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that
researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.
Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of
managers. Employee Relations, 26(1), 14-29. doi:
10.1108/01425450410506878
O‟Toole, James (1995). The Executive‟s Compass. Leading Change. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Paradine, T.J. (1996). Venturing abroad: The challenges of emerging economies. Risk
Management, 43(7), 73-75.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature
review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.
doi:10.1108/00251740310457597
Park, W.W. (1997). Empowerment: Its Meaning and Application. Korean
Management Review, 26(2), 115–38.
Parnell, J. A. (2010). Propensity for participative decision making in Latin America:
Mexico and Peru. The International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 21(13/15), 2323-2338.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.516588
Parnell, J.A., & Bell, E.D. (1994). The propensity for participative decision making
scale: A measure of managerial propensity for participative decision
making. Administration and Society, 25(4), 518-530.
Parnell, J.A., & Crandall, W. (2001). Rethinking participative decision making - A
refinement of the propensity for participative decision making scale.
Personnel Review, 30(5-6), 523-535. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005937
Parnell, J.A., & Crandall, W. (2003). Propensity for participative decision-making,
job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship
behavior, and intentions to leave among Egyptian managers. The
Multinational Business Review, 11(1), 45-65.
doi:10.1108/1525383X200300003
References 119
Parnell, J.A., Koseoglu, M.A., & Dent, E.B. (2012). Propensity for participative
decision making (PPDM) in Turkey and the USA. International Journal
of Business Excellence, 5(3), 278-304.
Parnell, J.A., Shwiff, S., Yalin, L., & Langford, H. (2003). American and Chinese
entrepreneurial and managerial orientations: A management education
perspective. International Journal of Management, 20(2), 125–137.
Pasa, S.F. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist
culture. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 21(8), 414-
426. doi:10.1108/01437730010379258
Pearce, C.L., & Conger, A.D. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and
Whys of Leadership. London: Sage Publications.
Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in
transition: institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. The Academy
of Management Review, 21(2), 492-528.
Peng, M.W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D.Y. (2001). Treasures in the China
house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater
China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 95-110.
Planning Commission/UN Gender Study (2001).Gender Pilot Study. Retrieved from
http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rep_gpsr.pdf
Poksakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the
Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88 (5), 879-903.
Pollock, M., & Colwill, N.L. (1987). Participatory decision making in review.
Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 8(2), 7-10.
doi:10.1108/eb053611
Powell, R. M., & Schlacter, J. L. (1971). Participative management a panacea? The
Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 165-173.
Rad, A.M.M. & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship between
managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. Leadership
in Health Services, 19(2), 11-28. doi:10.1108/13660750610665008
Ramsdell, P.S. (1994). Staff participation in organisational decision making: An
empirical study. Administration in Social Work, 18(4), 51-71. doi:
10.1300/J147v18n04_03
References 120
Randeree, K., & Chaudhry, A.G. (2012). Leadership – style, satisfaction and
commitment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, 19(1), 61-85. doi:10.1108/09699981211192571
Reeves, D.W., Walsh, B.M., Tuller, M.D., & Magley, V.J. (2012). The positive
effects of participative decision making for midlevel correctional
management. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 39(10), 1361-1372.
doi:10.1177/0093854812453127
Rehman, R. U., Zhang, J., & Ali, R. (2014). Firm performance and emerging
economies. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(3), 701-714.
Ritchie, J. B. & Miles, R.E. (1970). An analysis of quantity and quality of
participation as mediating variables in the participative decision making
process. Personnel Psychology, 23(3), 347-357.
Roberts, T. (2012). Understanding survey research: Applications and processes.
British Journal of Midwifery, 20(2), 114-120.
Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Organisational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B.
Schneider (Ed.), Organisational climate and culture. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Russ, T.L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for
participative decision making. Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.
doi:10.1108/00251741111130887
Sashkin, M. (1976). Changing toward participative management approaches: A model
and methods. Academy of Management Journal, 1, 75-86
Schuler, R.S. (1980). A role and expectancy perception model of participation in
decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 331-340.
Schwenk, C.R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-
making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111-128.
doi:10.1002/smj.4250050203
Scott-Ladd, B., & Marshall, V. (2004). Participation in decision making: A matter of
context? Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 25(8), 646-
662. doi: 10.1108/01437730410564988
Shah, S. (1989). Developing Bhutan‟s economy: Limited options, sensible choices.
Asian Survey, 29(8), 816-831. doi:10.1525/as.1989.29.8
Shipper, F., & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally
designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organisational
Dynamics, 20(3), 48-61. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(92)90024-H
References 121
Shirokova, G., Berezinets, I. & Shatalov, A. (2014). Organisational change and firm
growth in emerging economies. Journal for East European
Management Studies, 19(2), 185-212.
Shubik, M. (1958). Studies and theories of decision making. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 3(3), 289-306. doi:10.2307/2390715
Singh, D. (2012). Emerging economies and multinational corporations. International
Journal of Emerging Markets, 7(4), 397-410. doi:
10.1108/17468801211264315
Smith, C.S., & Brannick, M.T. (1990). A role and expectancy model of participative
decision-making: A replication and theoretical extension. Journal of
Organisational Behaviour, 11(2), 91-104. doi:10.1002/job.4030110202
Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An
investigation of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 38(3), 341-371. doi:10.1177/0013161X02383003
Sorrentino, R.M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional
value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(6), 1091-1099. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1091
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban
legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.
doi:10.1177/1094428105284955
Spreitzer, G. (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership,
empowerment, and peace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8),
1077-1095. doi:10.1002/job.487
Stamper, C.L., & Fitzsimmons, S.R. (2014). How societal culture influences friction
in the employee-organization relationship. Human Resource
Management Review, 24(1), 80-94. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.07.001
Steers, R.M. (1977). Individual differences in participative decision-making. Human
Relations, 30(9), 837-847. doi:10.1177/001872677703000906
Strauss, J. (1982). Determinants of food consumption in rural Sierra Leone. Journal of
Development Economics, 11(3), 327-353. doi:10.1016/0304-
3878(82)90010-4
Sung, K. (2001). Elder respect: Exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. Journal
of Aging Studies, 15(1), 13-26. doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(00)00014-1
References 122
Sweeney, P.J., & Fry, L.W. (2012). Character development through spiritual
leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
64(2), 89-107. doi:10.1037/a0028966
Tannenbaum, A.S. (1956). Control structure and union functions. American Journal
of Sociology, 61(6), 536-545.
Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I.R., & Massarik, F. (1961). Leadership and
organization: A behavioral approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach's alpha.
International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.
Tiuraniemi, J. (2008). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate
assessment of organizational atmosphere in the social welfare sector.
Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 23-38.
Thinley, J. Y. (2005, June). What Does Gross National Happiness (GNH) Mean?. In
Keynote address by the Bhutanese Minister of Home and Cultural
Affairs to the Second International Conference on Gross National
Happiness, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Canada (pp. 20-
24).
Tornow, W. W. (1993). Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a
means or an end? Human Resource Management, 32(2), 221-229.
doi:10.1002/hrm.3930320203
Tozer, J. (2012). Leading through leaders: Driving strategy, execution and change.
Philadelphia, Pa: Kogan Page Ltd.
Ugyel, L. (2013). Dynamics of Public Sector Reforms in Bhutan: Interaction of
Values within a Hybrid Administration. Crawford School Working
Paper No. 13 - 01, Crawford School of Public Policy. Canberra:
Australian National University
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of
leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.
doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007
Ura, K., & Galay, K. (2004). Gross national happiness and development. Thimpu: The
Centre for Bhutan Studies.
Vandervelde, M. (1979). The semantics of participation. Administration in Social
Work, 3(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1300/J147v03n01_06
Veal, A. J. 1. (2005). Business research methods: A managerial approach. South
Melbourne, Vic: Pearson Addison Wesley.
References 123
Wagner, J.A. (1994). Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: A
reconsideration of research evidence. The Academy of Management
Review, 19(2), 312-330.
Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for measurement of some work attitudes
and aspects of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 52, 129–148.
Westhuizen, D.W., & Pacheco, G., Webber, D.J. (2012). Culture, participative
decision making and job satisfaction. The International Journal of
Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2661-2679.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.625967
Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D. (2010). The Oxford
Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford University Press.
Wilkinson, A., Townsend, K., & Burgess, J. (2013). Reassessing employee
involvement and participation: Atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in
Australian workplaces. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(4), 583-600.
doi:10.1177/0022185613489419
Wood, C.J. (1985). Participatory decision making: Why doesn't it seem to work? The
Educational Forum, 49(1), 55-64. doi:10.1080/00131728409335820
Yammarino, F.J., & Dubinsky, A.J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A
multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45(6), 575-600.
doi:10.1177/001872679204500603
Yoo, B., Donthu,N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions
of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of
CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,23(3-4), 193.
Yukl, G. (1997). Effective leadership behaviour: A new taxonomy and model. Paper
presented at the Eastern Academy of Management International
Conference, Eastern Academy of Management, Dublin.
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.
doi:10.1080/135943299398429
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organisations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organisations, 6th
ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
References 124
Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behaviour: What we know and what questions
need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (4),
66-85.
