JINKA UNIVERSITY

College of Business and Economics

Department of Management

SENIOR ESSAY Proposal ON:

The contribution of participatory decision making and its impact on

employee job satisfaction in case of Bako Dawula Ari Woreda
Administrative Office.

Senior Essay submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for B.A

Degree in Management

By: I.D
Advisor:

June, 2017 E.C

Jinka, Ethiopia
Acknowledgment

I thank my God for giving us the strength to be successful in every aspect throughout my
life. I have successfully passed many challenges to realize our dream. I would like to express
our deepest gratitude to my advisor Solomon H for his intelligible guidance and
constructive comments and criticisms that have been given by reading for us to make all the
necessary improvement on time these are the best quality in my advisor personality that I
always appreciate. I also grateful and you tireless support dear Masresha Wondafrash and
Darinesh Alemu for you crucial contribution to bring change in my life . I would like to

thanks my participants.
ABSTRACT
The study to assess the contribution of participatory decision making and its impact on employee
job satisfaction. To achieve, the overall objective of the study specifically focused to address
major basic research questions area such as level of employee job satisfaction, assess level of
employee participation in decision making, factors affecting participatory decision making. To
address the area relevant data were collected from the organization employee using structured
questionnaire. Regarding the sample size of sample population, the study considers 45
employees using available sampling technique. Based on this the study were analyzed the
collected data using descriptive data analysis method.
Contents
Acknowledgment.............................................................................................................................2
ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................3
CHAPTER ONE..............................................................................................................................7
1. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................7
1.1 Background of the study........................................................................................................7
1.2 Statement of the problem.......................................................................................................8
1.3 Research Questions................................................................................................................9
1.4 Objectives...............................................................................................................................9
1.4.1 General objective.............................................................................................................9
1.4.2 The specific objectives....................................................................................................9
1.5 Significance of the Study.......................................................................................................9
1.6 Scope of Study.....................................................................................................................10
1.7 Organization of the study.....................................................................................................10
1.8 Limitations of the Study.......................................................................................................10
CHAPTER TWO...........................................................................................................................11
2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE.................................................................................11
2.1 Theoretical Literature...........................................................................................................11
2.1.1 Decision Making Decision making...............................................................................11
2.1.2 The Nature of Decision Making....................................................................................11
2.1.3 Levels of Decision Making...........................................................................................12
2.1.4 Approaches Used in Decision Making..........................................................................12
2.1.5Ways of Employee Participation....................................................................................13
2.1.6Benefits of Participation in Decision Making................................................................15
2.1.7Challenges of Participation in Decision Making............................................................15
2.2 Job Satisfaction....................................................................................................................16
2.2.1 Dimensions of job satisfaction......................................................................................18
2.2.2 Measure of Employee Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction................................................20
2.3Empirical Studies..................................................................................................................21
CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................23
3. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................23
3.1. Research Design.....................................................................................................................23
3.2 Types and Source of Data....................................................................................................23
3.3 Study Area and Target Population.......................................................................................24
3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size...............................................................................24
3.5 Method of data collection....................................................................................................24
3.6 Method of Data Analysis.....................................................................................................24
3.7 Ethical Consideration of the Research.................................................................................24
3.8. Work Plan and budget break down.....................................................................................25
CHAPTER FOUR.........................................................................................................................26
4.Data Analysis and Interpretation................................................................................................26
4.1 Employee job satisfaction level...........................................................................................27
4.2 Factors that affect participatory decision making................................................................28
4.3 The present level of employee participation in decision making.........................................29
CHAPTER FIVE...........................................................................................................................31
5.SUMMARY OF FINDING, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................31
5.1. Summary of the Main Findings..........................................................................................31
5.2. Conclusion..........................................................................................................................31
5.3 Recommendations................................................................................................................32
6. References..............................................................................................................................33
APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................34
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

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;
and this, in turn, increases the commitment of the employee as well as their motivation (Chang,
and Lorenzi, 2003. Furthermore, Davidson, and Hannan, (2004) argues that participation is a
mental and emotional reflection that will lead to the fulfillment of individual and organizational
goals, especially if supported by the organization participative environment. In organizational
leadership and management operations, decision making has emerged as one of the most
dynamic, ongoing, challenging, and active areas of leadership investigations (Ledingham, 2003).
leadership is not only about the individual or groups of individuals formal position, power,
authority, behavior, personality trait, a set of important objectives, inspiration, delegation, and
charisma; instead it must be all inclusive, ongoing, strategic, systemic, productive, positive, as
well as influential and goal oriented by including in all activities and decision of employee of the
organization (Stine, 2011).

Employees‟ participation in management has attracted quite a number of researches in recent

times, such as, the study Chang, and Lorenzi, (2003) states that, involving and participating
employee in the decision making of organizational activities improve motivation of employee
and sense of belongingness, because employees feel more accepted and involved in the situation.
Their self-esteem, job satisfaction and cooperation with management may also improve intern
productivity of company increased.

Davidson, and Hannan, (2004) implied that participating employee on organizational decision
making process, often reduced conflict and stress, more commitment to goals, better acceptance
of change and decrease employee turnover, because employees feel that they have a better place
to work and that they are being more successful in their jobs. Ledingham, (2003) in its study
also implied that, management that tends to provide workers with increased information about
the organization fiancés and operations, and other related activities increased on employee
confidence on their organization transparency and this sharing of information allows employees
to make better-quality suggestions (Chang, and Lorenzi, 2003).

The above reviewed literatures on the importance of involving and participating employee on
organizational decision making point out that, employees active involvement should be
considered in most decision making of organizational activities, this s because employee are
interested to implement the organization project if they are one part of the decision what they
will expected to implement. Therefore, Organizational leaders and managers should create a
participative climate by sharing the information and involving the employees in decision making

Employees play an important role in the success of organizations. To be successful, an

organization must attract and keep the individuals it needs to achieve its objectives and thrive. To
do this it must assess their attitudes towards the work. Among the most measurement of attitude
towards work either satisfaction or job satisfaction in organizations sustainability are highly
inters related because any organization can be sustainable if it employees give effective response
to their job. To get job satisfies employees, contribution of participatory decision making is high
due to greater Poole of knowledge, different perspectives greater comprehension and increased
acceptance and so on. (Cliffered 2000: pp.384)
Participation in decision making increases employee job satisfaction (Witt et al., 2000; Scott-
Ladd et al., 2006). Those employees who can influence decisions affecting them are more likely
to appreciate the outcomes, which in turn reinforces satisfaction. The greatest satisfaction comes
with high-level involvement, which takes place when employees are involved in generating
alternatives, planning processes and evaluating results‟‟ (Scott-Ladd et. al.2006).
 1.2 Statement of the problem
Employee participation in decision making has an important influence for employee job
satisfaction and organizational effectiveness. If they have participation in this fact, the
employees will feel that they are valued in the organization. They also provide necessary
suggestions and guidelines to the organization for attaining its goal. As a result, development
and necessary changes occur fruitfully in (1) setting goals, (2) making decisions, (3) solving
problems and (4) designing and implementing organizational changes (Gilbraith et.el. 1993).
Bako Dawula Ari Woreda Agriculture Office employees have been accusing management of
being autocratic, not trust worthy and the atmosphere in many work-places was still
adversarial and confrontational this may leads to employees‟ job dissatisfaction. Informal
discussion with the human resources management team of Agriculture Office indicated that
the organization was aware that there are problems regarding the level of employee
participation in decision making, but they are uncertain of how to resolve such problems.
There are mechanisms that are used by employees to engage management but some decisions
have been taken by management without reaching consensus with employees. Bako Dawula
Woreda agriculture Office employees confirm that there are multiple limitations which are
attributed to lack of employee participation in decision making, as a results employees have
been asking for all inclusive decision making structure. According to employees it is
imperative that management highlight the importance of employee participation at all levels
within the organization, this is deemed to be one of the organizational failures when comes to
employee participation in decision making. The ultimate goal of this study will be to create
an environment which can produce an organizational culture that is participatory, avoids
employee dissatisfaction, promotes cooperation, commitment to organizational goals, and
rewards for all employees and management.

1.3 Research Questions

Therefore, the main leading questions for this study were:

 To what extent is the level of employee job satisfaction in participating in decision

making?
 What are the factors that affect the participatory decision making?
 What is the present level of employee participation in the organization?

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1 General objective

The Main objective of the study was to assess the contribution of participatory decision making
and its impact on employee job satisfaction at Bako Dawula Ari Woreda Agriculture Office.
 1.4.2 The specific objectives
 To assess job satisfaction levels of employees of Bako dawula Ari Woreda Agriculture
Office in participating in decision making.
 To investigate the factors that affect participatory decision making of employee of Bako
dawula Ari Woreda Agriculture Office.
 To identify the present level employee participation of employee of Bako dawula Ari
Woreda Agriculture Office.

1.5 Significance of the Study

In conducting this study, there are benefices bodies such as:

1. For organizations:- After conducting this research the organization will be benefices
that the manager see identified problems and recommended solution of the study and
he/she will take the corrective action in the way and function of the decision making.
2. For researcher:- Beneficiary on getting knowledge about the study and experience on
conducting such assessment to get satisfaction that when the study was the solution for
problem to practice the theoretical part with in addition practice in the real world.
3. For other researcher:- He/she can take this study as a reference for conducting other
similar assessment.

1.6 Scope of Study

The study was carried out at Bako Dawu Ari Woreda Agriculture Office. It mainly
focused on the contribution of participatory decision making and its impact on employee
job satisfaction at Bako Dawula Ari Woreda Agriculture Office.

1.7 Organization of the study

This research was organized in to five chapters. The first chapter deals with introduction
of the study, background of the study area, statement of the problem, , research
question ,objective of the study, significance of the study, scope of the study,
organization of the study. The second chapter introduces review of related literature in
the area. The third chapter deals with the research design and methodology. The forth
chapter presents the analysis and the fifth chapter contain summary of the major findings,
conclusion and recommendation of the study. Finally list of references and appendix
were annex at the end of the page
 1.8 Limitations of the Study
When I see the limitations of the study I was face encountered some problems, the respondent
was involuntary to fill the questionnaires due to intensity of work load. But the researcher takes
measurement by arranging free time that suitable to respondents to give correct answer freely.
More over the respondents fear to explain over all problems that are realized in decision making
organization.
 CHAPTER TWO

2. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 Theoretical Literature

2.1.1 Decision Making Decision making

Decision making can be defined as choosing between alternatives (Moorhead and Griffin, 2004).
It can be regarded as an outcome of mental processes (cognitive processes: memory, thinking,
evaluation) leading to the selection of a course of action among several alternatives. Decision
making involves mapping the likely consequences of decisions, working out the importance of
individual factors, and choosing the best course of action to take. In the decision making process,
the decision makers actions are guided by a goal. Each of the several alternative courses of
action is linked to various outcomes. Information is available on the alternatives, on the value of
each outcome relative to the goal. The decision maker chooses an alternative on the basis of
his/her evaluation of the information (Moorhead and Grifin, 2004).

2.1.2 The Nature of Decision Making

The frequency and recurrence of a decision determines whether the decision is programmed or
non-programmed. A programmed decision recurs often enough for decision rules to be
developed. A decision rule tells decision makers which alternative to choose once they have
predetermined information about the decision situation. The appropriate decision rule is used
whenever the same decision is encountered. Programmed decisions are usually highly structured,
that is; the goals are clear and well known, the decision making procedure is already established
and the sources and channels of information are clearly defined (Moorhead and Grifin,
2004).When a problem or a situation has not been encountered before or is unique, the decision
made, is known as a non-programmed decision and it requires problem solving (Moorhead and
Grifin, 2004). Problem solving is a special form of decision making in which the issue is unique
– it requires developing and evaluating alternatives without the aid of decision rules. Non-
programmed decisions are poorly structured because information is unambiguous and there is no
clear procedure for decision making and the goals are often vague (Moorhead and Grifin, 2004).

2.1.3 Levels of Decision Making

There are four levels of decisions making in an organization. According to Bennet (1997), these
levels are: strategic decisions, tactical decisions, operational decisions and policies. Strategic
decisions are broad decisions about a firm‟s direction and its relations with the outside world.
These decisions establish organizational objectives and impose frameworks for controlling the
organizations activities. They include decisions on issues such as what to produce and how the
organization will finance its operations. These decisions are usually made by senior level
management (Bennet, 1997). Tactical decisions are concerned with implementation of strategic
decisions. They include decisions on issues such as the acquisition and deployment of resources,
allocation of duties and specification of secondary objectives, monitoring performance and
reporting to higher levels of authority (Bennet, 1997).Operational decisions on the other hand are
concerned with minor administrative matters such as lengths of production runs, shift rosters,
stock levels and so on (Bennet, 1997). They focus on the day-to-day activities of the
organization. The fourth level of decision making is policies. Bennet (1997) defines policies as a
set ground rules and criteria to be applied when taking decisions related to a particular function
or activity. Policies therefore exist to restrict the scope and nature of decisions concerning a
specific issue, for example, internal promotion. Policies facilitate the co-ordination of diverse
operations and ensure that all decisions made are compatible with the overall aims of the
organization.

2.1.4 Approaches Used in Decision Making

There are two major approaches to decision making in an organization, the authoritarian method
in which an executive figure makes a decision for the group and the group method in which the
group decides what to do. The first is Authoritarian, where the manager makes the decision
based on the knowledge he can gather. He then must explain the decision to the group and gain
their acceptance of it. The second is the Group, where the group shares ideas and analyses, and
agrees upon a decision to implement. Studies show that the group often has values, feelings, and
reactions quite different from those the manager supposes they have. No one knows the group
and its tastes and preferences as well as the group itself, Florence (2011). 2.2 Employee
Participation in Decision Making Employee Participation is generally defined as a process in
which influence is shared among individuals who are otherwise hierarchically unequal (Locke
and Schweiger, 1979; Wagner, 1994). Participatory management practice balances the
involvement of managers and their subordinates in information processing, decision making and
problem solving endeavors (Wager, 1994). Beardwell and Claydon (2007), define worker‟s
participation as the distribution and exercise of power, in all its manifestations, between the
owners and managers of organizations and those employed by them. It refers to the direct
involvement of individuals in decisions relating to their immediate work organizations and to the
indirect involvement in the decision making, through representatives in the wider socio-
technological and political structures of the firm. According to Luthans (2005) the decision
making can be formal or informal and entails intellectual and emotional as well as physical
involvement. This process, according to Graham and Bennet (1997), implies that employees
have access to sufficient information on which to base their decisions, that they will be consulted
before the decision is made and that negotiations will be made between management and the
employees about implementation of the decision. Participation involves individuals or groups in
the process. Individual participation techniques are those in which an employee somehow affects
the decision making of a manager. Group participation techniques use consultative techniques
and democratic techniques. Consultative techniques imply that a manager asks for and receives
involvement from employees but maintains the right to handle the decision while in the
democratic form, there’s a full participation and the group not the individual heads and makes
the final decision by consensus or majority (Luthans, 2005). The actual amount of participation
in decision making ranges from one extreme where the manager makes the decision and asks for
no help or ideas from anyone, to the other extreme of full participation, where everyone
connected with, or affected by the decision is completely involved. In practice, the degree of
participation will be determined by factors such as experience of the person/group and the nature
of the task. The more the experience and unstructured the task, the more the participation there
will tend to be (Luthans, 2005).

2.1.5Ways of Employee Participation

A range of options through which an employee can participate in decision making can be
viewed on a continuum ranging from participation in ownership of the organization by means of
shareholding through involvement in day-to-day operations to the appointment of employee
directors on company boards (Cole, 1997). Share options/ profit sharing offers employees a
chance to own shares in the company and thus participate in financing as well as receiving all the
information normally made available to shareholders. This option gives employees the chance to
take a stake in their employer’s business, but is scarcely relevant if one considers „participation‟
in decision making (Graham and Bennet, 1998 and Cole, 1997). Consultation is seen as
„participation‟ only in the sense that employees are consulted about decisions affecting their
working lives. This doesn’t imply that employers take any notice of the employees‟ views.
Consultation can be implemented through workforce consultative groups such as quality circles.
The aim is to improve employee dialogue, but in most cases, they improve working methods,
quality standards and productivity. Where operational matters are concerned, consultations lead
to participation in decision making (Graham and Bennet, 1998 and Cole, 1997). Consultation on
the other hand refers to the available opportunities for participation to employees by
Management. Through consultation, management seeks the advice of employees, takes
cognizance of their feelings and interests before a decision is made. According to Mosoge
(1996:13) Consultation refers to the mode in which managers secure employee participation.
Thus, consultation allows exchange of ideas and different points of view to take place between
management and employees, and among employees themselves. Consultation is directly related
to participation. Through it, people in the organization are able to reach technically correct
decisions. The wider the consultations are within the organization the more employee
participation is envisaged. In organization s where snap decisions are made employees are rarely
consulted. Such organizations tend to be autocratically managed. On the other hand, where there
is Consultation there is also full employee participation. Management shares problems and seeks
solutions from all the people. In the process alternative views and solutions are generated and
evaluated and consensus reached. This enables such organizations to reach quality decisions.
However the extent to which consultation leads to quality decisions depends on how much
relevant information is shared among the involved parties. The job enrichment option allows for
a greater discretion over the immediate work decisions. It also leads to motivation by increasing
responsibility for the employees‟ work outputs and increasing job interest. However, it does not
offer real opportunities to participate in even the operational decisions taken in the organization
(Graham and Bennet, 1998 and Cole, 1997). Empowerment through delegation is a participative
management style that encourages real delegation of authority. It implies that all employees will
be encouraged to play a part in the decisions affecting their work. In practice, this may be more
than a paternalistic method of involving employees in day-to–day affairs. However, where a
bona fide approach to participation is adopted, then it is likely that employees will in fact
become „empowered‟ by being able to fully share in decisions affecting their immediate work
(Graham and Bennet, 1998 and Cole, 1997). According to Graham and Bennet, (1998) and Cole,
(1997), bargaining is by nature adversarial and its outcomes are therefore dependent on the
relative power of the parties and extent to which a compromise is reached. Compared to
consultation, collecting bargaining is essentially an active form of employee participation. Here
unionized members are represented by their unions in the decision making process between the
owners or employers and the representatives who are employees. Work councils are joint bodies
of managers and employees established to consider and agree on key matters affecting the
organization. These are open to all grades and groupings of employees regardless of union
membership status. These councils are concerned with strategic, operations and consultative
aspects of participation (Graham and Bennet, 1998 and Cole, 1997). The last option of
participation is through board representation. According to Cole (1997), board representation is
the appointment of rank and file employees to non-executive directorships on the company’s
board. Management theorists have repeatedly found evidence to support the advantages of
management styles such as participative management; Theory Y versus Theory X; Theory Z;
Total Quality Management (TQM); Management by Walking Around; Management by
Objectives; and employee empowerment (Helms, 2006). For this study, MacGregor‟s Theory X
and Y will be used to explain participation in decision making since it the theory that best
explains the behavior of different categories of employees and management regarding
participation in decision making. 1Douglas McGregor's Theory X assumes that people are lazy,
they don't want to work, and it is the job of the manager to force or coerce them to work.
McGregor's Theory X makes three basic assumptions: 1) The average human being dislikes work
and will do anything to get out of it; 2) most people must be coerced, controlled, directed, and
threatened or punished to get them to work toward organizational objectives; and 3) The average
human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has relatively little ambition,
and places job security above ambition. According to this theory, responsibility for
demonstrating initiative and motivation lies with the employee and failure to perform is his or
her fault. Employees are motivated by extrinsic rewards such as money, promotions, and tenure
(Helms, 2006). The implication of theory X is that if organizational goals are to be met,
managers must structure the work and energize the employee.
 2.1.6Benefits of Participation in Decision Making
Participation in decision making offers various benefits at all levels of the organization. Rice
(1987) explains that putting decision making power as close as possible to the point of delivery
makes that implementation of those decisions not only possible, but also successful. Participation
in decision making leads to harmony in the organization (Ward and Pascarelli, 1994) and
improves staff morale and support (Parshiadis, 1987). By creating a sense of ownership in the
company, participation in decision making instills a sense of pride and motivates employees to
increase productivity in order to achieve their goals. Employees who participate in the decisions
of the company feel like they are a part of a team with a common goal, and find their sense of
self-esteem and creative fulfillment heightened (Helms, 2006). Managers who use a participative
style find that employees are more receptive to change than in situations in which they have no
voice. Changes are implemented more effectively when employees have input and make
contributions to decisions. Participation keeps employees informed of upcoming events so they
will be aware of potential changes. The organization can then place itself in a proactive mode
instead of a reactive one, as managers are able to quickly identify areas of concern and turn to
employees for solutions (Helms, 2006). Participation helps employees gain a wider view of the
organization. Through training, development opportunities, and information sharing, employees
can acquire the conceptual skills needed to become effective managers or top executives. It also
increases the commitment of employees to the organization and the decisions they make (Helms,
2006). Creativity and innovation are two important benefits of participative management. By
allowing a diverse group of employees to have input into decisions, the organization benefits
from the synergy that comes from a wider choice of options. When all employees, instead of just
managers or executives, are given the opportunity to participate, the chances is increased that a
valid and unique idea will be suggested (Helms, 2006)

2.1.7Challenges of Participation in Decision Making

Cole (1997) notes that most managers are not enthusiastic about sharing strategic decisions with
employee representatives, partly because they do not want to alert their competitors of important
strategic moves (for example, a major investment or significant takeover) and partly because
they often have to face up to some unpleasant decisions about redundancies and redeployments
among existing staff. McGregor (1960) stated that the usual fear is that if employees are given an
opportunity to influence decisions affecting them, they will soon want to participate in matters
which should be none of their concern. However, he was quick to counter this argument, he
added that management who express this fear most acutely tend to have a very narrow
conception with the growth of employees and their increasing ability to undertake responsibility,
there will of course be an expectation that employees will become involved in an increasing
range of decision making activities. Participative management is not a magic cure for all that ails
an organization has. Managers should carefully weigh the pros and cons before implementing
this style of management. Pashiardis (1994) in the article, „Employee 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 adds that time, resources, participatory
involvement and support will determine the effectiveness of participation in decision making and
recommends training to enable members participate effectively.

2.2 Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction is a pre-requisite for employee performance in any organization. It is important
for both the employee and the employer. For the employee, job satisfaction gives them a sense of
security and fulfillment. In return, it leads to employee commitment, decreased absenteeism and
reduced employee turnover. For the employer, employee job satisfaction ensures committed staff
and stable workforce which reduce cost of recruitment and training. According to Stogdill
(1965), successful organizations consider worker morale and job satisfaction an output just as
important as productivity. Locke (1996) defines job satisfaction as a pleasurable or positive
emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences. Schneider and
Snyder (1975) on the other hand defined job satisfaction as a personal evaluation of conditions
present in the job, or outcomes that arise as a result of having a job. Job satisfaction thus, has to
do with an individual’s perception and evaluation of his job, and this perception is influenced by
the person’s unique circumstances like needs, values and expectations. People will therefore
evaluate their jobs on the basis of factors, which they regard as being important to them. Spector
(1997) asserts that job satisfaction is the extent to which people like (satisfaction) or dislike
(dissatisfaction) their jobs. Job satisfaction is a positive orientation of an individual towards the
work role, which he is presently occupying. He further states that variables related to job
satisfaction include achievement, advancement, job enhancement, job enrichment and teamwork.
One of the most challenging tasks in management today is keeping the most qualified employees
satisfied and being able to retain them on the job. Armstrong (2006) defines job satisfaction as
the attitudes and feelings people have about their work. Positive and favorable attitudes towards
the job indicate job satisfaction. Negative and unfavorable attitudes indicate job dissatisfaction.
Morale is often defined as being equivalent to satisfaction. Guion (1958) defines morale as the
extent to which an individual’s needs are satisfied and the extent to which the individual
perceives satisfaction stemming from his total work situation. Lawler (1971) defines job
satisfaction as the favorableness or favorable with which employees view their work.
Satisfaction is an aspect of motivation. Okoth (2003) asserts that job satisfaction is a positive
state, resulting from the appraisal of one’s job experiences. Job satisfaction is a collection of
feelings and beliefs that managers have about their jobs. She further argues that managers, who
are high in job satisfaction generally like their jobs, feel that they are being fairly treated and
believe that their jobs have many desirable features such as interesting work, good pay and job
security. According to Gumato (2003), job satisfaction is the extent to which employees
favorably perceive their work. High job satisfaction indicates a strong correlation between an
employee’s expectations of the rewards accruing from a job and what the job actually provides.
Workers who are satisfied in their jobs will be co-operative and well-motivated while those who
are dissatisfied will be more inclined than others to produce low quality output, go on strike, and
be absent from work, invoke grievance procedures or even leave the organization. A worker's
sense of achievement and success is generally perceived to be directly linked to productivity as
well as to personal wellbeing. Job satisfaction implies doing a job one enjoys, doing it well, and
being suitably rewarded for one's efforts. Job satisfaction further implies enthusiasm and
happiness with one's work. The Harvard Professional Group (1998) sees job satisfaction as the
key radiant that leads to recognition, income, promotion, and the achievement of other goals that
lead to a general feeling of fulfillment. Oshagbemi (2003) identifies job satisfaction as an
important attribute which organizations desire of their employees. Love and Edwards (2005)
define job satisfaction as a function of the match between the rewards offered by the work
environment and the individual’s preferences for those rewards. As stated earlier, job satisfaction
is a pre-requisite for employee performance in any organization. It is important for both the
employee and the employer. For the employee, job satisfaction gives them a sense of security
and fulfillment. In return, it leads to employee commitment, decreased absenteeism and reduced
employee turnover. For the employer, employee job satisfaction ensures committed staff and
stable workforce which reduce cost of recruitment and training. One of the biggest preludes to
the study of job satisfaction was the Hawthorne studies. These studies (1924-1933), primarily
credited to Elton Mayo of the Harvard. Business School, sought to find the effects of various
conditions (most notably illumination) on workers‟ productivity. These studies ultimately
showed that novel changes in work conditions temporarily increase productivity (called the
Hawthorne Effect). It was later found that this increase resulted, not from the new conditions, but
from the knowledge of being observed. This finding provided strong evidence that people work
for purposes other than pay, which paved the way for researchers to investigate other factors in
job satisfaction. Scientific management (also known as Taylorism) also had a significant impact
on the study of job satisfaction. Frederick Winslow Taylor‟s 1911 book, Principles of Scientific
Management, argued that there was a single best way to perform any given work task. This book
contributed to a change in industrial production philosophies, causing a shift from skilled labor
and piecework towards the more modern approach of assembly lines and hourly wages. The
initial use of scientific management by industries greatly increased productivity because workers
were forced to work at a faster pace. However, workers became exhausted and dissatisfied, thus
leaving researchers with new questions to answer regarding job satisfaction. Maslow’s Hierarchy
of need theory of motivation also laid the foundation for job satisfaction theory. This theory
explains that people seek to satisfy five specific needs in life – physiological needs, safety needs,
social needs, self-esteem needs, and self-actualization. This model served as a good basis from
which early researchers could develop job satisfaction theories.

2.2.1 Dimensions of job satisfaction

A review of the literature shows that numerous variables have been investigated in their
relationship to job satisfaction. These variables include intrinsic features of the job (e.g.
recognition, advancement, and responsibility), and extrinsic variables (e.g. salary, supervision,
and working conditions. I). Extrinsic satisfactions Extrinsic factors are external job related
variables that would include salary, supervision, and working conditions. These extrinsic factors
have a significant influence on job satisfaction levels according to Martin and Schinke (1998).
Pay refers to the amount of financial compensation that an individual receives as well as the
extent to which such compensation is perceived to be equitable. Remuneration and earnings are a
20 cognitively complex and multidimensional factor in job satisfaction. According to Luthans
(1998), salaries not only assist people to attain their basic needs, but are also instrumental in
satisfying the higher level needs of people. Previous research (Voydanoff, 1980) has shown that
monetary compensation is one of the most significant variables in explaining job satisfaction. In
their study of public sector managers, Taylor and West (1992) found that pay levels affect job
satisfaction, reporting that those public employees that compared their salaries with those of
private sector employees experienced lower levels of job satisfaction. According to Boone and
Kuntz (1992), offering employees fair and reasonable compensation, which relates to the input
the employee offers the organization, should be the main objective of any compensation system.
Included in the category of compensation are such items as medical aid schemes, pension
schemes, bonuses, paid leave and travel allowances. Lambert, Hogan, Barton and Lubbock
(2001) found financial rewards to have a significant impact on job satisfaction. Such findings are
largely consistent with the idea that most employees are socialized in a society where money,
benefits, and security are generally sought after and are often used to gauge the importance or the
worth of a person. Thus, the greater the financial reward, the less worry employees have
concerning their financial state, thereby enhancing their impression of their self-worth to the
organization. Groot and Maassen van den Brink (1999; 2000) provide contradictory evidence for
the relationship between pay and job satisfaction. In their earlier research they did not find
evidence for a relationship between compensation and job satisfaction, however, their
subsequent research revealed the opposite. However, Hamermesh (2001) found that changes in
compensation (increases or decreases) have concomitant impact on job satisfaction levels of
employees. Several other authors maintain that the key in linking pay to satisfaction is not the
absolute amount that is paid, but rather, the perception of fairness (Aamodt, 1999; Landy, 1989;
Robbins, 1998). According to Robbins et al. (2003), employees seek pay systems that are
perceived as just, unambiguous, and in line with their expectations. When pay is perceived as
equitable, is commensurate with job demands, individual skill level, and community pay
standards, satisfaction is likely to be the result. Gunter and Furnham (1996) found employee
perceptions concerning the equity with which the organization rewards its employees to be better
predictors of job satisfaction than is the case with gender, age, or actual salary. Similarly, Miceli,
Jung, Near and Greenberger (1991 cited in Hendrix, Robbins, Miller & Summers, 1998),
validated a causal pathway leading from fairness of the pay system to improved job satisfaction.
Sousa-Poza‟s (2000) research indicates that perceived income, that is, whether the respondent
considered his income high or not, was found to have the third largest effect on the job
satisfaction of male employees. Supervision Research indicates that the quality of the supervisor-
subordinate relationship will have a significant, positive influence on the employee’s overall
level of job satisfaction (Aamodt, 1999; Kinicki & Vecchio, 1994; Luthans, 1992; Moorhead &
Griffen, 1992; Robbins, 1998). Research appears to be equivocal since most research indicates
that individuals are likely to have high levels of job satisfaction if supervisors provide them with
support and co-operation in completing their tasks (Ting, 1997). Similar results were reported by
Billingsley and Cross (1992) as well as Cramer (1993). These researchers generally hold that
dissatisfaction with management supervision is a significant predictor of job dissatisfaction. The
above findings are corroborated by Staudt‟s (1997) research based on social workers in whom it
was found that respondents, who reported satisfaction with supervision, were also more likely to
be satisfied with their jobs in general. Chieffo (1991) maintains that supervisors who allow their
employees to participate in decisions that affect their own jobs will, in doing so, stimulate higher
levels of employee satisfaction. Researchers (Knoll, 1987; Pfeiffer & Dunlap, 1982; Rettig,
2000) have written extensively about the importance of supervision in organizations. Their
research indicates that supervisory activities foster motivation, inspiration, and trust and thus
help to improve employee performance. Research indicates that managers play a vital role in the
care for the personal welfare and emotional support of employee. Isherwood (1973) found that
managers that demonstrated excellent human relations skills heightened employee loyalty and
improved employee satisfaction, whilst the lack in participatory management, lack of sensitivity
to organizations and employee -related problems and lack of support was reliably associated with
employee stress and burnout (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986). Morris (2004) postulates that
employee job satisfaction is affected by the work environment and strong managerial leadership.
Corroborating this, Nelson (1980) found that leadership styles of organizations managers are
related to job satisfaction. He maintains that the quality of organizations managers‟ relationship
generates higher employee job satisfaction, and greater employee participation in decision
making contributes to job satisfaction (Cooke & Mohrman, 1978). Conversely, lack of
participation in decision making is advocated to be the greatest sources of employee
dissatisfaction (Holdaway, 1978). Abbey and Esposito (1985), report those employees who
perceive greater social support from their managers‟ report less stress than those who do not
receive any social support. Setting up shared decision-making processes in organizations, such as
governance councils, allows employee to participate in organization processes rather than feel
subordinate to their superiors and coerced into participating in organization and employee
responsibilities (Nagel & Brown, 2003). Promotion An employee’s opportunities for promotion
are also likely to exert an influence on job satisfaction (Landy, 1989; Larwood, 1984; Moorhead
& Griffen, 1992; Vecchio, 1988). Robbins (1998) maintains that promotions provide
opportunities for personal growth, increased responsibility, and increased social status (Robbins,
1998). Drafke and Kossen (2002) postulate that many people experience satisfaction when they
believe that their future prospects are good. This may translate into opportunities for
advancement and growth in their current workplace, or enhance the chance of finding alternative
employment. They maintain that if people feel they have limited opportunities for career
advancement, their job satisfaction may decrease. According to McCormick and Ilgen (1985),
employees‟ satisfaction with promotional opportunities will depend on a number of factors,
including the probability that employees will be promoted, as well as the basis and the fairness of
such promotions. Visser (1990) indicates that such an individual’s standards for promotion are
contingent on personal and career aspirations. Moreover, not all employees wish to be promoted.
The reason therefore is related to the fact that promotion entails greater responsibility and tasks
of a more complex nature, for which the individuals may consider themselves unprepared. If
employees perceive the promotion policy as unfair, but do not desire to be promoted, they may
still be satisfied. Nonetheless, opportunities for promotion appear to have a significant positive
correlation with job satisfaction (Tolbert & Moen, 1998). In a study by Jayaratne and Chess
(1984 cited in Staudt, 1997), the opportunity for promotion was found to be the best and only
common predictor of job satisfaction in child welfare, community mental health, and family
services agencies. Luthans (1992) further maintains that promotions may take a variety of
different forms and are generally accompanied by different rewards. Promotional opportunities
therefore have differential effects on job satisfaction, and it is essential that this be taken into
account in cases where promotion policies are designed to enhance employee satisfaction.

2.2.2 Measure of Employee Satisfaction and Dissatisfaction

Herzberg, Mausner and Synderman (1967) claimed that one of the major reasons for measuring
job satisfaction is to answer the question, “what does the worker want from his/her job?” and that
the answer to this question will assist management in discovering new methods of motivating
employees. Employees that have a high job satisfaction care more about the quality of their work
and, therefore are more committed to their organization (Scott and Sun, 2003). Job satisfaction is
a very important attribute which is frequently measured by organizations. Employee retention
and turnover are the most objective measures of employee satisfaction/dissatisfaction in
organizations. Luthans (2005) argues that since job satisfaction is an attitude, it cannot be
directly observed and therefore must rely on the employees‟ self-reports. According to him,
some of the most common ways of measuring job satisfaction are rating scales, critical incidents,
interviews and action tendencies. The most common way of measurement is the use of rating
scales where employees report their reactions to their jobs. Questions relate to rate of pay, work
responsibilities, variety of tasks, promotional opportunities, the work itself and co-workers.
Some questioners ask yes or no questions while others ask to rate satisfaction on 1-5 scale
(where 1 represents "not at all satisfied" and 5 represents "extremely satisfied" One of the most
popular rating scale is the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (Weiss, Dawis, England,
and Lofquist, 1967). MSQ was designed to measure employee satisfaction with their jobs. This
instrument provides a detailed picture of the specific satisfactions and dissatisfactions of
employees. The MSQ measures satisfaction with several aspects of work and the work
environment. Several studies have demonstrated good reliability and validity data for the MSQ
(e.g., Albright, 1972; Anderson, Hohenshil, and Brown, 1984; Bolton, 1986; Brown, Hohenshil,
and Brown, 1998; Decker and Borgen, 1993; Guion, 1978; Levinson, Fetchkan, and Hohenshil,
1988). The Job Descriptive Index (JDI) is also popular. The facets of the JDI are derived from
the definition of job satisfaction put forth by Smith, Kendall, and Hulin (1969). Smith et al.
(1969) defined job satisfaction as “feelings or affective responses to facets of the situation” (p.
6). Because of this definition, the JDI viewed satisfaction as the accumulation of five facets:
work on present job, present pay, and opportunities for promotion, supervision, and people on
your present job (co-workers). JDI has been widely used by organizational behavior researchers
over the years and provides a broad picture of employee attitudes toward the major components
of jobs. The JDI has been widely used in business and government (Hulin, 1968; O'Reilly and
Roberts, 1973; Waters and Waters, 1969) as both a research tool and a diagnostic indicator. A
strong case has been built for construct validity, both in original source (Smith,Kendall and
Hulin, 1969) as well as in numerous other publications that report correlation between JDI scales
and other measures of job satisfaction (e.g., Dunham, Smith, and Blackburn, 1977). The JDI is
an instrument that is used to assess job satisfaction more than any other inventory (Kinicki,
McKee-Ryan, Schriesheim, and Carson, 2002). Spector (1997) also states that it may also be the
“most carefully developed and validated” job satisfaction measure (p. 12). It is designed to
measure job satisfaction on the basis of five facets, including an overall job satisfaction facet, the
Job in General (JIG) scale (Kinicki et al., 2002).The basis for the JDI is that job satisfaction is
important for three different reasons: humanitarian concerns, economic concerns, and theoretical
concerns. Rating scales offer a number of important advantages in measuring job satisfaction.
One is that they are usually short and can be filled out quickly and easily. Another is that they
tend to be worded in general language so that they can be used with employees in many different
types of organizations. A third is that because they have been so widely used in research, there is
usually normative data available so that the responses can be compared with those of employees
in other organizations who have taken the test in previous years. The Critical Incidents technique
as a measure of job satisfaction was popularized by Fredrick Herzberg et al (1959). He and his
colleagues used it in their research on the two factor theory of motivation. Employees were asked
to describe incidents on their job when they were particularly satisfied and dissatisfied

2.3Empirical Studies
A study Conducted Verplanken and Holland (2002) on Indonesian Public Sector
Employee Decision making practice employees‟ participation in the decision making
process and his/her contributions, are appreciated, with the minor contributions being
highly appreciated, as well. This is expected to increase work motivation. Employees
who enjoy decision making participation also feel secure in their jobs and were indirectly
motivated to provide the best possible performance in their job, which reflects their pride
and loyalty towards the organization. This indirectly shows their commitment towards the
organization. The study concludes that, in Indonesia, where most organizations are highly
structured bureaucracies, including state-owned enterprises, participation, initiated by
employees was considered a sensitive topic and remained invisible until the early 1997.
Cotton (2000) stressed that organizational size was positively related to consultative
participation yet negatively related to delegate participation. Employee involvement in
decision making is found in any type of organization explained that putting decision
making power as close to the point of delivery as possible makes implementation of those
decisions not only possible, but successful. This statement can be correlated to this study,
emphasizing participation program where employees will feel secure, when involved in
the decision making process. The participation program, analyzed in this study, was
bringing staff and supervisors/employees and mid-level managers closer to decision
making power. Not only did work motivation increase, but some respondents stated that
the decision taken would be successful because they felt involved and emotionally
secure. The results show that, the more employees are involved in discussion on recent
issues, the more they are aware of the decision making. This result is in line with studies,
conducted by Phillips (1989) and Wang and Noe (2010). Moreover, a study by Ladd and
Marshall (2004) stated that participation in decision making was important to employees
and, along with job satisfaction and affective organizational commitment, is valued by
them. Employees believe they are better off, because of participation in decision making
and the organization also gains through positive impact on carrying out tasks and
performance effectiveness. These research finding supports the position that participation
achieves positive results in organizational commitment. The limitation of this study is the
small number of studied participation programs. 30 Employees are aware of the
participation in decision making, e.g. when they discuss recent issues with their peers,
they feel secure and the communication flows without boundaries and formal
arrangements. Wood and de Menezes (2011) conclude that high involvement
management program contributes to the employees‟ well-being. The findings from the
study prove that when any type of participation program introduced in decision making,
employees feel that by being involved in this participation program, their motivation
increases as well. 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 results 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 underlying issues and
causes.
Filled by the Study In premise to employee participation on organizational decision
making process the study also empirical studies conducted on the areas. Though, some
academician tried to investigate the area, however, they were very few; such as, there
were a study conducted by Demse (2001) on the impact of female participation in
decision making at senior management level of Yeka- Sub City, in this study he was tried
only to indicated the impact of females participation on organizational leadership, there
were also a study conducted by Birhanu, 1996 on the topic “factors affecting employee
participation of decision making process on public service”, the study were focused in
identifying major determinate factors affecting employee participation on organizational
decision making. Though those studies have been tried to investigate lack of women
participation on administrational decision making and identified major determinate
factors of employee participation on decision, however the study were not implied the
 effect of employee participation on organizational performance. Therefore, attempt were
tried to fill this research gap.
Work 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.).

CHAPTER THREE

3. METHODOLOGY

3.1. Research Design

The study was used descriptive study design collected from employees. A descriptive research
design was used to conduct the study because the researcher interested in describing the existing
situation under study. Descriptive method is appropriate to assess, describe, interpret and analyze
the level of employee participation in decision making and job satisfaction.

3.2 Types and Source of Data

Primary Sources
The primary data was collected through distributing questionnaire.
Secondary Sources
The secondary source of data were gathered and recorded by the organization and other experts
prior to the current need of the researcher. Therefore, the researcher utilized the organizations,
employees and newspaper of the organization.

3.3 Study Area and Target Population

The target groups of the study were Bako Dawula Woreda Agriculture Office Employee. It is
710 km far from Addis Ababa.

3.4 Sampling Techniques and Sample Size

I was used Available sampling techniques because in the office only 45 employees are available.
The total population of employee that was participated in this research was 45 participants.
 3.5 Method of data collection
Method of data collection refers to the systematic way in which data is gathered from target
group.
From the different methods of collecting data questionnaire were used because of using
questionnaire is possible for the respondents to express their feeding and valuable suggestion
freely.

3.6 Method of Data Analysis

After all the require data are collect and process data was analyzed and interpreted according to
their nature. Data analysis implies that further transformation of the process of data to look for
patterns and relations among the data groups. Data was be analyzed using descriptive data
analysis methods. It refers to understand and interpret. This method helps to describe, summarize
and present quantitative data that was presented in graph, table, percentage and etc.

3.7 Ethical Consideration of the Research

During the course of administering the questionnaires, names and any identifying
remarks will not use. The confidentiality of the respondents will kept and any data
received for the study will be kept at the hands of the researcher and the advisor. The
data's will be analyzed based on the questionnaires rather than using the researcher
opinion and input. The researcher stays truth full to responses of the respondents.

3.8. Work Plan and budget break down

Table 3.8.1. Work Plan

NO Activities Februar March April May June

y

1 Topic selection x

2 Development of research x
proposal

3 Proposal submission x
4 Data collection x

5 Data organization, x
analysis and interpretation

6 Report writing x

7 Advisor contact X

8 Draft final research x

9 Research submission x

10 Presentation x

3.8.2. Budget break down

For the study the following material costs will be appropriately available.

No Item Unit Quantity Unit Cost Total cost

1 Pen Numb 2 10 birr 20 birr

2 Paper Numb 50 0.50 cents 25 birr

3 Flash GB 16GB 250 birr 250 birr

4 Other cost Numb 10 5 birr 50 birr

5 Transport Birr 3 15 birr 45 birr

6 Internet MB 100 20 birr 20 birr

7 Print Numb 27 2 birr 54 birr

Total cost 464 birr

CHAPTER FOUR

4.Data Analysis and Interpretation

Primary and secondary data were used as a source of information for the study the data were
collected mainly using questionnaire considering 45 respondents.

Hence results are presented as follows:

Table1. Background and characteristics of the respondents

Variables Sub-variables Number Percentage %

Male 31 68.89
Sex Female 14 31.11
Total 45 100
20-29 24 53.33
39-39 17 37.78
Age 40 and above 4 8.89
Total 45 100
Certificate 2 4.44
Educational status Diploma 5 11.11
Degree 38 84.45
Total 45 100
0-5 years 9 20
 Experience 6-10 19 42.22
Above 10 years 17 37.78
Total 45 100

As can be observed from table 1, 45 Employee were participated in the study. Among these
based on sex, 68.89% of the participants were male, and the remaining 31.11% were females.

As table 1 also show based on age, 53.33% of the participants found between the age of 20-29,
37.78% of the participants found between the age of 30- 39 and the remaining 8.89% were found
between the age of 40 and above.

As table 1 also based on educational status, 4.44% of the participants were Certificate, 11.11% of
the participants were Diploma, and the remaining 84.45% were Degree holders.

As table 1 also based on work experience, 20% of the participants were between 0-5 years,
42.22% of the participants were between 6-10 years the remaining 37.78% were above 10 years.

4.1 Employee job satisfaction level

Table2. About employee job satisfaction level

By rating using satisfy, neither satisfy nor dissatisfy, dissatisfy.

No Items Satisfy Neither satisfy Dissatisfy Tot

nor dissatisfy al
1 The opportunities for advancement in this F % F % F % 10
position 10 22.22 7 15.56 28 62.22 0
2 The organization really inspires that very 15 33.33 14 31.11 16 35.56 10
best in the way of job satisfaction 0
3 The promotion are given out in this position 14 31.11 9 20 22 48.89 10
4 The chance to work independently of others 13 28.89 21 46.67 11 24.44 10
0
5 How my pay compares with that of others 14 31.11 12 26.67 19 42.22 10
organization 0
6 The way I get full credit for the work I do 7 15.55 21 46.66 17 37.77 10
0
7 The organization satisfies the employee by 8 17.78 13 28.89 24 53.33 10
participating on decision making 0

As it shown in table 1, item 1 above, 10(22.22%) of respondents responded satisfy, 7(15.56%)

of respondent responded neither satisfy nor dissatisfy on the other hand 28(62.22%) of
respondents responded dissatisfy .This means there is no opportunities for advancement because
the majority of the respondents responded dissatisfy.
 For item 2, 15(33.33%) of respondents responded satisfy, 14(31.11%) of respondents responded
neither satisfy nor dissatisfy. On the other hand 16(35.56%) of respondents responded dissatisfy.
This means the organization cannot inspire them because majority the respondents respond
dissatisfy.

For item 3, 14(31.11%) of the respondents responded satisfy, 9(20%) respondents responded
neither satisfy nor dissatisfy on the other hand 22(48.89%) respondents responded dissatisfy.
This means they did not have promotion because the majority of the respondent responded
dissatisfy.

For item 4, 13(28.89%) of the respondents responded satisfy, 21(46.67%) of respondents

responded neither satisfy nor dissatisfy, on the other hand 11(24.44%) respondents responded
dissatisfy. This means them neither independent nor dependent because the majority of the
respondents responded neither satisfy nor dissatisfy.

For item 5, 14(31.11%) respondents responded satisfy, 12(26.67%) respondents responded

neither satisfy nor dissatisfy, on the other hand 19(42.22%) respondents responded dissatisfy.
This means low payment because the majority of the respondents responded dissatisfy.

For item 6, 7(15.55) respondents responded satisfy, 21(46.66) respondents responded neither
satisfy nor dissatisfy on the other hand 17(37.77) respondents responded dissatisfy. This means
neither satisfies nor dissatisfy.

For item 7, 8(17.78) respondents responded satisfy, 13 (28.89) respondents responded neither
satisfy nor dissatisfy the remaining 24(53.33) respondents responded dissatisfy. This means the
employees should not be satisfied on decision making

4.2 Factors that affect participatory decision making

Table3. About factors that affect decision making

By rating using agree, undecided and disagree

NO. Items Agree Undecided Disagree Total

1 F % F % F % 100
The manager has no time to make
participatory decision making 16 35.56 8 17.78 21 46.66
2 The manager have low attitude towards 26 57.78 9 20 10 22.22 100
participatory decision making
3 Higher level managers influence 12 26.67 20 44.44 13 28.89 100
4 The manager was busy in other meeting 15 33.33 12 26.67 18 40 100
5 Lack of knowledge 18 40 11 24.44 16 35.56 100
6 Managers believes that decision making is a 21 46.66 16 35.56 8 17.7 8 100
mandate of managers only
 For item 1, 16(35.56%) of the respondents responded agree, 8(17.78%)of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 21(46.66%)respondents responded disagree. This means
manager have time but he is not ready to participate because the majority of respondents
responded disagree.

For item 2, 26(57.78%) of respondents responded agree, 9(20%) respondents responded

undecided, 10(22.22%) respondents responded disagree. This means mangers have low attitude
because the majority responded agree.

For item 3, 126(26.67%) of the respondents responded agree, 20(44.44%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 13(28.89%) respondents responded disagree. This means
neither agrees nor disagrees.

For item 4, 15(33.33%) of the respondents responded agree, 12(26.67%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 18(40%) respondents responded disagree. This means the
manager is not busy because the majority responded disagree.

For item 5, 18(48.66%) of the respondents responded agree, 16(35.56%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 16(35.56%) respondents responded disagree. This means the
manager is lack of knowledge because the majority responded agree.

For item 6, 21(40%) of the respondents responded agree, 11(24.44%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 8(17.78%) respondents responded disagree. This means the
manager believe decision making was the mandate of managers only because the majority
responded agree.

4.3 The present level of employee participation in decision making

Table4. About the present level of employee participation in decision making

By rating using Agree, Undecided and Disagree

No Items Agree Undecided Disagree Total

1 F % F % F % 100
The decision is made by boss him / herself
30 66.67 10 22.22 5 11.11
2 Discussion of employee concern 26 57.77 12 26.67 7 15.56 100

3 Coordinated way of decision making 13 28.89 15 33.33 17 37.78 100

4 Getting extra training 13 28.89 18 40 14 31.11 100
5 Regular participation in decision making 10 22.22 11 24.45 24 53,33 100
6 Group decision was better than individual 25 55.56 6 13.33 14 31.11 100
decision
For item 1, 30(66.67%) of the respondents responded agree, 10(22.22%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 5(11.11%) respondents responded disagree. This means the
manager made decision only because the majority responded agree.

For item 2, 26(57.77%) of the respondents responded agree, 12(26.67%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 7(15.56%) respondents responded disagree. This means the
manager made discussion because the majority responded agree.

For item 3, 13(28.89%) of the respondents responded agree, 15(33.33%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 17(37.78%) respondents responded disagree. This means
there is no coordination because the majority responded disagree.

For item 4, 13(22.22%) of the respondents responded agree, 6(13.33%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 14(31.11%) respondents responded disagree. This means
neither agree nor disagree because the majority responded undecided.

For item 5, 10(28.89%) of the respondents responded agree, 11(24.45%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 24(53.33%) respondents responded disagree. This means
there is no regular participation because the majority responded disagree.

For item 6, 25(55.56%) of the respondents responded agree, 11(24.45%) of the respondents
responded undecided the remaining 14(31.11%) respondents responded disagree. This means
group decision was better than individual because the majority responded agree.
 CHAPTER FIVE

5.SUMMARY OF FINDING, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Presentation and analysis of data in the preceding chapter have provided the researcher
perspective on the fact of the study about contribution of participator decision making and its
impact on employee job satisfaction in Bako Dawula Ari wereda Agriculture office.
In this chapter a summary and conclusion of the majority findings of the study and
recommendations that are expected to be helpful are presented.

5.1. Summary of the Main Findings

The main concern of this study was to collect necessary information about major problems in
participating employees in decision making in Bako Dawula Ari wereda Agricultural office.
The following is the basic questions of the study
 To what extent is the level of employee job satisfaction in participating in decision
making?
 What are the factors that affect the participatory decision making?
 What is the present level of employee participation in the decision making?

Decision making is central to the managerial task of coordinating organization endeavor toward
achieving goal. To achieve such organizational goals, participation of every individual effort is
essential. Therefore it major purpose is participating employees in decision making to
accomplish such goals and to assure the distain ability of the organization.

5.2. Conclusion
For analysis in the previous chapter the following conclusion are given based on my findings;-
 Most of the employees did not take part in the process of decision making. As a result
this becomes a ground for employee’s dissatisfaction.
 Even if participation of employees in decisions my delay the decision process. Time is
not a major problem of participating employees in decision making process.
 Regarding satisfaction of employee participation over decision making most of employee
were dissatisfied and motivated by their limited activities of organizational decision
making process and lack of sense of ownership and belongingness.
 Majority of the respondents were not satisfied on their participation of organizational
decision making process. The study implied that, lack of employee participation over the
organizational decision making process demotivated employee of the organization intone
their potential activities negatively affect organizational performance.
 5.3 Recommendations
 The respective body works on the take parting employees in decision to solve the
increasing rate of dissatisfaction of employees in their work.
 The decision must be done in transparent and participate manner.
 An administrative body should make efforts to show the aim and objective of each
decision.
 Since participative decision making in the organization increase responsibility,
commitment, creativity and moral of the employees. The administrative body should give
great value to this issue.
 The respective body of Agricultural office managers must fill the information gap by
aware everything about the decision made in the organization, and there must be
cooperation of employees in each levels of the organization. Moreover, the organization
should give opportunities to its employees to complain in cases their participation is
helpful to them
 Managers should give a chance for the employees to direct the decision place of him
because it increases motivation and satisfaction to job. This in turn increases
sustainability and accomplishing organizational goals easily.
 6. References
Brief, A. P. & Weiss, H. M. (2002). "Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace,"
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279-307, p. 282

Dawis, Weiss, H.M., & Shaw, J.B. (1979). Social influences on judgments about
tasks.Organisational Behavior and Human Performance, 24(2): 126-140.

Fako, T.T. (2000). Job satisfaction among nurses in Botswana. Society in Transition, 31(1)10-22
Felorence (2011). The . Gazioglu, S., & Tansel, A. (2002). Job satisfaction : Work environment
and relations with managers in Great Britain. Ankara. Middle-East Technical University.

Alutto, J. A., and Acito, E. (1974). Decisional participation and sources of job satisfaction: A
study of manufacturing personnel. The Academy of Management Journal, 17(1), 160-167.

Anderson,W. T., Hohenshil, T. H. & Brown, D. T. (1984). "Job Satisfaction among Practicing
School Psychologists: A National Study, "School Psychology Review, 13, 225-230. Armstrong,
M.(2006). A Handbook of Human Resource ManagementPractice(10thedn)London,Kogan page
Practice(10thedn)London,Kogan page.

Armstrong, M.(2009). Armstrong‟s Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice

(11thed). London: Kogan page.

Bennet, R. (1997). Organizational Behavior (3rded). London, UK: Pearson Education. Bolton,
B. 77 (1986). 'A Review of the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire,' In D. J. Keyser and R. C.
Sweet land (Eds.). Test critiques, Vol. V (pp. 255-265).

Black, J. S., and Gregersen, H. B. (1997). Participative decision-making: An integration of

multiple dimensions. Human Relations, 50(7), 859-878.

Brown, M. B., Hohenshil, T. H. & Brown, D. T. (1998). "Job Satisfaction of School

Psychologists in the United States," School Psychology International, 19, 79-89

Chieffo, A.M. (1991). Factors contributing to job satisfaction and organizational commitment of
community college leadership teams. Community College Review,

Daniels, K. and Bailey, A. (1999), „„Strategy development processes and participation in

decision making: predictors of role stressors and job satisfaction‟‟, Journal of Applied
Management Studies, Vol. 8No. 1, pp. 27-42.

Decker, P. J. & Borgen, F. H. (1993). Dimensions of Work Appraisal: Stress, Strain, Coping, Job
Satisfaction, and Negative Affectivity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40, 470-478.
 APPENDIX
Jinka University

College of Business and Economics

Department of Management

Questionnaire to be filled by Employee

The main purpose this questionnaire is to collect relevant data about the contribution of
participatory decision making and its impacts of employee job satisfaction. Hence, your genuine
and timely response is quite vital. The information you are going to provide is used purely for the
research purpose will be kept confidential.

Thank you in advance!!

Part |: Background information of respondents

Direction; answer the following question by writing or putting ”√”marked where needed.

1. Sex: Male …………. Female…………

2. Age: 20-30………….. 31-40…………. Above 40………...
3. Educational level: Certificate……… Diploma……….Degree.............
4. Experience : 0-5 -------- 6-10 -------- Above 10------------

Dear respondents Show your level of agreement by putting a “√” mark.

Table1. About employee job satisfaction level

By rating using satisfy, neither satisfy nor dissatisfy, dissatisfy.

Items 1 2 3
1
The opportunities for advancement in this
position
2 The organization really inspires that very best in
the way of job satisfaction
3 The promotion are given out in this position
4 The chance to work independently of others 31.1 20 48.89
5 How my pay compares with that of others
 organization
6 The way I get full credit for the work I do
7 The organization satisfies the employee by
participating on decision making
Agree undecided Disagree
Factors affecting decision making items

The manager has no time to make participatory

1 decision making

2 Managers believes that decision making is a

mandate of managers only
3 The manager have low attitude towards
4 participatory
Higher decision making
level managers influence 31.1 20 48.89
5 The manager was busy in other meeting
6 Lack of knowledge
The present level of Employee participation 1 2 3
on decision making

1
The decision is made by boss him / herself
2 Discussion of employee concern
3 Coordinated way of decision making

4 Getting extra training

5 Regular participation in decision making

6 Group decision was better than individual

decision