PARTICIPATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF ORGANISATIONAL … · Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders...

PARTICIPATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF ORGANISATIONAL LEADERS:

THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BHUTANESE CORPORATE SECTOR

By

Tandin Chhophel

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the

Master of Business (Research)

School of Management

QUT Business School

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane, Australia

(2015)

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders i

Author : Tandin Chhophel

Title : Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders:

The Perspective of the Bhutanese Corporate Sector

Degree : Master of Business (Research)

Research Supervisors: Associate Professor Vicky Browning

Professor Lisa Bradley

Month/Year : March, 2015

Number of Pages : 140

Style Manual Used : American Psychological Association, 6th

edition

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders ii

Abstract

For-profit organisations in emerging economies are increasingly facing the challenges

of global business environment coupled with resources and leadership constraints.

Consequently, building organisational competitiveness demands enhanced leadership

practices (Bruton, Ahlstrom & Obloj, 2008). To garner support and commitment from

employees in building organisational competitiveness, participative decision making

(PDM) is widely applied. However, the Western initiative of PDM both in theory and

practice has little evidence of being studied in the context of emerging economies.

This research, therefore, aims to contribute to our understanding of leaders‟

participative behaviour within the PDM practices in the organisations of emerging

economies. Specifically, this research study investigates the relationship of age,

propensity for participative decision making (PPDM) and belief in the level of power

distance with the participative behaviour. Participative behavioural dimensions are

examined in terms of verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative

behaviour.

With a quantitative research design, this research study adopted a cross-sectional

survey method of data collection with a sample size of 72 leaders and 362

subordinates in the Bhutanese corporate sector. Two separate sets of previously tested

and validated self-administered survey instruments were used to collect data from the

leaders and the subordinates. Multiple linear regression analysis and independent

samples t-test were conducted to test the hypotheses.

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders iii

Results revealed that leaders engaged more in verbal participative behaviour than

consultative participative behaviour. Amongst the three subscales of PPDM,

organisational effectiveness was found to significantly predict the variability in verbal

participative behaviour. Leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance significantly but

negatively predicted the variability in both verbal participative behaviour and

consultative participative behaviour. Age did not show relationship with participative

behaviour. Significant difference was found between leaders‟ self-assessment and

subordinates‟ assessment of the leaders‟ participative behaviour.

This research study has theoretically contributed to our understanding that Bhutanese

corporate leaders engage more in verbal participative behaviour than consultative

participative behaviour. Further, the research incrementally contributes to the PPDM

model through operationsation and addition of participative behavioural dimensions.

Thus in totality, this research study has extended our understanding of leaders‟

participative behaviour within the PDM literature in the context of emerging

economies.

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders iv

Keywords

Bhutan, Corporate Sector, Organisational Leadership, Participative Behaviour,

Participative Decision Making (PDM), Power Distance, Propensity for Participative

Decision Making (PPDM)

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders v

Table of Contents

Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii

Keywords ...................................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................... v

List of Figures .............................................................................................................. vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. viii

Statement of Original Authorship ................................................................................. ix

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ x

Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background to the Research ............................................................................ 1

1.2 Significance of the Research ........................................................................... 2

1.3 Bhutan: The Context of an Emerging Economy.............................................. 3

1.4 Research Gaps ................................................................................................. 5

1.5 Research Objectives ......................................................................................... 7

1.6 Thesis Structure ............................................................................................... 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review ................................................................................... 10

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 10

2.2 Participative Management ............................................................................. 10

2.3 Participation in Decision Making .................................................................. 12

2.3.1 Dimensionality of PDM ................................................................................. 15

2.3.2 Operationalisation of PDM ............................................................................ 16

2.3.3 Conditions for Participative Decision Making .............................................. 19

2.4 Organisational Leadership ............................................................................. 28

2.5 Leadership Behaviour .................................................................................... 29

2.6 Leaders‟ Participative Behaviour .................................................................. 30

2.6.1 Leadership Communication ........................................................................... 31

2.6.2 Leaders‟ Verbal Participative Behaviour ....................................................... 34

2.6.3 Leaders‟ Consultative Participative Behaviour ............................................. 35

2.6.4 Factors Affecting Leadership Behaviour…………………….…………..34

2.6.5 Individual Drive towards Participative Behaviour ........................................ 37

2.7 Leaders‟ Age and Participative Behaviour .................................................... 38

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders vi

2.8 Leaders‟ Individual Belief in the Level of Power Distance (PD) and

Participative Behaviour ................................................................................. 40

2.9 PDM Practices in Emerging Economy .......................................................... 41

2.10 Leaders‟ Behavioural Assessment ................................................................. 44

2.11 Research Aim and Summary of Research Gaps ............................................ 48

Chapter 3: Research Methodology ........................................................................... 54

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 54

3.2 Survey Method ............................................................................................... 54

3.3 Sampling ........................................................................................................ 55

3.4 Participants .................................................................................................... 57

3.5 Data Collection .............................................................................................. 59

3.6 Instruments .................................................................................................... 61

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results ............................................................................... 66

4.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 66

4.2 Assumptions and Parametric Tests ................................................................ 66

4.3 Adaptation of Scale ........................................................................................ 67

4.4 Factor Analysis..……………………………………………………….....…64

4.5 Hypotheses Testing ........................................................................................ 74

4.6 Gender and the Participative Behaviour ........................................................ 81

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion .................................................................... 83

5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 83

5.2 An Overview of the Findings ........................................................................ 83

5.3 Major Findings............................................................................................... 85

5.4 Related Findings ............................................................................................ 94

5.5 Theoretical Contributions .............................................................................. 96

5.6 Implications for Policy and Practice ............................................................ 100

5.7 Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................... 101

5.8 Conclusion ................................................................................................... 104

References ................................................................................................................. 105

Appendices ................................................................................................................ 125

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders vii

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 Escalator of Employee Participation…………………………...…….....18

Figure 2.2 Conceptual Model……………………………………………..….…......51

Figure 5.1 Relationship between the Variables……………………..……………....84

Figure 5.2 Relationship PPDM subscales and Participative Behaviours……….......88

Figure 5.3 PPDM Model…………………………………………………………….97

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders viii

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Demographic Variables (Leaders)……………………….………......…...58

Table 3.2 Demographic Variables (Subordinates)……………………...………...…59

Table 4.1 Cronbach‟s Alphas and Factor Loadings of the PPDM Subscales…….....68

Table 4.2 Cronbach‟s Alphas and Factor Loadings of Power Distance and

Dependent Variables………………………………………………….......70

Table 4.3 Bivariate Correlational Table……………………………………………..73

Table 4.4 Leaders‟ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders‟ Verbal

Participative Behaviour………………………….………………..……….75

Table 4.5 Leaders‟ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders‟ Consultative

Participative Behaviour…....……........................................................……76

Table 4.6 PPDM Subscales with the Leaders‟ self-assessment of Verbal Participative

Behaviour……………………………………………………….……........78

Table 4.7: PPDM Subscales with the Leaders‟ self-assessment of Leaders‟

Consultative Participative Behaviour……………………………………..79

Table 4.8: Bivariate Correlations between the Leaders‟ and

Subordinates‟ Assessments………………………………..…...……….…80

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders ix

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet

requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best

of my knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or

written by another person except where due reference is made.

Signature :

Date : 27th

March, 2015

QUT Verified Signature

Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders x

Acknowledgements

This thesis stands as an ultimate testimony of the immeasurable support and sacrifices

bestowed upon me by all the individuals concerned. I sincerely thank the Queensland

University of Technology (QUT) and the Royal Government of Bhutan (RCSC) for

the joint project that has provided me an opportunity to pursue a higher degree of

study at the QUT.

At the very core of this research resides my Principal Supervisor: Associate Professor

Vicky Browning, and Associate Supervisor: Professor Lisa Bradley, who have

tirelessly guided me throughout this research, attending meticulously to every

faltering step I naively took. I sincerely extend my deepest gratitude for their

painstaking guidance despite their important administrative responsibilities and prior

engagements. I thank Professor Acram Taji for guidance and support both at the

personal level and in her capacity as the Director of International Graduate Research.

I thank Dr Jonathan Bader for his valuable comments during various stages of my

research journey. I also thank the HDR officials for their necessary and timely

support.

I remain indebted to my Director General and Deans of Gaeddu College of Business

Studies who kindly assisted me with their time and facilities for this mix-mode based

study. I thank my family for their moral support which inspired me to continuously

stand steadfast till the end of this journey. Finally, I thank Mr. Jonathan Furneaux for

meticulously proofreading my thesis and guiding me to present it as a better scholarly

piece of work.

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Background to the Research

Competitive global business environments require corporate sector organisations to

enhance their competitiveness (Shirokova, Berezinets & Shatalov, 2014). Owing to

aggressive marketing strategies, diverse and quality goods, and services at

competitive prices, corporate sectors in emerging economies face challenges of global

competitiveness both at national and international levels (Aulakh & Katobe, 2008;

Mudambi & Hill, 2010). The corporate sector in emerging economies is viewed as an

important economic growth engine (Rehman, Zhang, & Ali, 2014). Consequently,

there is increasing demand for the corporate leaders to enhance organisational

competitiveness and enhance capability to conduct business on the global stage.

Bhutan provides an interesting research context to investigate corporate leadership

practices. Bhutan opened its economy to the world in the 1970s and the growing

corporate sector is the key economic performer of the nation. With the advent of the

21st century, Bhutan‟s major political and economic reforms have required corporate

leaders to build organisational competitiveness. The corporate sector plays a lead role

in the country‟s economic development. Therefore, investigation into organisational

leadership behaviour is significant in the context of an emerging economy both from

scholarly and practical perspectives.


1.2 Significance of the Research

Globalisation in the 1980s and 1990s has resulted in a rapid increase of emerging

economies with major economic reforms (Singh, 2012). Particularly, emerging

economies are moving from a centrally planned system to a market-based system

through deregulation of state-owned companies (Cieslik & Kaciak, 2009; Hitt,

Ahlstrom, Dacin, Levitas & Svobodina, 2004). With economic policy reforms and the

information and communication technologies (ICT) revolution, organisations in

emerging economies are forced to adopt efficient corporate practices for survival and

sustained growth (Goldstein & Pusterla, 2010). Therefore, effective leadership is

extremely important in leading organisations which can have a direct impact on the

development and implementation of appropriate organisational practices.

Rapid industrialisation (Pearce & Conger, 2003) and ever-changing business

environments in the 21st century has increased the roles and importance of leadership

(Li, 2001). Leaders today face challenges of workforce diversity and subordinate

empowerment. There is a need for leaders to engage subordinates in the decision

making process for quality decisions and subordinate commitment (Abugre, 2012;

Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013; Northouse, 2004). Faced with daunting tasks and

complexities, effective organisational leadership is key to organisational success

(Ahn, Adamson & Dornbusch, 2004).