Yukl, G., & Fu, P.P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by
managers. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 20(2), 219-232. doi:
10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1379(199903)20:2
Yukl, G., Gordon, A., &Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
behaviour: Integrating a half century of behaviour research. Journal of
Leadership & Organisational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93.
doi: 10.1037/a0019835
Zaccaro, S.J., & Klimoski, R.J. (2002). The nature of organizational leadership:
Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders.
Hoboken: Pfeiffer.
Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational changes in emerging
economies: Drivers and consequences. Journal of International Business
Studies, 37(2), 248-263. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400186
Zikmund, W.G. (2007). Marketing Research. South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage
Learning.
125
Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Questionnaire for Leaders
PART – A: Participant‟s Profile
1. Age:
2. Gender: Male Female
3. No. of years in the current position: Years
4. Total no. of years in managerial position: Years
5. Please tick ( ) your highest qualification:
Higher Secondary School Diploma
Bachelors degree Masters Degree
PhD
PART – B
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement. The scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly
agree.
Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Participative decision making is an effective
management style over the long term.
2. It is better for a manager not to solicit subordinate
participation than to do so and ignore the suggestions.
3. Participation works in some cases, but most of the
time manager should make the decision based on his
or her expertise and information.
4. My subordinates tend to have the same
organisational goals that I have.
5. My subordinates are generally informed and
experienced.
36 -45 Years
26 -35 Years
Below25 Years
56Years& above
46 - 55 Years
Appendices 126
6. Participative decision making is widely used in my
organisations.
7. I am free to make decisions as I wish in my
organisation.
8. Participative decision making is promoted within my
organisations.
9. My superior frequently solicits my participation in
his or her decisions.
10. Many organisational problems disappear when
everyone has a chance to participate in decision
making.
11. Participative decisions usually results in effective
decisions.
12. Group decisions are worth any extra time required.
13. Participative decisions stimulate feelings of self-
worth for subordinates.
14. Participative decision making is an effective
communication tool.
15. Participative decision making promotes positive
relationships at all levels of the organisations.
16. Participative decision making requires divulging too
much confidential information.
17. Participative decision making gives too much power
to subordinates.
18. Subordinates cannot be often trusted.
Appendices 127
PART – C
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement.
Kindly note the change in scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
PART – D (i)
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement.
Kindly note the change in scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. People in higher positions should make most decisions
without consulting people in lower positions.
2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions
of people in the lower positions too frequently.
3. People in higher positions should avoid social
interaction with people in lower positions.
4. People on lower positions should not disagree with
decisions by people in higher positions.
5. People in higher positions should not delegate
important tasks to people in lower positions.
Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. I ask for the views of my subordinates.
2. I encourage subordinates to speak up about matters
that are important to them.
3. I precisely note subordinate‟s contribution.
4. I give opportunities for the subordinates to ask questions.
5. I constructively criticize subordinates.
6. I willingly explain when subordinates ask.
Appendices 128
PART – D (ii)
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement.
Kindly note the change in scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
Thank you
Items 1 2 3 4 5
7. I encourage work group members to express their
ideas/ suggestions.
8. I listen to the work group‟s ideas and suggestions.
9. I use the work group‟s suggestions to make decisions
that affect us.
10. I give all work group members a chance to voice their
opinions.
11. I consider the work group‟s ideas when I disagree
with some subordinates.
12. I make decisions that are based only on my own ideas.
Appendices 129
Appendix B: Questionnaire for Subordinates
PART – A: Participant‟s Profile
1. Age:
2. Gender: Male Female
3. No. of years in the current position: Years
4. Please tick ( ) your highest qualification:
Higher Secondary School Diploma
Bachelors degree Masters Degree
PhD
Part-B(i)
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement.
The scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.
Items 1 2 3 4 5
1. My boss asks for the views of his/her subordinates.
2. My boss encourages me to speak up about matters
that are important to me.
3. My boss precisely notes my contribution.
4. My boss gives me opportunities to ask questions.
5. My boss constructively criticises me.
6. My boss willingly explains when I ask.
36 -45 Years
26 -35 Years
Below26 Years
56Years& above
46 - 55 Years
Appendices 130
Part-B (ii)
Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark
against each statement.
Kindly note the change in scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
Thank you
Items 1 2 3 4 5
7. My boss encourages work group members to express
ideas/ suggestion.
8. My boss listens to the work group‟s ideas and
suggestions.
9. My boss uses the work group‟s suggestions to make
decisions that affect us.
10. My boss gives all work group members a chance to
voice their opinions.
11. My boss considers the work group‟s ideas when
she/he disagrees with them.
12. My boss makes decisions that are based only on
his/her own ideas.