Examining participative decision making and job satisfaction
One of the foremost challenges in public management has been executing effective human capital strategies to enhance performance and accountability. In order to conduct the study the emphasis on performance and results-oriented services, studies in local and Multinational have stressed valuable human resources management approaches such as job satisfaction, employee engagement strategies, strategic planning, participative management, building effective teams and empowerment (Kim, 2002).
According to the research with a concern in human resource management have often limited to researches to large firms (Storey, 1992). On the other hand, studies were recently called for more work analyzing human resource policies within local and multinational organizations (Purcell, 1993). While smaller employers may be engrossed in keeping a track of growth in large organizations, it should not be understood that practices and policies used by large organizations are essentially beneficial or practical for smaller organizations.
Developing participative decision making within the firms is considered a productive concept in Pakistan. This can be attributed through job satisfaction, employee performance and commitment. Participative management has been a focus of organizational research since human resources considered as an asset say human asset. Only a century ago the relationship between employer and employee was comparatively uncomplicated. Whereas job satisfaction leads to enhance performance, today in addition to take-home pay, employees often put high values on insurance, organizations providing health care services for employee and as well as for the family and retirement. Most studies were explored that the weight-age of perks and benefits on outcome variables such as Employee productivity, Job satisfaction and Job commitment differs from that of a relationship which is purely based on wages. (Guzzo, Nelson, Noonan, and Elron, 1992, 1994).
One of the greatest challenges in organizations was application of effective and valuable human capital planning and strategies to boost resource performance, satisfaction and accountability. In this case the organization who has more emphasis on job satisfaction, performance and results-oriented, have emphasized over effective human resources management such as empowerment, participative management, and strategic planning.
However, the job satisfaction of employees is evaluated by number of various factors such as greater security, market position of the company, is likely to influence the level of job satisfaction. Organization with higher level of productivity and performance expected to have more resources and provide more opportunities to the employees.
Moreover job satisfaction was considered very important which is the major factor of retaining the employee so in this study participation in the decision making process has brought in the limelight as very essential to let the employee feels satisfied and committed to the job and the organization. As many organization now do think that participation of the employee in his/her job let employees feel of the empowerment and company gives employee the respect. However, job satisfaction becomes an important concept in Human resource management so research should be done to find out the factors which leads or effects the job satisfaction. So, the studies have been conducted on participative management to see its effect on job satisfaction to what extent.
1.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The primary problem is to identify the effects of participative decision making over job satisfaction in various organizations.
1.2 Research Hypothesis
H1: There is a positive relationship between participative decision making and job satisfaction
1.3 Research Model
1.3.1 Shared mental model. (Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers, 2000)
The five emergent factors of shared mental model
General task and team knowledge
General task and communication skills
Attitude towards teammates and task
Team dynamics and interaction
Team resources and working environment
The classic organizational research literature suggests that team members coordinate via task programming mechanisms (e.g. plans, specifications) or by communicating (March and Simon 1958; Thompson 1967; VanDeVen. 1976). However, the team cognition research literature suggests that mechanisms like shared mental models also aid coordination. A recent study of teams working in a flight simulation task found that shared mental models had a positive effect on team processes (e.g., coordination), which improved performance (Mathieu. 2000). Studies of software teams have also found that their team members need to acquire, share, and integrate substantial amounts of knowledge of the application domain to ensure positive outcomes in software projects (Curtis, 1988; Walz, 1993). Similarly, a recent study of software developers found that knowing where expertise resided in their teams had a positive effect on performance (Faraj and Sproull, 2000). Yet another study with software requirement analysis teams found that teams that exhibited a .collective mind .i.e. a shared understanding of the group.s task and each other (Weick, 1993).were more coordinated because members understood how their work contributed to group outcomes (Crowston and Kammerer, 1998).
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
This study explores the relationship between participative decisions making in the context of job satisfaction within the government and private organizations in Pakistan. The study proposes that participative decision making that integrates effective upper management communications can enhance employees’ job satisfaction. Regarding this supervisors or say organizational leaders in the public and private sectors should more emphasize on changing the organizational culture from the customary model of hierarchical structure to participative management.
In the past many management theorists (Argyris, 1997; Bennis, 1996; Herzberg, 1996) have emphasized on the value of developing the organization and human relationship to improve output and build up human assets (Likert, 1997; Maslow, 1994). Researchers have, in the past, conducted research on participative management and empowerment keeping in view the level of employee motivation and its over all impact on job satisfaction and productivity (Drucker, 1994, Ouchi, 1989; Pascale and Athos, 1991). Participation is a method in which authority is divided amongst those who lie unequal in the organizations hierarchy Locke and Schweiger, 1999; Wagner, 1994). Such management practices equalize the contribution of managers and junior level employees in information dispensation and processing, decision making and problem solving (Wagner, 1994).
Relation has been drawn to job satisfaction with participative decision making as a result of research on participative decision making (Cotton. 1988; Macy, Peterson, and Norton 1989). Many other studies have pointed out that participative decision making can yield positivity to team member’s mental health and job satisfaction (Spector 1986; Miller and Monge, 1986; Fisher, 1989). Though, argue the data about the impact of participative decision making on job satisfaction has not been constant (Daniels and Bailey 1999). Depending on various environmental factors the relationship between participative decision making and job satisfaction could be aligned (Cotton 1993, 1995; Daniels and Guppy 1994).
Developing participative decision making within the firms is considered a productive concept in Pakistan. This can be attributed through job satisfaction, employee performance and commitment. Various studies have demonstrated that organizations to some extent agree that participative management improves employees’ job satisfaction. Participative management has been a focus of organizational research since human resources considered as an asset say human asset. Only a century ago the relationship between employer and employee was comparatively uncomplicated. Whereas job satisfaction leads to enhance performance, today in addition to take-home pay, workers usually believe that the befits given by the organization have high values on life insurance, provided health benefits to family and other services, retirement, old age benefits. The studies have explored that the influence of benefits on resultant variables such as employee productivity, job satisfaction and job commitment differs from that of a relationship which is purely based on wages. (Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron, 1992, 1994).
Researchers, (Spreitzer, Kizilos, and Nason 1997), discuss that the opinion of empowerment is consequential from the theories of participative management and workers contribution. These authors argue that the core idea of participative management is that giving out a manager’s decision making power with sub ordinates augment their performance and work satisfaction. Employees uphold that other factors such as quality of life movement are civilizing intrinsic motivation, enhancing employee motivation and assisting employees to feel good for their work. Thus, employees believe that job satisfaction was one of the first expected effects of empowerment.
The previous studies and researches, managers and upper management are of the belief that participative decision making process practices have momentous optimistic effects on job satisfaction (Jackson, 1993; Hoerr 1990; Peterson and Hillkirk 1991). Brewer, Selden, and Facer (2000) in a more recent study suggested that employees should be considered in the decision making process by managers as a part of one of the strategies for improving public-service motivation (Bluestone 1992 and Bemstein, 1993).
The increasing impact of participation in job decision making over the performance of an employee was becoming gradually more disputed in recent years (Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck, 2002). Although (Wagner, 1994) disagreed that many participation studies have demonstrated a consistent impact on employee satisfaction, researchers do not appeared to had established a universal positive correlation between participation and satisfaction (Kearney and Hays, 1994). Clearly, this type of participation and the context in which participative decision making practices are employed determine the extent of any positive effect on performance (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, and Jennings, 1988).
Much of the recent literature had moved from analyses of various forms of participation (Cotton, 1988) to the evaluation of organizational and behavioral cause participation within the employees most of the times fails. Most researchers usually seem to agree that participative decision-making is intrinsically and most importantly very important for organizations to implement, although some argued that its impact on satisfaction may be positive but basically its completely non existent or even negative under certain conditions (Ledford and Lawler, 1994).
Participative decision making is defined as mutual decision making where as sharing between supervisor and their subordinate that effective supervisory communications are to some extent positively affiliated with high levels of employee’s job satisfaction.
In line with the studies and researches on participative decision making, participative decision making through out its researches has been stressed in concern to job satisfaction (Cotton. 1998; Macy, Peterson, and Norton 1999). Various studies had verified that participative decision making simultaneously can be beneficial to workers’ psychological impact and job satisfaction (Spector 1996; Miller and Monge 1996; Fisher, 1989). Daniels and Bailey (1999), however, quarrel over the evidence regarding the impact over the participative decision making on employee job satisfaction was continuously consistent. The affiliation between participative decisions making over job satisfaction could be aligned under various circumstances (Cotton 1993, 1995; Daniels and Guppy 1994).
Specifically, positive relationships have been found between PDM and satisfaction, self-esteem, loyalty, productivity, and positive manager-subordinate relations (Akel and Siegel, 1988). Negative relationships have been found with high costs, inefficiency and incompetence (Hunt and Vogt, 1988; Marchington and Loveridge, 1999).
Numerous conceptual papers have suggested that managers are more likely to employ PDM when Employees believe that it improves the quality of the decision and does not adversely impact their power relative to others within the organization (Dickson, 1992).
On the other hand, researchers have argued that the concept of empowerment and satisfaction is consequent from concept of participative decision making and employee involvement. According to the various studies, the basic theory of participative management attributed sharing managers’ decision making power with employees supposed to be enhancing performance and job satisfaction. Employees uphold that the main issues of the worth living life association are enhancing employee satisfaction, boost intrinsic motivation, and let employee feel good about their jobs and work. Thus, job satisfaction was one of the most primitive expected consequent of empowerment.
Managers often view power as finite, and thus perceive that an increase in employee power must be accompanied by an undesirable requisite decrease in managerial power (Hrebiniak, 1974; Parnell and Bell, 1994). Hence, managers or supervisors Participative Decision making is highest when employees believe that Participative Decision making enhances organizational effectiveness and not to result in a decline of their organizational power. Managers or supervisors Participative Decision making is lowest when employees believe that Participative Decision making slow down organizational effectiveness and results in a turn down in their organizational power.
In procession with the studies and researches on participative decision making, participative decision making through out its researches has been stressed in concern to job satisfaction (Cotton, 1998; Macy, Peterson, and Norton 1999). Various studies had verified that participative decision making can be beneficial to workers’ psychological impact and job satisfaction (Spector 1996; Miller and Monge 1996; Fisher 1989). However, quarrel over the evidence regarding the impact of participative decision making on job satisfaction was consistent. The relationship between participative decision making and job satisfaction could be nonlinear on situational variables (Cotton 1993, 1995; Daniels and Guppy 1994).
Specifically, positive relationships have been found between PDM and satisfaction, self-esteem, loyalty, productivity, and positive manager-subordinate relations (Akel and Siegel, 1988).
2.1 Disadvantages of Participative decision making
When participative management takes place in setting a team goal or build effective team relation, it can cause many disadvantages. It can start to various aspects from social pressures to conform and also in various cases group domination, where an employee takes control over the group and made everyone to follow whatever that employees standpoints are. With new, different and creative ideas coming from many team members, time can be an issue as well. The meeting may end and the purpose of effective team building and ideas generation go unheard. Negative impact outcomes of participative management are usually for the organization resultants in high costs, inefficiency in terms of productivity, and incompetence (Debruin, 2007).
Therefore, manager should realize that participative management is not only for handling problems but employees should respect the manager who is making the authority there and responsible to make decision where ever necessary. For a manager it is good to be in charge make choice and take the responsibility but whenever there is disciplinary action is needed participative management does not work there. When managers take their jobs as an opportunity rather than considering it as a responsibility Managers fail to bring participative management at work. It is simply delegating and shifting the responsibility and sometimes managers fail to understand the concept, another reason that participative decision making fails in the organizations. Participation management should be linked tor should be used an effective tool in achieving goals and targets and solve alone itself is nothing. This is a misconception inviting employees to the meeting and committee for a successful participative management. It is only be successful when employees are implemented and accepted if not implemented then Managers should be given choices and alternative to make employees so feel committed towards the organization.
2.2 Kinds of Participative Decision-Making
In organizations, when coming together to make decisions there are many different types with explains Participative decision making in context to different expects. They are: Collective, Democratic, Autocratic, and Consensus. A participative management style may include various types of decision making styles from a upper management to the junior levels (Sager, 1999).
2.2.1 Collective. With regard to this participative management style employee may get some say to the decision making process. This is one of the most widely known types practiced by some organizations and is to very extent proven to be very effective in most of the cases. In this style of participation employees are asked about the opinions, but the leader may alone going to makes the final say of the decision and has all control of how the decision was pan out, and takes full responsibility of all the consequences. The most disputed research in recent years the effect of participation on performance (Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck, 2002). Although (Wagner, 1994) showed disagreement that many participation researches have demonstrated a constant effect on performance, researchers do not emerge to prove a collective positive correlation between participation and satisfaction (Kearney and Hays, 1994). In many organizations Participative management now must have become part of the organizational culture (Zamanou and Glaser, 1994).
2.2.2 Democratic. With consent to this democratic participative decision-making, the upper management usually does not take the complete authority to make the policy and decision usually in all the cases of the decisions. This is the best style to use in an emergency when an immediate decision is needed. The most disputed research in recent years the effect of participation on performance (Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck, 2002). Although (Wagner, 1994) showed disagreement that many participation researches have demonstrated a constant effect on performance, researchers do not emerge to prove a collective positive correlation between participation and satisfaction (Kearney and Hays, 1994). The majority of the votes win. This causes a fast and effective decision to be made. Although the team might reach a fast decision, no one takes responsibility for the decision and if something goes wrong, an employee can simply state that they did not vote for it. Distinctively, positive correlation was found between Participative Decision Making and satisfaction, positive manager-subordinate relations self-esteem, loyalty, and productivity (Akel and Siegel, 1988).
2.2.3 Autocratic. In an autocratic participative decision-making style, like the collective style, the leader takes control and responsibility of the final decision. The difference is that in an autocratic style, members of the organizations are not included and the final outcome is all on the leader. The difference is that in an autocratic style, members of the organizations are not included and the final outcome is all on the leader. This is the best style to use in an emergency when an immediate decision is needed. The most disputed research in recent years the effect of participation on performance (Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck, 2002). Although Wagner (1994) showed disagreement that many participation researches have demonstrated a constant effect on performance, researchers do not emerge to prove a collective positive correlation between participation and satisfaction (Kearney and Hays, 1994).
2.2.4 Consensus. In a consensus participative decision-making style, the leader gives up complete control and responsibility of the decision and leaves it to the members of the organization. Everyone must agree and come to the same decision. This might take a while, but the decisions made are usually the best since it involves the ideas and skills of many other people. Team work is important in this style and brings members closer together while trust and communication increase.
Participative management, also considered as employee involvement or participative decision making, encourages the contribution of stakeholders at all levels of an organization in the analysis of problems, development of strategies, and implementation of solutions. Employees are encouraged to participate in the decision-making process of the organization by participating in activities such as setting goals, making suggestions and determining work schedules. There are different types of participative management; one of the types includes increasing the responsibilities of employees which in literal terms referred as “Job enrichment” structuring self-managed teams, quality-of-work-life or quality circles, committees; and soliciting survey feedback. Participative decision making, however, its main characteristic is to involve more than encourage employees to take part in making decisions. It also includes management treating the ideas proposals and suggestions of employees with contemplation and respect. The most widespread form of participative management is direct employee ownership of an organization. During the past decade, much of the recent literature has shifted from analyses of various forms of participation (Cotton, J. L, Vollrath, 1988) to the assessments of organizational and behavioral reasons participation sometimes fails.
Four processes control participation. The employees are pushed down to the lowest levels in an organization these are the processes build employee involvement. The higher the level of involvement or contribution by employees, the farther down or lower down these processes move. These four processes include:
Information sharing. The major concerned is to keeping employees conversant or informed about the economic status of the organization.
Training. The second thing which matters is involvement in raising the skill levels and aptitude of employees and offering development opportunities that enable and allow them to apply and implement new skills to make effective decisions concerning the organization as a whole.
Employee decision making. It can take various forms, from determining work schedules to deciding on costing and budgets or processes.
Rewards. Performance, ideas and suggestions should be tied up with the rewards system.
2.3 Advantages of Participative Decision making
The number of benefits can be attained by using Participative decision making approach in all the level of organization. Participative management gives a sense of pride and motivates employees and also creates a sense of ownership in the organization to increase productivity in result to achieve their goals (Crandall and Parnell, 1994).
Employees who are empowered to participate in the decisions of the organization make an employee feel that the employees are equally part of a team with a common goal, and it heightened the sense of creative fulfillment and self-esteem (Crandall and Parnell, 1994).
Managers who exercised a participative approach find that employees are more receptive to change than in circumstances in which many have no voice. Participation approach keeps employees up to date of upcoming occasion and events so they must be responsive of potential changes (Kearney and Hays, 1994). Changes are implemented more effectively when employees have input and make contributions to decisions (Akel and Siegel, 1988).
Participation gives a wider view to the employee of the organization. In order to become an effective managers or top executive certain attributes are required such as development opportunities, training information sharing, rewards, growth, from all these attributes employees can acquire the conceptual skills in order to become effective an employee, which also helps in increasing the commitment of employees to the company and the decisions members make (Lam, Chen, and Schaubroeck, 2002).
Although (Wagner, 1994) the two important benefits of participative decision making are Creativity and innovation. Through which the employees from a diverse group are allowed to have input into decisions (Kearney and Hays, 1994). However, the organization gets benefits from the synergy which comes for a broad choice of options. Instead of just managers or executives, when all employees of the organization are given the opportunity to participate, the chances are increased of a wider view given by the employees, and also a valid and unique idea was suggested (Debruin, 2007).
Most researchers seem to agree that participative decision-making is inherently desirable, although some argue that its impact on performance may be positive but infinitesimal, nonexistent, or even negative under certain conditions (Ledford and Lawler, 1994).
2.4 Requirements of participative management
A general misconception by managers is that participative decision making engrosses purely asking employees to participate or come up with some suggestions. More than just a suggestion box is what an effective program is involved. In order to make participative management to work, there are some several requirements must be met and several issues must be resolved (Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck, 2002). First, managers must be eager to relinquish some control to the workers; to achieve that managers must feel secure in their position to make participation to be successful. Most of the time managers do not understand that employees’ admiration increase instead of decrease when they implement a participative management style (Akel and Siegel, 1988).
A careful planning, managing and a slow phased approach is a success to participative decision making, changing employees’ ideas about the system or about management takes time, as does any triumphant attempt at overall cultural change from an autocratic or democratic style of management to a participative style (Debruin, 2007).
The change can only be resisted by the Long-term employees, not believing they were to last. To make participation to be effective, managers must be honest and genuine in implementing the program (Crandall and Parnell, 1994).
However, usually employees require to constantly wanting to see proof that their ideas be accepted and implemented or at least seriously considered. In that case, the employees should be able to trust ones managers and also have a sense of that feel they are respected (Kearney and Hays, 1994).
Managers should approach employee involvement with an open mind, this leads to successful participation. Managers must be willing to welcome new ideas and alternatives in order for participative management to work. Another important step which should be taken under consideration that even if the manager may not consent with every suggestion or idea an employees proposes, how those ideas are received is critical to the success of participative management(Lam, Chen and Schaubroeck, 2002).
In order to implement participative decision making managers make sure that employee must also be willing to participate and share their ideas. The whole procedure of Participative management or decision making does not work with employees who do not care or simply are passive. In many cases or say most of the times employees do not have the necessary information or competent skills to make the right decision or good suggestion. It is important for the mangers to provide them with information or training so they can make informed choices (Guzzo, Noonan, and Elron, 1992, 1994). One of the main attributes of Participative decision making is to encouraged employees in order to accustom employees to the participative approach. By knowing employees individual strengths and capitalizing on them is one of the ways to help employees engage in the decision-making process. A manager can help to ensure their success, by guiding employees toward areas in which they are knowledgeable. (Mowday, Porter, and Steers, 1982)
To get a better result or want employees to meet the expectations and come up with the idea and suggestion, to employee’s valuable contribution mangers should give subordinates the criteria that the participation becomes noteworthy (Spector 1986; Miller and Monge, 1986; Fisher, 1989). This may help in discarding the worthless ideas or suggestions that are not feasible, cannot be applicable, or are too costly. Time is an essential factor which should be given to the employees by the managers so they can come up with the alternate decisions or creative ideas, because usually employees cannot do their most creative thinking on the spot. (Hunt and Vogt, 1988; Marchington and Loveridge, 1979).
In implementing a successful participative decision making style there is another most important element involves which is visible integration of employees’ participation into the ultimate decision or execution of the decision. It is very important to let the employees know that they have made the contribution and it was noteworthy. In order to increase the motivation, job satisfaction and commitment of the employees, give them a choice in the final decision making process (Wagner, 1994).
However in a lot of cases the upper Management often perceives power as finite, and therefore observe that an addition in resource power must be go together with by an undesirable obligatory decrease in managerial power. (Hrebiniak, 1974; Parnell and Bell, 1994).
In some cases even just presenting quite a few alternatives and allowing the subordinates to make a choice from. It is as effective as if thought of the alternatives themselves. For handling the situation, suppose if the employees first suggestion is not feasible ask for an alternative rather than of rejecting it. However, manager should provide an explanation if the suggestion is still not acceptable (Wagner, 1994). The key is to build the confidence to participate confidently in the organization and motivated enough that to come with the idea and suggestion this can only be done if a sense of trust which is very important to build in the employees If the management without giving an explanation keep on rejecting the idea of employees the employees begin to distrust management and not willing to participate either whole heartedly, Employees should have the feel that the ideas and suggestions given by a subordinate does matter and they more than welcome to propose them (Konovsky and Pugh, 1994; Bolino, Bloodgood, and Turnley, 2001).
CHAPTER 3:
RESEARCH METHODS
This study was conducted to find out the relationship between participative decision making and job satisfaction. To identify and determine those factors which measures participative decision making and how all those attributes associated to job satisfaction.
3.1 Data Collection
According to the nature of the research primary data was gathered to reach to the findings. The study is based on data which has been gathered by the employees from various organizations and sectors, survey conducted in 2010. The questionnaire was developed consisting the factors measuring job satisfaction and participative decision making and numerous demographic characteristics. The respondents were middle level managers and junior workers in Pakistan of large multinationals and local companies. The questionnaire was sent through emails. The purpose behind sending the questionnaire through e-mail was to that it’s the fastest and convenient mean to communicate in less time to more respondents.
The questionnaires after being filled out by the respondents were entered in SPSS and the data was used for statistical analysis using SPSS.
3.1.1 Pre-Testing. The instrument was developed and pre-tested from 10 respondents to check the validity of the questionnaire whether the questions in the questionnaire are consistent or not and to check the repetition of the questions. If the 1 than more questions measuring a single factor it means that the instrument is not validate. Then it got it filled from the 10 respondent to verify the validity. In the process of pre-testing it was found that the respondents had no issues in filling the questionnaire.
TABLE 3.1
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach’s Alpha
N of Items
.871
31
3.1.2 Sampling technique and Sample size. For this research, data was collected from Mid Level Managers and Junior Workers in various multinationals organizations. The sampling technique used in this study is Convenience Sampling Method because the research is on Mid Level Managers and Junior Workers so all the employees on this level can easily be found. Sample size is 100.
3.1.3 Profile of Respondents. The respondents were middle level managers and junior workers in large multinational organizations in Pakistan. Age ranged from 21 to 40 years, with the mean of 30.5, with the overall experiences of 1 to 15 years. The respondents had been employed in the present positions from 1 to 6 years.
Instrument or questionnaires were sent to the potential respondents through e-mail to all 100 respondents. Moreover, confidentiality was also maintained so the respondents can freely fill up the questionnaire without any hesitation.
3.2 Instruments
Following are the instruments which were used to measure the variables
3.3 Independent Variable
3.3.1 Participative decision making. The five item scale was adopted from Siegel and Ruh (1973) to measure the independent variable Participative decision making. The factors in the instrument fundamentally ask the respondents to find out the degree of participation employees posses regarding the job and to what extent employees are affected by it.
3.4 Dependent variable
3.4.1 Job satisfaction. Minnesota questionnaire was adopted to measure the job satisfaction of the employees. It’s a likert scale or it is also known as rating scale to find out the level of agreement. In this research likert scale was used to see to what level respondents are satisfied with their jobs.
3.5 Statistical technique
Simple correlation statistical test is used to find out the relationship between Participative decision making and job satisfaction. Correlation usually has one of two directions. These are positive or negative. If it is positive, then the two sets go up together. If it is negative, then one goes up while the other goes down. Correlation is used to describe the relation in term of strong and weak. The data is put into the formula and it gives you a number. If the number is 1 or -1, then there is strong correlation. If the answer is 0, then there is no correlation. So the test is applied to see the correlation between the 2 variables participative decision making and job satisfaction through SPPS (Statistical package for the social sciences).
CHAPTER 4:
RESULTS
Hypotheses testing
Simple correlation was used to determine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables i.e. participative decision making and job satisfaction. Likert Scales were developed to measure the attributes of each variable for Participative decision making the scale has 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest score to measure the level of agreement and disagreement and for job satisfaction same 5 being the highest and 1 being the lowest score to measure the level of satisfaction and dissatisfaction.
H1: There is a positive relationship between participative decision making and job satisfaction
TABLE 4.1
Correlations
Decision Making
Job Satisfaction
Decision Making
Pearson Correlation
1
.520**
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
100
100
Job
Satisfaction
Pearson Correlation
.520**
1
Sig. (2-tailed)
.000
N
100
100
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
RESULT
The correlation table yields that the relationship between independent Participative decision making and dependent job satisfaction are correlated i.e. R is 0.520.