Leadership needs to be flexible and adaptable to effectively deal with the uncertainties

and develop commitment amongst employees for organisational success (Marti, Gil &

Barrasa, 2009). In contemporary organisations, leadership is viewed as a shared


responsibility (Uhl-Bien, 2006). A key consideration is leaders‟ willingness within the

context of shared leadership to engage in specific participative behaviours with

subordinates (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Consequently, this research in the context of

Bhutan as an emerging economy will focus on identifying what drives leaders‟

willingness to engage in participative behaviour with subordinates that underpins

participative decision making, and what specific participative behaviours they are

most-likely to engage in.

1.3 Bhutan: The Context of an Emerging Economy

Bhutan, a small Himalayan kingdom, remained isolated for several generations due to

geographical adversities. Historically, this subsistence agrarian economy has had

limited foreign trade relations confined to neighbouring countries such as India, Tibet,

and Nepal. In a significant political landmark, in 2008 the century-old monarchical

system changed to a democracy. Consequently, the peoples‟ participation in the socio-

economic development of the country has increasingly gained importance due to the

decentralisation of the planning and implementation of developmental activities.

The Bhutanese economic development gained impetus with the commencement of the

first Five Year Plan in 1961 (Shah, 1989). Subsequently, the fourth king of Bhutan:

Jigme Singye Wangchuck, initiated economic development with social and spiritual

wellbeing (Mathou, 1999). Economic progress is guided by the unique philosophy of

Gross National Happiness (GNH) (Bates, 2009). The principle of GNH is that the

country‟s economic development must be holistic and encompass sustained economic

progress with social wellbeing (Ura & Galay, 2004). GNH as a development


philosophy goes beyond the conventional economic yardstick of gross national

product, incorporating national happiness as an important goal of overall development

initiatives. Bhutan‟s development framework stands on the four pillars of GNH

(Mathou, 1999; Thinley, 2005): (1) equitable and equal socio-economic development,

(2) preservation and promotion of cultural and spiritual heritage, (3) conservation of

environment and (4) good governance. Although further discussion on the GNH

concept is beyond the scope of this research, it is important to take the unique

synergistic approach of the four GNH pillars into consideration when understanding

the nation‟s approach towards development. A cautious and conservative approach

towards economic development perhaps, presents a potential conflict between GNH

and increasing corporate agenda such as profit maximisation. However, considering

the long term sustainability of natural resources and social wellbeing of the Bhutanese

citizens, Bhutan‟s economic development continues to be guided by the philosophy of

GNH.

Bhutanese socio-economic development through good governance, along with the

promotion of culture and preservation of natural environment, makes citizens more

responsible and accountable for the decisions they make. At an organisational level,

the GNH concept can influence participative decision making initiatives by taking a

holistic view of employees to ensure organisational success. Participative decision

making can promote a sense of inclusion and happiness both at individual and

organisational levels (Spreitzer, 2007).


As a part of economic reform measures, many state-owned companies, through a

process of deregulation, now operate within the corporate sector. Initially,

organisations in the Bhutanese corporate sector were led by senior bureaucrats who,

as civil servants, strongly upheld the culture of hierarchy and bureaucracy. But over a

period of time, as employees of these organisations have moved into leadership

positions, the corporate sector is now believed to have a broader mix of leaders in

terms of age, gender and qualification. Corporate leaders, however, have to be more

responsive to the need for their organisations to stay competitive. Organisational

competitiveness is a key indicator of sustainability and growth in a highly competitive

business environment.

1.4 Research Gaps

Participative leadership and decision making is a Western initiative linked to

improved decision quality, enhanced employee commitment, increased perception of

control, and acceptance of organisational change for overall organisational success

(Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings, 1988; Parnell & Crandall,

2003; Scott-Ladd & Marshall, 2004; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Despite a growing

body of literature, participative decision making has remained in the domain of the

Western developed world (Dundon, Lewin, Gollan, Marchington, Ackers &

Wilkinson, 2010). A recent trend in the literature indicates the practice of participative

decision making in some of the emerging economies (Miller, 2011) but research still

needs to explore the types of behaviours leaders engage in that contributes to

participative decision making and the suitability thereof in emerging economies.


Parnell and Crandall (2001) recognise the success or failure of participative decision

making is largely dependent on leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative

decision making. Successful leadership to a large extent can be attributed to leaders‟

influential behaviour and ability to engage in participative decision making with

subordinates in organisations (Bass, 1990; Larsson & Vinberg, 2010; Yukl, 2002).

Therefore, there is a need for a deeper understanding of what influences leaders‟

willingness to engage in specific participative behaviour and whether this leaders‟

willingness necessarily leads to participative behaviour (Yukl, 2012).

Some research studies have focused to establish a relationship between leaders‟

willingness to engage in participative decision making with factors such as age and

individual leader‟s belief in the level of power distance (Kakabadse, Kakabadse &

Myers, 1998; Oshagbemi, 2001; Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Findings on the

impact of age on leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour are inconsistent. For

instance, younger leaders are found to exhibit more participative behaviour than their

older counterparts (Kelly & Khozan, 1980) but some other studies report that younger

leaders are not as participative as the older leaders (Oshgabemi, 2004). Age as an

antecedent to leaders‟ participative behaviour still remains important to be examined

to understand whether it has a relationship with specific leadership behaviour in PDM

implementation (Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2004). Earlier research

studies consistently found that individual leader‟s belief in the level of power distance

discourages leader‟s participative behaviour. There is, however, no research in the

context of a growing corporate sector in emerging economies, for example, Bhutan.


Power distance as a national cultural dimension is based on the premise of power

inequality amongst people (Hofstede, 2001). At an individual level, power distance is

concerned with an individual‟s belief in the level of power inequality with members

in organisations and society. High power distance typically denotes a society with a

culture of obedience and respect to superiors, by subordinates. In the context of

participative decision making practices in organisations, high power distance is

consistently found to be a major impediment (Pasa, 2000; De Cremer, 2007; Wood,

1985). High power distance could be an impediment to participative decision making

if this should exist in the Bhutanese corporate sector discouraging subordinates from

participation in decision making (De Cremer, 2006).

This research responds to these research gaps through the investigation of the

relationship between the leaders‟ willingness or propensity to engage in participative

decision making, with their participative behaviour. Leaders‟ age and their belief in

the level of power distance will also be examined in relation to leaders‟ participative

behaviour.

1.5 Research Objectives

The objectives of this research are:

a) To identify the type of leaders‟ participative behaviour when leaders engage in

organisational decision making.


b) To investigate the relationship between leaders‟ willingness or propensity to

engage in participative decision making, and leaders‟ participative behaviour

in organisational decision making.

c) To investigate the relationship between leaders‟ age and belief in the level of

power distance, with the leaders‟ participative behaviour in organisational

decision making.

1.6 Thesis Structure

This thesis is structured into five chapters for coherent and systematic understanding

of the research study. The first chapter outlines the background and significance of the

research, highlighting key research gaps to be addressed as per the research

objectives.

The second chapter presents a review of the existing literature on participative

decision making and organisational leadership; leading to a focus on organisational

leaders‟ participative behaviour as the key concept to be investigated in this research

study. Literature on relevant factors affecting leaders‟ participative behaviour is

reviewed in the context of emerging economies. The chapter concludes with the

research aim and hypotheses to be investigated.

The third chapter presents a detailed description of the quantitative research approach

applied in this research study to test the proposed hypotheses in chapter two. The


chapter also rationalises the application of survey methods and finally, provides

justifications for the use of previously tested research instruments.

The fourth chapter provides the results of the quantitative analysis conducted to

investigate the hypothesised relationships between the variables. The chapter

commences with an assumption of parametric tests and adaptation of scales based on

reliability tests and factor analysis. The results of multiple regression analysis and

bivariate correlations are presented.

The final chapter highlights the key findings, theoretical contributions, and practical

implications of the findings concluding with the limitations and future directions for

research. Chapter 2 will now introduce the literature which has informed this research.

Chapter 2: Literature Review 10

Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

This chapter commences with a focus on the research in the area of participative

decision making. This critical review of the literature highlights the importance of

participative decision making in an organisational context. The chapter then discusses

verbal participative behaviour and consultative behaviour as integral part of

participative decision making followed by three key factors that could influence

leaders‟ engagement in participative decision making: their propensity for

participative decision making, their age and their belief in the level of power distance.

Next, the chapter highlights participative decision making practices in the context of

Bhutan as an emerging economy. Finally, the chapter concludes with an identification

of the key research gaps and research objectives. A conceptual model is presented to

provide an overall framework for the research, identifying the hypotheses to be

explored in this research study.

2.2 Participative Management

The appeal of participative management dates back to 1937 where Carey (1937)

developed the concept of „consulting supervision‟ defining superior-subordinates

participation to decide on matters pertaining to employees‟ welfare or organisational

policies (Mudacumura, 2000). Since then, participative management has developed

into a practice engaged in by leaders in organisations (Powell & Schlacter, 1971).

Participative management is a process in which influence is shared amongst leaders


and subordinates via information sharing, decision making and problem solving

endeavours (Locke & Schweiger, 1979; Wagner, 1994).

Participative management continues to capture the attention of both research scholars

and practitioners because it entails building human capacity, ownership, and

responsibility in organisations (Ahiauzu & Amah, 2013; Kelly & Khozan, 1980). It is

also a means to increase employee morale, productivity, to change organisational

culture (Margulies & Black, 1987) and to improve the engagement of employees in

decision making.

Holland (1995) proposed a model focusing on the planning, setting objectives and on

the quality of decisions which he titled as the POQ (planning, objectives and quality)

model of participative management. Although POQ model is yet to receive further

empirical support, the model provides clarity in the understanding of participative

management implementation for a Bhutanese context. Firstly, the model clarifies that

not all subordinates are required to engage in participative management at all times

but it emphasises planning and the defining objectives of decisions. Secondly, the

model emphasises the behavioural change of the organisational leaders. The leaders‟

full commitment to the principles and practices of participative management for

organisational excellence is imperative. In summary, leaders have a critical role in

initiating participative management which is primarily concerned with the

participation of organisational members in decision making.


2.3 Participation in Decision Making

Participative decision making (PDM) is defined as “the process of involving

employees in decisions typically made by managers and usually involves the

cascading of control and decision making responsibility from managers to

subordinates” (Russ, 2011, p. 827). PDM is equally concerned with encouragement,

resource provision, support and influence of employees (Miao, Newman, Schwarz &

Xu, 2013). For over half a century, PDM has been a topic of enquiry for researchers

and scholars in the area of multidisciplinary organisational research (Reeves, Walsh,

Tuller & Magley, 2012; Russ, 2011).

PDM is increasingly reported to have positive outcomes such as collective and quality

decisions, job satisfaction, enhanced employee commitment and productivity, and

reduction in resistance to change and absenteeism (Lashley, 2000; Legge, 2005;

Shipper & Manz, 1992; Wood, 1985). PDM also contributes to a positive influence on

employees‟ psychological wellbeing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall &

Jennings, 1988; Fisher, 1989; Smith & Brannick, 1990).

The two broad underlying rationales for the popularity of PDM are stated from two

different perspectives: the democratic approach and pragmatism (Margulies & Black,

1987). Leaders driven by the rationale of a democratic perspective are inclined to

involve subordinates in the decision making processes. They believe that every

individual has a right to participate in the decisions that affect their work. On the other

hand, the pragmatic rationale perspective focuses on efficiency and productivity to

realise organisational goals. Organisational leaders who are driven by a pragmatic


rationale strive to achieve predetermined goals through consistent participative

behaviour involving subordinates in the decision making practices to ensure quality

decisions and implementation. By being engaged in decision making, subordinates are

clear that their work and decisions contribute to the overall achievement of

organisational goals; and consequently, they respond with a heightened level of

motivation and commitment at their workplaces (Somech, 2002).

Literature describes that employees desire to participate in the matters pertaining to

their work related decisions. According to the principle of McGregor‟s Theory Y

introduced in his 1960 book, The Human Side of Enterprise (Carson, 2005),

employees are fundamentally willing to participate in decision making, which in turn

enhances their work commitment and attachment to the organisation (Northouse,

2004). Abugre (2012) supports the necessity of PDM in organisations in order to

recognise the views of employees for effective decision making in organisations.

When employees are deprived of the opportunities to be involved in the decision

making process of rigidly structured organisations, they feel stifled and alienated

(Kelly & Khozan, 1980). Nevertheless, it is argued that not all employees are equally

motivated to participate in organisational decision making (Alutto & Belasco, 1972).

Alutto and Belasco (1972) argue that at an individual level, an employee‟s desire to

participate may undergo any of the following three decisional conditions: (1)

decisional deprivation–participation in fewer decisions than desired, (2) decisional

equilibrium–participation in as many decisions as desired; and (3) decisional

saturation – participation in a greater number of decisions than desired. Participative


decision making entails leader-subordinates interaction, and the subordinates‟

decisional conditions may influence leaders‟ participative behaviour.

Some employees desire to participate more, but participate in fewer decisions than

expected. They, therefore, feel deprived of participation in decision making. Some

employees desire less participation, or choose not to participate at all; but when they

are made to participate, they experience a state of decisional saturation. Some

employees desire to participate, and are able to participate as much as they desire;

these employees are in state of decisional equilibrium. In summary, the level of desire

to participate in decision making differs at an individual level. However, this does not

rule out that employees in general desire to participate in the decision making

affecting their work (Collings, Demirbag, Mellahi & Tatoglu, 2010).

PDM draws from many theoretical frameworks including democratic theory, socialist

theory, and the productivity and efficiency theory (Ejiogu, 1983). The author states

that the democratic and socialist theories treat participation as a social phenomenon

where members actively participate in the organisation. The human growth theories

focus on the satisfaction of higher order needs such as self-esteem and self-

actualisation (Ejiogu, 1983). The productivity and efficiency theories postulate the

decision making roles of the members pertains to their work and the need to increase

productivity (Ejiogu, 1983). These theoretical frameworks underpin the multi-

dimensionality of PDM construct where participative behaviour of organisational

members relates to increased productivity and efficiency.


The contingency theory of human behaviour has also provided a basis for the

development and understanding of PDM since the 1950s (Steers, 1977). Heller,

Drenth, Koopman and Rus (1983) propose that earlier theories trying to explain PDM

were focused on the rationale process of consciously choosing the most preferred

decision alternatives. The rationale process approach is constrained by limited

decision alternatives that are referred to as „bounded rationality‟. Under the condition

of bounded rationality: personal values; knowledge and experience; and intuition of

the decision makers, may bias or guide the decisions (Betsch & Haberstroh, 2005;

Schwenk, 1984). Organisational members, therefore, are required to be mindful of

circumstantial and personal factors in optimising decisions. This is the basis of the

contingency model of decision making (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983).

Further, an enquiry into the theoretical underpinning of the PDM has also led to the

discussion on the dimensionality of the PDM.

2.3.1 Dimensionality of PDM

Much of the earlier literature in the 1960s and 1970s viewed PDM as a

unidimensional construct (Abdel-Halim, 1983; Vandervelde, 1979). Cotton, Vollrath,

Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall and Jennings (1988) reviewed literature from the 1960s to

1980s and critiqued the earlier research for referring to PDM as a single concept that

was conceptually and operationally inconsistent. They proposed that PDM has been

overly simplified as a single faceted concept, overlooking situations under which

PDM outcomes differ (Ashmos & McDaniel, 1996; Bacharach, Bamberger, Conley &

Bauer, 1990). In the 1980s, many organisations favoured PDM but the effects of

participation on organisational performance became increasingly disputed (Parnell &


Crandall, 2001) due to the multidimensionality of PDM and the context in which it

was employed (Cotton, 1993; Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings,

1988). Cotton et al. (1988) identified six different dimensions of PDM: participation

in work decision, consultative participation, short-term participation, informal

participation, subordinate ownership and representative participation. The

multidimensionality approach makes the PDM concept more interpretable at

individual dimensional level. Individual PDM dimension can be studied in depth for

clearer theoretical and practical purposes.

2.3.2 Operationalisation of PDM

The earlier proponents of PDM in the 1970s and 1980s regarded PDM as critical to

organisational success (Ramsdell, 1994). However, the use of different terms to

describe PDM such as: engagement, voice, involvement, empowerment, etc., have

often led to confusion. Additionally, these terms have often had different meanings in

different countries (Dundon, Lewin, Gollan, Marchington, Ackers & Wilkinson,

2010). Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington and Lewin (2010) have operationalised the

PDM concept into „degree‟, „level‟, „range‟ and „form‟.

The degree refers to the extent to which subordinates are able to influence managerial

decisions; this ranges from a simple sharing of decisional information to actually

making a decision (Black & Gregersen, 1997). Higher degree of PDM is expected to

increase job performance and satisfaction amongst the subordinates/participants but

evidence suggests a moderate positive relationship between the degree of participation

and the performance (Graham & Verma, 1991; Jenkins & Lawler, 1981). The level


indicates work group, the departmental or the corporate level. It relates subordinate

PDM to an appropriate managerial decision; for example, a decision on future

corporate strategy at a work group level may be inappropriate (Wilkinson, Gollan,

Marchington & Lewin, 2010).

The range refers to participation from an informally to formally structured PDM on

various issues by the subordinates. Cotton et al. (1988), and Dachler and Wilpert

(1978) emphasised the importance of formal and informal PDM structures. Formally

structured PDM systems function with explicit rules and procedures concerning

participation while informal PDM systems have fewer rules (Black & Gregersen,

1997). However, evidences in extant literature argue that formal PDM is more

common in organisations where PDM is viewed as an individual‟s right in decision

matters affecting their lives (Strauss, 1982).

Finally, the form refers to how this process takes place. Forms can include: direct

face-to-face participation; written or electronic communication; indirect participation

through representatives and financial participation such as profit sharing (McShane &

Von Glinow, 2005). Although there is unanimity amongst scholars on the importance

of direct and indirect forms of PDM (Cotton et al., 1988; Dachler & Wilpert, 1978),

evidence in the literature argues that direct forms of participation lead to more

effective engagement in participation than indirect participation through workers‟

representatives (Nightingale, 1981).


Some scholars operationalise the PDM on the basis of law and rules. For example,

Ahiauzu and Amah (2013) differentiate PDM on the basis of voluntary PDM and

statutory PDM. Voluntary participation is usually informal without the force or law.

Statutory PDM occurs when the government legislates participative activities.

Statutory and formal PDM may entail leaders‟ participative behaviour for compliance

while voluntary and informal PDM may lead to more genuine participative behaviour

on the part of leaders.

Despite the importance of various facets of PDM, what concerns employees the most

in organisations is the degree of influence that they can have on the decisions. Dachler

and Wilpert (1978) argue that the degree of participation in decision making is

construed along a continuum from autocratic decision making, information sharing,

consultative decision making to democratic decision making. Similarly, the escalator

of participation in Figure 2.1 illustrates progressive upward participation of

employees from mere information sharing within the organisation to actually taking

decision control; these schemes can overlap and coexist in organisational decision

making (Wilkinson, Gollan, Marchington & Lewin, 2010).

Figure 2.1. Escalator of employee participation.

Adapted from The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations (p.11) by

A. Wilkinson, P.J. Gollan, M. Marchington & D. Lewin, 2010, London: Oxford

University Press.

Information

Codetermination

Communication

Consultation

Control


In most cases, PDM takes the intermediate position in the continuum where

employees make a conscious choice considering policies and operational problems

requiring their participation (Ramsdell, 1994). Thus, this research will focus on verbal

communication and consultation as forms of PDM. In reference to Figure 2.1,

information sharing does not amount to PDM because employees do not get to

influence decisions; while codetermination and employees taking a full decision

control, is likely to be absent in the context of Bhutan. Probably, the leaders who

believe in maintaining high power distance invariably avoid listening to suggestions

from their subordinates. Such leaders may not accept their subordinates taking full

control over the organisational decisions. On the other hand, subordinates taking more

independent decision making responsibilities from their leaders could also depend on

the level of maturity of corporate organisations in the emerging economy. Mature

corporate organisations are expected to have adopted PDM as those organisations

would have experienced the need for PDM. On the other hand, leaders in newer

Bhutanese corporate organisations may take more time in allowing their subordinates

to take full control over decision making. The reason could be either leaders

maintaining high power distance or organisations have less complex decisions to be

made and subordinates accept their leaders making decision without engaging them.

2.3.3 Conditions for Participative Decision Making

The effectiveness of PDM is subject to participative conditions both at individual and

organisational levels (Margulies & Black, 1987). For instance, at an individual level,

leaders‟ trust in subordinates and their engagement in a more democratic approach

contribute to PDM success (Kearney & Hays, 1994; Kelly & Khozan, 1980). Both


leaders‟ and subordinates‟ desire and preparedness to be involved in PDM, with win-

win expectations, are key conditions for the successful implementation of PDM

(Kearney & Hays, 1994). At an organisational level, PDM policies and organisational

structure contributes to the success or failure of PDM (Locke & Schweiger, 1979).

Setting up PDM practices entails clarity of purpose and procedures amongst leaders

and subordinates supported by regular training and workshops. Sashkin (1976) asserts

that it is important to provide clear choices for employees who show a desire for PDM

and develop a greater individual job responsibility. The organisational structure needs

to also have minimum levels facilitating leaders-subordinates involvement in decision

making. In summary, the success of PDM is contingent upon both individual and

organisational variables. Successful implementation of PDM relies on employees‟

readiness to engage in PDM, supported by PDM polices and a suitable organisational

structure.

Despite the laudable benefits of PDM, there are also criticisms on the proposed

relationship between PDM and positive organisational outcomes. For example, the

productivity in organisations is not always consistent with the practice of PDM

(Pollock & Colwill, 1987). PDM is viewed as a cause of declining leaders‟ decisional

power (Parnell, 2010). Also, evidence in the literature is that success or failure of

PDM depends on leaders‟ willingness to accept and implement PDM (Cotton, 1993;

Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall & Jennings, 1988). Parnell and Crandall

(2001) describe this willingness as a as propensity to participate in decision making.

