TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPROVAL …… …..…………………………………………………………… i

CERTIFICATION ….……………………………………………………………. ii

DEDICATION …….…………………………………………………………….. iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………….…………………….… iv

LIST OF TABLE ……………………………………….………………………… v

ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………….. vi

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1. Background of the Study ……………………………………………….. 1
2. Statement of the Problem ………………………………………………. 5
3. Objectives of the Study …..……………………………………………… 6
4. Research Questions ..…………………………………………………… 7
5. Research Hypothesis …………………………………………………… 7
6. Significance of the Study ……………………………………………….. 8
7. Scope of the Study ………………………………………………………. 9
8. Limitations of the Study ………….……………………………………. 10
9. Definition of Terms …………………………………………………….. 11

Reference ……………………………………………………………….. 12

CHAPTER TWO

THE REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction

2.1    Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………… 13

2.1.1 Definition of Employee Participation …………………………………. 13

2.1.2 Forms of Participation …………………………………………………. 16

2.2    Theoretical Framework for the Study ………………………………… 16

2.3    Empirical Framework ………………………………………………….. 18

2.3.1 Job Satisfaction ………………………………………………………… 18

2.3.2 Employee Productivity …………………………………………………. 19

2.3.3 Employee Commitment/Performance ……………………………….. 20

2.4    Enhancing Productivity through Participation ………………………. 24

2.5    Effects of Employee Participation in Decision Making on Organizational Productivity ………………………………………………….. 27

2.6    Methods of Involving Employees in Decision Making ……………… 30

2.7    Summary of Related Literature ……………………………………….. 35

          Reference ……………………………………………………………….. 36

          CHAPTER THREE

          RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

          Introduction

3.1    Research Design ………………………………………………………. 39

3.2    Source of Data Collection ……………………………………………… 39

3.3    Area of the Study ………………………………………………………. 40

3.4    Population of the Study ………………………………………………… 40

3.5    Sample Size …………………………………………………………….. 40

3.6    Sample Technique ……………………………………………………… 41

3.7    Instrument for Data Collection ………………………………………… 41

3.8    Validity of the Instrument ……………………………………………… 42

3.9    Reliability of Instrument ……………………………………………….. 42

3.10  Method of Data Presentation and Analysis …………………………. 43

          Reference ……………………………………………………………….. 44

CHAPTER FOUR

          PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA.

4.1    Distribution of Questionnaires ………………………………………… 45

4.2    Personal Data of Respondents ……………………………………….. 46

4.3    Data Presentation and Analysis based on the Research

Questions ……………………………………………………………………… 49

4.4    Test of Hypothesis ……………………………………………………… 60      

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1    Summary of Findings ………………………………………………….. 64

5.2    Conclusion ……………………………………………………………… 65

5.3    Recommendations …………………………………………………….. 66

5.4    Suggestion for Further Studies ………………………………………. 67

          BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………….. 68

          APPENDIX 1 ……………………………………………………………. 72

          APPENDIX 2 ……………………………………………………………. 76

LIST OF TABLES

4.1    Distribution of Questionnaires ………………………………………… 44

4.2a  Sex Distribution of Respondents ……………………………………… 45

4.2b  Marital Status of Respondents …………………………………………45

4.2c  Age Distribution of Respondents ……………………………………… 46

4.2d  Educational Qualification of Respondents …………………………… 46

4.2e  Management Level of Respondents …………………………………. 47

4.2f   Length of Service of Respondents …………………………………… 48

4.3a  Employee Participation in Decision Making in Organization ………. 48

4.3b  Frequency of Employee Participation in the Decision Making in Organization …………………………………………………………………… 49

4.3c  Assessment of Employee Participation in the Decision Making in Organization …………………………………………………………………… 50

4.3d  Employee Participation Existing in Organization …………………… 51

4.3e  Employee Participation Desired in Organization …………………… 51

4.3f   Employee Job Satisfaction ……………………………………………. 52

4.3g  Employee Job Satisfactions and Involvement in Decision Making . .52

4.3h  Relationship between Respondents Job Position and Involvement in Management Decision Making ………………………………………………. 53

4.3i   Non Involvement in Decision Making and Organizational Output … 54

4.3j   General Level of Employee Performance …………………………… 54

4.3k  Impact of Employee Participation on Employee Performance ……. 55

4.3l   Level of Organizational Productivity …………………………………. 56

4.3m Impact of Employee Participation on Employee Performance ……. 56

4.3n  Organizational Level of Productivity …………………………………. 57

4.3o  Decrease in Productivity and Non Involvement in Decision Making. 58

4.3p  Impact of Employee Participation on Productivity ………………….. 59

4.4a  Chi-square Hypothesis test Extent of Employee Involvement in Decision Making ……………………………………………………………….. 60

4.4b  Chi-square Hypothesis test of Impact of Employee Participation on Job Satisfaction ……………………………………………………………….. 61

4.4c  Chi-square Hypothesis test of the Effect of Employee Participation on Employee Performance ………………………………………………………. 62