Table 4.2
Correlations
Â
Â
Decision Making
Â
Â
I have high degree of influence in company decisions
I often participate in decisions regarding my job
I have high degree of influence in decisions affecting me
I can participate in setting new company policies
My views have real influence in company decisions
Job Satisfaction
Being able to keep you busy all the time
.162
.217*
.047
.088
-.030
The chances you get to work alone on the job
.210*
.241*
.175
.161
.001
The chances you get to do different things time to time
.243*
.192
.097
.177
.090
The chances you get to be somebody in the community
.352**
.314**
.361**
.426**
.469**
The way your boss handles his/her work
.134
.315**
-.057
.170
.094
The competincies of your supervisors in making decisions
.212*
.219*
.074
.300**
.118
Being able to do things that dont go agaisnt your conscience
.148
.440**
.323**
.186
.173
The way your jobs provides the study emploment
.216*
.364**
.137
.277**
.239*
The chances you get to do things for other people
.065
.143
.050
.100
.062
The chances you get to tell people what to do
.160
.229*
.197*
.358**
.254*
The chance to make use of your best abilities
.227*
.236*
.116
.188
.181
The way you are informed about company policies
.340**
.359**
.348**
.433**
.413**
Your comparison pay and amount of work you do
.407**
.373**
.219*
.380**
.360**
The chances you get for advancement on the job
.323**
.452**
.188
.310**
.237*
The freedom you get to use your judgment
.303**
.445**
.199*
.305**
.330**
The chance you get to try your own methods of doing the job
.156
.342**
.155
.254*
.230*
Your working conditions
.078
.152
.115
.125
.059
The way co-workers are easy to make friends with you
-.053
.066
.053
-.001
.041
The praise you get for doing a good job
.103
.142
.150
.289**
.309**
The feeling of accomplishment you get from the job
.048
.119
.181
.066
-.012
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
4.1 Result
The table is explaining the correlation of between the variables which are comprised to measure the independent and dependent variable i.e the way co-worker are easy to make friends with you” is negatively correlated with “I have high degree of influence in company decisions”.
CHAPTER 5:
DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION, IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The study examines the affiliation between participatory management from the perspective of strategic planning and job satisfaction. Extending the examination on the organizational framework of strategic planning, this research studies the consequences on job satisfaction, by the manager’s use of participative management style, supervisors’ ability in effective communications and employees’ participation in strategic planning.
The literature review discusses participative management and job satisfaction. Further on, the article discusses problems in a participative strategic planning practice, managerial communications and job satisfaction. The article also discusses lessons and repercussions of the answers for management leadership and public management.
The study examined the positive relationship between participative management and job satisfaction in the organization. The research demonstrated the positive relationship between a participative decision making process and job satisfaction. Moreover, the research has emphasized effective top managers as a factor affecting employee job satisfaction. Several possible and important outcomes are derived from the result. For example, multiple studies of the association between participative management and job satisfaction in the organizations necessary to validate the present results and explore the various job-related factors that may affect the job satisfaction.
In the end, the findings stated in this study shows how different style of participative management leads to job satisfaction which includes effective management, planning processes and the participative style all this factors affects the satisfaction of the employee thus he study In this regard, if the organizational culture would change from its typical hierarchy pattern to an organization where he emphasis is more on participation and empowerment this was to help an organization to grow and foster.
Even though a lot of studies have pointed out there is no consistency and relationship between job satisfaction and individual performance researchers have proved that low job satisfaction results in absenteeism, reduced commitment to organizations, turnover, and stress. For this reason, it is very important to identify factors responsible for employees’ job satisfaction. This study examined the effects of participative management and job satisfaction. The study’s findings demonstrate that a participative decision making positively affects employee job satisfaction. To the degree that job satisfaction diminishes turnover and absenteeism, the study’s findings suggest that employee participation in decision making leads organizational effectiveness. As Daniels and Bailey (1999) points out, individuals are more able to influence their work environment when they are involve in the participative decision making who participate in decision-making processes in the widest possible ways. In this respect, when employees are involve in the participation decision making are more aware about the job which includes goals and targets. More emphasis should be on the effective communication between managers and employees. The study indicates that the job satisfaction is significantly associated with the participative decision making, which clears that if the employee is satisfied with their jobs so they get more encouraged to participate in the organization’s decision and in their job decisions which automatically explain their commitment towards the organization. So, the participative management can only be achieved if the organization culture is broad and the communication between managers and employees are effective thorough this goal can be achieved.
However, various attributes are analyzed under the participative decision making and job satisfaction to check the association and the findings shows that relationship is positive, so the organization have to look into this matter that now days participative decision making have become an important factor towards the satisfaction and it also gives the sense of association with the organization that they are equally important for the organization and their decision does matter as other decision too. Other than appreciation or non-monetary rewards and monetary rewards this has also become one of the important factors of job satisfaction.