Their model facilitates investigation of PDM as a multidimensional construct in

relation to behavioural dimensions such as verbal participative behaviour and


consultative participative behaviour. To sum up, this research proposes to study

further whether leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of organisational outcome,

willingness to share decisional power and participate in decision making have a

relationship with the leaders‟ participative behaviour in organisational decision

making.

2.3.4 Propensity to Participate in Decision Making (PPDM)

PPDM is defined as “a manager‟s proclivity or propensity to solicit subordinate

participation in decisions” (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012, p. 281). In reference to

participative behaviour, leaders have certain motives or propensity to participate in

decision making (Lowin, 1968; Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Ideally, in organisations

where PDM is implemented, subordinates and leaders are more willing to engage in

open discussion and constructive participation (Lowin, 1968). However, the question

is: what could motivate leaders to implement and participate in PDM? Parnell and

Crandall (2001) state that the success of PDM implementation is influenced by

leaders‟ propensity to participate in decision making. They examined PPDM using

four subscales: (1) leaders‟ willingness to share decisional power with subordinates

(Parnell & Bell, 1994); (2) leaders‟ genuine commitment in PDM implementation

(Parnell & Crandall, 2001); (3) leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of organisational

effectiveness through PDM (Parnell & Bell, 1994) and (4) the prevailing

organisational culture of participation that encourages leaders to engage in more PDM

(Parnell, Bell & Taylor, 1991).


Parnell and Crandall (2001) emphasise that the practicality of the PPDM model is

useful in helping organisational leaders to identify problems associated with any of

the subscales (i.e., organisational effectiveness, organisational culture, power sharing

and commitment), and rectify for effective participative decision making. Parnell and

Crandall (2001) suggest that a multivariate regression equation can be used to

ascertain the problem areas as follows:

PPDM = B0 + B1 (organisational culture) + B2 (organisational effectiveness)

+ B3 (power sharing) + B4 (commitment)

In the following paragraphs, the subscales are discussed for ascertaining how each

subscale relates and contribute to the overall PPDM model.

Organisational Culture

Organisational culture is a broad concept with diverse definitions (Henri, 2006), but

commonly reflects the notion of shared values and beliefs, as well as assumptions and

significant meanings, amongst employees (Green, 1988). Organisational culture

sometimes originates from the founders or leaders who implement personal values

and beliefs leading to patterns of behaviour that subordinates learn (Bechtold, 1997;

Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Mathur, Aycan & Kanungo, 1996). Organisational culture is

influenced by social, cultural, economic, and political environmental factors (Mathur,

Aycan & Kanungo, 1996). For instance, in a society with high power hierarchy and

obedience to authority, the organisational culture may reflect less participation in

decision making (Mathur, Aycan & Kanungo, 1996).


Daft (2009) classifies organisational culture into four dimensions: flexible culture –

characterised by flexibility and change in response to the external environmental

factors such as customer needs; mission culture – an emphasis on clear objectives

driven to achieve goals; bureaucratic culture – a culture that has internal focus and a

sustainable direction for a stable environment; and participative culture – focus on the

involvement and participation of individual members. The classification provides

conceptual clarity, but the dimensions are not mutually exclusive.

Rousseau (1990) argues that the operationalisation of organisational culture can often

be confusing. To overcome this limitation, based on the work of Parnell and Crandall

(2001), organisational culture in the present research specifically focuses on shared

organisational goals, involving subordinates, as well as promoting and applying PDM.

Parnell and Crandall (2001) argue that organisational culture plays a critical role in

the selection of participative management styles and eventually, influencing the

leaders‟ propensity for participative behaviour in the decision making. Leaders exhibit

supportive behaviour and encourage subordinates in a participative organisational

culture; while in a culture of centralised decision making, leaders discourage

subordinate participation (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Therefore, leaders‟ propensity

for participative behaviour in decision making is influenced by the organisational

culture (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Leaders are more likely to have a higher

propensity for PDM when there is a culture of support for participation.


Organisational Effectiveness

Organisational effectiveness is a broad concept and encompasses multiple

constituents for measuring organisational performance (Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013;

Katarina, Rastogi, & Garg, 2013). Organisational effectiveness is often understood in

terms of organisations producing quality products and are resilient to business

adversities (Katarina, Rastogi, & Garg, 2013). However, varying size of organisations

with multiplicity of goals makes organisational effectiveness difficult to measure and

define (Amah & Ahiauzu, 2013). In the current research context, organisational

effectiveness is defined as, a leader‟s potential engagement in PDM when he/she

believes that PDM will increase organisational productivity and decision quality i.e.,

organisational effectiveness (Parnell & Crandall, 2001). Further, leaders have greater

tendency to promote PDM when they believe that organisational effectiveness could

be improved through increased engagement of subordinates in decision making

(Parnell & Bell, 1994). Organisational effectiveness is measured in terms of a leaders‟

belief that PDM will improve decision quality, resolve subordinate differences,

promote a feeling of self-worth and effective organisational communication.

Power Sharing

Studies on decisional power sharing have been prevalent since the initial work of

Lewin, Lippitt, and White (1939) and Coch and French (1948). The willingness on the

part of organisational leaders to share power with the subordinates continues to

feature as an important factor for effective subordinate participation in decision

making (Jesaitis & Day, 1992; O‟Toole, 1995). Hakimi and Knippenberg (2010)

define leaders‟ power sharing as leaders‟ behaviour involving delegation of authority


and responsibilities to subordinates. Coleman (2004, p. 299) defines power sharing as,

“the act of enhancing, supporting, or not obstructing another‟s ability to bring about

the outcomes he or she seeks”. Essentially in the PDM process, leaders share their

decisional influence with rest of the members in the organisation, not limiting it to

those who have formal power positions (Pardo del Val & Martínez Fuentes, 2003).

Leaders‟ power sharing includes sharing information and knowledge with

subordinates, enabling them to make influential decisions and helping subordinates to

realise their full potential (Hakimi & Knippenberg, 2010).

Intrinsically motivated leaders engage in sharing decisional power with subordinates,

thus empowering subordinates to participate in decision making (Lee & Koh, 2001).

Heller, Drenth, Koopman and Rus (1983) empirically confirmed that different

categories of employees use decisional power for different effects at different stages

of decision making. For instance, leaders were found to exert more decision

influential power during the initial conception on the decision problem and selection

of optimal decision solution. Whereas middle managers and professional staff

exercise more influence on the decision process. The participation by the lower level

staff was entirely limited to decision implementation.

The proponents of power sharing argue that power sharing is a „positive-sum

approach to power‟ (Park, 1997). By empowering subordinates, leaders do not lose

power but overall power in the organisation is increased (Lee & Koh, 2001). Sharing

decisional power with subordinates also provides management with more time to

consider broader strategies and the long-term objectives of the organisation (Baird &


Wang, 2010). Bottom-up authority is more appropriate for the implementation of

PDM rather than the top-down imposition of decisions on subordinates which

discourages them from participating in decision making (Kearney & Hays, 1994).

Tannenbaum (1956) states that there are two independent aspects of power: total

power in the organisation, and the distribution of the power. His argument is that

power is an expandable phenomenon, total power in the organisation increases with

PDM as every member is empowered through participation in the decision making.

Pollock and Colwill (1987) found that Tannenbaum‟s (1956) model of power

expandability remains valid, and argue that declining power as a result of participative

decision making lacks empirical evidence. Power sharing is found to reduce worker

alienation, reduce superior-subordinate conflicts, promote mutually agreeable

decisions and increase subordinate morale (Pollock & Colwill, 1987).

Despite a wide acceptance of decisional power sharing amongst organisational

leaders, some research has highlighted conditions where power sharing is ineffective

(Collins, 1994; Foster-Fishman & Keys, 1997; Cunningham & Hyman, 1999). Power

sharing has been found to be superficial and rhetoric when organisational leaders still

retain the power (Argyris, 1998). Moreover, higher level strategic decisions can be

viewed as a management prerogative without involving subordinates (Wilkinson,

Gollan, Marchington & Lewin, 2010). Power sharing enhances the implementation of

PDM, however, the effectiveness of power sharing is found to be strongly determined

by leaders‟ willingness to share power.


Organisational Commitment

For the successful establishment of PDM in organisations, leaders must embrace

PDM with long-term commitment and with serious efforts to enhance the entire

organisational system (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). The widely used three-

component model of organisational commitment distinguishes three „mindsets‟ that

characterises the relationship that members have with their employing organisation

(Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013). The authors define the first mind set as

affective commitment: an individual‟s feelings of emotional attachment towards the

organisation. The second mindset, normative commitment, is concerned with the

individual‟s moral obligation to remain with the organisation. The third mindset,

continuance commitment, refers to the individuals‟ economic attachment to the

organisation; it is a perceived cost to a member for ending the membership of the

organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990).

In the context of this research study, normative commitment is concerned with what

might be expected of leaders in the organisation (Allen & Meyer, 1990). Being

leaders, they are obliged to commit to the practices of PDM and influence other

members in a manner that is more likely to engage in participation. Leaders‟

commitment to PDM could be an antecedent to leaders‟ engagement in participative

behaviour. This research study, therefore, will examine PPDM subscales in relation to

leaders‟ participative behaviour in decision making.


2.4 Organisational Leadership

Organisational leaders continuously provide a supportive role to build and maintain a

cohesive group that performs well for organisational success (Hogan & Kaiser, 2005).

It is, therefore, important to understand the nature of the behaviour that leaders

engage in relationships, particularly as it relates to decision making (Yukl, 2012).

Leadership has been extensively investigated with many different definitions and

theories (Eddy & Van Der Linden, 2006). Hogan and Kaiser (2005) state that

leadership is one of the most important topics in the human sciences, but is

historically one of the more poorly understood topics. An understanding of leadership

can be focused on individual leadership traits, leaders‟ behaviour and relationships, a

leaders‟ influence over subordinates, task goals and on organisational culture

(Chaudhari & Dhar, 2006).

In the context of organisational leadership, Tannenbaum, Weschler, and Massarik

(1961) defined leadership as a process of interpersonal influence exercised in a

situation and directed through the communication process towards the attainment of

specific goal or goals. Organisational leadership is a social process focused on

building effective interpersonal relationship through multiple interactions with

individuals (Uhl-Bein, 2006; Zaccaro & Klimoski, 2002). Importantly, leaders‟

relationships with subordinates through exhibition of communicative or interactive

behaviours relates to the context of the present research study.


2.5 Leadership Behaviour

Leadership is expressed in the form of behavioural patterns in various functions and

situations while working with followers (Randeree & Chaudhry, 2012). The

behavioural approach to leadership studies dates back to the 1940s when the Ohio

State University in the United States identified two groups of leadership behaviours:

relations-oriented behaviour and task-oriented behaviour (Yukl, Gordon & Taber,

2002). Later in the 1990s, change-oriented leadership behaviour became prominent,

owing to increasing societal and organisational pressure for change (Ekvall & Arvon,

1994; Yukl, 1999, 1997). Change-oriented leadership behaviour includes

encouragement of subordinates for innovative thinking, taking risks to promote

necessary changes in the organisation, proposing new vision and monitoring the

external environment (Yukl, Gordon & Taber, 2002).

Yukl, Gordon, and Taber (2002) assert that these three leadership behavioural

dimensions are not mutually exclusive. Leaders may engage in all these behaviours at

one point in time to achieve the desired outcomes within their relationships and

exercise of leadership. For example, leaders recognising and complimenting (relation-

oriented behaviour) a subordinate for a significant contribution to the unit primarily

motivates a subordinate; while identifying tasks (task-oriented behaviour) focuses the

subordinates on achieving organisational objectives. As such these behaviours work

to complement each other within a constructive leadership relationship. Furtado,

Batista, and Silva (2011) also assert that leaders‟ behavioural pattern combines task

behaviour and relation-oriented behaviour. Task-oriented behaviours of the leaders

are primarily used to improve the work efficiency of the subordinates (Yukl, 2006);


whereas relation-oriented behaviour concerns the emotional and moral support of

subordinates.

In the understanding of effective leadership behaviour, individual behaviour and

interrelatedness amongst the behaviours are examined for more clarity. For example,

monitoring is effective when combined with other behaviours such as problem

solving, coaching and motivating (Yukl, 2012). As we develop an understanding of

effective leadership behaviour, it is useful to determine the behaviours that positively

influence the achievement of organisational outcomes (Yukl, 2012). Leadership,

concerning subordinates as the core of organisational success can influence leaders‟

interactive behaviour. Leaders in this instance would be more inclined to engage in

participative behaviour with subordinates (Kearney & Hays, 1994).

2.6 Leaders’ Participative Behaviour

Typically, leaders‟ participative behaviours is seen in the form of openness and

appreciation for subordinates‟ inputs, interests, concerns, and willingness to act on

subordinates‟ suggestions; all of which strongly determines subordinates‟

participation in the decision making of the organisation (Detert & Burris, 2007).

Leaders‟ participative behaviour is influential towards subordinates‟ performance

contributing to organisational productivity (Mehrabi, Safaei & Kazemi, 2013).

Leaders sharing discretionary power at the work places, being more supportive,

informative, resourceful and consulting in decision making process motivates

subordinates (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Nystrom, 1990).


Leaders‟ participative behaviour is motivated by an expectation for better decisional

inputs from subordinates for quality decisions and better leaders-subordinate

relationship leading to organisational success. The expectancy model of PDM

explains that leaders exhibit an inclination towards participative behaviour when they

expect this will lead to a more effective performance and a resulting reward (Schuler,

1980; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Leaders who expect better decisions as a reward for

their engagement in participation could be more likely to engage in participative

behaviour.

Leaders‟ participative behaviour concerns sharing responsibility with subordinates for

concerted efforts and quality decisions. The premise of shared leadership theory

explains shared responsibility and collective effort. Shared leadership is defined as a

“dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals in work groups in which

the objectives is to lead one another to the achievement of groups goals” (Pearce &

Conger, 2003: p. 286). Essentially, shared leadership is a process of interdependent

social relationship where individual employees share the behaviours and roles of the

leaders (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Merat & Bo, 2013; Pearce & Conger,

2003). Evidently, shared leadership espouses a behavioural-based social process that

involves collective decisions and an effort for the achievement of organisational goals

in which leaders‟ participative behaviour plays a critical role (Kocolowski, 2010).

2.6.1 Leadership Communication

The essence of communication within the organisation resides in providing

performance and strategic directives to employees (Bamel, Rangnekar, Rastogi &


Kumar, 2013). Communication helps in the identification of problems and solutions

(Bamel, Rangnekar, Rastogi & Kumar, 2013). Leadership communication is a means

of information dissemination amongst employees and provides timely feedback on

performance. Importantly, leadership communication provides emotional support to

the members and helps in resolving conflict, mistrust and workplace politics (Bamel,

Rangnekar, Rastogi & Kumar, 2013).

Tozer (2012) describes four distinct channels of leadership communication. Although

competing views on Tozer‟s (2012) channels of leadership communication is not

evident in the literature, the concept is used in describing how leaders communicate in

different ways in the organisations (Men, 2014; Mohr & Nevin, 1990). The four

distinct channels of leadership communication include: (1) Formal and direct

(meetings and announcement) where leaders interact and checks understanding of

subordinates through questions and answer sessions. (2) Informal and direct

(concerning day-to-day work and organisational affairs) where leaders are involved in

regular and informal conversation with subordinates. (3) Formal and indirect

(consequences of policy, systems and structure) where leaders are involved in formal

and focused discussion; and (4) Informal and indirect (socializing, rumour and media)

where through social conversation, leaders ensure that subordinates are well-informed

with accurate and helpful information. The multiplicity of leadership communication

channels is extremely important to facilitate quality decision making. Leaders exhibit

distinct communicative behaviour based on the choice of specific channel of

leadership communications (Tozer, 2012). For example, leaders‟ communicative

behaviour in a formal meeting will be more structured through questions and answers,


while informal communicative behaviour will be demonstrated in an informal social

conversation.

The leaders‟ communicative behaviour is an important aspect of leadership (Galanes,

2003). Hackman and Johnson (1996) define leadership as communication behaviour

that affects the behaviour of subordinates for the achievement of group or

organisational goals. The most common goals of leaders is to maintain a holistic

perspective of organisation through established communication infrastructure, such

as: regular meetings; openness to information exchange; and discussion and dialogues

where leaders seriously listens and focuses on subordinates ideas, wishes and views

(De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007; Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). Leaders‟ communicative

behaviour is important in sharing organisational goals; clarifying the fulfilment of

standards; and providing feedback to subordinates eventually leading to successful

leadership. Nearly half of the daily working time of leaders is spent in communicating

for information exchange and influencing subordinates (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008).

However, it is important that the communicative behaviour is intended for

organisational success. More communicative behaviour cannot be always equated

with better communication for organisational success (Keyton, Caputo, Ford, Fu,

Leibowitz, Liu & Wu, 2013). Leaders need to focus more on the quality of their

communication rather on the quantity of communication while communicating with

their subordinates.


2.6.2 Leaders’ Verbal Participative Behaviour

Amongst the various modes of communication, leaders tend to prefer verbal

communication (Yukl, 2002). Face-to-face verbal communication allows leaders to

exercise more influence with subordinates, thus, subordinates tend to judge their

leaders‟ effectiveness through verbal communication (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008).

Verbal communication with subordinates reduces the hierarchical distance between

leaders and subordinates, providing a more personal touch (Denton, 1995). In the

organisational context, verbal communication is important for the effective sharing of

information and providing feedback to subordinates by leaders. It is also an important

means of receiving feedback from subordinates by leaders.

Verbal communication is participative as both leaders and subordinates are involved

in the communication process. Subordinates want to hear from leaders, and want

leaders to listen to them (Denton, 1995). Leaders‟ listening skills are equally as

important as explaining. This is because, through listening, leaders are able to better

understand the needs, concerns and feelings of subordinates (Denton, 1995).

Therefore, verbal communication encourages participation of subordinates in decision

making, as well as solving work and personal related issues. As verbal participation is

founded on the principle of two-way communication, when subordinates are

enthusiastic on verbal participation, reciprocal behaviour on the part of leaders to

engage in verbal participation is equally important. This study will focus on leaders‟

verbal participative behaviour to engage subordinates in participative decision

making.


2.6.3 Leaders’ Consultative Participative Behaviour

The term „consultation‟ refers to joint decision making that includes leaders and

subordinates, and allows subordinates to influence decisions (Yukl & Fu, 1999).

Consultation is a systematic approach of formal meetings where both leaders and

subordinates discuss mutual concerns (Denton, 1995). Studies have determined a

strong link between leaders‟ consultative behaviour, and subordinates‟ motivation in

the form of putting forward innovative ideas (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

Consultation, according to the Vroom-Yetton model developed in 1973, is feasible

when goal congruence is high because subordinates share leaders‟ task objectives and

cooperate in providing information needed to make good decisions (Yukl & Fu,

1999).

Consultative leaders hold regular meetings where leaders and subordinates prioritise

tasks and goals that lead to successful teamwork. A lack of consultative participation,

however, undermines subordinates‟ motivation and deprives both leaders and

subordinates of fresh ideas in decision making (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2007).

Consultative leaders listen to subordinates prior to making decisions and create an

environment for subordinates to speak out their ideas freely (Kabasakal & Bodur,

2007). Leaders also empower subordinates through negotiations and joint problem

solving, leading to a mutually acceptable compromise (Yukl & Fu, 1999).


Consultation is conducted primarily in a formal setup such as preplanned organised

meetings. Both leaders‟ verbal communication and consultation can have an

influential impact on organisational decisions that may encompass a wide range of

organisational issues from individual, to corporate levels (Hollander & Offermann,

1990). However, the difference between verbal communication and consultation lies

in the context of participation practices. In consultative participation, leaders‟

interactive behaviour involves engaging with a group of immediate subordinates in a

formal setting. In verbal participation, leaders engage in a dyadic, informal and

conversational behaviour, seeking decisional inputs from individual subordinates.

2.6.4 Factors Affecting Leadership Behaviour

Leadership behaviour is subject to influence from internal and external organisational

factors. On a daily basis, leaders are challenged by many internal factors, such as

diverse workforce, changes from stable individual jobs to new strategic teams,

increasing job-related expectations of subordinates and the concern for outcomes

besides profits such as ethical actions (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983; Kur &

Bunnin, 2002; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010).

External factors that leaders face include changes from simpler to complex global

enterprises, rapid technological change, changing cultural values, more use of

outsourcing, new forms of social networking, increased use of virtual interaction,

environmental impact and sustainability (Heller, Drenth, Koopman & Rus, 1983;

Yukl & Mahsud, 2010). In the context of these internal and external environmental

factors, the leaders have to constantly interact with subordinates for information


exchange and maintain subordinate involvement and motivation. Consequently,

leaders are increasingly challenged to maintain relation-oriented and participative

behaviour with subordinates.

The type of behaviour that leaders engage in can also be determined by the size and

structure of an organisation (Larsson & Vinberg, 2010). In smaller organisations, with

less hierarchical structure, leaders‟ interactive behaviour with subordinates could be

more frequent and amicable than in larger organisations. Leaders‟ engagement in

specific participative behaviour is also subject to subordinate maturity. The situational

leadership theory underpinning the dynamics of subordinate maturity describes two

components (Goodson, McGee & Cashman, 1989): the job maturity (technical skills

needed to do a task) and psychological maturity (self-confidence in one‟s abilities).

Leaders adopt tight supervisory behaviours with subordinates of lower level maturity

in terms of work skills. Leaders‟ behaviour is visible in the form of providing

instructions and directions for task performance. For more mature subordinates,

leaders are seen to exhibit less supervisory behaviour combined with greater

participatory behaviour (Furtado, Batista & Silva, 2011).

2.6.5 Individual Drive towards Participative Behaviour

Leaders‟ drive to engage in a participative behaviour could be as a result of intrinsic

motivation, a sense of accomplishment, or external motivational factors such as

expected monetary reward (Analoui, 2000). Taking a process rather than a content

approach to motivation, motivation to engage in participative behaviour could be the


result of the dynamic interaction with subordinates, resulting in stronger leaders-

subordinate ties.

Leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour is also guided by their belief in the

role of leaders. Organisational leaders who are driven by a belief of achieving

predetermined goals, persistently exhibit participative behaviour and involve

subordinates to ensure quality decisions and implementation. Similarly, leaders driven

by the democratic principles of respecting subordinates rights, will be inclined to be

involved in participative behaviour with subordinates (Ejiogu, 1983). Therefore,

leaders‟ proclivity towards participative behaviour is also guided by their beliefs or

values.

However, questions are raised as to how consistent or authentic leaders are when

engaging in particular participative behaviour (Westhuizen, Pacheco & Webber,

2012). For example, leaders may engage subordinates without genuine concern for

subordinates‟ decisional inputs (Ritchie & Miles, 1970). One of the key underlying

factors influencing leaders‟ participative behaviour is leaders‟ intrinsic motivation to

genuinely involve themselves and subordinates in PDM. In addition, leaders‟ drive

towards the achievement of organisational goals can also influence their engagement

in participative behaviour with subordinates.

2.7 Leaders’ Age and Participative Behaviour

In the study of organisational leadership, age is one of the important demographic

variables (Oshagbemi, 2004). Kakabadse, Kakabadse and Myers (1998) highlight that


age has considerable influence in shaping the behaviour of leaders in organisations.

Empirical evidence confirms that younger leaders differ significantly from older

leaders in their behavioural approach to participative decision making (Oshagbemi,

2004).

Young American managers in the 1970s who grew up under the democratic system of

the 1960s were found to be actively involved in participative management (Kelly &

Khozan, 1980). A study in India by Mathur, Aycan and Kanungo (1996) found that

younger leaders were more resourceful, goal driven and optimistic. These leaders

emphasised mutual help, support and involvement in decision making.

However, younger leaders were also found not as participative as older leaders in the

context of the UK (Oshagbemi, 2004). It is possible that younger leaders have

different attitude towards decision making from older leaders. Younger leaders take

both decisional risk of making wrong decisions and take the reward of pride in

making successful decisions (Oshagbemi, 2004).

Evidently, age as a predictor of participative behaviour is inconsistent. It is possible

that influence of age on participative behaviour can be explained in specific context.

For example, the participative behaviour of younger American managers was found to

have been influenced by a democratic system of governance. Similarly, participative

behaviour of younger Indian leaders can be attributed to the era of economic reforms

in India in the 1990s where the leadership approach was expected to be more

participative (Ahluwalia, 2002).


Overall, the current literature has not established age as a consistent predictor of

leaders‟ participation in decision making, but was found to vary in the context of the

study being conducted. In the present research study, leaders‟ age is examined as a

potential antecedent of leaders‟ participative behaviour.

2.8 Leaders’ Individual Belief in the Level of Power Distance (PD) and

Participative Behaviour

Beliefs that are based in values are fundamental in guiding an individual behaviour

(Chang & Lin, 2008). “A value is a person‟s internalised beliefs about how he or she

„should‟ or „ought‟ to behave” (Meglino & Ravlin, 1998, p. 354). Jing and Graham

(2008) assert that there are invisible values (beliefs) and visible manifestations (such

as symbols, heroes and rituals) that are at the core of individual behaviour. Therefore,

leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance could influence their participative

behaviour. For example, leaders‟ belief in a higher level of power distance could lead

to behavioural manifestation of not engaging in PDM with subordinates.

Leaders with high power distance orientation are behaviourally more directive and

avoid subordinate participation (Pasa, 2000). For example, leaders are often seen

displaying dominating or pushy behaviour, thus limiting group members‟

participation in decision making processes (De Cremer, 2006). In the decision making

process, high power distance leaders are also seen to force decisions upon other group

members (De Cremer, 2007). This type of leadership behaviour does not lead to

favourable work outcomes (Huang, Shi, Zhang & Cheung, 2006). On the other hand,

leaders with low power distance exhibit behaviours of sincerity and friendliness


towards their subordinates (Sorrentino & Field, 1986). Therefore, power inequality is

an obstacle to leaders-subordinate interaction for PDM (Wood, 1985). In

organisations of high power distance culture, subordinate participation in decision

making is self-censored for fear of undesirable reprisals (Wood, 1985). Consequently,

subordinates prefer decisions made by their leaders, instead of PDM. These

subordinates expect to be told what to do and prefer not to take on additional

responsibilities (Khatri, 2009).

Under the condition of high power distance, a communication gap exists between

leaders and subordinates due to their belief in maintaining hierarchical distance

(Khatri, 2009). Bhutan, traditionally known for its hierarchical social structure

(Mathou, 1999), provides an interesting context to investigate the influence of

leaders‟ belief in power distance, on the leaders‟ participative behaviour. In the

Bhutanese corporate context, leaders‟ who believe in maintaining high power distance

may engage in low level of participative behaviour than those leaders who believe in

maintaining low power distance.

2.9 PDM Practices in Emerging Economy

Emerging economies are characterised by economic liberalisation initiatives and

reform measures. These countries are also dependent on developed nations for

financial aids and technical know-how support. During the 1980s and 1990s, rapid

globalisation and economic reforms resulted in the rise of emerging economies

(Singh, 2012). The proponent of the term „emerging economies‟, Antoine W. Van

Agtmael of the International Finance Corporation in 1981 states that countries


classified under the category of emerging economies embark on economic

development and reform programmes irrespective of their size and economic

resources (in Heakal, 2009: p.1).

Emerging economies face many challenges. There is increased domestic

consumption, weak infrastructure, underdeveloped technology, a requirement for

major financial reforms, increased pollution, unemployment, security and political

instability (Morfaw, 2012). For the transformation of these challenges into economic

opportunities, political will is important for the translation necessary at an

organisational level.

The collective views of employees to muster organisational strength through

cooperation and commitment should be reflective of political philosophy. For

example, in an advanced level of democracy such as the USA, there is a greater

tendency towards PDM in the organisations than in emerging democratic nations

(Parnell, Koseoglu, & Dent, 2012). In emerging economies with a democratic form of

governance, PDM in organisations may gain importance due to the broader political

philosophy of participation. In view of this discussion, Bhutan as the youngest

democratic nation and an emerging economy, provides a relevant and interesting

context within which to study PDM practices in the corporate sector.

Growth of the Bhutanese corporate sector in the late 1990s began with the

deregulation of state-owned companies. The corporate sector was initially managed

by the senior bureaucrats who were accustomed to hierarchical power inequalities.


Top-down command works in public organisations which are hierarchically structured

(Paradine, 1996). Driven by the motive of social welfare, profit generation is not a

priory for public organisations. Corporate organizations, on the other hand, are subject

to dynamic environmental factors and are concerned with the judicious use of

resources for good returns. A structural change facilitating participative management

practices would be advisable in corporate organisations (Zhou, Tse & Li, 2006).

These changes would require Bhutanese corporate leaders to be involved more in

participative behaviour for the achievement of organisational goals.

Research into PDM has been primarily confined to the developed nations in North

America and Europe (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Dawkins & Frass, 2005).

Little research in PDM is evident in the context of emerging economies such as Asia,

Europe and the Middle East (Miao, Newman, Schwarz & Xu, 2013; Parnell, Koseoglu

& Dent, 2012). Moreover, Bhutan is the least studied nation, with no literature in the

area of organisational leadership and PDM.

Bhutan is also a useful context for studying the role of an individual leader‟s belief in

power distance. Ugyel (2013) found that Bhutan is a relatively moderate power

distance nation (below world average, but above Australia). Ugyel (2013) also asserts

that the social structure of patronage and the loyalty system will have influence on

organisations in terms of their hierarchical structure. The culture of hierarchy and

loyalty could influence individual leader‟s beliefs in the level of power distance

influencing leaders‟ participative behaviour in decision making.


In a societal culture of hierarchical order, people accept high power distance

(Hofstede, 1984a). In the Bhutanese context of hierarchical social culture,

organisational leaders could be more likely to exhibit a higher level of power distance

which impact on their willingness to engage in participative decision making with

their subordinates. Subordinates, on the other hand, will accept power inequality.

Subordinates will be more receptive of the opinion of their leaders and chose not to

participate in the decision making process.

2.10 Leaders’ Behavioural Assessment

Assessment of leaders‟ behavioural dimensions in an organisation has become

necessary because it contributes to leaders‟ development and organisational growth

(Manning & Robertson, 2011; Tiuraniemi, 2008; Tornow, 1993). Assessment of

leaders‟ behaviour by self and others is useful because leaders‟ performance is

dependent upon interactions with others, particularly subordinates; so it is important

to assess leader's level of self-awareness as well as how others see their behaviour

(Atwater, 1992).

Self-assessment

A leader‟s self-assessment is important for the understanding of his/her own

performance and creates optimal conditions for self-guiding leadership behaviour

(Tiuraniemi, 2008). Self-assessment indicates the degree of self-awareness about

one‟s behaviour through the difference between self-observation and self-evaluation

(Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Self-observation is new information or a perceived

behavioural standard against which a leader compares his/her behaviour.


“Consequently, the self-aware leaders is more cognisant of how he/she is perceived by

others, which results in more accurate self-assessment” (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992:

p. 143). It is also reported that high performing leaders who are more meticulous in

their work and achieve organisational goals are able to more accurately assess their

workplace behaviour (Church, 1997). This is due to their self-awareness of detailed

behavioural engagement at the workplace.

Although, self-assessment is a commonly used behavioural assessment technique, (Oh

& Berry, 2009), there are criticisms of its accuracy (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone,

2002; Poksakoff, MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). Leaders with

high self-esteem rate themselves high because they value themselves with positivity,

and contrarily leaders with low self-esteem rate themselves low (Ashford, 1989;

Atwater & Yammarino, 1992; Cooper & Johnson, 2014).

Therefore, considering the limitation of a single-source of self-assessment that may

fail to comprehensively capture a specific dimension of leadership behaviour,

subordinates‟ rating is commonly also used as an alternative source of assessing

leaders‟ participative behaviour (Bergman, Lornudd, Sjoberg & Von Thiele Schwarz,

2014). Thus leaders‟ behaviour in relation to subordinates is also more suitably

assessed by subordinates (Oh & Berry, 2009).

Subordinates’ Assessment

Evidence shows that leaders‟ behavioural assessment by immediate subordinates

improves leaders‟ behaviour (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995). A leader‟s


awareness of how subordinates evaluate his/her behaviour is the key to the

effectiveness a leader‟s performance and also has implications in a leader‟s pay and

advancement decisions (Tiuraniemi, 2008).

Differences between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment

An objective of subordinates‟ assessment of leaders‟ behaviour is to find the degree of

difference with leaders‟ self-assessments (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). In the past,

difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟ assessments had been

thought of as error variance that should be reduced or eliminated (Fleenor, McCauley

& Brutus, 1996). But the differences between two assessments are a useful indicator

of leadership effectiveness (Tiuraniemi, 2008). For example, Bass and Yammarino

(1991) found that for successful leaders, difference between the assessments was

smaller while less-successful leaders displayed greater discrepancies.

The degree of difference between the two assessments is influential in the future

participative behaviour of leaders (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). For example,

leaders who overrate are less likely to improve their participative behaviour because

they feel they are more participative. Secondly, leaders with more accurate self-

ratings in agreement with the rating of the subordinates are likely to alter their

behaviour accordingly (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Thirdly, leaders who

underestimate their participative behaviour may be under pressure to alter their

behaviour (Ashford, 1989). Thus, for the effective implementation of self-assessment

and subordinates‟ assessment, proper communication and understanding of leaders‟

behaviour assessment, becomes a necessary condition. Such an approach may entail


regular in-house training and deliberation for clarity in the organisations (Foti, 1990).

In the absence of the clarity on the purpose and procedure of leaders‟ behavioural

assessment, difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟

assessments are common (Atwater, Roush, & Fischthal, 1995), resulting in negative

reactions from leaders (Brett and Atwater, 2001).

The differences between the two assessments occur because leaders and subordinates

have different cognition of leaders‟ behaviour. For example, more intelligent and

capable individuals exercise better judgment on leaders‟ participative behaviour

(Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). Leaders are expected to be more aware of their own

participative behaviour and to provide more accurate self-assessment. However, this

is just one perspective. Subordinates on the other, may rate their leaders‟ participative

behaviour low when faced with limited understanding of their leaders‟ participative

behaviour differently but both ratings are important for understanding leadership

behaviour. It is two different perspectives on the same behaviour.

Carlson (1998) states that leaders‟ self-assessment is more purposeful and accurate

when used for personal development and accept subordinates‟ assessment. When self-

ratings are meant for pay and promotion, leaders tend to rate themselves high leading

to wider discrepancies between self-assessment and subordinates‟ assessment

(Carlson, 1998). In the current research, the leaders‟ willingness to engage in

participative decision making is measured through two approaches: leaders‟ self-

assessment and assessment by their immediate subordinates. The measurement

accuracy of either of the assessments cannot be determined. However, the research is


a more robust study of leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative decision making

by having two different perspectives.

2.11 Research Aim and Summary of Research Gaps

There is limited research into PDM in emerging economies (Ejiogu, 1983; Parnall,

Koseoglu, & Dent, 2012). Further study in a variety of emerging economies could

increase our understanding of the practice of PDM in different countries. Bhutan, as

an emerging economy, provides a context of research on PDM and leaders‟

participative behaviour, owing to its growing corporate sector for economic

development.

In connection to the importance accorded to the corporate sector in Bhutan, the

younger generation of corporate leaders aspire to take on key leadership positions.

Contrary to the older bureaucrats who initially headed organisations in the emerging

corporate sector, the younger leaders have worked in a corporate culture that supports

collective practice and team work amongst employees in order to improve

organisational effectiveness. The younger leaders are viewed as more proactive, open-

minded and participative in their behaviour. However, there is limited evidence to

support that younger organisational leaders exhibit more participative behaviour

(Kakabadse & Kakabadse, 1999; Oshagbemi, 2004). Consequently, the current

research examines age as an antecedent of organisational leaders‟ participative

behaviour.


Besides age, leaders‟ belief in a level of power distance in relation to subordinates

could also influence leaders‟ participative behaviour. The leaders‟ belief in high

power distance is consistently seen as an impediment to leaders‟ participative

behaviour (De Cremer, 2007; Pasa, 2000). Power distance is more pronounced in

developing nations with a hierarchical social structure (Abugre, 2012). The author

argues that PDM is possible only if subordinates have unimpeded access to their

leaders. Further, his work confirmed that high power distance leaders with a top-down

approach of managing organisations rarely exhibit participative behaviour for the

benefit of the subordinates. The context of a newly established democracy with

economic reforms emphasising the growth of corporate sector in Bhutan provides a

relevant research opportunity to investigate the influence of power distance on PDM.

Past studies applying PPDM model in emerging economies indicate willingness

amongst leaders to engage in participative behaviour (Coffey & Langford, 1998;

Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012: Parnell,

Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003). The premise of the PPDM model (Parnell &

Crandall, 2001), asserts a synergistic relationship amongst the four principal subscales

contributing to PDM success. Firstly, organisational culture in which PDM is a part of

an organisation‟s modus operandi, secondly organisational leaders‟ long-term

commitment to PDM; thirdly, organisational leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of

organisational effectiveness through participation, and lastly, organisational leaders‟

willingness to share decisional power with subordinates, are all proposed to contribute

to the PDM success.


The PPDM model proposes that leaders with a propensity for participation in decision

making will engage in participative decision making. However, available literature on

the PPDM model applied in different contexts and countries has not examined

whether leaders‟ PPDM necessarily results in specific participative behaviours

(Coffey & Langford, 1998; Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell,

Koseoglu & Dent, 2012: Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003). Thus, the present

research studies will examine the relationship of PPDM with verbal participative

behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.

The effective implementation of PDM also relies on the leaders‟ participative

behavioural assessment. Self-assessment assists leaders to reflect and improve their

participative behaviour (Keyton, Caputo, Ford, Fu, Leibowitz, Liu & Wu, 2013).

Leaders‟ self-assessment is balanced and informed by the assessment of immediate

subordinates (Atwater & Yammarino, 1992). This research study will advance our

understanding of the degree of difference or congruence between leaders‟ self-

assessment and assessment by subordinates of leaders‟ participative behaviour.


Age of Leaders

Power Distance

PPDM

Organisational Culture

Organisational Effectiveness

Power Sharing

Commitment

Verbal & Consultative


Leader‟s Self-

assessment

H1

H2

H3

Subordinates‟

Assessment

H4

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Description of the Conceptual Model

Figure 2.2 outlines the conceptual model being investigated by this research study.

Figure 2.2: Conceptual Model

Independent Variables

Leaders’ Age: The chronological age of leaders.

Power Distance (PD): Leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance (Javidan,

Dorfman & House, 2006). Power distance indicates leaders‟ belief in power equality

(low PD) or power inequality (high PD) in the organisation.

Propensity for Participative Decision Making (PPDM): Leaders‟ PPDM refers to the

leaders‟ willingness to participate in decision making practices in the organisations

(Parnell & Bell, 1994). PPDM is measured with four subscales: organisational culture,

organisational effectiveness, power sharing and commitment.


Dependent Variables

Leaders’ Participative Behaviour: Refers to leaders‟ participative behaviour in

organisational decision making. The leaders‟ participative behaviour is

operationalised in terms of verbal participative behaviour and consultative

participative behaviour:

Verbal Participative Behaviour: Verbal participative behaviour of leaders is

described as the leaders‟ involvement of subordinates at an individual level in

decision making practices through a verbal communication process.

Consultative Participative Behaviour: Is described as leaders‟ participative

behaviour with subordinates, in groups, encouraging subordinates to express

ideas and suggestions. Leaders ensure adequate opportunity for all group

members to express views in a consultative process.

Hypotheses

Hypotheses are stated to investigate the relationship between the variables as

illustrated in the conceptual model. A hypothesis is a declarative sentence that

predicts the results of a research based on existing knowledge, stated assumptions,

and responds to research objectives (Lipowski, 2008). Accordingly, four research

hypotheses are put forward:


H1: Younger leaders will engage in a higher level of verbal and consultative

participative behaviour than older leaders.

H2: Leaders with a higher level of PPDM will engage in more verbal and

consultative participative behaviour.

H3: Leaders who believe in a high level of power distance will exhibit a lower

level of verbal and consultative participative behaviour.

H4: A leader‟s self-assessment of verbal and consultative participative

behaviour will differ from the assessment of his/her immediate subordinates.

Chapter 3: Research Methodology 54

Chapter 3: Research Methodology

3.1 Introduction

The current chapter presents the research methodology used in conducting this

research. The research aims to investigate the relationship of three key independent

variables: leaders‟ age, leaders‟ propensity for participative in decision making, and

leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance with leaders‟ engagement in participative

behaviour in decision making. To achieve the research aim, a quantitative research

design was employed to test the hypothesised relationships between variables

presented in the conceptual model in the previous chapter. Quantitative method

includes the use of self-administered survey questionnaires for data collection (Veal,

2005) which was considered appropriate for this research. The following sections

outline in more detail the quantitative approach taken in this research. Other sections

of the chapter include justifications of sampling design, data collection methods and

measurement instruments used in this research.

3.2 Survey Method

A survey method was used to collect primary data using questionnaires with reliable

measures from the previous studies. Data was used to determine the relationship

between the variables (Roberts, 2012). Quantitative data collected through a survey

can be counted or analysed (Hoe & Hoare, 2012). Consequently, the quantitative data

in the present research was analysed using parametric statistics such as Pearson


correlation, multiple regression, and independent samples t-test in order to test the

relationship between the variables.

A cross-sectional survey was used, as it facilitated data collection from a group of

participants pertaining to phenomena such as behaviour at a single point of time (Hoe

& Hoare, 2012; Roberts, 2012). The use of survey method is cost effective, quick and

convenient for both researcher and participants when primary data collection involves

a large sample (Roberts, 2012; Zikmund, 2007). The use of self-administered survey

questionnaires involving minimal interaction between the researcher and the research

participants was suitable as participants responded at their free will independent of the

researcher (Lincoln, Lynham & Guba, 2011; Zikmund, 2007). Therefore, survey

research was reliant on the participants‟ willingness to participate in the research. Due

importance was given to time and convenience to encourage participation (Roberts,

2012). These are the justifications behind the use of cross-sectional survey method in

this research, as the Bhutanese corporate participants were spread far across different

regions and the sample was quite large.

3.3 Sampling

Prior to the discussion on sampling, it is important to ascertain the target population in

the research process. It is helpful in defining appropriate sources from where the data

can be collected (Zikmund, 2007). The target population for the research included all

the corporate sector employees in Bhutan.


For valid representation of the corporate sector, stratified sampling was adopted in the

selection of eleven organisations. Stratified sampling is a process of dividing the

population into homogeneous subgroups. Accordingly, the corporate sector was

stratified into banking, manufacturing, hydropower, telecommunication, media,

service, and civil aviation sectors. The list of organisations was generated from two

reliable sources, i.e., Royal Security Exchange of Bhutan Ltd. (RSEBL) and Druk

Holding and Investment Ltd. (DHI). DHI is a holding company of the economically

important companies. Further, the reason for the selection of eleven organisations was

based on their strategic roles in the Bhutanese economy. These organisations have

larger investments and more qualified employees with a well-defined organisational

structure. The divisional units and departments are headed by senior managers with a

group of immediate subordinates. Such structural arrangements were expected to

facilitate superior–subordinates interaction and engagement in frequent decision

making.

In the next phase, non-probability convenience sampling was adopted for the selection

of organisational leaders who were available at the time of the survey period and who

could commit to participate. The number of immediate subordinates differed amongst

departments and organisations ranging from four to fifteen. Therefore, a simple

random sampling technique was adopted while selecting immediate subordinates.