4.4d  Chi-square Hypothesis test of the Effect of Employee Participation on Organizational Productivity ………………………………………………….. 63

ABSTRACT

This research work is centered on the employee participation in decision making and its impact on productivity: an appraisal of government printing press and two other private firms in Enugu and Lagos. Research into leadership style has exposed employee’s desire for involvement in decision making in their organizations. Employees are at the same time important elements in organizational goals. But there is no democratic participation of employee in most of our organizations and employee are forced to cope with autocratic style of government and leadership. The research adopted the survey research method and is highly descriptive and inferential in nature. This involved the use of tables and simple percentages as basic statistical tool employed to analyze the raw data. The raw data was consequently subjected to Chi-square test as a major tool for hypothesis test and analysis .All the alternative hypotheses of the four hypothesis postulated were all accepted showing that the extent of employee’s involvement in decision making process of the organization is low, employee participation in decision making has an impact on job satisfaction, it also has an effect on employee performance and finally employee participation in decision making has an impact on organizational productivity .Findings revealed that among other things that the non involvement of employee in organizational decision making impacts heavily on the organization’s productivity .it was concluded that the management in Nigerian work enterprises are not favorably disposed towards granting employee significant measure of involvement in management decision making. Hence a lot is needed to be done to change the current negative disposition of the Nigerian companies/ establishment management towards employee involvement in management decision making .Finally it recommended among other things that for employee participation to be effective, the commitment of both employers and employees are required to facilitate its initiatives.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The concept of employee participation represents a popular theme in the analysis of the world of work among scholar in the fields of industrial sociology, industrial relations as well as management (Noah,2002,2).it refers to any arrangement which is designed to involve employees (workers) in decision making within the workplace. This implies that rather than saddling only a group within the enterprise with the responsibility of making decision, all those who are to be affected by these decisions including the employees or workers would be involved in its formulation and implementation.

          In recent times, scholars have directed increasing attention to the issue of employee participation and its broader corollary, industrial democracy. In the United States, industrial democracy is practiced, employees are encouraged to buy shares in their companies enabling them to have a say in the management of their organization, in other developed countries like Britain, Germany and Russia, participatory management is popular.

In Britain and Russia, it is known as joint consolation and self management respectively while in Germany, it is known as co-determination (Mankidy,1984:239,yesufu,1984:20,Adenumi,1993:14, verma and syha:1991:28) These concerns reflect a growing interest in finding ways to make work more meaningful and satisfying to the workers.

This rests on the belief that organizational goals of high productivity and harmonious industrial relations are best achieved when higher level needs of human elements (employees) are satisfied. Employee or worker participation implies arrangements which are designed to involve workers in the enterprise or organization decision making process. This allows for workers involvement in the initiation, formulation and implementation of reasons within the organization the concept can also understood in terms of a new approach to industry and society in which people want to be interested with the taking decisions which have direct bearing on them (Eilson, 1986:2)

 Macgregor (1960:14) contends that employee participation consists basically in creating opportunity under suitable conditions for people to influence decisions which affects them. It is a special case of delegation in which the subordinate gain greater control, greater freedom of choice with respect to bridging the communication gap between the management and the employee. This serves to create a sense of belonging among the workers as well as a conducive environment in which both the workers would voluntarily contribute to healthy industrial relations. In Nigeria, participatory management has come a long way, the Nigerian military government in 1971 decided to democratize industrial ownership in Nigeria by promulgating the Nigerian indigenization decree part of which provides that 10 Percent total equity share of any enterprise on schedule 2 and 3 should be reserved for workers. This is to ensure that employee have a sense of belonging in their respective organizational (Damachi, 1990:26).

          Damachi (1990:2) also is of the view that participative decision making can be possible in a sector of economy and not in all government owned enterprises because of the government intention to mobilize popular support for development. He  goes further to say that workers participation in the multinational companies, on the other hand has at best remained elusive most of these companies are controlled by and depend on their parent bodies abroad for policies and decision. Among the indigenous employers, particularly the small and medium sized organization, their attitude to workers is paternalistic and authoritian.

Their activities are often shrouded in secrecy. They are suspicions of the workers and therefore cannot afford to share information and decision with them we have experiences of some managers that fail to delegate, as they do not go on leaves, where some go, they are on working leave, still attending work, some while on the leave lock up certain jobs/documents in their drawers, thus making such pending till they resume, where as participative management involves nothing more than sharing information with subordinates.

Specifically, the refusal of work organizations to recognize the human factor in industrial production through greater involvement of employee in its management decision making would tend to create several human problems in this setting. An employee is a social being who bring his personality, hopes, aspiration, anxieties feeling and attitude to the work place. He seeks satisfaction and meaning in his work as he does in other spheres of life. Despite this recognition, there has been no much study on employee participation in decision making and its impact on productivity in Enugu and Lagos. This research work attempts to fill this knowledge gap by providing data on the level of the employee Involvement in decision making and factors which will aid or hider the observed level of participation in government printing press and two other private publishing firms.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM