PARTICIPATION IN DECISION‐MAKING
| Published date | 01 January 1979 |
| Date | 01 January 1979 |
| Pages | 30-38 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb009803 |
| Author | N.F. DUFTY,J.G. WILLIAMS |
| Subject Matter | Education |
THE JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION
VOLUME XVII, NUMBER 1 MAY, 1979
PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING
N.F.
DUFTY AND J.G. WILLIAMS
An analysis of decision-making procedures and managerial styles of department heads
in an academic institution is used to test the contingency model of managerial leader-
ship.
The procedures and styles of thirty academic heads are compared with those
reported in other studies of managers in private enterprises and public bureaucracies.
In both the academic and non-academic situations, decisions and styles range over
autocratic, participatory and delegative approaches. Evidence is put forward that the
academic heads are, on average, as effective as managers in the other sectors but that
they tend to use participatory and power-sharing procedures more than their counter-
parts in private industry and public service. The contingency theory of managerial
leadership seems therefore to be supported by this study.
INTRODUCTION
The lengthy debate on the virtues or otherwise of participation in
managerial decision-making is neither new nor conclusive. Studies of job
satisfaction have indicated that the correlations between participation, job
satisfaction and productivity are not high1 and the simple human relations
model described by Miles as a relationship,
participation
—
improved
satisfaction
—
improved compliance
with
authority,
does not hold.2 The
human resources model suggested by Miles and others, such as Lawler
and Porter, sees the variables related in the causal sequence,
participation
— improved decision-making
—
improved satisfaction
with a feed-back loop
from satisfaction back to improved decision-making.3 Our concern here is
with personal leadership styles, not with structural participation
exemplified by works councils, worker directors or "workers'
self-
management". Even within this restricted field the discussion of
participation in managerial decision-making is far too highly generalized if
left in an unqualified form. In the first place, much of the social science
research in this area is value-laden and places a strong emphasis on
harmony and consensus by group participation.4 In other words, it is
group participation rather than power-sharing which is important and the
granting of complete autonomy to the subordinate by delegation is rarely
considered.5 Secondly, a more serious drawback is that if the question of
N.F. DUFTY is Dean of Social Sciences at the Western Australian Institute of Technology.
He holds the degrees of B.A., M.Ed. and PH.D. (W.A.) and M.A. (Ill.). Dr. Dufty was a
Visiting Scholar at Stanford University in 1978. J.G. WILLIAMS is Co-ordinator of
Graduate Studies, School of Business and Administration, Western Australian Institute of
Technology. He holds the degrees or B.A., B.Sc. and Ph.D. (W.A.), B.Ed. (Qld.) and M.Ed.
(Alta.).
Dr. Williams is currently investigating aspects of Principals' behaviour in West
Australian schools.
To continue reading
Request your trial