EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING AND ORGANISATIONAL

PRODUCTIVITY. CASE OF HUMAN RIGHT INITIATIVE

BY

BAISAMWOYO NASSIM

1163-05064-06631

A RESEARCH PROPOSAL SUBMITTED TO THE COLLEGE OF ECONOMICS IN

PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF
BACHELORS DEGREE IN HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
OF KAMPALA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY

SEPTEMBER, 2019
 DECLARATION
I declare that this proposal is my own work and has not been submitted in any form for
another degree or diploma at any university or other institution of tertiary education.
Information derived from the published and unpublished work of others has been
acknowledged in the text and a list of references is given.

BAlSAMWOYO NASSIM Date

 APPROVAL

This research report has been done and completed under my supervision and is now ready for
examination.

Signature of Supervisor..~~~ ~ ~

DR. WANDIBA AUGUSTINE

 DEDICATION
I dedicate this piece of work to my dear parents Mr. Mpoya Abdullah and Ms. Mukyala
Florence for the financial and moral support given to me during my academic endeavors.
May the almighty God bless you.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I thank the almighty God for the life and enabling me finish this research, without Him I
would not have made it.

I would like to acknowledge the special role played by my supervisor Mr. Wandiba
Augustine without his support and wise council this work would have not been the way it is.
Perhaps, on a higher level, I would lik~ to thank him for his faith in me. It was his faith that
brought out the best in me. I would like to thank him for having supernatural sight that saw
what was not yet visible to the ordinary eye.

I am so humbled to appreciate my parents Mr. Mpoya Abdullah and Ms. Mukyala Florence.
Thank you very much for your financial support, patience and love as you took me through
the most treacherous journey of life which every child has to go through when discovering
his/her purpose in life.

To my brothers Aziz Abdullah, Swabiri and Imran and also my sister Mpoya Hanifa, who
have stood with me since I began my course up to now, am really blessed to have you,
encouraged and chained me with prayers?

Sincere thanks goes to the Management of Kampala International University for having
endeavored to put such course in place and enabled me to study.

Lastly I thank the staff members and the students for their precious time towards my research
report.

iv
 ABSTRACT
The study established the relation between employee participation in decision making and
organizational productivity at the Foundation for Human rights initiative located in Nsambya,
Kampala district. In this case, the researcher addressed the problems that are encountered by
employees in making decisions and improving on organizational productivity. This was
manifested and detailed in the following research objectives; to establish the effect of
employee participation in decision making on the productivity of an institution or company,
to investigate the challenges of employee participation in decision making in a company, and
to find measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making to improve
productivity.

Employee participation was construed as the process whereby employees are involved in
decision making processes, rather than simply acting on orders whereas Organizational
productivity was seen as a basic goal of management in a business environment because if
the productivity of an organization is higher than that of its competitors, that organization
survives better because higher productivity will result in higher profits, and more job
opportunities.

In methodology, the study used descriptive research approach on employee participation in

decision making at the Foundation for human rights initiative in Kampala district, Uganda,
specifically cross sectional survey design using both the quantitative and qualitative methods
of data collection. The sample size was determined by use of Morgan and Krejcie (1970)
table for determining sample size for a given population. In the case, the sample was derived
from the given population of 46 emplo~ ~es.

The data for this research was collected using questionnaires and one on one interviews ~iith
the employees. The study findings established that it was evident that participation;

o Improves morale of employees.

o It also improves workplace relationships between the various employees and other
staff in an organization.
o Employee participation in decision making also Reduces labour-management friction

V
Conclusions; The study concluded that;

The major effect of employee participation in decision making is improving

workplace relationships.
o The major challenge facing employee participation in decision making is education
level
o and lastly the major solution to the challenges faced by employee participatio~ L in
decision making is improving attitudes of members towards work

Recommendations; the study recommended that;

o The government should avail studies and training for employees to know their rights.
o Through the government employing agents in various institutions to find out and
inquire about the major challenges faced by employees in making decisions for their
institutions.
o By the government collecting various information from its agents or employee leaders
in various institutions or companies and finding solutions to these challenges.

vi
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

APPROVAL ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES xi

LIST OF FIGURES xii

CI-IAPTER ONE 1

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of the study 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem 4

1.3 purpose of the study 4

1.3.1 Specific Objectives of thç study 5

1.4 Research Questions 5

1.5 Scope of the study 5

1.5.1 Content Scope 5

1.5.2 Geographical Scope 5

1,5.3 Time Scope 5

1.6 Significance of the study 6

1.7 Definition of the key terms 6

VII
CII.i~.P’I’Ii~1~.. 1I1~~7O .8

LITERATURE REVIEW .8

2.0 Introduction 8

2.1 Conceptual Framework 8

2.2 Review of Related Literature 9

2.2.1 Effect of Employee Participation in decision making on productivity 9

2.2.2 Challenges of Employee Participation in decision making 13

2.2.3 Measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making 17

2.3 Related Studies 19

CHAPTER THREE 23

METHODOLOGY 23

3.0 Introduction 23

3.1 Research Design 23

3.2 Study Population 23

3.3 Sample size 23

3.4 Research procedures 24

3.5 Sources of Data 24

3.5.1 Primary data 24

3.5.2 Secondary data 24

3.6 Data collection: methods, tools and techniques 25

3.6.1 Structured questionnaires 25

3.6.2 Interviews 25

3.6.3 Focus group discussions 25

3.7 Data processing analysis and presentation 26

3.7.1 Qualitative data; 26

3.7.2 Quantitative data; 26

VIII
3.8 Ethical consideration .26

CHAPTER FOUR 27

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION 27

4.0 Introduction 27

4.1 Background characteristics of respondents 27

4.1.1 Gender of respondents 27

4.1.2 Age of respondents 28

4.1.3 Education levels of the respondents 28

4.1.4 Marital status of the respondents 29

4.1.5 Designation of respondents 30

4.2 The effect of employee participation in decision making 30

4.3 Challenges of employee participation in decision making 31

4.4 The solutions to the challenges of employee participation in decision making 32

CHAPTER FIVF 34

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 34

5.0 Introduction 34

5.1 Discussion of findings 34

5.1.1 Effect of employee participation in decision making 34

5.1.2 Measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making to improve

productivity 35

5.2 Conclusion of the study 36

5.3 Recommendations 37

5.5 Suggested areas for future study 37

5.6 Limitations 37

REFERENCES; 38

ix
APPENDICES .40

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYEES 40

x
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 24
Table 2 27
Table 3 28
Table 4 29
Table 5 29
Table6 30
Table7 31
Table 8 32
Table 9 32

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES
2.1 Conceptual framework 8

xl’
 CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction

This chapter, discusses the background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the
study, objectives of the study, research questions, justification of the study, significance of
the study, definition of key terms, and conceptual frame work.

1.1 Background of the study

Employee participation has a long history in most westernized economies. While we cannot
assume that we have seen a simple development from command and control inspired by
Taylor to the current emphasis on employee participation (Parks 1995), a number of distinct
phases can be traced in order to help place the role of participation in a contemporary context.
The roots of modern participation can be seen in the Human Relations School in the 1940s
and 195 Os, although much of the emphasis was on groups and non-pecuniary rewards rather
than specific schemes (Strauss 2006, 780). The l960s was often preoccupied with a search
for job enrichment and enhanced worker motivation under a Quality of Working Life (QWL)
banner. Managerial objective~ tended to focus on employee skill acquisition and work
enrichment. In the UK, examples at ICI and British Coal included semi-autonomous
workgroups to promote skill variety and job autonomy, inspired by the Tavistock Institute
(Trist et al. 1963; Roeber 1975). In practice these schemes were more concerned ~zith
employee motivation as an outcome rather than as a mechanism that allowed workers to
participate in organizational decisions. At the samc time, we saw an emphasis on power
equalization and workers’ rights to participate (Strauss 2006), which put more emphasis on
representative bodies, such as co-determination in Germany and the abortive attempt to
implement worker directors oil the board of industry in the UK (Bullock 1977).

From the 1 980s and into the 1 990s the context for participation changed significantly in
Britain and the USA, with an approach driven from outside the formal institutions of
industrial relations. The key agenda was business focused that stressed direct
communications with individual employees which, in turn, marginalized trade union
influence. This new wave of participation was neither interested in nor allowed employees to
question managerial power (Marchington et al. 1992). In effect, this was a period of
employee participation on management’s terms in response to a concern with competition,
especially Japanese production methods which spawned interest in TQM, Quality Circles and
Six Sigma ~Wi1kinson and Ackers 1995).

1
The current business narrative is that organizations need to take the high road with high
value-added operations or be dragged down into competing for low value-added jobs which
are in danger of moving abroad (Handel and Levine 2004). Organizations were encouraged to
be flexible, innovative and responsive, rather than seeking economies of scale through mass
production (Piore and Sabel 1983). The knowledge economy also provided impetus for
involvement in decision nrnking (Scarborough 2003). These trends had implications for the
management of employment and participation, in that compliance, hierarchy and following
rules were seen as less appropriate for modern employees. As Walton (1985, 76) put it,
managers have “begun to see that workers respond best and most creatively not when they
- -

are tightly controlled by management, placed in narrowly defined jobs, and treated like an
unwelcome necessity, but instead when they are given broader responsibilities, encouraged to
contribute, and helped to take satisfaction from their work”.

Many of the specific mechanisms to tap into such a labour resource became crystallized in
models of high commitment management (Huselid 1995; Becker and Huselid 2008; Wright
and Gardner 2003), which emphasized the importance of employee participation to improve
relations and increase organizational performance and profitability. As Strauss (2006, 778)
observes it “provides a win-win solution to a central organizational problem how to satisfy
-

workers’ needs while simultaneously achieving organizational objectives”. However, in

practice this is not always the case (Harley et al. 2005). There are also different perspectives
in the literature, with one school of thought stressing the opportunities for involvement and
worker discretion as a form of empowerment or as a human right, while others focus on
tangible outcomes such as skill acquisition or improved employee discretionary effort. The
point is that discretion and participation may be of limited use if staff do not know how to use
them (Wood and Dc Menezes 2008).

Employee Participation is defined as the process whereby employees are involved in decision
making processes, rather than simply acting on orders. It is part of a process of empowerment
in the workplace.

Organisational Productivity is defined as the capacity of an organisation, institution or

business to produce desired results with a minimum expenditure of energy, time, money,
personnel, material, etc.

2
Participative employee decision-making (PDM) has attracted academic attention in the last
20 years (Leana, Locke et al., 1990; Blaclc &Gregersen, 1997; Kim 2002; Ladd & Marshall,
2004). It has been argued that PDM is an element vital to improving job satisfaction in an
organization (Black &Gregersen 1997; Kim 2002; Han, Chiang and Chang, 2011). Workers’
participation had been proven as a management solution to increasing workers satisfaction
(Cotton, Volirath et al., 1988). According to a classic definition, participation is described as
involvement (Vroom, 1974). In some views of organizational researchers, there are several
dimensions of participation in organization. It is: (1) an opportunity for employees to achieve
their goals, (2) to seek ideas among the employees, and (3) to assign responsibilities to
employees (Gibson, Ivanchevich et al., 1992). Employee participation is considered a key
element in the successful implementation of new management strategies and plays an
important role in determining the degree of job satisfaction (Harber, Mariott et al, 1991;
Ardichvili, Page et al., 2003). This, in turn, increases the commitment of the employee as
well as their motivation. Furthermore, Higgins (1982) argues that participation is a mental
and emotional reflection that will lead to the fulfilment of individual and organizational
goals, especially if supported by the organization’s climate (Ardichvili, Page et al., 2003).

Employee participation, by global standards, is by no means a new innovation. Venter,

Bendeman, Conradie, Dwortzanowski-Venter, Holtzhausen, and Levy (2009:471) suggest
that many industrialized countries had, by the end of the Second World War, introduced
systems of work councils to facilitate dispute resolution. For example, the 1952 German
Works Constitution Act was enacted after the war as a measure to revamp the productivity of
German firms.
The International Labour Organisation (ILO, 1967) has passed several recommendations
regarding consultation and cooperation between employers and employees at the level of the
enterprise. In essence, these recommendations state that proper steps should be taken to
promote consultation and cooperation at the level of an undertaking on matters of mutual
interest, and not within the scope of issues that are usually dealt with through CB. An
example of these recommendations is Recommendation 129/1967 of the ILO. This
recommends that management should provide information regarding general health and
safety regulations, the general situation of the undertaking, its prospects and plans,
explanations of decisions that are likely to affect an employee’s situation in the undertaking,
and methods of consultation between managers and employee representatives.

3
In Uganda, employee participation in decision making has been reported to be low in most
institutions mostly private institutions whereby Directors and Shareholders make the final
decisions without involving the employees. Literature reviewed revealed that there several
factors that can contribute to low or no employee participation in an organisation. This
stimulated the researcher’s interest to venture into the area of employee participation through
carrying out research on a private institution which is Foundation for Human Rights
Initiative.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In the last few years, the Uganda government has implemented a variety of refonns to ensure
employee decision making among the employees (Harlos 2001). According to Human Rights
Initiative study. For example, allowing peaceful demonstrations for its employees for
example teachers have recently demonstrated peacefully several times, doctors, lecturers and
others.

However, the Government has had many limitations to ensuring effective employee
participation in decision making due to lack of enough funding to ensure satisfaction of all
employee’s country wide, and lack of enough supervision measures to help reach the
employees personally (Bryson 2004).

The productivity of any organisation is affected by a variety of factors which include

employee participation in decision making according to Bhatti& Qureshi
(2007:54).Ernployee’s non participation in organizational decision making may lead to low
performance in an organization. Non participation in decision making demoralises
employees. This is because employees know the reasons why the productivity of an
organisation may be low and may have a leaf of the solutions to overcome the low
productivity. (Huselid 1995)

1.3 Purpose of the study

The purpose of the study is to establish the relationship between employee participation in
Decision making and organizational productivity.

4
1.3.1 Specific Objectives of the study
The following are the research study’s objectives:
1. To establish the effect of employee participation on decision making on the productivity of
an Institution or Company.
2. To investigate the challenges of Employee Participation in decision making in a Company

3. To find measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making to

improve productivity.

1.4 Research Questions

1. What is the effect of Employee participation in decision making on the productivity of
an institution or company?
2. What are the challenges hindering employee participation in decision making in a
Company?
3. What are the solutions to the challenges hindering employee participation in decision
making in a company?

1.5 Scope of the study

Scope is the area coverage of the subject. That is to say the breadth or depth or reach of the
study. The study therefore, was to be covered in the period, of three months that is June to
August 2019 to be convenient for the researcher to carry out research.

1.5.1 Content Scope

The study focused on employee participation in decision making in Human Rights Initiative.
This study is limited on how employee participation in decision making is fundamental in
productivity of a company or institution.

1.5.2 Geographical Scope

The study covered Human Rights Initiative which is an Institution located in Nsambya,
Kampala — Uganda. The researcher will study these areas mainly because the issues in the
above-mentioned area are more evident and observable and they are easily accessible by the
researcher.

1,5.3 Time Scope

The research was conducted within a period of four months, from June to September 2018.

5
1.6 Significance of the study

The study will help examine the impact of employee participation in decision making in
Uganda that administrators and employers can use to draw conclusions on how to attend to
the situation so as to make all citizen of Uganda proud of their country. As a copy of this
research will be kept in the university library, it will be used by other researchers for
reference as secondary data in their research.

The research will help draw recommendations on how the issue of Employee participation in
decision making can be handled by the government and other stakeholders. The completion
of this research will mark the fulfillment of one of the activities that will lead to my award of
a degree in Human Resource Management as an undergraduate student at Kampala
international University.

1.7 Definition of the key terms

Organisational productivity
According to Pritchard (1990:3), organisational productivity has received so much attention
in recent years that it is now a household concept. For example, we talk with our spouse,
friends, and family relatives about how productive one’s day was.
Organisational productivity is a basic goal of management in today’s business environment
(Jamal & Wayne, 2007:1). This is so because if the productivity of an organisation is higher
than that of its competitors, that organisation survives better because higher productivity will
result in higher profits, and more job opportunities (Pritchard, 1990:5).
According to Prokopenko (1987:9), productivity improvement is not merely about doing
things better, but it is doing the right things better.

Employee participation
Employee participation is the process whereby employees are involved in decision making
processes, rather than simply acting on orders (Bjorne & Torunn, 2006:139)

Employee participation is part of a process of empowerment in the workplace.

Empowerment involves decentralising power within the organisation to individual decision
makers further the line. Team workin ‘~ is a key part of the empowerment process. Team
members are encouraged to make decisions for themselves in line with guidelines and
frameworks to establish in self-managing teams.

6
Employee participation is in part a response to the quality movement within organisations.
Individual employees are encouraged to take responsibility for quality in tem~s of carrying
out activities, which meet the requirements of their customers. The internal customer is
someone within the organisation that receives the “product of service” provided by their
supplier within the organisation. External customers are buyers and users outside the
organisation.
Employee participation is also part of the move towards human resource development in
modern organisations. Employees are trusted to make decisions for themselves and the
organisation. This is a key motivational tool.

7
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction
This chapter will help to clarify the study topic by identifying and reviewing relevant
literature from credible sources like reports, dissertations, thesis journals and institutional
records. It covers the broad concepts of youth involvement in rural areas, the level of youth
involvement in rural areas, donor and NGO perspective on project sustainability, and ways of
ensuring project sustainability in rural areas.

2.1 Conceptual Framework

According to Mugenda (2008), a conceptual framework is a relationship between variables in
a study showing them graphically and diagrammatically. The purpose is to help the reader
quickly see the proposed relationship of concepts. The frame work illustrated how
independent variables affect the dependent variables which are the focus of the study.

Conceptual Framework on Employee participation in decision making on

Organizational Productivity
Independent variables Dependent variables

Employee Participation in decision making

__________________________Organizational productivity

Providing sense of importance Financial Sustainability

to workers
Improved communication
Counter balance powers of _____________________
managers Increased customer base

Organizational Problem Solving High productivity

Source: (Lessing, Schepers and Valoyi 2000:32)

8
This conceptual framework explains the relationship between Employee participation in
decision making as an Independent variable and organizational productivity as the dependent
variable. When there are proper factors that lead to employees involving in decision making
such as providing a sense of importance to employees, Motivation, Counter balance powers
of managers and organizational problem solving, Different objectives can be achieved like
Financial Sustainability, improved communication, increased customer base, high
productivity hence improvement in workplace relationships, Improvement of workers morale,
higher productivity, increased commitment and industrial democracy.

2.2 Review of Related Literature

The review of related literature will be done basing on research objectives;

2.2.1 Effect of Employee Participatioi: in decision making on productivity

There has been considerable criticism of the transformation thesis implying a shifi from
Fordism to Post-Fordism. It has been pointed out that the pursuit of flexibility has not led to
widespread multiskilling and indeed reflects sectoral change and opportunism rather than
strategic choice. Lean production, as implemented, has strong elements of continuity with
Taylorism. Nor has high trust relations appeared to be any more widespread than in previous
times, with commitment largely calculative rather than employees working beyond contract
or going the extra mile. Several studies seek to examine the impact of people management
practices - which incorporate employee participation and voice - on organizational
performance and employee well-being (e.g. Huselid 1995; Becker and Huselid 1998; Handel
and Levine 2004; Locke and Schweiger 1979; Miller and Monge 1986; Wagner 1994; L)ietz
et al. 2009).

However, the extrapolation of survey evidence about the use of various involvement and
participation schemes in many studies tells us very little about the impact or extensiveness of
such techniques within a particular organization (Marchington 2005; Cox et al. 2006). The
ambiguity and lack of clarity about particular schemes is evident in relation to the impact
such techniques are claimed to have on enhanced organizational performance (Dundon et al.
2004). First, it is difficult to isolate the cause and effect and demonstrate that participation
can lead to better organizational performance given the whole range of other contextual
influences. For example, labour turnover is likely to be influenced by the availability of other
jobs, by relative pay levels and by the presence, absence or depth of particular participation

9
schemes. Second is the unease associated with the reference to benchmarking: of assessing
the date at which to start making ‘before and after’ comparisons. Should this be the date at
which the new participative mechanisms (for instance, a quality circle or consultative
committee) is actually introduced into the organization, or should it be some earlier or later
date? For example, the claim that a quality circle saves money through a new work praotice
does not take into account that such ideas may have previously been channeled through a
different route. This also leads onto a third concern, that of evaluating the so-called impact
and on whose terms. Should assessments be made in relation to workers having some say
(i.e., the process) or in terms of how things may be changed due to participation (i.e., the
outcomes)? If it is the latter, then who gains? It remains the case that it is usually managers
who decide what involvement and/or participation schemes to employ, at what level, depth
and over what issues (Wilkinson et al. 2004).

Clearly, effectiveness can be examined from a number of perspectives, and much depends on
how one sees management motivation for the introduction of such initiatives. While there
has been much discussion of direct participation from a humanist perspective there is no
doubt that in the 1 980s and 1 990s management have regarded business considerations as the
primary force behind these initiatives. Thus, the participation wave of the last 25 years is
much more business oriented than the QWL movement of the 1 970s. Furthermore,
management has defined the redistribution of power in very narrow terms. The degree of
participation offered is strictly within an agenda set by management and it tends not to extend
to significant power sharing or participation in higher level strategic decisions such as
product and investment plans. It is also true to say that radical forms of participation are not
on the current agenda. In terms of whether it leads to greater worker influence over decisions
the answer appears to be yes but within heavily constrained terms. Direct participation and
voice may not always be liberating. Research suggests it can restrain autonomy or worker
discretion and that opportunities “to have voice do not in themselves confer perceptions of
effectiveness” (Harlos 2001, 335). Handel and Levine report that it appears that involvement
“can improve organizational outcomes if the reforms are serious” but that the evidence on
worker welfare is “quite mixed” (2004, 38). According to Handel and Levine (2004:39) the
research suggests that when participation “is not used as a form of speed-up, it gives worlers
more autonomy, recognizes the value of their contributions, improves job satisfaction and is
often associated with lower quit rates”.

10
The research by Dundon et al (2004) on employee voice also found that it could have a
positive impact, in three general ways. The first is valuing employee contributions. This
might lead to improved employee attitudes and behaviours, loyalty, commitment and co
operative relations. The second impact relates to improved performance, including
productivity and individual performance, lower absenteeism and (in a few cases) new
business arising from employee ideas for improvement and efficiency. The final impact
relates to improved managerial systems. This incorporates the managerial benefits from
tapping into employee ideas; the informative and educational role of involvement along with
improved employee relations.

Using the WERS data, Bryson (2004) finds that direct participation is associated with better
employee perceptions of managerial responsiveness than either non-union representative
voice or union participation. However, the combination of direct and non-union
representative voice has the strongest effects. Union voice is not generally associated with
perceptions of managerial responsiveness, but direct voice mechanisms are associated with
perceptions of greater managerial responsiveness. The negative union effects are strongest
where the union representative is part-time, and Bryson (2004) suggests that union
representation raises expectations that may not be achieved due to time constraints. In short,
direct voice tends to be positively associated with perceptions of managerial responsiveness,
and part-time union representation shows a negative impact.

The prescriptive literature assumes that employees will welcome and indeed be committed to
the new approach. We do have evidence that workers welcome the removal of irritants ~(e.g.
close supervision) and welcome the opportunity to address problems at the source as well as
the ability to decide work allocation. However, there is also evidence that employees are not
sufficiently trained, especially where participation is a result of downsizing. At other times,
the decision-making process is not clear or developed, so even when workers suggest ideas
management are unable to respond adequately and ‘participation abandonment’ is
experienced (Adler 1992). Mechanisms are viewed either as bolted-on and lack coherence or
integration to other human resource policies and practices, with schemes left to dwindle as
participation champions move on and new managers have alternative agendas and objectives.
These problems are partly the result of the need to adapt to new production techniques and
downsizing rather than enhancing participation per se. In other words, employee
involvement is not without costs, both in terms of establishing a new approach to
management (involving training costs, costs of new reward and information systems) and in
11
its operation (involving issues of integration, consistency and unintended consequences)
(Lawler 1996). Thus, the new paradigm of work organization remains an ideal, with
elements adopted but in an ad hoc piecemeal manner.

Recent analysis has looked at system design issues (Dietz et al 2009) emphasizing that
employees do not simply buy into rhetoric in an unconditional way and their support is
dependent upon trust in management and the systems used. Employees interpret, evaluate and
(re)act towards managerial initiatives that ‘audit’ the viability of managerial initiatives and
the benefits are likely to accrue to workers. Thus, whilst employees may become immersed in
a management discourse which makes it difficult for them to challenge any particular
strategy, in practice they may oppose the initiative implemented and indeed may subvert
management goals (Roberts and Wilkinson 1991). Therefore it could be argued that,
although management try to limit the scope of participation, employees themselves may
question the extent to which they are treated and rewarded in the organization as a whole, and
the extent to which they participate in key business decisions and hence construct their own
independent agenda (Wilkinson 2008).

So, our argument is that we need to avoid a passive view of workers, as the importance of
such initiatives lies in the context of the translation of their supposed formal properties within
the real terrain of the organization and workplace. This is also important in helping us
understand whether direct participation erodes other forms of voice and involvement that may
be indirect or collectivist in design. By restructuring work responsibilities and making the
team central to the workplace, as well as encouraging employees to identify with managerial
objectives, it can marginalize unions and in some cases is clearly intended to do so.

It is evident that direct participation impacts the role of middle managers and supervisors,
from holders of expert power to facilitators or coaches responsible for tapping into employee
ideas for improvement. Removal of expert power is perceived as a significant threat and
participative management is seen as a burden to many middle managers and it is not
surprising that they do not universally welcome it (Wilkinson 2008). Their sense of anxiety
is exacerbated by fears of job loss as levels in the hierarchy may be reduced as part of v’.der
changes. Indeed, some resist its introduction or alternatively go along with it but emphasize
the ‘hard’, controlling aspects as a way of maintaining the existing power relationship.
Moreover, many see moves towards employee empowerment as ‘soft’ management removing
their authority over subordinates. However, research suggests that opposition may owe more

12
to the fact that they were not provided with the resources required, were not
sufficientlytrained or were not evaluated on this in terms of performance appraisal and
therefore did not see it as of much importance (Marchington and Wilkinson 2005). In other
cases, middle managers may feel that they gain influence over decisions taken elsewhere in
the organization that affect their work. Some may also feel that it gives them a chance to
show their initiative and so increases their career prospects despite losing a degree of
functional expert power.

In practice, direct participation can be seen as depending contingently on other factors. For
lower level employees, involvement in organizations with more flexibly specialized
processes, which rely on employee skill and discretion, is associated with more influence
over decisions than in organizations where there are routinised and standardised proce’ ses
that are capable of being tightly controlled from above. Direct participation in terms of
identifying and solving problems can be found at the New United Motor Manufacturing Inc
~NUMMI) GM Toyota joint venture in California, a Taylorised auto plant (Adler 1993).
- -

2.2.2 Challenges of Employee Participation in decision making

According to Lawler (1992), just as it is true with total quality management, there is no single
authority source or theory to support employee involvement as a management approach. It
has a long history dating back to early research work which was done on democratic
leadership in work organisations. That research work, which started in 193 Os, emphasized the
consequences of employees being involved in decision making. It shows that under certain
conditions employees are more committed to decisions and that better decisions are made if
they are involved.
Before implementing an empowennent program, you should understand the positive and
negative consequences of employee empowerment. Employees that are allowed to make their
own daily operating decisions can alter the way their jobs are performed to create a more
efficient workplace. When employees are allowed to innovate the way, their jobs are
performed they can create cost and time-saving processes that benefit the company. One of
the negative consequences of empowerment is departmental segmentation. Work groups or
individuals that are allowed to deal with their own daily work issues can become indignant of
co-workers or other departments, according to the Management Study Guide website
empowered employees and work groups to feel as though they no longer need to take
direction from management. This creates a company consisting of individuals or work groups
achieving their own goals without much direction from the company.
A management team is put in place by a company to use company policies and procedur~s to
guide the staff toward completing performance goals. When you empower your employees to
look after their own daily tasks, there is a risk of failure. The empowered employees may not
feel that they need to reach out to management for guidance, or the employees could be
performing work tasks in an unsatisfactory manner without realizing it because they have no
manager to keep them focused. Management should monitor employee performance and step
in to assist employees that are falling short of their goals before productivity is significantly
affected.

2,2.2.1 Manager-Employee Boundary;

Another potential challenge of encouraging employee involvement is the risk that the line of
distinction between the management level and employee level becomes blurred. Though
managers may value employee involvement, a disciplined structure with clear reporting lines
has long been vital to stability in organizations. Allowing employees to share idcas and make
decisions without having them push the envelope and try to take on responsibilities that are
reserved for management levels is a real risk.

2.2.2.2 Community Complexity;

More lines of communication and the potential for inconsistent decision making are
disadvantages with employee involvement systems. When more employees have input and
decision-making ability, more communication is necessary to make certain that decisions are
consistent across the organization.
This consistency is critical to brand recognition and consistency. Managers may have a hard
time monitoring decisions and activities with employee involvement to protect against
negative consequences and to restrict the potential for chaos.

2.2.2.3 Education level;

Different employees at different levels have different education levels, Employees with
higher education levels tend to participate more in decision making due to the confidence
they have and knowledge about work related rights whereas less educated employees are
ignorant and less confident.

14
2.2.2.4 Job experience;
When an employee takes more time in an organisation they tend to know and learn more of
employees’ rights and responsibilities in an organisation hence enabling them to effectively
participate in decision making whereas new employees with no experience have that fear of
participating in decision making due to lack of enough exposure.

2,2.2.5 Organizational performance;

When an organization is performing poorly in almost all sectors, there will be less employee
participation in decision making wheras when productivity is high, employees will be very
eager to participate in decision making of an organisation.

2.2.2.6 Training;
Lack of employee training in an organisation or institution hinders the participation of
employees in active decision making since they will not be having enough skills to participate
in making decisions for the organisation.

2.2.2.7 Leadership;
This varies from Organisation leaders to the employee leaders. When leadership at all these
levels is poor, there will be no participation from employees on decision making i~ an
organisation due to poor structures that may be deployed by the poor leaders of the
employees.

2.2.2.8 Motivation;
It is a very important aspect for employees to be motivated in any way since this makes them
so active in the day to day running of the organisation. When employees are highly
motivated, participation in decision making is high.

2.2.2.9 Fear and distrust:

When there is fear and distrust from management that it’s carrying along of employees in the
decision making of the organisation can be viewed as weakness on its part and may prevent
them from taking corrective disciplinary measures when necessary on employees. The lack of
trust that employees will want to make decisions that will only favour them and not
considering the interest of the organisation which primarily is to make profit can pose a

15
challenge to employee’s participation in decision making process of an organisation
(Engelen, 2004),

2.2.2.10 Structure of the organisatioli:

Size of the working units of the organization including the geographical distribution is
another constraint to participation. Some managers have very limited subordinates, which
makes participation impracticable. Similarly, the wide geographical dispersion of the
organization may make a system of participation in decision making impossible. The
structure of the organisation may determine the extent to which the manager can initiate his
own idea to accomplishment of task that invariably will be in operating matters only (Mizrahi
2002).

2.2.2.11 Employees skill:

A major plausible excuse for excluding employees in the decision-making process of an
organisation is the lack of administrative and technical skill on the part of the employees that
is required for the job. A critical part of decision making is availability of the requisite
knowledge and skill on the subject matter, as a poor skill will only amount in making
decisions that are not applicable to the operations of the business. For example, an employee
that has not been able to understand the business environment may not be able to take
decisions as it affects the expansion of a business (Knudsen, 1995; Levinson, 2001).

2.2.2.12 Time:
A critical element in decision making is time, as it goes a long way to determine a good
decision from a bad one. Therefore, most organisations will not be patient to create the
opportunity for employees to come un with their input as the action may require their
immediate action on the subject matter (Lawler’ s, 1 990).These are the many observable
constraints that have necessitated research in this field of study with diverse result as
benefits and constraints to decision making in organisations.

16
2.2.3 Measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making
A common misconception by management is that participation in decision making involves
simply asking employees to participate or make suggestions. In order for good decisions to be
made by employees during decision making process, effective programs must be undertaken
to ensure efficient and effective decision.
In order to achieve effective participatory decision making by employees, managers need to
approach the method of employee’s participation in decision making with an open mind.
With this mechanism, even though not all suggestions or ideas will be agreed upon, it
however paves way for creativity and innovation. Employees should also be willir~ to
participate in decision making process.

Employees will only be able to make the right decisions if they have acquired the right skills
and knowledge concerning those decisions to be made. Management or managers who want
to practice participatory decision making must provide employees with the necessary
training, information or knowledge so they can make effective and efficient decisions. It is
known that employees may not participate in decision making process because they lack the
necessary skills or knowledge. Most researchers such as Colombo and Stanca, Sepulveda F
(2005) and Konings and Vanormelingen (2009) shows that training is a fundamental and
effectual instrument in successful accomplishment of the firm’s goals and objectives resulting
in higher productivity.

Helms MM (2006) explains that through training, development opportunities and information
sharing, employees can acquire the conceptual skills needed to become effective managers
and also increases the commitment of employees to the organization and the decisions they
make. PashiardisP (1994) in the article “Teacher Participation in decision making” notes that
for participation in decision making to be successfully implemented, policy has to be changed
to support this approach. He further added that time, resources, participatory involvement and
support will determine the effectiveness of participation and recommends training to enable
members participate effectively.
There must stakeholders support before action is required as appropriate in emergency
situations.

There should be a systemic balance of cultural, ideological and labour relations environment
by ensuring there is no conflict of interest whatsoever that has the tendency to create fear and

17
distrust among the employees of a given organisation. In this employee participation in
decision making will be enhanced.

There is need to ensure that employees feel that their jobs are not at risk when they express
their opinions, which should be based on a cordial working relationship with respect to
employees right in the organisation. Many employers tend to threaten their employees
positions when they discuss about the challenges of the organisation hence hindering their
participation in decision making.

A well.structured human resource policy that seeks to recognize performance and encourage
improve performance. This policy can help lay structures to be undertaken by employees to
participate in decision making without fear or threat from their employers.

There should he strategic organizational measures imbedded in the leadership style that
creates team spirit, group cohesiveness and teamwork. These can help leaders guide the
employees on the procedures to be undertaken in participating in decision making for the
organisation.

There should be a manufacturing strategy that is conducive to participation. Decision making

process should be systematic, strategic and structured for easy implementation.
Employees must be integrated in the organization, their job must provide a sense of
excitement, and they must se~ management as working in their interest so as to propel
favourable disposition to work.

In ensuring efficiency is improved the participation of employees should not just be partial
but holistic to give them a sense of belonging.

Finally, management must make it a part of its standard policy to ensure all staff opinions,
suggestions, view are subjected to their merit and accepted where applicable.
2.3 Related Studies
Several studies have shown that allowing employees to participate in decision making leads
to increase in motivation, job performance, and organizational growth (Gollan and
Wilkinson, 2007; Kim, McDuffie and Pu, 2010; Bhuiyan, 2010; and Brown 1982). However,
many studies also have conflicting views on whether or not an increase in employee
participation directly affects organizational performance. Some critics, such as Sashkin
(1976) feel that participation is not oniy effective, but that its use by management is an
ethical imperative. Locke and Schweiger (2001) believe that worker participation is merely a
managerial technique that can be used effectively in certain situations.

Many studies have been carried out on worker participation and organizational performance
(Kuye and Sulaimon, 2011; Ravenswood, 2011; Thornton, 2009; and Barringer and
Bleudorn, 1999). They concluded that to increase workers’ commitment and humanize the
workplace, with the intention of improving firms ‘performance and good
citizenshipbehaviour, managers need to permit a high degree of employee involvement
indecision making. Ray and Ray (2011) focused on SMEs and their findings showed that
employee participation has positive impact on job satisfaction. Thornton (2009) estab1isl~ed a
significant relationship between frequency of employees’ consultation and job satisfaction,
while Spreit~er, Kizilos and Nason, (1997) found that workers who have greater choice
concerning how to do their own work have high job satisfaction and consequently high job
performance. The findings of Khattak, Igbal and Bashir, (2012) also indicated that employee
involvement and participation at work has significant positive effect on job satisfaction,
leading to improved organizational performance.

Black and Gregersen (1997) stated that PDM ranges from formal to informal. A formal
system entails explicit guidelines as to who is allowed to participate, what decisions
employees can participate in, and how involvement occurs. An informal system has much
less explicit rules regarding who can participate and what can be discussed. Formal
Systems are more common (Black & Gregersen, 1997).

Moreover, several studies suggested that a slight positive relationship exists between the
degree of participation and employee satisfaction (Black & Gregersen, 1997). However, the
findings of PDM were vague. Some findings indicated almost no impact for PDM, while
some scholars argued that participation is a joint responsibility of employees and managers

19
that convenes members to tackle issues and make decisions through team work (Davis &
Newstrom, 1997; Budhiono et al., 1999; Kim, 2002). Employee participation requires
employees to understand a problem and later decide on a solution.

However, Latham, Winters, Locke. (1994) argued that there is much less evidence for the
value of employee involvement on quality decision-making. In fact, PDM may make
employees feel positively about their jobs an organization but actually does little to enhance
firm performance (Wagner, 1994). Hence, the study’s hypothesis: Employee participation in
decision-making has significant influence on firm performance.

Some other researchers (Emamgholizadehet al., 2011) put this succinctly by describing
employee participation in decision making as sharing decision making with subordinates to
achieve organisational objectives. These subordinates would otherwise not have been
involved in decision making in the traditional hierarchical system of management (Pacheco
and Webber, 2016). Employee participation in decision making is expected to make it
possible to achieve outcomes that would otherwise be unattainable under the hierarchical
structure (Mokoena, 2011). It is also said to be important to the survival of organisations in
the increasingly competitive business environment. This is in the light of the belief that
participation in decision making helps individuals and groups within an organisation to
secure their interests in the process

A related study investigated participation in decision making, using a sample of 217 non-
management staff in two organisations in Nigeria (l3arget al., 2014). These studies revealed
that although employees were interested in participating in decision making, their actual
participation is low. The authors found that participation in decision making by the
respondents varied with their ages and educational levels.

Another basic study investigated employees’ perception of their involvement in decision

making (Koket al., 2014), focusing on aspects of power, information, knowledge and
rewards. The power dimension investigated issues like freedom to do what employees do
best, say in how work is structured, and contribution to strategic vision and goals. The
information dimension of decision making focused on feedback and relevant information to
employees, while the knowledge dimension assessed issues related to the availability of
training programmes to improve employee work. The last of the dimensions, reward, focused

20
on employees having a say in how they are rewarded and recognised. The authors (Koke t
aL,2014) found that, in the University of Technology sampled in South Affica, the level ~f
employee involvement in decision making was low.

In another study (Bhuiyafl, 2010), the r ~ture of employee participation in ~~~jsion~making in

the ready-made garment sector of Bangladesh was investigated. This author found th at
decision making was still highly concentrated at the top management level, with 70% of t~e
respondents agreeing that most decisions are made at that level. Only 3% of the respondeflt~
agreed that some decisions are made at the workers’ level. The decision activities
investigated were broadly divided into three, These were managerial activities, goal setting
and other activities.

Empirical evidence also exists on the effect of employee gender, qualification and w ~rk
status on participation in decision making (Blascl~(e, 2015). It was found that feir~a1e
employees with higher qualifications were more disposed to participate in decision making.
In addition, female employees with blue collar status participated in decision making kss
than those with white collar status. The low participation of employees the lower levels have
however been attributed to non complementarY~ as well as little understanding of the,
objectives of the organization by these lower level employees ~in~alet al., 2015). The
observed low level of participation in decision making may not be restricted to the blue collar
employees however. This is in the light of the fact the findings of a previous study that ~~nd
that employee engineers in an organisation in Berhad also indicated low particip~tiOfl
indecision making ~Hashimafld Wok, 2015).

Florence (2011) carried out a study on the relationship between employee’s particiption
indecision making process and job satisfaction among university academic staff. The s~idy
discovered that there is a positively strong correlation between employee’s participation in
~~cjsion-rnakmg and job satisfaction in relation to general working conditions; pay and
promotion potential; use of skills and abilities; job design; and job feedback. The obsei~’atiOn
of the study agrees further with Rathnakar (2012), study and similar conclusion that there is
significant relationship between participation of employees in decision making aiid the
degree of employee’s participation and consultation.

21
In a similar study by Omobude and Igbudu (2012), they investigated the influenc~. of
teachers’ participation in decision making process and its impact on their job performances.
The study discovered that participation in decision making influence performance as teachers
who participated in decision making performed better, and the relationship between
participation and performance varies on certain demographical factors and availed equal
participatory opportunities in decision-making.

In another study, Watson Wyatt’s (2007) researched on 946 organizations in 22 countries.

The findings showed that involved employees who are more likely to perform better than
employees who are not involved. However, Balain and Sparrow (2009) contends that
employee involvement relationship to job performance is over simplified as it implies that
higher levels of employee involvements result in higher job performance but rather they
contend that the correlation between employee involvement and job performance is rather
complex to be explained through performance and that studies only indicate and measure the
outcomes of performance rather than the undcrlying issues and causes.

22
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 Introduction

This chapter explains the approach and methods used in executing this study. It presents,
among others, the research design, the study population, sample size, selection procedures,
data collection methods, tools and ethical considerations.

3.1 Research Design

The study sought to use descriptive research approach on Employee participation in decision
making in Uganda, a case of Human rights initiative. Specifically, cross sectional survey
design using both the quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. Descriptive
study enabled the researcher to collect information from a cross section of a given population.
This study design was used because it ~ the most commonly used research method in social
research. This is because results from such a survey were easily extrapolated to the entire
population.

3.2 Study Population

The study population was46 employees of Human rights initiative. It included 4 directors, 8
managers, and 34 employees; including secretaries, Receptionists and the entire employee
body at Human rights initiative.

3.3 Sample size

The sample size population was46 respondents. The study population was small. This~ was
distributed as follows;

23
Table 1: Sample size distribution

Category Study Population Sampling techniques

Directors 04 Census

Managers 08 Census

Employees 34 Census

Total 46

Table 1

3.4 Research procedures

Before gathering of data from the field, the researcher ensured approval of research
instruments to be used especially questionnaires obtained, introductory letter from the
University and finally undertake data collection among the target population using the
approved methods.

3.5 Sources of Data

Both secondary and primary data were collected utilizing various methods and tools.

3.5.1 Primary data

Primary data was collected through personal interviews (using structured questionnaires and
interview guides) and FGDs.

3.5.2 Secondary data

Using a desk review checklist, a number of existing documents were reviewed to provide
secondary data on the planning and policy context in which employee participation in
decision making and organizational productivity occurs. The findings from the desk review
informed the discussion of findings. The exhaustive list of all the sources consulted is shown
in the References.

24
3.6 Data collection: methods, tools and techniques
3.6.1 Structured questionnaires
Different sets of structured questionnaires/interview schedules were designed and
administered to different categories of respondents in personal interviews. For each Category,
the questionnaire were standardized, with both preceded and open-ended questions relating to
key research objectives in order to allow for comparability of responses. For the Directors
and Managers, the tecirnique adopted were face-to-face interviewing while for the
Employees, the questionnaire were self-administered. This was preferred because it is easier
to get employees in a group situation, give general instructions and distribute questionnaires
for completion. The questionnaires were designed to address particular thematic areas in
relation to the study objectives, namely: youth involvement and project sustainability.

3.6.2 Interviews
The interview guide had a set of open-ended questions to guide collection of data from key
actors on employee participation in decision making and organizational productivity at
Human Rights Initiative. The research tools were standardized for all the particip~ing
countries to allow for comparability of variables and findings. The researcher used both
formal and informal interviews with the respondents. This enabled the researcher to get more
information in greater depth, reduced resistance and also obtained personal information from
the respondents.
The advantage of this method is that, it helped to further clarify certain infonnation that is in
the questionnaires. Again, the interview were employed to cross-check certain information
from the respondents.

3.6.3 Focus group discussions

FGDs with clients were conducted using a discussion guide to gather data on client
experiences cf social work services. The outcomes of the discussions were crucial in gauging
the extent to which employee participation in decision making and organizational
productivity is influential at the Human Rights Initiative. Tape-recording were done for all
the discussions (with prior permission of the participants) alongside note-taking in order to
guard against loss of data.

25
3.7 Data processing analysis and presentation.
3.7.1 Qualitative data;
Data processing involved editing raw facts to detect errors and omissions, classifying data
according to common features and tabulation to summarize and organize it. Data analysis
involves qualitative approach of identifying the major themes arising respondents’ answers;
assigning codes to these major themes. Classification of the major responses under the main
theme; and integrating the responses into the report in a more descriptive and analytical
manner. Data analysis can then be done using content analysis that describes major themes
from the ideas and opinions of the respondents.

3.7.2 Quantitative data;

Data processing and analysis included a number of closely related operations that are
performed with the purpose of summarizing the data collected and organizing it to answer
research questions. On receipt of questionnaires, manual editing was done to eliminate errors.
After editing and coding tabulation was done to a clear presentation of various responses and
significance of each interpretation.

Frequencies and percentages were used in tabulation to portray statistics used to analyze and
interpret study findings. Frequency tables, pie charts, graphs and other charts aided in
presenting the collected data so as to make summarized and more understandable using
statistical packages like Microsoft excel, and word. Analysis and interpretation was then
made using the information provided from the tables in form of percentages.

3.8 Ethical consideration

The researcher protected respondents by keeping the information given confidential and
where a need to reveal, consent was first obtained. The questionnaire shall not include the
names of the respondents for matters of privacy and secrecy. After the collection of data
questionnaires were destroyed so that collected information could not leak.

26
 CHAPTER FOUR

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

4.0 Introduction
This chapter focuses on the presentation, analysis and discussion of findings in accordance
with the research objectives. The findings are summarized from primary and secondary
sources of data and presented in frequency tables and percentage contributions as follows;

4.1 Background characteristics of respondents

4.1.1 Gender of respondents

The researcher wanted to know the gender and sex distribution of the respondents and this is
shown in the following table. This section indicates both sexes with the community.

Table 2: Gender of respondents

Sex — -— Frequency Percentage (%)

Male 19 41.3

Female 27 58.7

Total 46 100

Table 2

Source: Primary data

The gender distribution of the respondents is presented on table 2 above. Out of 46

respondents, there were both male and female. This gender distribution implies that both
women and men work at the Human Rights Initiative and shows that women are more than
men implying that women are given chance to work at the Human Rights Initiative.

27
4.1.2 Age of respondents

The study went on to establish the age groups of the respondents and the findings as
presented in table 3. The study also involved all respondents who are responsible and with
mature understanding. For example all the respondents were 15 years and above.

Table 3: Age distribution of respondents

Age range (years) Frequency Percentage (%)

15-30 13 28.3

31-46 30 65.2

Above 47 03 6.5

Total 46 100

Table 3

Source: Primary data

The age groups of all respondents are presented in table 3. Here most of them were in the age
group of3l-46, followed by the age group of 15-30 and the least age group was Above 47.
This implies that the study targeted the right respondents in all working age groups.

4.1.3 Education levels of the respondents

The study also sought about the educational levels of the respondents and the findings were
represented in table 4. Under this section, the researcher was aimed at finding out the
education status of all respondents involved in the study. This was partly essential in order to
enrich the findings of the study.

28
Table 4: Level qf education of respondents

Educational level Frequency Percentage (%)

Secondary 05 11

Diploma 06 13

Degree 25 54.3

Post graduate 10 21.7

Total 46 100

Table 4

Source: Primary data

Table 4 above portrays the respondents’ education level. The execution shows Degree level
as the most dominant, followed by post graduate level. This is followed by Diploma level and
the least had secondary level. Most of those with higher qualifications were Directors and
Managers. Everyone at the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative was well educated and
knowledgeable of the topic of study.

4.1.4 Marital status of the respondents

The study further went on to establish the marital status of the respondents and the findings
were as represented in table 5. The researcher was also interested in finding out the marital
status of the respondents. Table 5: Marital status of the respondents

Marital status Frequency Percentage (%)

Single 15 32.6

Married 31 67.4

Total 46 100

Table 5

Source: Primary data

29
Table 5 above presents marital status of respondents. It was found out that most of the
respondents were married compared to the single ones at Foundation for Human Rights
Initiative. Thus the study involved Directors, Managers and employees who are mainly
married.

4.1.5 Designation of respondents

Table 6: Designation of respondents

Designation Frequency Percentage (%)

Directors 04 8.7
Managers 08 17.4
Employees 34 73.9
Total 46 100
Table 6

Source: Primary data

Table 6 above shows the designation of respondents with employees with the highest number,
followed by managers and then Directors were the least. The study involved all levels at the
Foundation to get a balanced argument.

4.2 The effect of employee participation in decision making

Effects of employee participation Frequency Percentage (%)

Enhancing civic consciousness and political 20 25

maturity

Taps into internal resources 20 25

Improves workplace relationships 25 31.3

Better decision making 15 1 8.8

Reduces labour-management friction 20 25

Increased commitment to unit goals 10 12.5

30
Inclusive participation 12 15

More effective implementation To 12.5

Improves morale of employees 25 31.3

Improvement of Employees skills 10 12.5

Table 7

The respondents identified the different effects of employee participation in decision making.
Here the most dominant from the respondents was Improves morale of employees (31.3%)
and Improves workplace relationships (31.3%), these were followed by Enhancing civic
consciousness (25%) and political maturity (25%), Taps into internal resources (25%) and
Reduces labour-management friction (25%).

Followed by Better decision making (18.8%). This was followed by Inclusive participation
(15%) and then increased commitment to unit goals (12.5%), more effective implementation
(12.5%) and Improvement of Employees skills (12.5%) which also had the same number and
the least number.

These findings clearly portrays that the levels of participation in decision making is
determined by personal differences, government policies and organization levels.

4.3 Challenges of employee participation in decision making

Challenges Frequency Percentage (%)
Manager-employee boundary 10 4.2
Community complexity 15 6.3
Education level 30 13
Job experience 25 10.5
Organizational performance 25 10.5
Training 15 6.3
Leadership 20 8.4
Motivation 14 5.9
Fear and distrust 10 4.2
Structure of the organization 25 10.5
~ --

31
Employees skills 28 1 1.8
Time 20 8.4
Table 8

The respondents identified the different challenges of employee participation in decision

making. Manager-employee 4.2%, community complexity covering 6.3%, education level
taking 13% and job experience covering 10.5 %. Organizational performance also covered
10.5 %. Whereas training took 6.3 % and leadership took 8.4 %. Others were motivation with
5.9 %, fear and distrust with 4.2 %, structure of the organization 10.5 %, employees skills
20.4 and lastly time with 8.4 %. These findings clearly portrays that the major challenge of
employee participation in decision making is education level.

4.4 The solutions to the challenges of employee participation in decision making

Solutions to challenges of employee Frequency Percentage

participation in decision making
Government involvement 20 25

A well-structured human resource policy 15 18.8

Systemic balance of cultural, ideological and 25 31.3

labour relations environment
Acquiring the right skills and knowledge 12 15

Increasing Educational and literacy levels of 22 27.5

members
Training, development opportunities and 9 1 1.3
information sharing
Improving Attitudes of members towards work 30 39.5

Strategic organizational measures imbedded in 10 12.5

the leadership style
Improving communication strategy 08 10

Table 9
Source: primary data

32
The measures to challenges of employee participation in decision making are shown in table
above. As seen 20(25%) noted rate of government involvement; A well-structured human
resource policywas cited by 15(18.8%) of the respondents; 25(31.3%) cited Systemic balance
of cultural, ideological and labour relations environment. Strategic organizational measures
imbedded in the leadership style was cited by 10(12.5%) of the respondents; 12(15%) noted
acquiring the right skills and knowledge; 22(27.5%) piece noted Increasing Educational and
literacy levels of members,Training, development opportunities and information sharing was
cited out by 9(11.3%) of the respondents and 30(39.5%) noted Improving Attitudes of
members towards work and lastly 0’(1 0%)noted improving community strategy as the
measures to the challenges of employee participation in decision making.

33
 CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Introduction
This chapter provides the presentation of summary of the findings from the study per research
objective (or question); conclusions drawn, recommendations derived; and areas for further
research.

5.1 Discussion of findings

The data collection methods, tools and techniques used in carrying out the research included;
Structured questionnaires, Interviews and Focus group discussions.
5.1.1 Effect of employee participation in decision making
It was evident that participation improves morale of employees. Through allowing the
employees to participate freely, they will always be involved in the activities of the
organization. According to BalTinger and Bleudorn (1999), employee participation increases
workers’ commitment and humanize the workplace, with the intention of improving firms’
performance and good citizenship behavior.

Relatively, employee participation in decision making improves workplace relationships

between the various employees and other staff in an organization. Hence increasing
productivity in an organisation. Several studies sijggested that a slight positive relationship
exists between the degree of participation and employee satisfaction (Black & Gregersen,
1997). Some scholars argued that participation is a joint responsibility of employees and
managers that convenes members to tackle issues and make decisions through team work
(Davis & Newstrom, 1997).

Employee participation in decision malring also Reduces labour-management friction, since

employees will be more involved with the management during decision making processes
and hence increasing the relationship between the employees and the top management.
According to Koket al, 2014, employees’ perception of their involvement in decision making,
focusing on aspects of power, information, knowledge and rewards. The power dimension
investigated issues like freedom to do what employees do best, say in how work is structured.

34
5.1.2 Challenges of employee participation in decision making
The major challenge as observed by the respondents was education level. Different
employees at different levels have different education levels, Employees with higher
education levels tend to participate more in decision making due to the confidence they have
and knowledge about work related rights whereas less educated employees are ignorant and
less confident.
Another major challenge was employee skills; A major plausible excuse for excluding
employees in the decision-making process of an organisation is the lack of administrative and
technical skill on the part of the employees that is required for the job. A critical par~ of
decision making is availability of the requisite knowledge and skill on the subject matter, as a
poor skill will only amount in making decisions that are not applicable to the operations of
the business. For example, an employee that has not been able to understand the business
environment may not be able to take decisions as it affects the expansion of a business
(Knudsen, 1995; Levinson, 2001).
Another challenge observed by the respondents was structure of the organisation; Size of the
working units of the organization including the geographical distribution is another constraint
to participation. Some managers have very limited subordinates, which makes participation
impracticable. Similarly, the wide geographical dispersion of the organization may ma~ke a
system of participation in decision making impossible. The structure of the organisation may
determine the extent to which the manager can initiate his own idea to accomplishment of
task that invariably will be in operating matters only (Mizrahi
2002).

5.1.3 Measures or solutions to the challenges of employee participation in decision

making to improve productivity.
The measures to the challenges in employee participation in decision making according to the
respondents included;

Improving attitudes of members towards work, this had the most respondents. This is because
when members have a positive attitude towards work they tend to concentrate more on
making it better through involving in decision making. In order to achieve effective
participatory decision making by employees, managers need to approach the method of
employee’s participation in decision making with an open mind. With this mechanism, even

35
though not all suggestions or ideas will be agreed upon, it however paves way for creativity
and innovation. Employees should also be willing to participate in decision making process.

Systematic balance of cultural, ideological and labor relations environment; this was the
second most selected of the respondents because when the labor environment is favorable,
employees will be much interested in getting involved in decision making. By ensuring there
is no conflict of interest whatsoever that has the tendency to create fear and distrust among
the employees of a given organisation. In this employee participation in decision making will
be enhanced.

Another one was Government involvement; since the government sets laws and rules
governing employees in all institutions, employee participation may vary depending on these
rules governing the employees. Others included;A well-structured human resource policy,
Acquiring the right skills and knowledge, Increasing Educational and literacy levels of
members, Training, development opportunities and information sharing, improving Attitudes
of members towards work, Strategic organizational measures imbedded in the leadership
style and Improving communication strategy.

5.2 Conclusion of the study

The study concludes that the major effect of employee participation in decision making is
improving workplace relationships. When employees get involved in making decisions
together with other workers such as managers and directors, the relationship between all these
will increase hence improving on the productivity of an organization.

It also concludes that the major challen~e facing employee participation in decision making is
education level. Since various employees have various education levels, the level of
confidence varies since those with low levels of education don’t know their rights and hence
tend not to participate fully in decision making. Those with higher levels of education are
confident and participate fully in decision making.

Lastly the major solution to the challenges faced by employee participation in decision
making is improving attitudes of members towards work; In order to achieve effective
participatory decision making by employees, managers need to approach the method of
employee’s participation in decision making with an open mind. With this mechanism, even

36
though not all suggestions or ideas will be agreed upon, it however paves way for creativity
and innovation. Employees should also be willing to participate in decision making process.

5.3 Recommendations
The government should avail studies and training for employees to know their rights.
Employees will only be able to ensurc effect of decision making in an organization if they
have acquired enough skills and knowledge concerning those decisions to be made.

Through the government employing agents in various institutions to find out and inquire
about the major challenges faced by employees in making decisions for their institutions.

By the government collecting various information from its agents or employee leaders in
various institutions or companies and finding solutions to these challenges.

5.5 Suggested areas for future study

This section suggests areas for further study by the future researchers on employee
involvement in decision making. These areas are portrayed below;
o The impact of education on employee involvement in decision making.
e How to involve employees in decision making.
o Benefits of employee participation in decision making.

5.6 Limitations

The researcher encountered a few limitations during the study especially when it came to
interviewing the employees. Some were not willing to give information and at some instances
the researcher had to wait till late in the evening when the employees were through with their
work so as to interview them. For the key informants given their busy schedules some
interviews were rescheduled to fit their timetables which also sometimes failed.

The research took slightly long to conduct particular interviews which delayed the study and
the to and fro movements were costly.

Furthennore; there were financial constraints for assisting researcher for data collection from
the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative through payment of transport fees,
accommodation allowance and stationeries allowance. As well, permission letter from
employer to allow researcher to collect data from organization replied very late.

37
 REFERENCES
Employee participation
Harlos (2001, 335), ClassifIcation of employee particlpation in decision making
Productivity
Bhatti & Qureshi, 2007:57, Definition ofProductivity
Bryson (2004) suggests that union representation raises expectations that may not be
achieved due to time constraints
Issue 9
Bryson (2004), Direct particz~ation is associated with better employee perceptions of
managerial responsiveness; using the WERS data.
Collective bargaining
Elele and Fields (2010:370), Collective Bargaining as an indirect form of employee
particlpation in decision making
Motivation.
Gollan and Wilkinson, 2007; Kim, McDuffie and Pu, 2010; Bhuiyan, 2010; and Brown 1982,
Employee ‘s participation in decision making leads to increase in motivation, job
performance, and organizational growth Engagement as a positive attitude;

People management practices.

Huselid 1995; Becker and Huselid 1998; Handel and Levine 2004; Locke and Schweiger
1979; Miller and Monge 1986; Wagner 1994; Dietz et al. 2009, Examining the impact of
people management practices
Worker participation

Locke and Schweiger (2001), Worker p~rticzpation is merely a managerial technique;

Macey, Schneider, Barbera, & Young, 2009:2, An engaged workforce is more effective,
efficient and productive

Conceptual framework
Mugenda (2008), Definition of conceptualframework
Organisational productivity

Perry, Mesch and Paarlberg (2006:509), Organisational productivity is a basic goal of

management in today ‘s business environment
Pritchard (1990:3), organisational productivity has received so much attention in recent
years
Pritchard (1995:1), An organisation can improve its productivity either by changing its
technology or by using its people

38
 Productivity
Putz (1991:9) Ways in which an organisation can improve its productivity
Sharma &Goyal, 2010: 338, 1 980s and 1 990s context for particlpation in Britain and the
USA

Soleven (2001), Sample size formula thsigned

Schemes emphasis
Strauss (2006, 780), Emphasis on groups and non-pecuniary rewards rather than specUic
schemes Emphasis on power equalization and workers rights to participate.
‘

Employee skill acquisition

Trist et al. 1963; Roeber (1975) Managerial objectives tended to focus on employee skill
acquisition and work enrichment in the UI<~ inspired by the Tavistock Institute

Collective bargaining
Westhuizen (2010:11), Collective bargaining definition; rights and obligations of each party
in employment relations in decision making.

TQM
Wilkinson and Ackers (1995), Japanese production methods which spawned interest in TQM~
Quality ~‘ircles and Six Sigma;

39
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR EMPLOYEES

Introduction

Dear Sir/Madam

This questionnaire is a guide to the study, ‘Titled: “Employee Participation In Decision

Making and Organizational productivity: A Case Study of Foundation for Human
Rights Initiative”.

You are humbly asked to spend a few minutes of your valuable time to answer the questions
provided in this sheet. You are hereby informed that the answers will be treated
confidentially and only be used for academic purpose. The following are the questions:
BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENT:

1. Residence

2. Name of employee

3. Position (e.g., Secretary)

4. Age:

15-30

31-46 [~] 47above

5. Marital status:

Married

Unmarried

6. What is your education level? Tick the relevant answer ( ~f)

a!. Primary

b/. Ordinary Certificate Secondary Education

c/. Advanced Certificate Secondary Education

d/. Certificate

40
e/.Diploma

f/. Advanced Diploma

g/. Bachelor

hi. Postgraduate /Masters

1/. Phd

EFFECT OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING ON

PRODUCTIVITY:

7. Do you experience the need to participate in decision making at workplace? Tick the
relevant answer (‘)

Yes No

8. What are the main challenges of employee participation in decision making on productivity
of an organization? Tick the relevant answer(s) (J)

(a) Manager — employee boundary EJ (b) Community complexity ~

(c) Education level [~] (d) Job experience ~

(e) Organizational performance E] (f) Training[]

(g) Leadership (h) Motivation

(i) Fear and distrust (j) Structure of the organisation[~]

(k) Employees skill

Other(s)

41
(10) What are the main challenges of employee participation in decision making? Tick the
relevant answer (~/)
(a) Undertaking effective programs ~ (b) Acquiring the right skills & knowledge f~j
(c)Training ~ (d) Manufacturing Strategy El
(e) Strategic organizational measures ~] (f) Well-structured human resource policy ~j
(g) Systematic balance of cultural, ideological & labour relations environment ~

(h) Other(s)

42