EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING AND

ITS IMPACT ON PRODUCTIVITY: AN APPRAISAL OF

GOVERNMENT PRINTING PRESS AND TWO OTHER
PRIVATE PUBLISHING FIRMS IN ENUGU

BY

EZENNAYA NJIDEKA PRISCA

PG/MBA/09/53804

DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
ENUGU CAMPUS

MAY, 2011

i
TITLE
Employee Participation in Decision Making and
its Impact on Productivity: An Appraisal of
Government Printing Press and two Other
Private Publishing Firms in Enugu

By

Ezennaya Njideka Prisca

PG/MBA/09/53804

A Research Project Submitted to the

Department of Management
Faculty of Business Administration
University of Nigeria
Enugu Campus

In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the

Award of a Master of Business Administration Degree with
Specialization in Management.

May, 2011

ii
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that this research work by EZENNAYA
NJIDEKA PRISCA with Matriculation Number PG/MBA/09/53804
presented to the Department of Management was submitted in
Partial Fulfilment of the Requirement for the Award of Master of
Business Administration (MBA) Degree with the Specialization in
Management

.............................
Mr. C.O. Chukwu

...................
Date

............................
Dr. U.J.F. Ewurum

....................
Date

............................
External Examiner

....................
Date

iii
APPROVAL PAGE
This project work has been read, approved and accepted as
meeting the requirement of the Department of Management,
University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus in partial fulfilment of the
requirement for the award of Masters of Business Administration.

.............................
Mr. C.O. Chukwu

...................
Date

iv
DEDICATION
This research work is dedicated to the author and giver
of all good things our Lord Jesus Christ.

v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am very grateful to God Almighty for the gift of life and the
courage and strength to complete this stage of education.
My thanks go to my project Supervisor, Mr. C.O. Chukwu,
for his valuable contribution, for creating time out of his ever tight
schedule to give this project the most befitting guidance and
offered suggestions and amendment where needed. My sincere
thanks and appreciation also go to all my lecturers who have
taught me in one course or another throughout the duration of my
study.
I owe gratitude to every member of my family for their
constant support, morally and financially all through the period of
my course.
I am particularly grateful to my Daddy, Late Mr. P.O.C.
Ezennaya whose words of encourage can never ever be forgotten.
May your gentle soul rest in perfect peace, Amen.
Also, I am grateful to all my friends and well wishers for their
unflinching support, uncompromising love, their encouragement
and prayers, throughout the period of my study. May God bless
you all.

vi
Finally, I remain indebted to all the authors of materials I
have used in this study. I appreciate and I am saying thank you to
everyone of your and may God bless you all in Jesus name,
Amen.
N.P. Ezennaya

vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title.................................................................................................... i
Certification ...................................................................................... ii
Approval .......................................................................................... iii
Dedication ....................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgement ........................................................................... v
Table of Contents ........................................................................... vii
Abstract .......................................................................................... xiii

CHAPTER ONE
1.1

Introduction ............................................................................ 1

1.2

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

1.3

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

1.4

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

1.5

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

1.6

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

1.7

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

1.8

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

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

viii
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1

Introduction .......................................................................... 14

2.2

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

2.3

Expressed views concerning Employee

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

2.4

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

2.5

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

2.6

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

2.7

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

2.8

Methods of Involving Employees in Decision

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

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

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

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1

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

3.2

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

3.3

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

3.4

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

ix
3.5

Method of data Collection.....................................................71

3.6

Reliability/Validity of Test......................................................72

3.7

Data Analysis Techniques....................................................72

References ...........................................................................74
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA

4.1

Presentation of Data from Managers'

Responses ............................................................................75

4.2

Presentation of Data from Employees'

Responses .......................................................................... 88

4.3

Testing of Hypothesis ........................................................ 100

CHAPTER FIVE
DISCUSSION,

SUMMARY

AND

CONCLUSION

OF

FINDINGS
5.1

Introduction ........................................................................ 109

5.2

Discussion of Findings ...................................................... 109

5.3

Summary of Findings ........................................................ 114

5.4

Conclusion ......................................................................... 115

5.5

Recommendations ............................................................ 116

BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................... 118
APPENDIX............................................................... 123

x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1:Managers' Response on their perception of
Participative Management ........................................ 76
Table 2:Manager's Responses on the Rating
of employees' decisions ..................................................... 77
Table 3:Managers Response on whether the time and money
invested in the practice of employee
Participation reflect on increased
productivity ................................................................ 78
Table 4:Manager's responses on whether
participative management is advantageous
to their organization .................................................. 79
Table 5:Managers responses on the rate
at which employees' decisions are
made use of .............................................................. 80
Table 6:Managers responses on whether
they think employees in organisations
fully participate in any decision
making ...................................................................... 81
Table 7:Managers responses on the type of
employee participation that is allowed ..................... 82

xi
Table 8:Managers response on the main
objectives they intend to achieve
by involving subordinates in the
decision making process of the
organization .............................................................. 84
Table 9:Managers response on whether the
present level of workers participation
is enough to motivate them
towards job satisfaction and
improved productivity......................................................
Table 10:Response on managers efficiency as
a result of employee involvement in
decision making ........................................................ 86
Table 11:Responses on the advantages that
accrue to the organization as a
result of participation ................................................. 87
Table 12Employee Response on their
perception of participative management .................. 89
Table 13:Employees response on whether their
perception of participative management
is in line with the firms policy .................................... 91

xii
Table 14:Employees response on whether
managers seek their opinion on
consider them in decision making. ........................... 92
Table 15:The reaction of the manager/boss
when a subordinate brings up an
opinion ....................................................................... 93
Table 16:How employees react when the supervisor
insists only on his own way of
accomplishing tasks ................................................. 94
Table 17:The level at which employees are
allowed to participate in decision
making ...................................................................... 95
Table 18:Whether employees feel trapped by a
feeling that opposition to view of
supervisors might be seen as a sign
of disloyalty ................................................................ 96
Table 19:If Employees inform managers who they
feel there is a better way of doing a
particular job than the firms stated way .................... 97

xiii
Table 20:Considering employee involvement in
decision making as a major reason to
improve productivity .................................................. 98
Table 21:Contingency ................................................................. 101
Table 22:

contingency ............................................................. 104

Table 23:Managers response on whether the

time and money invested in the
practice of employee participation
reflect on increased productivity ............................. 106

xiv
ABSTRACT
This study has examined employee participation in decision
making and its impact on productivity. Three publishing outfits in Enugu
were studied, namely: Government Printing Press, ROCANA Nig Ltd
and GOSTAK Nig Ltd.
The population consisted of managers and employees in the
three elected firms in Enugu Urban. The sample for the study was 137.
Out of the 137 questionnaires administered, 105 were returned. Oral
interview was also used to obtain responses from some managers and
employees.
The outcome of the study was analyzed by the use of tables and
percentages while the three hypothesis formulated were tested by the
use of chi-square.
The study reveals that;
a)Participative decision making does not involve participation at
all levels of management.
b)There is a positive relationship between participative management
and productivity i.e to say participative
management results in increased productivity.
c)The investment effort in the practice of participation has not been
yielding the desired out put i.e increased
productivity.
d)There are diverse perceptions of participation among the workers and
managers.
e)The pressing problems facing the practice of participation is that
employees and managers misconstrue participation in decision
making.
Indeed participative management should be seen as an
inevitable tool in any organization both public and private.
The following recommendations were also put forward.
a)Managers should put more efforts in encouraging their employees to
contribute to decision making and incorporate them into the
organizational policy.
b)Managers should allow increased level of workers participation in
decision making since they are the centre of operations and can
say better on issues bearing on those areas.
c)Participative management should be redefined and properly applied
so that peoples understanding and perception of what it is all
about will be improved.
d)The operators of businesses should take steps to set specific
measurable objectives that participative management should
aim to achieve.

1
CHAPTER ONE
1.1 INTRODUCTION
Over the years, the practice of organizational management
demanded that employer/management would expect that workers will
do the work that is set before them. While this was a perfectly typical
method of getting results through others in the early days of assembly
line and scientific management, it is no longer true of today's business.
The trend has changed in that management expects more from its
workers than doing simply what is put before them. It has also changed
in that workers expect that more can be got from them by simply
working according to the direction of the boss.
However, with the rise of such theories as "participative
management" and with increasing recognition that employees often
have something valuable to contribute (beyond the accepted units of
their normal job duties) . Many companies are now actively seeking
ways of getting employees to participate more in decision affecting
them. The worker on the other hand expects to be asked how he feels
about his job, and what his ideas are on how the work can be done
more easily, better and faster. The reason for this change in emphasis
is

2
that management has discovered that there are tangible business value
in soliciting and using the ideas of people at all levels in the
organization.
As the main objective of every business organization is long-term
survival and in addition to have a competitive advantage over and
above its competitors rather than being like the biblical seeds that fell
on the way side and perished. The secret of having this competitive
advantage over others then lies on the productivity of the enterprise.
The increase in productivity can only be achieved mainly through the
organizational workforce. Increase in work life and productivity in an
enterprise starts with the mind. It starts with the improvement of an
individual self-esteem and self worth.

It starts with helping an

employee develop a higher degree of self-regard.

1.2

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

In tracing the background of this concept of employee

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

name in many countries of the world. Japan's success in the business
world is attributed to employee

3
participation. Decision making is shared at all levels of management.
It is observed that decision making in Japanese firms are focussed on
defining questions or issues rather than on finding solutions. Thus all
levels of the organization are involved in this process. In the United
states, industrial democracy is practiced, employees are encouraged to
buy shares in companies thereby enabling them to have a say in the
management of their organization. In other developed countries like
Britain, Yugoslavia and Germany, participatory management is popular.
In Britain and Yugoslavia, it is known as joint consultation and self
management respectively while in Germany, it is known as codetermination.
In Nigeria, participatory management has come a long way. The
Nigeria Military Government in 1977 decided to democratize industrial
ownership in Nigeria by promulgating the Nigerian indiginisation decree
part of which provides "that 10 percent total equity share of any
enterprise on schedule, 2 and 3 should be reserved for workers". This
is to ensure that workers have a sense of belonging in their respective
organizations.

4
Both the state and Federal government of Nigeria have in the
past involved its citizenry in the management of affairs of the state.
Ejiofor and Aniagor (1984) stated that the state represents both
enterprise and workers and other social and economic institutions.
Based on this argument, the researcher sees
the state as representing management while the citizenry represent
workers. Everybody is working for the state because everything you
do, be in the private or public sector, is contributing to the national
development. It is in recognition of the significance of participation that
the federal military
government of Nigeria sometime invited the entire citizenry to
participate in deciding whether Nigeria should accept the IMF loan or
not. After a heated debate by "well meaning" Nigerians, the idea was
cancelled.
Apart from the Federal and State government being aware of the
need to involve citizens in the management of affairs of the state, many
companies in Nigeria mostly the multinationals are practising
participative management A.G. Leventis, United African Company
(UAC), United Trading company and John Holt call it consultation
committee. Suggestion boxes and

5
House journals are means through which employees are represented
on the Board of Nigeria Ports Authority.
Despite these evidences of the existence of participative
management in the Nigerians industrial set up, some people in other
countries and some Nigerians are of the view that real participatory
management does not exist and cannot exist due to under
development, inexperience in democratic process, political instability
and economic instability caused by frequent changes in economic
policy by the federal government. Participative decision making can be
well practiced only in a stable economic environment because of its
time consuming nature and investment in training to enable workers
have a contributing capacity. Also the negative attitude of the Nigerian
worker to work does not encourage participatory management. They
are more interested in what they will get from the employer in terms of
salaries and other employment benefit and not the job itself. Such
attitudes definitely cannot give rise to effective participation.
Ukandu Damachi (1990) is of the view that participative decision
making can be possible in a certain sector of the economy and not in all
government owned enterprises and

6
parastatal because of the government intention to mobilize popular
support for development purposes. He goes further to say that workers
participation in the multinational companies, on the other hand has at
best remained elusive. Most of these
companies are controlled by and depend on their parent bodies abroad
for policies and decision.

Among the indigenous employers,

particularly the small and medium sized organization, their attitude to

workers is paternalistic and authoritarians . Their activities are often
shrouded on secrecy. They are suspicious of the workers and therefore
cannot afford to share information and decision with them. We have
experiences of some managers that fail to delegate, as they do not go
on leaves, where some go, they are on working leave; still attending
work,some while on leave lock up certain jobs/documents in their
drawers, thus making such pending till they resume, whereas
participative management involves nothing more than sharing
information with subordinates.
In the light of the above, Government Press and some selected
Private Publishing firms in Enugu being among the organizations in
Nigeria that practice participative management will be examined to
show whether the organization practice

7
real participation. Managerial problems which require decision making
in the company will be identified to show the extent employees are
allowed to participate, the effects of participation on overall productivity
and problems encountered in the practice of participative management.

1.3

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.
The issue of whether participative decision making exists in the

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

Nigeria practice participative decision making and the government has
in the past encouraged participative decision making through
legislation. On the contrary, some management writers in Nigeria are
of the opinion that it does not exist and where it does it is not real. Their
reason is that the necessary prerequisite conditions to encourage
participation in Nigeria are not available.
However, research into leadership style has exposed employee's
desire for involvement in decision making in their
various organizations.

Employees are at the same time important

elements of the accomplishment of the organizational goals, and thus

organizational survival. The reason basically

8
rests on the fact that employees are operators and are in better position
to know the problems they encounter in doing a particular task and
how best to solve them.
The problem mainly lies on the fact that participation though
obtained has not been clearly understood as well as its benefits. Some
of the managers feel that the decision making process is their sole
prerogative and as such should be protected. Again top management
likes to remain aloof from its employee as to build an all important air
around themselves.
In the light of the above, this study therefore is set to determine
the extent of practice of participative decision making in government
Press and few other firms and its influence on productivity as well as
ascertaining the benefits and problems arising from such practice.

1.4

OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

Specifically, the researcher intends to;

1)Examine

the

perception

of

workers

towards

participative

management policy in an enterprise.

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

9
3)The type of decisions employees are involved in.
4)Verify if employees opinions are made use of after being collected.
5)Determine if participative management is considered a major factor
for productivity by management.
6)Determine the problems encountered in the practice of participative
decision making.

1.5
1.

STATEMENT OF HYPOTHESIS
Ho :Participative decision making does not involve participation
at all levels of management.
H1 :Participative decision making involves participation at all
levels of management.

2.

Ho :Productivity is not independent of employees participation in

decision making.
H1 :Productivity is independent of employees participation in
decision making.

3.

Ho :The investment effort on the practice of participative decision

making does not reflect on increase in productivity.

10
H1 :The investment effort on the practice of participative decision
making reflects on increase in productivity.

1.6

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

This study is designed to provide information to the populace on

how Government Press and other few selected firms have faired in their
practice of participative decision making and its contributions to
productivity, thereby enhancing organizational efficiency. It is expected
that this study will be beneficial to the management by giving enough
insight into the benefits of employee participation in decision making,
make clear to managers what participative management stands for
hence, reducing the fear often harboured by these managers. Workers,
students of business Administration and the society at large are equally
the potential beneficiaries of this study.
It is equally my hope that the study would provide a basis on
which further research could be carried out.

11
1.7

SCOPE AND LIMITATION

This study is about participatory management. The extent of

employee participation, the effect on satisfaction and productivity of

employees and the problems encountered in its practice will be
examined.
Government Press and a few other selected private publishing
firms in Enugu will be the limit of this study. This is due to limited time
and finance being faced by the researcher. And also unwillingness of
some managers in using their organization for research. Despite these
limitations, the study will explore every necessary available information
to attain its set objectives.
1.8

DEFINITION OF TERMS
Employee/Worker

For the purpose of this study a worker is taken to mean any person who
has undertaken to place his gainful activity in return for a
remuneration, under the direction of another person who may be
an individual, a private or public company or a corporation, who
is styled the employer. (Akpala 1990)

12
Productivity
The output per unit of a factor of production is called the "productivity"
of that factor. Imaga (1996)
An organization's ability to transform inputs to output at the lowest
possible cost is its productivity, Unamka & Ewurum (1995).
Participation
This will be regarded as the process by which people contribute ideas
towards the solution of problems affecting the organization and
allied matters.
Employee Participation
This will be taken to be when those below the top of an enterprise
hierarchy take part in the managerial function of enterprise.
Decision Making
This could be taken to mean an art considering and making a
judgement concerning a particular issue or issues.

13
REFERENCES
1)
Alexander, Philip (1981) "Learning from the Japanese"
Personnel Journal August, p. 616
2)
Agwu Akpala(1990) Management: An introduction and
Nigerian Perspective p.23
3)
P.N. Ejiofor (1984) "Managing the Nigerian Worker"
Longman Nig Ltd Ibadan, p. 104
4)
Sufermeister, Robert A (1976) People And Productivity
New York: McGraw - Hill p. 86.
5)
U. Damachi "Worker participation in management in
Nigeria" Nigerian Institute of Management Journal Vol. 9 No. 1 Oct
1987 p.26
6)
Wadia Maneck (1980) "Participative management: Three
common problems" Personnel Journal, Nov. p.927.

7)
Unamka & Ewurum (1995) Business Administration.
Precision Printers and Publishers Enugu p.7.

8)
Imaga E.U.L. (1996) Theory and Practice of Production
Management: Gostak Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd. Enugu-Nigeria p.
18.

14
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1

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

literature will be made in this chapter which in turn will create a focus
and better direction. In this light, the literature will discuss first the
concept of participation, highlight of expressed views concerning
employee participation will be made. Other segements of the literature
as leadership style and degree of participation, conditions for
participation, influences on participation, arguments for participation,
arguments against participation and productivity improvement through
participative management and others etc. will be discussed.
Management, as defined by Mary Parker Folliet is the art of
doing things through people to achieve an objective. A vital concept
towards attaining objectives is decision making - making a choice out of
alternatives. The choice should conceptually benefit the manager, of
the business, the subordinates, the owners of the business and more
importantly the public.
implemented

Decisions made by management and

15
through people, that is, the subordinates. The question then is, should
the one to implement the decision have a say in what he should
implement.

2.2

CONCEPT OF PARTICIPATION
Several management strategies have been developed to enable

organizations attain their objectives, one of which is participatory

management.
Adeola S. (1994, p. 23) defines participation as the active
involvement of subordinates of followers in the making of decisions that
directly affect them in the work place. Participation in decision making
is generally regarded as a sign of enlightened and democratic
management.

It may be through of the giving and receiving of

information, achieve and suggestion and the sharing of experience

among members of an organization.
In management, Murew (1967 p. 83) opined that "participation
particularly applies to allowing the employees) to have a voice in
shaping policies, procedures and processes that directly or indirectly
affect".

It is therefore a process of sharing among managers and

employees. Though the use of

16
participation also, individual members are involved in a wide range of
objective setting, problem solving, and decision-making activities of the
organization.
Davis (1981 p.156) stated that participation is a mental and
emotional involvement of persons in group situations that encourage
them to contribute to group goals and share responsibility for them.
Lewin (1969 p. 21) defined it as a mode of organizational
operation in which decision as to activities are arrived at by the person ,
who are to execute those decisions.
However, participation from my own point of view, I can say is a
process in which two or more parties influence each other in making
decisions. The parties to the decision making process may be in their
capacities as individuals or as groups.
In participatory management, management selectively shares,
some of its powers with employees.

It takes into consideration the

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

It is a human relations approach where all members of the group are
seen as important contributors to the firm's decisions.

17
Gurin, Veroff and Feld (1979) concluded that participation is
really a middle-class value, and grows out of the prior expectations of
those being supervised.
Vroom (1964) points out two distinctions in the definition of
participation.

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

participating in the decision that affect you), and the second "objective"
(you actually participate strongly in the decisions that affect you
whether you know it or not).

Vrooms study is essence shows or

through some interesting light on how follower personalities affect

participation.
Rush (1973) maintains that
"a concept of participation can be seen as a means of humanising work
and of gaining grater employee involvement".

Participation per se, is not a programme but rather a

dramatic change in the way most companies take decisions and
operate on a day-to-day basis, which efficiency and productivity by
managers of organizations and on the other hand a way of getting
the best out of human resources employed in any business
organization.

18
Lundgren (184) says that
"the intent of participation as with many leadership approach is to
inspite high productivity and maintain a satisfied
work force.

The concept of participation in an organization can therefore

be summarized as a process by which an organization attempts to
unlock the creative potentials of its people by involving them in
decisions affecting their work lives.

It is a structured effort to

enable employees at all levels in an organization to use their

knowledge, skills and abilities more effectively in their work and to
participate more fully in decisions about their work life.

2.3EXPRESSED

VIEWS

CONCERNING

EMPLOYEE

PARTICIPATION
Different views have been expressed regarding employee
participation. These views range from outright rejection of the idea
to religious belief that only participation will make companies
productive and competitive. Labour leaders and workers while
continuing to press primarily for increased economic benefits and
related gains in working conditions, have become increasingly
persistent in demands for more direct

19
involvement in the decision making processes of the companies
that employ them. Politicians have allied themselves to the union
for political gains. Participation has become a familiar focus of
political debates in a number of countries where its backers seek
legislation to establish new participation formats or expand existing
procedures in companies to include more participation. Some
executives on the other hand have held on to the belief that worker
participation has no place in the enterprise.
In the light of the above McFarland (1968 p.502) tells us that
the root of participative decision making lies in the company
philosophy and managerial style and in the overall organizational
climate. Organizational climate as used by McFarland includes
people, laws, economic and market conditions and technology.
Likert and his associates who conducted elaborate research
studies at the institute for social research of the University of
Michigan stressed and prescribed participative group management
system as universally acceptable which is characterized by high
degree of trust, confidence and participation. Here there is a great
deal of interaction between

20
managers and subordinates and there is extensive upward and
lateral communication. He goes further to say "The leadership
and other process of the organization must be such as to insure a
maximum probability that in all interaction and in all relationship,
within the organization, each number in the light of his background,
values, desires, and expectations will view the experience as
supportive and one which builds and maintains his sense of
personal worth and importance".
McGregor (1960 p. 33) follows this theme by emphasizing
the desirability of replacing the authoritative theory X by the more
democratic participative theory Y. This theory assumes grater
motivation and increase fulfilment of both individual needs and
organizational goals. This theory assumes grater motivation and
increase fulfilment of both individual needs and organizational
goals. The individual will assume responsibility freely and easily,
exercise self direction and self control. Such organization that
operate on this assumption would readily distribute responsibility
widely among its managers and would want an individual to
participate in setting goals for himself and for the organization.

21
In other words this theory emphasizes participation management
rather than management by control.
Akpala (19990 p. 55) believes that MBO (Management By
Objective) to a certain degree can be called a participative
management system. Its operation calls for manages at any level
to join with their subordinates or their superior to plan the
objectives of the respective levels of management. That is, the
manager and the subordinate collaborate in setting goals for the
subordinate with the understanding that the extent to which these
objectives are attained will be the major factor in evaluating and
rewarding subordinates performance.
Lundgren (1984) says that "the intent of participation as with
many leadership approach is to inspire high productivity and
maintain a satisfied work force".
To him, participation seeks to achieve these goals through
the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process.
This concept is contingent on the presumption that participation
will increase satisfaction, stimulate interest and thus provoke high
productivity.

Lundgren however draws attention to the varying

degree of participation that can be allowed.

manager may simply invite questions

He holds that a

22
with respect to a decision he has already, made; or he may allow
subordinates full freedom to make decisions written to prescribed
limit. He goes further to opine that participation result in decision
that are perceived as being fair. This is based on the belief that
everybody gets a chance to express his views and to appraise the
views of others. "For a group that feels involved is more satisfied
an more productive than one that does not feels involved". Globe
(1972).
Maslow (1943) also extended his theory of motivation to
emphasize the importance of providing an organizational
environment in which the individual can achieve maximum self
actualization.
This is manifested in workers or employees performing their
jobs on a daily basis, knows the taste and distaste of particular
jobs, hence the problem associated with them. Therefore, they
are in a better position to identify such problems, their magnitude,
extent and ramification.
They should therefore be allowed to make contributions towards
solving such problems or where they cannot provide solutions to
such problems they should be allowed to make suggestions on
how they would be solved because two heads

23
are better than one. This is based on the fact that participation is
pulling of resources (human) together, either individually or
collectively, leading to identification and elimination of a particular
problem or problems.
Heller

(1981)

states that participation is the most

organizational problem of our time because individual members

felling of well being and their self realization are related to
participation and its consequences.
Kloeze, Molencamp and Reolof (1980) have suggested that
participation needs to be explained in terms of degree and
direction. The degree of participation in an organization explains
the amount of involvement that each individual employee will have
in both formulation and implementation.

This will be partly

determined by the way authority is delegated and also be

determined by how influential the participation will be. In other
words whether the employees are truly allowed to be involved and
are allowed to make decisions or whether they are merely allowed
to have some input which is not fully incorporated in decision
making (Pseudo-participation) depends largely on the spelt out
degree of participation in that organization.

24
Ellon (1960) describes participation as "a man's basic
biological process".
To him, man being a social creature seeks continuous
interaction with other people, his work let alone his attitude is
bound to be affected by those interactions. This is because, to a
large extent, organizational procedures not only impinge on his
task but determine the specification of his role and
responsibilities.
A study was undertaken to find the effects of participation in
government organization. The result of the study indicated that
increase involvement in the decision making process resulted in
higher worker morale.

But the productivity did not rise.

The

researcher Powell and Schlacter (1971) suggested that the

principal reason for the lack of increase in productivity was that
many of the workers were not ready to participate.
According to them, the workers preferred the dependent
relationship found in an authoritarian leadership style.

The

researchers also pointed out that it takes time for people to

become involved and that when they do the vary nature of their
involvement which they asserted as follows:

25
"The increasing number of relationship and interest, the
development of multiple objective and the possible
loss of informal leadership are factors which tends
to hamper improvement in productivity".

The key to effective use of participation the researchers

suggested, is the "manager" being able to find out the trade-off
point between participation and moral on one hand, and
productivity on the other hand which gives him the best overall
result.

Participation they asserted is one of the most

misunderstood ideas that have emerged from the field of human

relations.
Waldman (1986) put forth that participation of employee is
praised by some, condemned by others. He opines the difference
in point of view between its proponents and its critics are about as
great as those between leaders of "iron curtain" countries and
those of the free world when they use the term `democracy'.
Some have claimed that participation of employee is the
answer to organizational problems because it helps to eliminate
conflicts and disagreement. Others think of participation as a form
of managerial abduction.

26
According to such critics participation of employee is a
dangerous ideal that will undermine managerial prerogatives and
weakens management effectiveness.
McGregor et al opines that some group of managers look at
participation as a useful item in their bag of managerial tricks. To
such managers, participation is a manipulation device for getting
people to do what they want under conditions that delude the
participators into thinking that they have had a voice in decision
making.

In criticising such manager he says that participation

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

effective use of participation is a consequence of managerial point
of view which includes confidence in the potentialities of
subordinates and the desire to avoid some of the negative
emphasis on personal authority.
Elton Mayo realised that group activities are effective only
when each individual sees his interests as parallel to those of the
group. This theory conceptualized in what is generally known as
the "Hawthorne Experiments". argues that individual see
themselves as part of a specific group or clan rather than
members of society as a whole. Management therefore should

27
follow this clan principle by encouraging workers to work as a
group which they can identify with.
Usilaner (1986 p. 73) has this to say
"a remarkable thing about participation is that it encourages
people to accept responsibility for an activity".

This happens because participators are self involved in the

group so that they want to see that what they participated in works
successfully, Clearly, as individuals begin to accept responsibility
for group activities, they become more interested in and receptive
to team work.

This is because they see it as a means of

accomplishing a job for which they are responsible.

Davis (1981) says that a person who is actively involved in
something is naturally more committed to carrying it out on his
own.
Such an individual creates responsibility rather than having it
forced upon him by delegation.

Thus by making himself

responsible, the individual gains a measure of indpendence and

dignity as a person making his own decisions though these
decisions may be heavily influenced by his group environment.

28
All other views regarding participation of employee in the
workplace have revolved around these opinions with little or no
variation. However, time and experience have taught us that for
an organization to survive in today's complex economy, it needs
the support and active participation of its employees.

2.4

LEADERSHIP

STYLES

AND

DEGREE

OF

PARTICIPATION
Leadership as defined by Packard (1989) is the process of
influencing others to achieve specific objectives in specific
situations. However, excluded from leadership are such unduly
coercive methods as influencing people with acts of violence.
Without this exclusion muggers and hostage - takers are leaders.
Leadership
than

to

refers to something a person accomplishes rather

his

or her personal characteristics.

However,

characteristics may be used to influence people. The leadership

definition presented in this context implies that leader has a sense
of direction and the effectiveness of one's attempts to influence is
contingent upon unique situational factors.
In the light of this Dubrin (1989 p. 330) states that effective
organizational leaders are relatively consistent in the

29
way they attempt to influence the behaviour of group members.
The manager who makes all the major decisions in one situation is
not likely to share decision making in another. Also, the manger
who is considerate in one situation is not likely to be insensitive in
another.

He goes further to say that the relatively consistent

pattern of behaviour that characterizes a leader is his or her

leadership style.
Although the behaviour of most managers is too complex to
be described by a single style, and some managers modify their
styles is still useful.
The classical method of classifying leadership styles
arranges leadership behaviour along a continuum of the amount
of authority exerted by the leader. Although the origins of this
approach are over forty years old, most new approaches to
leadership style are rooted in the leadership continuum which
begins through the autocratic style, passes through the
participative style and ends with the free-rein or democratic style.
Lester Richard (1981) goes to define these concepts as
Autocratic leader he says maintains most of the authority by
issuing orders and telling group members what to do without

30
consulting them. To the autocrat, the basis for leadership is formal
authority.
A democratic leader he states confers final authority on the
group. He or she functions as a collector of opinions and takes a
vote before making a decision.
A participative leader, is one who shares decision making
authority with the group. Participative leadership occupies enough
space on the continuum to warrant it been recommended in the
management literature dating back to the early 1950s.
The nature of an organization determines the degree of
participation. A manager does not simply choose to use, or not to
use participation. In practice we find varying degrees of influence
by subordinates on decisions. Participation on a specific problem
may fall anywhere between two extremes: complete centralization
of decision making, whereby the manager merely announces his
conclusion and tries to get the subordinates to carry out the plan.
The degree of participation therefore depends on (a) who initiated
ideas; (b) how completely a subordinate carries out each phase of
decision making-diagnosing, finding alternatives, estimating

31
consequences, and making the choice; (c) how much weight an
executive attaches to the ideas he receives.

The greater the

initiative, the more complete the coverage, and the greater the
weight assigned the higher the degree of participation. (Newman,
Summer and Warren 1967 p. 534).
Participation in decision making is highly situational and is
largely a matter of degree. It should not be though of as single
process or actively but rather a whole range of process and
activities.
Kloeze, Molencamp and Reolofs (1980) suggested that
participation needs to be explained in terms of degree and
direction.

The degree of participation explains the amount of

involvement that each individual employee will have both

formulation and implementation. This will be part determined by
the way authority is delegated and also be determined by how
influential the participation will be. In other words whether the
employees are truly allowed to be involved and are allowed to
make decisions or either they are merely allowed to have some
input which is not fully incorporated in decision making (Psedoparticipation).

32
Elvis (1995) warns of the dangers of "pseudo participation".
This is participation which looks like but is not real participation.
True participation means that people can be observed to be
spontaneous and free in their discussion.
Benard (1992) referred to pseudo-participation as a
manipulative device used by management, that is , while
maintaining a theory X philosophy, they only recognize the
subordinates' inputs only when they conclude with the decision
they (management) have already made.
According to Guest and Fatchett (1973) the situation where
there is said to be sharing of decision making may be no more
than a means whereby management controls the situation. The
work force (employees) are allowed to "say" as long as what they
say has the agreement of management. When they disagree with
management, then they are taken away. For participation to
effectively take place, the employees exertion of control should
always lead to management alteration or abandonment of
proposed plans that affect the employees.
There is much controversy over the question of how much
autonomy subordinates should have in shaping own

33
goals, as well as those of the unit in which they work, and how
strongly the boss should impose his or her views when it comes to
goal setting with subordinates.
In essence, at one extreme is the position that subordinates
should be asked to set their own goals and those of their work unit.
The rationale for this approach, according to its advocates, is that
it motivates subordinates to do more or be more productive. At the
opposite pole are those who take the view that if the boss doesn't
know what to expect from subordinates, he or she shouldn't have
them on the payroll and therefore should tell people what to do,
and when and how to do it (Odiorne 1979, p.285)
Actually, neither extreme is a universally applicable style of
management, or goal setting. A research evidence indicates that
the use of participative management is a discriminatory skill. In
short, it shows that participative management works with some
kinds of situations and followers and does not work with other
kinds of situations and followers.
Onuoha has this to say in the light of the above; MBO has
been hailed by the advocates of "power equalization" because of
the possibilities it holds for the exercise of participative

34
management.

Now it is true that participative management is

perfectly acceptable as one method of goal setting in

management.

By Objective (MBO) system.

As a system,

however, management by objectives works also by autocratic or

top down goal setting. The choice of which method to use, or
when to mix them is determined more by the demands of the
situation, especially the expectations of subordinates, than by the
basic nature of the system itself. Infact the system is really neutral
to such value judgement (Onuoha 1994).

2.5

CONDITIONS AND INFLUENCES ON PARTICIPATION

Certain

prerequisite

conditions

are

participation to succeed in any organization.

necessary

for

Some of these

conditions exist in the environment while some actually occur in

the individual. These conditions as stated by Davis (1981) are as
follows:
1.There must be adequate time to participate before action
required for participation is hardly appropriate in emergency
situations.
2.The subject of participation must be relevant to the employee
environment, otherwise employees will look

35
upon it merely as busy work.
3.The participants should have the ability such as intelligence and
knowledge to participate. For example, it is unreasonable to
ask security men in a product manufacturing organization to
participate in mapping out marketing plans for their products.
4.The participants must be able, mutually, to communicate (to talk
each other's language) in order to be able to exchange
ideas.
5.There should be no feeling of threat to either party. If workers
think their status will be adversely affected they will not
participate.

Similarly, if managers feel that authority is

threatened, they will not allow participation.

6.The potential benefit of participation should be greater than its
cost. Participation should not be done at the expense of the
organization's work.
7.Participation can take place within the area of job freedom. Job
freedom for an individual or a department is its area of
discretion after all restraints have been applied. Restraints
in this context include the framework within which the group
makes decisions and such

36
decision cannot violate policy.
If these conditions as stated by Keith Daries are followed
rigidly and blindly, that is, all of them must obtain in one company
before one concludes that participation is not necessary. It is
sufficient that some of them must exist in the organization before
participation can be practiced.
Tannebaum and Schemidt cited in Ike (1996 p. 18) also
identified

conditions

given

greater

use

for

participatory

management on the part of subordinates, as follows:

-The subordinates have relatively high needs for independence
-They are ready to assume responsibility for decision making.
-They have relatively high tolerance for ambiguity.
-They are interested in the problems and felt they are important.
-They have the necessary knowledge and experience to deal with
the problems.
-They have learnt to expect to share in decision making.
Participation then, is like so many other management
concepts we can put it to excellent use, provided we apply it

37
to the right problems and circumstances. Economic relatives, the
interest of participants, the personality characteristics of
participants, the time available for discussion, and the desirability
of voluntary cooperation all need to be considered when we
decided how far to carry participation (Newman, Summer and
Warren 1971).
Bennis (1985) also has this to say "Another criterion we
should pay attention to when we decide whether participation is
desirable or not deals with the characteristics of potential
participants.

For instance, high mental ability is desirable.

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

strength in at least one of the following intellectual quantities.
Originality, penetrating analysis good memory, or balanced
judgement.

Participation for unintelligent subordinates clearly

must be restricted to limited phases of simple problems.

He goes further to highlight that self-confidence also helps
make a good participant, that a man with confidence in his own
ideas feels freeier to express them to his boss and other senior
officials, even though his views may not be in harmony with what
already has been said. While a particular problem may be so far
removed from chief interests of

38
subordinates that they are not willing to devote effort to
participating in its solution.
Another condition is that participative leadership requires
employees who want to participate and who have worthwhile input
necessary for the success of using particiaptive decision making
depending largely on the situation, it may be appropriate in a
particular industrial setting and inappropriate in another setting ,
cultural differences in the followers and the situation may be
inappropriate in determining the appropriate conditions for
successful participation (Mary 1996 p. 24),
The economic, social and psychological facts of life have
dictated the unassuming factors that influence the practice of
participative management in different organizational setting. This
is possibly because as stated by Burt (1981) changing from an old
style of management to a new way that involves employee opinion
takes time and money.

It also requires a great deal of

commitment from management and the employees. Employees

involvement, management commitment and the willingness of the
organization to invest their time and money; these are the major
factors that influence participation.

39
According to Guest and Fatchett (1973), the situation where
there is said to be sharing of decision making may be no more
than a means whereby management controls the situation. The
work force (employees) are allowed to `say' as long as what they
say has the agreement of management then they are taken away.
For participation to effectively take place, the employees exertion
of control should always lead to management alternative or
abandonment of proposed plans that affect the employees.
Above all, there are inherent factors that effect the effective
practice of participation which could be seen as either
requirements or prerequisites for participation. These includes the
following:

2.5.1 Education
In the past pros and cons of employee participation, many
preconceived ideas exist on this issue, and these blases and fears
need to be identified so that they can be resolved. The executives,
will ultimately need to support the attitude change, and they need
to be as committed as possible to the concept.

40
To achieve this committments, they must be educated about
what to expect, and in particular, cautioned not to count on
changes in a matter of few weeks. They must be advised that
there will be more money spent in training, dramatic increases in
the number of meetings and many frustrated managers and
employees along the way (Joseph and Pool 1982).
However people who want to contribute to issues should not
be ignorant of issues at stake,. The implication I think is that
workers must be educated to enable them give a conceptual
outlook on issues.
Rohlen (1987) while reviewing the books "The Japanese
Schools lessons for industrial America" and The Japanese
Educational challenge: a commitment to children" demonstrated
that Japan's economic success stem from an educational system
superior to their own (America). They made education a priority
and established national standards, allocated resources evenly,
accorded teachers high status, and emphasized continuous
improvement.

41
2.5.2 Willing Subordinates
The manager can gain from the subordinates who is willing
to co-operate and contribute.

Before turning decision making

responsibility over to a subordinate group the manager should

consider group effectiveness, that is how effective its members
work together as a unit.
Feldman

(1983

p.

289)

indicates

that

participative

management is most useful where subordinates expect that they

will have an opportunity to participate in the decisions affecting
them or in setting their own goals. And on the other hand where
subordinate managers already have shown themselves to be of
independent temperament . Such people will expect to participate
in establishing their goals.
It is on this note that Summer (1971) says that a person's job
assignment and the strength of this identification with his
department or his company strongly affect his response to an
opportunity to participate on a given problem. But if an alert and
self confident person is merely indifferent rather than subjective to
a motivational deadlock, participation may kindle his interest in a
problem.

42
2.5.3 Stable Environment
In a turbulent environment where things change too
frequently (government, competition, economy and consumers)
participatory management is derived only in a stable environment
where participants are with relevant knowledge, information
experience and willingness to participate . Mary et al notices that
in Nigeria, the benefits of participatory management cannot be fully
derived because of constant changes in economic policies and
frequent industrial disputes which has characterized the Nigerian
employee management relations in recent times.

2.5.4 Non Routine Decision and Orientation Practice

Participative decision making should not be routine.
invoke

participatory

management

for

mundane

To

everyday

operational decision would bring business to a halt. Participative

management is suitable for decisions that are not made on daily
basis. Group takes much longer time than individual to make
decisions. Okonkwwo (1991 p. 31) asserts that "The ideal new
employee will be a self start who has demonstrated a willingness
to work hard; is not easily

43
frustrated, has experience with terms and groups and has the self
confidence, flexibility and leadership to contribute to the goals of
the organization. The organizations orientation programme must
clearly communicate its culture and expectations to new
employees.
For the subordinates, however, time will be saved only if
they are concerned with all phases of a problem. Otherwise they
may spend hours listening to other people talk about matters on
which they can contribute little or nothing.

2.5.5 Wide Communication Success and Unbiased Data

Bulletin boards, news letters, meetings and other attention
getters all help reinforce the message that participative
management is important.

All parts of an organization should

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

operation as a whole. Recognition for special contribution is also
important. If company problem on the other hand are shared with
all through open and honest communication efforts, employees will
see for themselves that issues need their immediate attention.

44
By involving employees in discussions of company issues, they
develop a state in resolving those issue and can become even
more committed to the practice of participation (Okonkwo et al).

2.6

ARGUMENTS FOR PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT

Social scientists have done extensive research in the

subjects of leadership, organization, and communications. Some

of their discoveries have been widely hailed as break through in
management, or new patterns that will eventually supplant existing
methods of managing. Most of these work have been extended to
the prescriptive conclusion that participative decision making is
better than non participative decision making.
Perhaps the leading exponent of participative decision
making has been Douglas McGregor.

In describing how

management by objectives works he says "Genuine commitment

is seldom achieved

when objectives are externally imposed.

Passive acceptance is the most that can be expected,

indifference resistance are the more likely consequences"
McGregor (1960).

45
The participative style of leadership has been recommended
in the management literature dating back to the early say 1950s.
Many organizations today are achieving good results with
participative management. A case in point as noted by William
(1989 P.332) is Cipher Data Products. He says within one year of
implementing participative leadership throughout the firm, the
company experienced a 10 percent increase in customer-quality
acceptance in every product line.

However Cipher used

participative leadership styles effectively through careful planning,

including a training program and frequent monitoring of results.
Participation I can say leads to better decisions because it
encourages a spirit of co-operation among those participating but
the effect on morale should be regarded as a by-product. Unless
the primary aim of a manager in using participation is improved
decision making his sincerity will be challenged and the long-run
effect on morale may be harmful rather than helpful.
Newman (1971 P.538) has also noted that participation is a
convenient way for a manager to top the diverse knowledge
different viewpoints, and complementary abilities of

46
his subordinates.

As with many good things, however, these

benefits come at some sacrifice and only under favourable

circumstances.
Peter

(1993)

maintains

the

desirability

of

participative

management and supports his argument as he says

"The value of participation had been seen as a contributing
factor to optimization of individual freedom and
self determinant within a collective context".

To him, man being a social creature seeks continuous interaction

with other People, his work let alone, his attitude is bound to be
affected by those interactions. This is because to a larger extent,
organizational procedures not only impinge on his task but
determine the specifications of his role and responsibilities.
Group participation can also be a powerful means for
arriving at an integrated decision. By this we mean a decision that
takes into account the needs of the various division of the
company and one that each participant personally accepts as the
best that can be worked out in the circumstances.

Such

integration results from effective participation, because everyone

present; manager and subordinate is influenced by

47
the facts, information and feelings of every one else. Integration of
decision also reflects a balancing of power as various ideas and
information flow among participants. If the manager has the power
of the formal organization, if the subordinates can put pressure on
the manager, and if the group can exert power on deviant
members, then out of all these influences and ideas can come a
balanced decision that, although it may not please everyone fully,
is more effective and workable in the long run than one arrived at
in any other way (Summer, Newman and Warren (1971 p. 544).
Participative management as seen by the researcher
creates a work environment where less resistance to new methods
may result

and the problem solving process may produce

innovation, technical skills and increased flexibility are equally

developed both in the managers and subordinates. Some specific
advantages of participative management as advanced by Onuoha
et al include the followings.
-Auditing in implementation: Since employees have influenced
on corporate decision, they are happy to implement to the
core and there are less resistance to management action.

48
-Elevation of Employee Morale
The workers morale and drive to work towards attaining
organizational

goals

are

elevated

with

participating

management in practice.
-Personnel Development
Employees are afforded adequate training and opportunity to rise
when need arises.
-Correction of Underemployment
Workers potentials are fully tapped when forum for expressing
their views are provided.

This occurs mostly in a brain

storming session.
-Facilitation of Effective Control
Managers as directors are guaranteed when participatory
management is in place.
-Improved Communication
The

free movement of

information

is

ensured between

management and employees. Management is opportuned

to know what is going on in the lower levels.
Finally, since research evidence shows that participative
management probably does no harm, and often helps, especially
in managing people from middle class backgrounds

49
and similar value systems, the appeal that there may be long run
social value in participation has not fallen on deaf ears. In this
essence, many business manages lead the social scientists in
their confidence in the values of participative management, even
though they may doubt its efficacy as an infallible spur to
productivity.

2.7

ARGUMENTS

AGAINST

PARTICIPATIVE

MANAGEMENT
The usual arguments against participation tend to revolve
around the contingency approach ranging from the system of the
organization to capabilities and capacities of that organization in all
ramifications.
For this reason, Bisocos (1990) suggest that; "Every
executive should be aware of the help he might obtain from his
subordinates in his planning. Diverse knowledge, different view
points, and complementary skills are strong supports when tough
decisions have to be made.

But participation is not always

desirable. If economic realities or other forces restrict possible

alternative, an executive should not try to fool his subordinates that
they are helping to reach what is a foregone conclusion. In
addition, the capacity and willingness

50
of subordinates to contribute may limit the degree of participation
that is feasible, and the pressure of time may prevent its use.
Benson (1994 p. 16) argues that "As other companies have
learned, participative leadership does create some problems. One
executive noted that some mangers personally feel a loss of power
when participative management is implemented and that another
problem is that participative leadership requires employees who
want to participate and who have worthwhile input".
It has been noted also that participation would mean costly
delays. Even when there is no emergency pressure, the time
required for participation may be a serious obstacle to its use.
Hence, on small matters, one should ask him or her self whether
participation is worth the time it takes away from other work.
Particularly, on the hand, has no claim to being the core of a new
pattern of management by objectives (MBO) that will guarantee
high productivity if universally adopted by managers.
Nwosu (1989, p. 15) tries to disprove the feasibility of
participation, yes-men are found in an organization when he

51
says thus:
"A highly dependent person who typically looks to others for help
in solving problems is unlikely to provide fresh
ideas. Moreover, such a dependent person often
gets trapped by a feeling that opposition to views
of supervisor is a sign of disloyalty".

Vroom et al on the other end poses that highly authoritarian

personalities, on the other hand, perform better when they don't
have any participation, but are simply told what to do, when to do
it, and how to do it.
The specific disadvantages of participation as noted by
Onuoha are as follows:
Crisis Situation
The concept becomes a no issue in particularly crisis situation.
This means that it does not have an "all weather application".
Nigerians socio-economic situation in recent items has imposed
hardship on the use of this system for some organizations.
Imposition on Training
Extra costs are borne by mangers to build employees up for the
concept to be relevant to them. It is however, believed that the
investment is worth it.

52
Information Leakages
Consultation may lead to leakages of secretes and this can pose
threat to organization's survival knowledge and professional
judgement are simply not adaptable in any meaningful sense to
participation for democratic purposes.
Complexity of Decision
Decisions that require complex knowledge and profession
judgement are simply not adaptable in any meaningful sense to
participation for democratic purposes.

2.8METHODS OF INVOLVING EMPLOYEES IN DECISION

MAKING
Several method of involving employees in an organization's
activity has been identified by management writers amongst which
are:

2.8.1 Consultation
This involves seeking opinion of employees on matter
affecting the job. Mangers consult with their employees in order to
encourage them to think about issues and contribute their own
ideas before decisions are made. It would also mean

53
briefing the employees on decisions that have been taken and
explaining why such action has been taken in order to gain their
co-operation.

The implication, however is that employees

suggestions are subject to approval and disapproval of managers.

Consultative management has the advantage of managers
consulting with his employees at any time without having to go
through the red tape required by committee procedures. Also the
manger can consult with any number of employees ranging from
one to a whole group.

2.8.2 Job Enrichment

This is increasing vertically the responsibilities of employees;
asking them greater discretion to make decision affecting their
work without reference to the superior.

The essence of job

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

same time giving him increased participation in decision making.
An enriched job is seen as the key to improve performance. It
involves expanding the decision making capacity of employees. It
is only suitable for high level managerial, professional and crafts
jobs where the potential for enriching jobs is greater. It has also
been found that trade

54
unions dislike job enrichment. A trade union leader in his reaction
to dislike for job enrichment said. if you want to enrich the job,
enrich the pay packet, the better the

55
wage the greater the job satisfaction (Ofstad 1989).

2.8.3. Board Representation

This is the peak of employee participation when employees
are represented at the board of a company. It is a new form of
employee participation in decision making that emerged in recent
times and is gaining much ground though most in the advanced
countries. The board is the key decision taker for the organization
as they define the corporate objectives and board polices to guide
organizational actions.

Strategic decision also influences the

decisions of the people in the government so that appropriate laws

are passed to protect the organization. Committment to achieve is
ensured when employees send someone to be part of the
directors. Appointment of employees to company boards should
be according to efficiency and competence although experience in
labour organization might constitute sufficient evidence of
competence (Fatchett 1974).

56
2.8.4 Collective Bargaining
Collective bargaining or joint consultation is essentially an
autonomous system of making job rules between employers and
trade unions. It is a situation whereby employees representatives
meet with employers' representatives to haggle and agree on
matters affecting employees at work or a process whereby a part
in industrial relations makes proposals or demand to another
discussing, criticising explaining, exploring the meaning and efforts
of the proposals, seeking to secure acceptance. The negotiation
centre around wages and salaries and other conditions such as
housing, transport, leave allowances, medical care, pension,
gratuity etc.
Akpala (1982) defined it as a process of negotiation between
workers and employers through their organizations of a contract of
employment for the best possible working conditions and terms of
employment. The rationale for collective bargaining is agreement
but if an agreement was not reached, the action which took place
is not less collective bargaining than if the process had ended in
agreement.
Thus, collective bargaining takes place when one collective
actions is involved whether or not agreement is

57
reached so long as the two parties have made genuine efforts to
reach agreement.
The Nigerian Employer's Consultative Association (NECA)
in redefining collective bargaining states that "Collective bargaining
is a process of decision making. Its overriding purpose is the
negotiation of an agreed set of rules to govern the substantive and
procedural rules or terms of employment relationship between the
bargaining parties".

2.8.5 Consultative Councils

This is where employees' representatives meet at intervals
to obtain and send information relating to organizational activities
and proffering suggestions on how things are to be done.
The council is not supposed to be biased, that is, fighting for
the interest of the employers, management may identify a group of
managers, say line managers' conference where papers are
delivered by some of them and the board would be interested in
subject matter of the papers.

58
2.8.6 Management by Objectives
The concept of management by objectives may also fall in
line with participatory management, in that goal congruence takes
place when superior and subordinates agree on objectives and
performance criteria to judge subordinates' activities. Employees
are integrated at taken decisions through management by
objectives.
Management by objectives is planning done cooperatively
between two levels of management, the top level with the middle
level with the lower levels to participate in taking decisions that set
out corporate, departmental or specific objectives, policies,
procedures etc as the case may be (Lawler 1986).
2.8.7 Work Ownership Scheme
This is a situation where employees are not just employees,
but part owners of the business. In other words, employees are
given right and opportunity to own shares in the business
enterprise. The implication is that they (employees) consider any
effort as being done for themselves and not for the managers or
owners of the business. Shareholding is aimed at democratizing
ownership. (Benjamine 1990).

59
2.8.8 Individual Contact
John (1987 p. 28) opines that this involves day-to-day and
face to face exchange of opinions, ideas, information and
experience between the manages and his employees on an
individual basis, there is no formal preparations required and the
employee is made to feel that he is valued both as an employee
and as a person. Inspite of these advantages there are inherent
disadvantages, this is depicted in employees being reluctant to
express themselves concerning their job probably due to fear of
loosing their groups and the work situation. Also some managers
feel asking the advice of their employees shows weakness in their
leadership ability.

2.9

ENHANCING

PRODUCTIVITY

THROUGH

PARTICIPATION
Productivity on its own as a concept has been defined as the
output per unit of a factor of production (Imaga, 1996). However,
amongst all other productivity measures, labour productivity has
received the maximum attention. Labour we know is the most
basic or fundamental factor of production.

Productivity on the

other hand can be improved or enhanced through so many factors

for which participative decision

60
making is considered crucial ie. through people.
It is on the light of this that, Flippo and Munsiger (1983)
reported that the need for involving subordinates in decision
making process in the organization are mainly for productivity and
morale.

In essence, improvement in productivity arises when

subordinates' ideas are stimulated involving them in greater

participation on decision-making.
To maximize productivity, management must value and
nurture its most important assets, namely, people (workers)
Authoritative secretive and formal relationships have to be
replaced by an environment whereby the importance of every
employee is reflected (Knowles 1982 p. 19).
Esler (1989, p. 127) also reports that better communication
between employees and management will be the key factor in
separating successful companies from those that will fail in future
years. He goes further to state that certain large multinational
cooperation such as IBM, and General Motors have come to
appreciate the value of keeping their personnel "involved, informed
and interested in company
matters... improving productivity will be the single most important
factor in determining industry success.

61
Wight (1983) advanced that undoubtedly, "the greatest
productivity improvement will come from using our human
resources better-from taking the obstacles away from people so
that they can do their jobs more effectively. From involving them in
the affairs of the organization that concerns them.

The real

secrete of productivity is people.

Japanese success is partially dependent upon their ability to
accept ambiguity, uncertainty and imperfection in organizational
life. They are more willing to invest in people to develop their
value orientation and help them gain diverse business experience.
This attitude shows that Japan as a country in their business
dealings are particiaptive in nature. They adopt collective decision
making and also collective responsibility (Beben 1981).
A Vice President of a company once said:
One thing that makes us successful is people. Our people are
not necessarily more talented than our
competitors, but they do seem to be more
dedicated, more motivated and more integrated to
the organization's system,.

When one actually examines the people that work in

excellent companies, one finds out that they are fairly normal
people rather than outstanding ones. The difference is that

62
their companies reinforce degrees of winning rather than degrees
of loosing.
Peter and Waterman (1982) reported that "nothing is more
enticing than the feeling of being needed which is the magic that
produces high expectations".
Lundgren 91984) also says that "the intent of participation as
with many leaders approach is to inspire high productivity and
maintain a satisfied workforce".
To him, participation seeks to achieve these goals through
the involvement of subordinates in the decision making process.
This concept is contingent on the presumption that participation
will increase satisfaction, stimulate interest and thus provoke high
productivity.
Hayes (1981) has this to say
"We increase productivity by producing more output with a
given number of inputs resources".
This implicitly means that the input resources is the human
resources which is rated highest in all other resources
and every other factors is determined by it in every organization.

63
According to Drucker (1964) "to be productive and efficient,
the enterprise needs the abilities, initiative and co-operation of
every member more than any previous system of production, its
human resources are its greatest asset, and the one least used".
It all shows that when an employee is allowed to participate
in the organizational decision making, he personally derives joy in
seeing what he suggested being implemented. This increases this
morale and of course productivity of his organization.
Odiorne (1979 p. 90) noted that in the early days of the
movement towards more particiaptive management, social
scientists were often heard proclaiming the democratic values of
permitting workers to take part in shaping the decisions affecting
them. But this particular line has practically been abandoned by
the new "behavioral scientists" who have steered their studies in
the direction of proving that participative management increases
productivity.
It

is

pertinent

therefore

to

note

that

participative

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

offers social values in which business should be interested,

64
it can be assumed that it is wise for the manager to try it first, in
preference to mere dictatorial methods. It should be recognized,
however, that this is hardly a strict application of science in the
modern sense.

65
REFERENCES
1)Adeola S. (1994), Corporate Decision Making, "Must
Workers have a Say" Corporate Diary, Financial Guardian, 4th
April p. 23.
2)Akpala A. (1982), Industrial Relations Model for
Developing Countries, The Nigeria System: Fourth Dimension
Publishers, Enugu.
3)Akpala A. (1990), Management: An Introduction and
Nigerian Perspective P.23
4)Benard M. (1985), Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
5)Benson T.E. Destination: (1990), Total Employee
Investment". Industry Week; September 3, vol 239.
6)Bisocos S.K. (1990), Employee Participation without
Pain" Human Resources Magazine 10 April.
7)Burt N. Leaders' New York Harper and Row.
8)Davis K. (1981), Organizational Behaviour; McGraw Hill
Books Ltd, New Delhi, P.156
9)Drucker P. The New Society. (1964), The Anatomy of the
Industry Chicago. Greenwood Press.
10)Dubrin J.A Ireland & William J.C (1989), Management
and Organization. South-Western Publishing Company
Cincinnatis, Ohio U.S.A.
11)Eilon S. (1968), Aspects of Management; Pergamon
International Library.
12)Elton M, (1985) Autonomy, Productivity and Leadership'
Research Institute Report for the Executive, July 9

66
13)Elvis R. (1995) Motivational Influences on Productivity: An
article on the Guide Newspaper 14 June (1995)
14)Feldman D.C and Hugh. J.A (1983) Management
Industrial and Group Behaviour in Organizations: McGraw-Hill
Book Company New York.
15)Globe F. (1983), Getting and using the ideas of People"
Industry Week Vol.239.
16)Guest & Fatchest (1974) Worker Participation, Individual
Control Performance; Institute of Personnel Management,
London,
17)Heller F.A (1981) Competence and Power in Managerial
Decision Making; John Willy and Sons Ltd Chictrester, P.46
18)Ike O.I Leadership & Employee Performance: The
Government Perspective.
19)Imaga E.U.L (1996) Theory and Practice of Production
Management Gostak Printing & Publishing Co Ltd Enugu Nigeria
p.18
20)Lester I.R (1981), "Leadership" Some Principles and
Concepts: Personnel Journal Vol 60 No 11 November
21)Cawler, E.E (1986) High-Involvement Management
Participative Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance
Josse-Basg, San Franciscan
22)Lewin K.(1968)"Forces Behind Good Habits and Methods
of Change" Sociology; of Work and Occupation. vol 2 No 6
23)Lundgrem E.E (1982) Organizational Management System
and Processes Canfield Press. San Francisco.

67
24)Maslow A. (1965) Eupsychian Management: Homewood.
Illinois, Richard D. Imin
25)McGregor D. (1960) The Human Size of Enterprise; Mc
Graw Hill Book Company.
26)McFarland D.E (1968) Personnel Management, Theory and
Practice The Macilliaan Company, London.
27)Muraw A.J (1967), Management by participation Harpers
and Row. New York, P.83

68
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1

DESIGN
The research design adopted for this work is survey

research design. Sample of the population of the publishing firms

was drawn. Also a sample of respondents was taken from the
population of the managers in these firms. These samples were
drawn using appropriate sampling techniques and procedures.

3.2

POPULATION OF THE STUDY

The population of this study is the number of publishing firms

in Nigeria, but because of the size of the country, the large number
of publishing firms and the high cost in time, effort and the difficulty
in obtaining reliable statistics, the researcher decided to narrow the
study to Enugu state.
The population of the respondents therefore consists of the entire
management staff and a selected number of employees in these
publishing firms.

69
3.3

SAMPLING PROCEDURE
A sample of three publishing firms was chosen, one public

and two private namely:

1)

Government Printing Press

2)

ROCANA Nigeria Ltd.

3)

Gostak Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd.

The chosen of these publishing firms is based on the fact

that all publishing firms in Nigeria operate under similar political,

social and economic millieu.

It is hoped therefore that a fair

generalization will be made.

A

representative

sample of the employees in the

organization were used, while entire managers in the three

organizations were used, this is because of their small size.
The sample size of the respondents were drawn using the
following formular:
n = Z2 p(1 - p)
e2
Where

n = sample size required

z = level of confidence desired
p = the estimated true proportion of success
e = the sample error permitted.

70
With 90% level of confidence, 5% permitted error and the
estimated true proportion of success of 85%, the sample size was
estimated thus;
Given that:
z = 90% (1.64)
p = 85% (0.15)
e = 5% (0.05)
n = (1.64)2 0.85 (1 - 0.85)
(0.05)2
= 137
The distribution of the sample size among the three chosen
firms is as follows:
No. of
Respondents
Government Press

60

Rocana Ltd

40

Gostak Printing And Publishing

Co. Ltd

37

The apportionment of the figures was based on the strength

of each firm.

71
3.4

INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION

Two instruments, namely; questionnaire and interviews were

used to collect data used in analysis.

The questionnaire was developed to contain the relevant
questions that would elicit necessary responses from the
responses. In addition to the questionnaire, oral interview was
also advanced to help in efficient collection of data.

These

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

establish with the respondents and the researcher being able to
elaborate on questions and terms which are not too clear to the
respondents.

3.5

METHOD OF DATA COLLECTION

The data collection was predominantly done through primary

source of data involving the use of questionnaire and interview.

Some documentary sources in the library were also consulted
during the literature review.
The copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the
management and the subordinates or the employees and the
information so collected formed the thrust of the data analysis.

72
In the questionnaire design, it consists of three sections.
The first section consists of personal data of managers, the
second section consists of the general questions for managers
while the third section consists of the questions for the employees
(subordinates).

3.6

RELIABILITY/VALIDITY OF TEST
To enhance reliability/validity of the data generated, efforts

were made to ensure that only the respondents who fall within the
identified group (i.e, managers and employee (subordinates) were
given the questionnaire since they are sure would give the relevant
responses.

Also the sample size and plan as empirically

determined were kept.

All these, not-withstanding the research has a tolerable error
margin of 5%

3.7

DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES

Descriptive

statistics

which

involves

the

collections,

presentation and characterization of a set of data in order to

properly describe the various features of that set of data, was
employed. Hence extensive use of percentages was made.

73
In addition, inferential statistics was employed to make
conclusions concerning the population based only upon sample
results. However, chi-square test was used to test the hypothesis.
The chi-square is denoted by:
X2

= (oi - ei)2
ei

X2

where
chi-square
oi

observed frequency

ei

expected frequency

summation.

74
REFERENCES
1.
Nworgu, B.G. (1991) Educational Research: Basic Issues
and Methodology, Ibadan Wisdom Publishers Ltd.
2.
Osuala, E.C. (1987) Introduction to Research
Methodology Onitsha: African - Feb. Publishers
3.
Nwabuokei, P.O. (1986) Fundamentals of Statistics.
Enugu: Koruna Book.
4.
Ikeagwu E.K. (1996), Groundwork of Research Methods
and Procedures' Unpublished Mimeograph. Department of
management, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.

75
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF

DATA
This chapter presents and analyses the findings from the

research. It will proceed in two stages.

1.

The discussion of the research questions

2.

presentation of data on the testing of hypothesis.

4.1

PRESENTATION

OF

DATA

FROM

MANAGERS'

RESPONSES
Research question 1:
What is the general perception of participative management policy
in your enterprise?
Questions 1, 5, 10 and 11 in the questionnaire for managers were
used to test this research question.

76
Table 4.1.1Managers' response on their perception of
participative management.
Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

4 (44.5)

3 (60)

2 (50)

Press

a) It helps eliminate conflict and

disagreement
b) A way of shifting responsibility

2 (22.2)

c) It weakens the Management

1 (11.1)

d) It enriches decision

2 (22.2)

2 (40)

(50)

Total

5 (100)

4 (100)

to subordinates

(100)

The above table shows that 4 out of 9 respondents

representing 44.5% in Government Press agreed that participation
eliminates conflicts and disagreement. 2 representing 22.2% sees
it as a way of shifting responsibility of subordinates, while 1
constituting 11.1% agreed that it weakens the management as 2
representing 22.2% supports that will enrich decision.
Out of 5 managers in ROCANA 3 representing 60% agreed
that participation eliminates conflicts and disagreement while 2
representing 40% of the manager respondents

77
indicated that it enriches decisions. on the other hand in GOSTAK
2 out of 5 constituting 50% is of the view that participation
eliminate conflict and disagreement while 2 also representing 50%
agreed that it enriches decisions.

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

decisions
Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Satisfactory

(22)

(80)

(100)

b) Fairly Satisfactory

(45)

(20)

c) Unsatisfactory

(33)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

Press

Table 4.1.2 indicates that in Government Press 2

representing 22% indicated that their employee decisions are
satisfactory while 4 out of a 9 constituting 45% rated employee
decision as fairly satisfactory and 3 making up 33% rated it
unsatisfactory. In ROCANA, 4 out of 5 constituting 80% of the
respondents rated employees 'decisions as satisfactory while 1
representing 20% rated it fairly

78
satisfactory. On the other hand all the managers respondent in
GOSTAk agreed that employees' decisions are satisfactory.
Table 4.1.3Managers responses on whether the time and
money invested in the practice of employee
participation

reflect

on

increased

productivity.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

(80)

(100)

b) No

(22)

c) Not Sure

(22)

(20)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

(56)

The table above shows that out of 9 managers respondents

in Government Press, 5 constituting 56% agreed that time and
money invested in the practice of employee participation is worth
the outcome. 2 representing 22% are not sure of this. However,
of the 5 manager respondents 4 making up 80% in ROCANA
agreed to the fact that time and money invested in the practice of
participation is worth the outcome where as 1 constituting 20% is
not sure of this.
In GOSTAK, all the respondent managers agree that time
and money invested in the practice of participative

79
management is worth the outcome.
Table 4.1.4Manager's responses on whether participative
management

is

advantageous

to

their

organizations.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

(45)

(80)

(75)

b) No

(33)

c) Not Sure

(22)

(20)

(25)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

Table 4.1.4 indicates that 45% of 9 respondent managers in

Government

Press

agreed

to

the fact that participative

management is advantageous to their organization as opposed to

33% (2) that disagreed to this fact while 3 constituting 22% of them
are not sure of this fact. In ROCANA 4 representing 80% of 5
respondents while 1 constituting 20% is not sure of this opinion.
Out of 4 respondents in GOSTAK 3 representing 75% agreed that
participative management is advantageous to their organization
while 1 constituting 25% are negative to this opinion.

80
Research question 2
Are workers opinion on decision making sought and
incorporated into the company's plans as management policy.
Question 4 in the questionnaire for managers was used to test this
research question.
Table 4.1.5 Managers responses on the rate at which
employees' decision are made use of.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Always

(56)

(100)

(100)

b) Rarely

(33)

c) Never

(11)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

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

Government Press, 5 representing 56% agreed that employees'
decisions are always made use of as 3 constituting 33% of them
believed that employees' decision are rarely made use of while 1
representing 11% said that they are never made use of.
In ROCANA, all (5) of the respondents believed that
employees' opinions are always made use of. Similarly, all the

81
respondents in GOSTAK agreed that in their organization
employees' decisions are always made use of.
Research question 3:
What is the level of workers participation in decision making in an
organization ?
Question 2 and 9 in the questionnaire for managers were used to
test this research question.
Table 4.1.6Managers responses on whether they think
employees in organizations fully participate
in any decision making.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

(56)

(60)

(75)

b) No

(11)

(20)

c) Not Sure

(33)

(20)

(25)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

The table above depicts that out of 9 managers in

Government Press, 5 representing % agreed that their employees
participate fully in any decision making, 1
respondent representing 11% disagreed on this issue while 3
representing 33% were not sure of this opinion. In ROCANA,

82
3 out of the 5 respondents, representing 60% indicated that the
employees in the organization full participate in any decision
making. 1 representing 20% disagreed on this issue while 1 also
representing 20% were not sure of this fact. Out of 4 respondents
in GOSTAK 3 constituting 75% believed that employees in
organization fully participate in any decision making not sure of the
fact that employees fully participate in any decision making.
Table 4.1.7Managers responses on the type of employ
participation that is allowed.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a)Suggestion Boxes

(22)

b) Individual Participation

(33)

(20)

(25)

c) Work Design

(33)

(60)

(75)

d) Shop Floor Participation

(12)

(20)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

The above obviously indicates that out of the 9 managers

that responded in Government Press 2 constituting 22%
opinions that the type of participation that is allowed is through
suggestion boxes, 3 making up 33% said is individual participation
as 3 also representing 33% ascertained that it is work design while
1 constituting 12% agreed that it is shop

83
floor participation. In ROCANA 1 out of 5 managers making up
20% agreed that their participation is individually, then 60% of
them said is through work design while 20% also agreed is shop
floor participation.
However, in GOSTAK 1 out of 4 of the respondents agreed
that it is individual participation while 3 representing 75% indicated
that it is through work design.
Research question 4
Is participation in decision making considered a major factor for
productivity ?
Questions 3,7,8 and 12 in the questionnaire for managers were
used to analyse this research question.

84
Table 4.1.8 Managers response on the main objectives they
intend to achieve by involving subordinates in the decision
making process of the organization.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

(22)

(45)

(20)

(33)

(20)

(50)

d) All of the above

(40)

(50)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

a) To seek and compare decision

(20)

options in task accomplishment

b) To enable subordinates share in
responsibility
c) To boost employee morale for
increased productivity

The table above shows that 22% of 9 respondents in

Government Press agreed that their objectives of involving
subordinates into decision making process is to seek and compare
decision options in task accomplishment, 4 representing 45%
agreed that their main objective is to enable subordinates share in
responsibility as 3 constituting 33% believe that it is to boost
employee morale for increased productivity. The evidence in the
table also shows that 1 out 5 respondents in ROCANA agreed
their main objective is to

85
seek and compare decision options in task accomplishment,
another 20% believe that it is to enable subordinates share in
responsibility as another 20% said is to boost employee morale for
increased productivity, while 2 representing 40% said that all the
options constituted the objectives. On the other in GOSTAK 2 out
of 4 making up 50% agreed that their main objective is to boost
employee morale for increased productivity while another 50%
agreed on all the options to be their main objectives.
Table 4.1.9Managers response on whether the present level of
workers participation is enough to motivate
them towards job satisfaction and improved
productivity.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

(45)

(80)

(100)

b) No

(33)

c) Not Sure

(22)

(20)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

Table 4.1.9 depicts that 4 respondents representing 45%

agreed that the present level of workers participation is enough

86
to motivate them towards job satisfaction and improved
productivity, 3 making 33% disagreed to this issue while 22% of
them were not sure of the situation. In ROCANA 4 out of 5 i.e,
80% agreed the fact as 20% of them were not sure. All the
respondents in GOSTAK agreed to this that the present level of
participation is enough to motivate them towards job satisfaction
and improved productivity.
Table 4. 1.10 Response on managers efficiency as a result of
employee involvement in decision making.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

(55.6)

(60)

(75)

b) No

(11.1)

(20)

c) Indifferent

(33.3)

(20)

(25)

Total

(100)

(100)

(100)

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

respondents in Government Press agreed that employee
involvement in decision making results in manager efficiency as
11.1% oppose to this fact while 33.3% were indifferent to this
issue. In ROCANA 60% agreed this, 20% disagreed while 20%
again was indifferent to it. 3 constituting 75% in

87
GOSTAK agreed that employee involvement in decision making
results in efficiency while 25% of them disagreed to it.
Table 4.1.11Responses on the advantages that accrue to the
organization as a result of participation.
Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

(11.1)

(33.3)

(11.1)

(20)

(25)

d) Improved productivity

(44.5)

(40)

(25)

e) All of the above

(40)

(50)

Total

(100)

(100)

Press

a) Increased employee
acceptance of responsibility
b) Increased employee
efficiency
c) More creative thinking in
employees

(100)

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

respondents in Government Press believed that increased
employee acceptance of responsibility is an advantage accrued to
then as a result of participation, 33.3% agreed that the advantage
is increased employees efficiency as 11.1% agreed that it is more
creative thinking in employees while 44.5% said

88
is improved productivity.

The table also reveals that out of

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

employees that is the advantage as 40% of them agreed is
improved efficiency while another 40% believe that all the listed
advantages in the table are accrued to them as a result of
participative management.

However in GOSTAK 25% of 4

respondents said increased employee efficiency is their advantage

but 25% of them also said is improved efficiency while 50% of
them agreed that all the advantages in the are obtainable as a
result of employee participation.

4.2PRESENTATION

OF

DATA

FROM

EMPLOYEES'

(OPERATIVES) RESPONSES
Research question 1:
What is the general perception of participative management
policy in your enterprise?
Questions 1 and 2 in the questionnaire for operatives were used to
analyse this research question.

89
Table 4.2.1Employees Response on their perception of
participative management
Options

a) Allows an employee to

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

(16)

12 (43)

11

(58)

14

(50)

(21)

(5)

28 (100)

19

(100)

(7)

take thorough decision on a

given task.
b) Welcomes employee

10

(25)

initiation to accomplish a
given task
c) Erodes the powers of

(7.5)

superior
d) Joints decisions by

20

(50)

subordinates and managers

in line with organizations
objectives
e) Allows subordinates do a

(17.5)

task the way they feel and

then inform the manager
Total

40

(100)

The evidence in the above table reveals that in Government

Press 10 representing 25% of the respondents sees participation
as a of welcoming employees initiation to accomplish a given task
75% believe that it erodes the powers

90
of superiors as 50% said is joint decision by subordinates and
managers in line with organizations objectives while 17.5% agreed
that it allows subordinates do a task the way they feel and then
inform the managers. In ROCANA 7% of the respondents agreed
that they see participation as an avenue to allow employee take
thorough decision on a given task, 43% of them said it welcomes
employee initiation to accomplish a given task while 50% of them
believe that is a joint decision by subordinates and managers in
line with organizations objectives.
On the other hand of the 19 respondents in GOSTAK, 16%
see it as a way of allowing an employee to take thorough decision
on a given task, 11 ie, 58%of them believe that it welcomes
employee initiation to accomplish a given task as 21% opined that
is a joint decision by subordinate and managers while only 5%
agreed that it allows subordinates do a task the way they feel and
then inform the manager.

91
Table 4.2.2 Employees response on whether their perception
of participative management is in line with
the firms policy.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

10 (25)

12 (42.9)

10

(52.6)

b) No

17 (42.5)

(32.1)

(36.9)

c) Not Sure

13 (32.5)

(25)

(10.5)

Total

40 (100)

28 (100)

19

(100)

Table 4.2.2 that 10 constituting 25% of the respondents

agreed that their perception of participation is in line with the firms
policy in Government Press, 42,5% of the 40 respondents was on
the negative side of this issue while 13 being 32.5% was not sure
of the this fact. In ROCANA 12 out of 28 respondents being
42.9% agreed that their own perception falls in line with the firms
policy as opposed to 9 ie, 32.1% that remained negative to this
while 25% was not sure.
However in GOSTAK 10 out of 19 being 52.6% believe that their
perception is in line but 7 being 36.6% remained negative to this
while 10.5% were not sure.

92
Research question 2
Are workers opinion on decision making sought and
incorporated into the company's decision and plans ?
Question 3,9,and 10 in the questionnaire for employees were used
to analyse this research question.
Table 4.2.3Employees response on whether managers seek
their opinion and consider them in decision
making.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

15 (37.5)

16 (57.1)

10

(52.6)

b) No

13 (32.5)

(28.6)

(31.6)

c) Not Sure

12 (30)

(14.3)

(15.8)

Total

40 (100)

28 (100)

19

(100)

The table above reveals that out of 40 employees

respondents in Government Press 37.5% agreed that their opinion
are sought and considered in decision making, 32.5% disagreed to
this while 30% were not sure of this. In ROCANA 57.1% of 28
respondents agreed that their opinion are sought and considered
in decision making but 28.6% did not agree to this while 14.3%
were not sure. Out of 19 disagreed while

93
15.8% of them were not sure that such is obtainable.
Table

4.2.4 The reaction of the manager/Boss when a

subordinate brings up an opinion.

Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

19 (47.5)

5 (17.9)

17 (42.5)

20 (71.4)

17

(89.5)

c) He is usually indifferent

(10)

3 (10.7)

(10.5)

Total

40

(100)

28 (100)

19

Press

a) He insists his own way of

accomplishing the task is the best
b) He welcomes it and makes it part of
the decision

(100)

Table 4.2.4 presents that in Government Press 47.5% of 40

respondents said that the boss insists his own way of
accomplishing the task is the best, but 42.5% of them agreed that
he welcomes their opinion and makes it part of the decision while
4 being 10% of them believed that he is usually indifferent
whenever such opinion is brought up. On the other hand, out of 19
respondents in GOSTAK 17 being 89.5%

believe that he

welcomes their opinion and makes it part of the decision while

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

94
Table 4.2.5 How employee react when the supervisor insists
only on his own way of accomplishing tasks.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) I feel highly dejected

11 (39.3)

(36.8)

b) I feel demoralized

29 (72.5)

14 (50)

(36.8)

c) I feel happy

(5)

(5.3)

d) I'm often indifferent

(22.5)

3 (10.7)

(21.1)

Total

40

(100)

28 (100)

19

(100)

The table above shows that when the supervisor insists only
on his way of accomplishing tasks, 72.5% of 40 respondents in
Government Press feel demoralized, then 5% feel happy while 9
being 22.5% were often indifferent to this matter. In ROCANA
39.3 feel highly dejected as 50% of the 18 respondent there feel
demoralized while 3 constituting 10.7% were often indifferent.
Similarly in GOSTAK 36.8% of 19 respondents feel highly dejected
where as 36.8% also feel demoralized, 5.3% feel happy while 4
representing 21.1% said they are often indifferent to it.

95
Research question 3
What is the level of workers participation in decision making?
Question 6, 7 and 8 in the questionnaire for employees were used
to analyse this research question.
Table 4.2.6The level at which employees are allowed to
participate in decision making.
Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Top Management Level

(10)

3 (10.7)

(10.5)

b) Middle Management Level

18

(45)

11 (39.3)

(47.4)

c) Lower Management level

(15)

11 (39.3)

(31.6)

d) All of the above

12

(30)

3 (10.7)

(10.5)

Total

40

(100)

28 (100)

19

Press

(100)

The above table indicates that 4 respondents being 10% of

40 in Government Press believe that employees participate in
decision making at the top management level, 45% of them said
is at the middle management level as 15% agreed is lower
management level while 30% believe that the participation is at all
levels. In ROCANA 10.7% of its 28 respondents said

96
that the participation is at the top level, 39.3% believe is at the
middle. But also 39.3% said is at the lower level while 10.7% of
them agreed is at all levels enumerated above. Out of the 19
respondents in GOSTAK 10.5% said is at the top level, 47.4%
agreed is at the middle level and 31.6 indicated that it takes place
at the lower while 10.5% believe is at all levels.
Table 4.2.7Whether employees feel trapped by a feeling that
opposition to view of supervisors might be
seen as a sign of disloyalty.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

22

(55)

16

(14.3)

(10.5)

b) No

18

(45)

24

(85.7)

17

(89.5)

Total

40

(100)

28

(100)

19

(100)

In table 4.2.7 55% of 40 respondents in Government Press

agree that they feel trapped by a feeling that opposition to views of
supervisors might be seen as a sign of disloyalty which 45% of
them say no this.

In ROCANA 14.3% of the 28 respondents

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

19 respondents in GOSTAK 10.5% was on the positive side while
89.5% remained negative to this feeling.

97
Table 4.2.8 If employees inform managers when they feel
there is a better way of doing a particular job
than the firms stated way.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

26

(65)

24

(85.7)

16

(84.2)

b) No

14

(35)

(14.3)

17

(15.8)

Total

40

(100)

28

(100)

19

(100)

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

doing a job than the firms stated way 65% of 40 respondent
employees in government press said they inform the managers
while 35% do not do so. In ROCANA 85% of the 28 respondents
said they inform the managers while 14.3% said they don't do so.
And in GOSTAK 84.2% of the 19 respondents agreed that they do
so while 15.8% of them do not inform the managers on this.
Research question 4
Is participation in decision making considered a major factor
for productivity ?
Questions 11 and 12 in the questionnaire for employee were used
to analyse this research question.

98
Table 4.2.9Considering employee involvement in decision
making as a major reason to improve
productivity.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Yes

33 (82.5)

24 (86)

13

(68.4)

b) No

(10)

(7)

(10.5)

c) Not Sure

(7.5)

(7)

(21.1)

Total

40 (100)

28 (100)

19

(100)

Table 4.2.9 indicates that out of 40 respondents in

Government Press 82.5% agreed that employee involvement in
decision making is considered a major reason for productivity
improvement, 10% of them disagreed while 7.5% were not sure of
this fact. In ROCANA 86% of the 28 respondents believed this,
7% of them remained negative to it while also 7% were not sure.
Then in GOSTAK 68.4% of the 19 respondents said yes to this as
10.5% were negative while 21.1% were not sure of this fact.

99
Table 4.2.10Direct consequences of employee participation in
decision making.
Options

Government
Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

Freq. (%)

a) Increased productivity.

17 (42.5)

22 (78.6)

16

(84.2)

b) Increased wastage of time

15 (27.5)

5 (17.9)

(15)

40

(100)

28 (100)

19

(100)

(5)

and many
c) Cordial

(15.8)

Manager/Subordinate
Relationship
d) Weakens Management

Effectiveness
e) Added Responsibility to

(3.5)

the EMployee
Total

Shown in table 4.2.10 above is that of 40 respondents in

Government Press 42.5% of them believe that increased
productivity is the direct out come of participative management,
5% said is increased wastage of time and money as 37.5% agreed
that it is cordial manager/subordinate employee.

Out of 28

respondents in ROCANA 78.6% of them believe that the outcome

is increased productivity and 17.9% of then said is cordial
manager/subordinate relationship while

100
1 being 3.5% of them believe that the direct consequence of
participation management is added responsibility to the employee.
However in GOSTAK, not the 19 respondents, 16
representing 84.2% believe that the direct outcome of participation
is increased productivity while 3 constituting 15.8% of them said is
cordial manager/subordinate relationship.

4.3

TESTING OF HYPOTHESIS
It can be tested in a null form.

Hypothesis 1:
Ho:Participation decision making does not involve participation at
all levels of management.
Question 6 from employee questionnaire was used to collect
data for the above hypothesis.

101
Table 4.4.1 (Contingency)
The level at which employees are allowed to participate in decision
making.
Options

Government

Rocana

Gostak

Freq.

Freq.

Freq.

Total

3 (2.9)

(2.0)

18 (17.5)

11 (12.2)

(8.3)

38

(10.6)

11 (7.4)

(5.0)

23

d) All of the above

12 (7.8)

3 (5.5)

(3.7)

17

Total

40

28

19

Press

a) Top Management

(4.1)

Level
b) Middle Management
Level
c) Lower Management
level

Test technique:
X = (oi - ei)2
ei
2

Expected frequency = Column total x Row total

Grand Total
Row 1 cell 1: E =
87

9 x 40
=
4.1

Row 1 cell 2:

E =
87

9 x 28
=
2.89 or 29

Row 1 cell 3:

E =
87

9 x 19
=
1.97 = 2.0

87

102
Row 2 cell 1:

E =
38 x 40
87 =
17.47

Row 2 cell 2:

E = 38 x 28
87
=
12.2

Row 2 cell 3: E

38 x 19
87
=
8.3

Row 3 cell 1:

E = 23 x 40
87
=
10.6

Row 3 cell 2:

E
87

Row 3 cell 3

23 x 28
=
7.4

E = 23 x 19
87
=
5.0

Row 4 cell 1:

E =
87

17 x 40
=
7.8

Row 4 cell 2:

E
17 x 28
87
=
5.5

Row 4 cell 3:

E = 17 x 19
87 =
3.7

103

Fo

Fe

Fo - Fe

(Fo - Fe)

(Fo - Fe)
Fe

4.1

0.1

0.01

0.00

18

17.5

0.5

0.25

0.01

10.6

4.6

21.16

2.08

12

7.8

4.2

17.64

2.26

2.9

0.1

0.01

0.00

11

12.2

1.2

1.44

0.12

11

7.4

3.6

12.96

1.75

5.5

2.5

6.25

1.14

2.0

1.8

3.24

1.62

8.3

0.7

0.49

0.06

5.0

1.0

1.0

0.20

3.7

1.7

2.89

0.78
= 10.02

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

104
Decision
Since the computed chi-square of 10.02 is less than the
tabulated or critical value of 12.592, we accept the null hypothesis
conclude that participative decision making does not involve
participation at all levels of management.
Hypothesis 2
Ho : Productivity is not independent of employees participation in
decision making.
Question 11 from employee questionnaire was used to collect data
for testing of the above hypothesis.
Table 4.4.2 (Contingency)
Considering employee involvement in decision making as a major
reason to improve productivity.
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq.

Freq.

Freq.

a) Yes

33 (32.2)

3 (22.5)

13

b) No

(3.7)

2 (2.6)

(1.7)

c) Not Sure

(41)

2 (2.9)

(2.0)

Total

40

28

19

Expected frequency= Column total x Row Total

Grand Total
Row 1 cell 1: E

Row 1 cell 2: E

Row 1 cell 3: E

70 x 40
87 =

32.2

70 x 28
87
=

22.5

70 x 19
87
=

15.3

Total
(15.3)

70

87

105
Row 2 cell 1: E

Row 2 cell 2: E

Row 2 cell 3: E

Row 3 cell 1: E

Row 3 cell 2: E

Row 3 cell 3: E

8 x 40
87
=

3.7

8 x 28
87
=

2.6

8 x 19
87
=

1.7

9 x 40
87
=

4.1

9 x 28
87
=

2.9

9 x 19
87
=

2.0.

Fo

Fe

Fo - Fe

(Fo - Fe)

(Fo - Fe)
Fe

33

32.2

0.1

0.64

0.02

3.7

0.5

0.09

0.02

4.1

4.6

1.21

0.29

24

22.5

4.2

2.25

0.10

2.6

0.1

0.36

0.14

2.9

1.2

0.81

0.28

13

15.3

3.6

5.29

1.35

1.7

2.5

0.09

0.05

2.0

1.8

4.00

2.00
X 3.25

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

106
At 0.05 level of significance and 4 degrees of freedom, the
tabulated value is given 9.488.
Decision
Since the computed chi-square of 3.25 is less than the
tabulated or critical value of 9.488, we accept the null hypothesis
and conclude that productivity is not independent of employees
participation in decision making i.e, productivity is also dependent
upon participative decision making.
Hypothesis 3:
Ho:
The investment effort on the practice of participative
decision making does not reflect on increase on
productivity.
Question 10 from managers' questionnaire was used to collect
data for testing of the above hypothesis.
Table 4.4.3Managers response on whether the time and
money invested in the practice of employee
participation
reflect
on
increased
productivity
Options

Government Press

Rocana

Gostak

Freq.

Freq.

Freq.

Total

a) Yes

(6.5)

3 (3.6)

(2.9)

13

b) No

(1.0)

- (0.6)

(0.4)

c) Not Sure

(1.5)

1 (0.8)

(0.7)

Total

Expected frequency = Column total x Row total

Grand total
Row 1 cell 1: E

13 x 9
18
=

6.5

18

107
Row 1 cell 2: E

Row 1 cell 3: E

13 x 5
18
=

3.6

13 x 4
18

Row 2 cell 1:

Row 2 cell 2:

Row 2 cell 3:

Row 3 cell 1:

Row 3 cell 2:

Row 3 cell 3:

2.9

1.0

0.6

2x4
18

0.4

3x9
18

1.5

3x5
18

0.8

3x4
18

0.7

2x9
18
2x5
18

Fo

Fe

Fo - Fe

(Fo - Fe)

(Fo - Fe)
Fe

6.5

1.5

2.25

0.35

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.00

1.5

0.5

0.25

0.17

3.6

0.4

0.16

0.04

0.6

0.6

0.36

0.60

0.8

0.2

0.04

0.05

2.9

1.1

1.21

0.42

0.4

0.4

0.16

0.40

0.7

0.7

0.49

0.70
X 3.73

108
Decision Rule
Reject Null Hypothesis (Ho) if the computed chi-square is greater
than the tabulated or critical value, otherwise accept Ho
Degrees of Freedom = (R - 1) (C - 1) = (3 - 1) (3 -1) = 4
Level of significance = 0.05 (5%)
At 0.05 level of significance and 4 degrees of freedom, the
tabulated value is given 9.488
Decision
Since the computed chi-square if 3.73 is less than the
tabulated or critical value of 9.488, we then accept the null
hypothesis and conclude that: The investment effort on the
practice of participative decision making does not reflect on
increase in productivity.

109
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0
DISCUSSION, SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS OF
FINDINGS.
5.1. INTRODUCTION
This chapter discusses the results of the findings, the
conclusions and the recommendation as well directions as for
further research.
This research work has examined the extent of participative
decision making in organization through the views of workers and
managers, the levels and ways of involving employees in decision
making and then how it affects productivity and other factors.
5.2

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The following findings were made by the researcher;
1)That participative decision making does not involve participative
at all levels of management as revealed by the test of
hypothesis. This result could be attributed to the diverse
views on the levels of workers participative. This could arise
from what Damachi (1989) refereed to as determinants of
workers participation. These are the situational and the
human factors. "The situational factors include the autonomy
of the enterprise, technological factors, the size of the
enterprise and the organizational structure of the enterprise.
The human factors consists of workers attitudes and
objectives in relation to participation and workers perceived
power and capacities to participate.

110
This fact is manifested in the greater extent of participation in
the two private firms, ROCANA and GOSTAK than in Government
Press.
As revealed by the responses in the interview guide/question the
managers in GOSTAK and ROCANA opined that workers in
the organization have different areas of specialization in their
operations and can only say better how things could be done
well in such areas and therefore make necessary and
relevant decisions that are always welcome in such areas for
more efficiency. In the Government Press enough chances
are not always given to the operatives to make relevant
decisions because of the organizational structure which
permits downward flow of communication.
2)Another finding was that productivity is not independent of
employees participation in decision making in other words
productivity to a great extent is dependent on participative
management. Data analyzed in the light of this showed that
workers involvement in decision making have a significant
influence on productivity. In the analysis also it was found
out that the majority of the respondents agreed that
employee involvement in decision making is a major factor
to improved productivity. It was also revealed that when
employees opinion are incorporated into decisions, there is more
stimulated of ideas and greater effort and co-operation. It
also raises the morale of the workers, make them have
sense of belonging and the psychologically involved in the
running of the organization, they will often

111
respond to shared problems with innovate suggestions and
unusual efforts. All these in turn give rise to improved
productivity.
This fact is also made manifest in the response of employees in
the interview question (1) and (2) where they pointed out that
they always feel like making suggestions in the decision
making process and in the areas that concerns them most
and their specialized areas. In doing this they are self
fulfilled and give their best because they are recognized and
made part of the organization. Even the managers also
confessed that these subordinates morale are not raised if
they are not recognized while making decision. This finding
has agreed with the earlier finding of Lundgrem (1984) that:
"the intent of participation is to inspire high productivity and
maintain a satisfied work force.
Hence,
participation seeks to achieve these goals through
the involvement of subordinates in decision
making process" Page ...

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

and money on the practice of participative decision making.
Surprisingly, the test of hypothesis has it that the investment
effort on the practice of participative decision making does
not reflect on increase in productivity.

Even though the

responses posed by the respondents seemed positive but

when put to test it became negative.

This could be

attributed to under practice of this style of management by

the organization

112
hence, posses a problem.
It was noted earlier in this work that for an employee to involve in
deciding on issues concerning the management, he/she
must posses the contributing capacity and zeal which is
enhanced through education and training and as such these
investment is reaped in increased productivity.

But

unfortunately the result revealed that the outcome is not

worth it and the time spent in trying to get the views of the
employees have not been yielding positive outcome. The
reason could be either the management or the employees
lack interest in proper investment or there is mal-practice of
this investment that has made it not to yield the desired
outcome as indicated by the hypothesis test.
However the companies used in this study were small firms
which might not have the necessary resources (time and money)
required for proper investment in this style of management.
Further discoveries were also made from the responses to
the interview questions both by the managers and the employees
or operatives. The managers generally agreed that there is always
a bit delay in decision making arising from

113
participative decision making when practiced. But they don't mind
the delay especially when the practice is fruitful and the delay does
not cause any havoc.
The things the managers consider as major problems with
participative

decision

making

include

that

some

of

the

prerequisites are not always readily available; in that some

operatives are not always willing to accept responsibility. Some of
them again don't posses the necessary capacity of contributing in
some crucial issues. Some employees and managers also seem
not to fully understand this concept and what is all about. Another
is lack of time for full practice.
On the part of few employees that responded to this, they
said what they consider as major problems include the
misinterpretation of the concept by some managers thinking that
employee involvement in decision making tends to whittler their
powers. Again managers help themselves with the initiatives of
their subordinates, without acknowledging them as part of the
decision making.
All these problems definitely go a long way in hampering the
proper practice of participative management in Nigeria and
therefore should be looked into to find a way out.

114
In the analysis, it was found out that Public Enterprise, make
more use of suggestion boxes and individual participation where
as in the private firms, they often use of work design and shop
floor, because of the nature of the organizations.

Again

employees opinion are made use of more often in the private firms
than in the public enterprise.

5.3

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

___That the perception of management and employees about

participation are diverse and as such affect the practice of
this style of leadership in various working environments.
___That

participative

decision

making

does

not

involve

participation at all levels of the organization especially the

top level.
___The type of decision employees are allowed to be involved in
depends on the organization and its structure and
environment example is the private and public enterprises,
but precisely the issues or the areas of their specialization.

115
___Employees

are

not

always

encouraged

to

bring

up

suggestions.
___Participative management is considered a major factor for
improved productivity.
It was also found out that the investment effort in the practice of
participation has not been yielding the desired output.
The problem discovered that hinder the practice of
participative management could be summarized as being
situational factors, lack of the basic prerequisites and the
perception or misconception of this leadership style.

5.4

CONCLUSIONS
Employee participation has been found to have favourable

effects on employee attitude, committment and productivity even

also on the efficiency of the managers.

Thus participative

management should be seen as an inevitable tool in any

organization both public and private. However before this could be
done or undertaken, a thorough examination of the organization
policy should be looked into and amended to effect this. The little
practice should then no more concentrate on private sector.

116
5.5

RECOMMENDATIONS
In this study, some recommendations have been made to

increase the importance and benefits of employee's participation in

decision making and its recognition.
1)Managers should put more effort in encouraging their employees
to come up with suggestions and useful decisions and
endeavour to incorporate them into the organization's
decisions and policy.
2)Managers should increase the frequency and level of worker
participation in decision making considering the fact that
they are the people carrying out the main operative work as
they are in the better position to know what goes on those
areas.
3)Every organization should endeavour to create a clear-cut
understanding and notion of the concept of participative
decision making to avoid confusion and clashes of interest
between the employees and the managers.
4)More importantly is that the main objective of any scheme for
participation should be specific and exact in any organization
that care to enable workers recognize the areas their
suggestions and opinions are most needed.

117
5)Considering the importance and benefits of participative
management especially in the growth and stability of an
organization, time and money investment on it should be
made properly and wisely to avoid regrets.
Finally, the researchable aspects of the concept of
participative decision making have not been exhausted in this
work.

Therefore suggestion is being put forward for further

research into the concept of participation especially in the area of

problems that limit or jeopardize the practice of participatory
management in Nigeria.

118
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akpala A. (1982) industrial Books Relations Model for
Developing Countries. The Nigerian system: Fourth Dimension
Publisher Enugu.
Akpala A. (1990) Management: An Introduction and Nigerian
Perspective.
Benard M. (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond
Expectations New York The free Press
Burt .N. (1980) Leaders' New York, Harper and Row
Daris K. (1981) Organizational Behaviour Mc Graw Hill Books
Ltd, New Delhi.
Drucker P. (1964) The New Society:The Anatomy of the
Industry. Chicago. Greenwood Press
Dubrin J.A., Ireland & William J.C. (1989) Management and
Organization: South Western Publishing company Cincinnatis,
Ohio U.S.A.
Ellon S. (1968) Aspects of Management Pergamon International
Library.
Ejiofor P.N. (1984) Managing the Nigerian Worker' Longman
Nig Ltd Ibadan.
Ewurum U.J.F. & Unamka P.C. (1995) Business Administration
Precision Printers and Publishers Enugu
Feldman D.C Hugh J.A (1983)Management Industrial and
Group Behaviour in Organizations: Mc Graw-Hill Book Company
New York
Globe F. (1983)Getting and using the ideas of People" Industry
Week Vol.239
Guest & Fatchest (1974) Worker Participation, Individual
Control Performance; Institute of Personnel Management, London.

119
Heller F.A (1981) Competence and Power in Managerial
Decision Making; John Willy and Sons Ltd Chictrester,
Imaga E.U.L (1996)Theory and Practice of Production
Management Gostak Printing & Publishing Co Ltd Enugu Nigeria
Lawler, E.E (1986) High-Involvement Management Participative
Strategies for Improving Organizational Performance josse-Basg,
San Franciscan
Lundgrem E.E (1982) Organizational Management System and
Processes Canfield Press. San Francisco
Maslow A. (1965) Eupsychian Management: Homewood.
Illinois, Richard D. Imin
McGregor D. (1960) The Human Size of Enterprise; Mc-Graw
Hill Book Company .
Mc Farland D.E (1968) Personnel Management, Theory and
Practice The Macilliaan Company, London,
Murew A.J (1967) Management by participation Harpers and
Row. New York, (1967)
Nwabuokei, P.O. (1986) Fundamentals of Statistics Koruna
Books Enugu
Nworgu, B.G. (1991) Educational Research: Basic Issues and
Methodology Ibadan Wisdom Publishers Ltd, Nigeria
Newman, W.H. Summer C.E. & Warren, K.E. (1971) The
process of Management: Prentice Hall Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey
Odiorne, S.G. (1979) A System of Managerial Leadership for
the 80s Fearon Pitman Publishers,Inc. Belmont, California
Osuala, E.C. (1987) Introduction to Research Methodology
African-Feb Publishers: Onitsha

120
Paterman M. (1970) Participation, Achievement and
Involvement on the Job, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall
Peter, T.J. and Waterman (Jr.) R. (1982) In search of
Excellence Harper and Row, New York
Poole, M. (1975) Workers Participation in Industry Routledge
And Kegan Paul (Ltd)
Sutermeister R.A. (1976) People and Productivity New York
McGraw-Hill Book Company
Ukandi G. Damachi (1989) Industrial Relations: A Development
Dilemma in Africa Development Press Ltd Lagos
Usilaner, B. (1986) Human Resource Management: Student
Guide, University of Maryland.
Vroom, H. (1964) Work and Motivation New York, Wiley and
Sons
Williams, J.F. (1989) Leadership of Organizational Members
South-Western Publishing Company Cincinnati Onto USA.

121
ARTICLES
Adeola S. (1994) Corporate Decision Making, "Must Workers
have a Say" Corporate Diary, Financial Guardian, 4th April p. 23.
Benson T.E. Destination: Total Employee Investment". Industry
Week; September 3, vol 239.
Bisacos S.K. (1990) Employee Participation without Pain"
Human Resources Magazine 10 April
Elton M, (1985) Autonomy, Productivity and Leadership'
Research Institute Report for the Executive, July 9
Elvis R. (1995) Motivational Influences on Productivity: An
article on the Guide Newspaper 14 June
Globe, F. (1983) "Getting and using the ideas of people"
Industry Week Vol 239 p.10
Ike O.I. (1996) Leadership & Employee Performance: The
Government Perspective.
Lester I.R (1981) "Leadership" Some Principles and Concepts:
Personnel Journal Vol 60 No 11 November
Ikeagwu E.K. (1996), Groundwork of Research Methods and
Procedures'
Unpublished Mimeograph.
Department
management, University of Nigeria Enugu Campus.

of

Lewin K. (1968) "Forces Behind Good Habits and Methods of

Change" Sociology; of Work and Occupation. vol. 2 No 6
Nwosu, H. (1989) Worker Psychology and Performance An
Unpublished Write-Up
Ofstad, H. (1971) "The Impact of Employee Participation in the
development of Pay Incentive". Journal of Applied Psychology
Dec, Vol.6

122
Okonkwo, N.V. (1991) Effects of Workers Participation in
Productivity: An Unpublished write up. November
Onuoha, C.D. (1995) Participatory Management: A head way
An Unpublished Seminar Paper
Powell & Schlacter (1971) Participative Management; A
Panacea Academy of Management Journal Vol.14
Rush, A. (1973) "Worker Participation" New Voices in
Management. The Conference Board Inc.
Tannebnbaum R. & Schemit F. "Participation by Subordinate.
In the Managerial Decision Making" Management Journal Vol. 14

123

1)
2)

3)

APPENDIX
QUESTIONNAIRE
SECTION 1:
FOR MANAGERS
Personal Data: (Please Indicate Appropriately)
Sex: a)
Male
[]
b)
Female
[]
Age Group:
a) 18 - 25
b) 26 - 45
c) 46 - 55
d) 56 and Above

[]
[]
[]
[]

Marital Status
a) Married [ ]
b) Single

[]

4)

What is your highest educational qualification?

a)
SSCE/GCE/O'Level [ ]
b)
HND/First Degree [ ]
c)
Masters and Above [ ]
d)
Others (Please Specify)

5)

What is your position in the organization?______________

6)

Your Department _____________________

7)

Length of service in your current position _____________

1)What is your perception of participative management policy in

your enterprise (organization)?
a)
b)
c)
d)

It helps to eliminate conflict and

disagreement
It is a way of shift responsibility
It weakens the management
It enriches decision making

[]
[]
[]
[]

2)Do you think the employee in organization fully participate in any

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

124

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

subordinates in the decision making process of the
organization?
a)To seek and compare employee decision options in task
accomplishment [ ]
b)To enable subordinate share responsibility with the
manager for success
[]
c)To increase employees sense of belonging which
boost their morale thus leading to increase in
productivity
[]
d)All of the above
[]
e)
None of the above
[]
4)How often are employee
enterprise?
a)
Always
b)
Rarely
c)
Never
5)

decisions made use of in your

[]
[]
[]

How can you rate such decisions?

a) Satisfactory [ ]
b) Fairly Satisfactory [ ]

6)Is it a management policy to consider employee opinion in

formulating company plans?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
7)Is the present level of workers participation in your enterprise
enough to motivate employee towards job satisfaction and
improved productivity?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
8)Do you feel you are more efficient as a result of employee
involvement in decision making?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Indifferent [ ]

125
9)What type of employee participation do you allow in your
organization?
a)
Suggestion Boxes
[]
b)
Individual Participation [ ]
c)
Work Design
[]
d)
Shop Floor Participation [ ]
e)
None of the Above
[]
10)Do you think that the time and money invested in the practice of
employee participation reflect on increased productivity?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
11)Would you say that participative management is advantageous
to your organization?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
12)If yes, what advantages accrue to your establishment from this
employee participation?
a)It encourages employee to accept responsibility for
an activity [ ]
b)It increases employees efficiency
[]
c)
It makes employee more craetive in
thinking
[]
d)
It improves productivvity [ ]
e)
All of the above
[]
f)
None of the above
[]
SECTION 2: Questions For Employees

1)What is your perception of participative management policy in

your organization?
a)
It causes confusion [ ]
b)It allows an employee to take decision concerning
the running of a particular task [ ]
c)It ensures that an employee initiation in a particular
task will be welcome [ ]

126
d)It reodes the powers of superiors [ ]
e)It ensures that the subordinates and managers take
joint decision concerning the organization
objective [ ]
f)It enables the subordinate do a task the way he feels
best and then informs the manager [ ]
2)Is your perception of participative management in line with the
firms policy?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
3)Do managers seek your opinions and consider them in decision
making?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
4)If Yes how do you feel about it?
a)
I feel satisfied which increases my
tempo of work
[]
b)
I feel indifferent
[]
c)
I feel a sense of belonging which
boosts my morale
[]
5)

If No how do you feel?

a)
I feel dejected
[]
b)I feel demoralized which decreases
my tempo of work
[]
c)
All of the above [ ]
d)
I feel indifferent
[]

6)At what level of management are you usually allowed to

participate in any decision making?
a)
Top Management Level
[]
b)
Middle Management Level
[]
c)
d)

Lower Management Level

All of the Above
[]

[]

e)

None of the above

[]

127
7)Do you feel trapped by a feeling that opposition to views of your
supervisor might be seen as a sign of disloyalty?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Not sure
[]
8)When you feel that there is a better way of doing a particular job
than the company's stated way do you inform your manager
or boss?
a)
Yes
[]
b)
No
[]
c)
Indifferent [ ]
9)If Yes how does he react to it?
a)He insists his own way of accomplishing the task is
the best
[]
b)He welcomes it and makes it part
of the decision
[]
c)
He insists on you using his approach
[]
d)
He is usually indifferent
[]
10)How do you react to his decision when he insists only on his
own way?
a)
I feel highly dejected
[]
b)
I fell demoralized [ ]
c)
I feel happy
[]
d)
I am often indifferent
[]
11)Do you consider your involvement in decision making as a
major reason to improve productivity?
a)
Yes [ ]
b)
No [ ]
c)
Not sure[ ]
12)What are the direct consequencies of employee participate in
decision making?
a)
Increased productivity
[]
b)
Increased wastage of time and money
[]
c)
Cordial Manager/Subordinate Relationship [ ]
d)
Weakness Management Effectiveness
[]
e)
Added Responsibility to the employee
[]

128
INTERVIEW OUESTIONS FOR (MANAGERS)
(1)For what type of decisions do you allow for your subordinates
contributions?
______________________________________________
(2)Do you think participative management causes delays in
decision
making?
________________________________________________
_____
(3)Do you think employees would be less productive if they were
not
involued
in
decision
making?
_________________________________________
(4)What do you consider as major problems with participative
decision
matking?
________________________________________________
____
(FOR EMPLOYEES/OPERATIVES)
(1)Do you always feel like making suggestions in the decision
making
process?
___________________________________________
________
(2)If you do on what area(s) do you like making the contributions or
suggestions?
________________________________________________
(3)How do you see the welcoming or disregard for your opinion?
_____________
(4)What do you consider as the major problems with the practice
of participative decision making in your organisation?
_____________________