Using Microsoft Excel functions, a list of random numbers were generated, which

were arranged in ascending order. Following the list of ascending numerical values,

the first 90% of the participants corresponding to the numbers were selected for the


survey. Finally, filled-in survey questionnaires from 72 organisational leaders and 362

subordinates were used for the research.

3.4 Participants

The participants in this research were the middle and the senior level managers and

their immediate subordinates in the corporate sector. Considering the different nature

of decisional problems, the top corporate executives were excluded for two reasons.

Firstly, given the nature of their job, they were often not available for participation in

the research; secondly, they were mostly involved in the long-term strategic decisions

that are less frequent when compared to senior and middle level managerial decision

making. Involvement of organisational members in the assessment of PDM practices

who lack adequate PDM experiences often lead to erroneous assessment (Smith &

Brannick, 1990). Therefore, an important criterion for the selection of both leaders

and subordinates was a minimum of six months of tenure in their current position.

The criterion of six months of employees‟ experience in the organisations was applied

to ensure that all participants have had fairly good experience of PDM in their

respective organisations. Previous studies (eg. Hodson, 1996; Rad &

Yarmohammadian, 2006) have also included an appropriate length of six months in

related organisational studies.


Demographic Variables

The demographic variables of the sample are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2.

Table 3.1: Demographic Variables (Leaders)

Number Percentage

Gender Males 60 83

Females 12 17

Age Below 25 0 0

26-35 23 32

36-45 32 45

46-55 16 22

Above 56 01 01

Level of Education

Higher Secondary School 0 0

Diploma 08 11

Bachelor‟s Degree 35 49

Master‟s Degree 28 39

PhD 01 01

The leaders‟ category in Table 3.1 shows more male participants than females. The

leaders‟ educational qualification was dominantly a Bachelor‟s Degree, followed by

Master‟s Degree, Diploma and only one leader with a PhD qualification. An average

number of years in the leadership position held by the leaders was approximately 10

years (M=9.71, SD=5.52).

As per the Labour Force Survey Report, 2013 conducted by the Department of Labour

(2015), Ministry of Labour and Human Resources, Bhutan, there were 16521

employees in the Bhutanese corporate sector. There were 12100 (73.24%) males and

4421(26.76%) females. Considering their educational qualification, only 2.5%

account for Master‟s Degree and PhD, 10.56 % with Bachelor‟s Degree, 0.66% with

diploma and equivalent courses, 17.41% with Higher Secondary School while the rest

hold a qualification below Middle Secondary school.


Therefore, in reference to these demographic variables of the Bhutanese corporate

sector, the sample for the current research is a reasonable representation of the

population.

Table 3.2: Demographic Variables (Subordinates)

Frequency (%)

Gender Males 219 60

Females 143 40

Age Below 25 46 12

26-35 210 58

36-45 68 19

46-55 32 09

Above 56 06 02

Level of Education

Higher Secondary School 102 28

Diploma 52 14

Bachelor‟s Degree 177 50

Master‟s Degree 31 08

PhD 0 0

In the Table 3.2 subordinates category, males outnumbered the females. The highest

percentage of the subordinates was with the educational qualification of a Bachelor‟s

Degree, followed by Higher Secondary School, Master‟s Degree and none with PhD.

They had spent approximately 9 years as an average number of years in their current

position (M=7.89, SD=2.23).

3.5 Data Collection

Prior to visiting the target organisations for survey, formal letters were sent to the

Chief Executive Officers (CEO) seeking approval for the survey as per approved

procedure of the QUT‟s Human Research Ethics Committee with the ethics approval


number: 1400000155. Setting the ground for the survey included identifying the

leaders and their immediate subordinates. This was done in consultation with the

Human Resource personnel or Administrative Officers to whom the CEOs had

delegated the task of assisting the researcher. The leaders who were available in their

respective organisations at the time of survey were included for participation in

survey. As participation by subordinates was contingent upon the participation of their

immediate leaders, subordinates whose immediate leaders were not the participants

were excluded from the survey. It was as per the research design to elicit data from

leaders and their immediate subordinates only. After the name list was finalised with

leaders and immediate subordinates, every questionnaire was coded with a two digit

number for leaders and four digit number for subordinates to identify participants,

which was kept confidential only to the researcher. For instance, 01 was for a leader

and 0101, 0102, 0103 and 0104 were the codes assigned to four immediate

subordinates for the first leader. The questionnaire was then enclosed in an envelope

bearing the same identifier code written in the inner cover of the envelope to facilitate

distribution of questionnaires by the researcher to the right participant. Upon

respondents‟ completion of filling in the questionnaires, they securely enclosed the

questionnaires in envelops and returned them to the researcher. In most cases, the

enclosed questionnaires were dropped at the reception of the organisation by the

participants and collected by the researcher later.

Response Rate

In the eleven selected organisations, 85 organisational leaders were approached to

participate in the survey and 73 returned the filled-in questionnaires. In the data


cleaning process, data in one questionnaire was found to have been incorrectly

entered and was excluded from the analysis. The response rate for the organisational

leaders was 84.71%. Of the total number of 536 questionnaires distributed to the

subordinates, 368 were returned. Four questionnaires had to be excluded from the

analysis due to incorrect data entry by their leaders and accordingly, the repose rate of

the subordinates was 67.54%. Considering the size of corporate organisations in

Bhutan, the aggregate response rate is fairly high and a good representative sample of

the corporate employees.

3.6 Instruments

Two sets of questionnaires for leaders and subordinates were administered separately.

This research used the questionnaires tested and applied by previous researchers that

were found highly reliable (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades & Drasgow, 2000; Mohr &

Wolfram, 2008; Parnell & Crandall, 2001; Yoo, Donthu & Lenartowicz, 2011).

Leaders

The questionnaire for the leaders was structured into four parts (see Appendix A for

full leaders‟ questionnaire): Part A was the profile of participants requiring details of

age, gender, educational qualification, and number of years in the leadership position;

Part B, on propensity for participative decision making (PPDM); Part C, on leaders‟

belief in the level of power distance; Part D (i), on self-assessment on leaders‟ verbal

participative behaviour and Part D (ii) self-assessment on leaders‟ consultative

participative behaviour. The details of the number of items and response scales are

provided below.


Measurement of Leaders’ PPDM (Part-B)

The survey instrument of Parnell and Crandall (2001) was used. This was originally

tested with 220 lower and middle levels managers of the two Fortune 500 companies

in the USA. Their Coefficient alpha was calculated at .92 indicative of high reliability.

The four-subscales (leaders‟ proclivity to share power with subordinates, leaders‟

commitment towards PDM implementation, leaders‟ belief in the enhancement of

organisational effectiveness through PDM and organisational culture of PDM

implementation) comprising 18 items, was administered in this research to explore the

organisational leaders‟ PPDM. Examples of the measuring items were: “Participative

decision making gives too much power to the subordinates”, “Participative decision

making is an effective communication tool”, “My boss frequently solicits my

participation in his or her decision” and “Participation works in some cases, but most

of the time the manager should make the decision based on his or her expertise and

information”. The original 6-point Likert scale was used, where every item was

measured from a strong disagreement to a strong agreement: 1 (strongly disagree) to 6

(strongly agree).

Instrument for the Measurement of Power Distance (Part-C)

For the measurement of leaders‟ belief in the level of power distance, the instrument

tested by Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowicz (2011) was used in the present research with

original measurement scale. Yoo, Donthu and Lenartowicz (2011) developed a scale

to assess Hofstede‟s (1984b, 2001) cultural dimensions at the individual level which

are referred to as Individual Cultural Values Scale (CVSCALE). Originally, the

power distance questions were administered to 196 participants in the US on a 5-point


Likert scale anchored as 1=“strongly disagree‟ to 5=“strongly agree”. Examples of

measuring items include: “People in higher positions should make decisions without

consulting the people in lower positions” and “People in lower positions should not

disagree with decisions made by the people in higher positions”. When Yoo, Donthu

and Lenartowicz (2011) applied the instrument in a comparative study between two

samples of American adults and Korean adults, the Cronbach alpha value was .91

(M=2.10, SD=0.93) and .79 (M=2.00, SD=0.58) respectively. It indicates that the

instrument is reliable and can be applied in different cultural context.

Measurement of Leaders’ Verbal Participative Behaviour [Part D (i)]

A six-item instrument used to measure the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour was

tested by Mohr and Wolfram (2008) with a reliability of 0.81 (M=3.94, SD=0.61).

The items were measured on a five-point rating scale from 1(strongly disagree) to 5

(strongly agree). The six-item measuring instrument was reworded to facilitate self-

assessment of verbal participative behaviour by leaders and the items were: “I ask for

the views of my subordinates”, “I encourage subordinates to speak up about matters

that are important to them”, “I precisely note subordinate‟s contribution”, “I give

opportunities for the subordinates to ask questions”, “I constructively criticise

subordinates” and “I willingly explain when subordinates ask”.

Kitchenham and Pfleeger (2002) suggest that rewording of items in questionnaires is

important but often risks changing the meaning of the item. In the current research

study, rewording of items were carried out to suit to the perspectives of either leaders


or subordinates. The reworded items were read and compared with the original items

to ensure that meanings were not changed.

Instrument for the Measurement of Leaders’ Consultative Participative

Behaviour [Part D (ii)]

For the self-assessment of the leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour, a six-item

five-point scale instrument developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000)

was used in the present study. The scale ranged from 1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly

agree. Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000) found the instrument reliable with

a Cronbach alpha value of 0.86 (M=3.75, SD=0.75). The measuring items were: “I

encourage work group members to express ideas/suggestions”, “I listen to the work

group‟s ideas and suggestions”, “I use work group‟s suggestions to make decisions

that affect us”, “I give all work group members a chance to voice their opinions”, “I

consider the work group‟s ideas when I disagree with some subordinates” and “I

make decisions that are made based on my own ideas”.

Subordinates

The questionnaire for the subordinates was structured into three parts (see Appendix

B for full subordinates‟ questionnaire): Part A was the profile of participants requiring

details of age, gender, educational qualification, and number of years in their current

position. Part B pertained to the assessment of leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour

and Part C on the assessment of leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour. The

number of items and response scale remained same as for the leaders.


Subordinates’ Measurement Instrument of Leaders’ Verbal Participative

Behaviour

Leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour was measured by a six-item instrument

developed by Mohr and Wolfram (2008). It was the same instrument used for the

leaders but reworded to enable the subordinates to assess their leaders‟ verbal

participative behaviour from their perspective. The items were: “My boss asks for the

views of his/her subordinates”, “My boss encourages me to speak up about matters

that are important to me”, “My boss precisely notes my contribution”, “My boss gives

me opportunities to ask questions “, “My boss constructively criticises me” and “My

boss willingly explains when I ask”.

Subordinates’ Measurement Instrument of Leaders’ Consultative Participative

Behaviour

For the measurement of leaders‟ consultative participative behaviour, the six-item

five-point scale instrument developed by Arnold, Arad, Rhoades and Drasgow (2000)

was used. The same instrument used for the leaders was reworded for the

subordinates. The measuring items were: “My boss encourages work group members

to express ideas/suggestions”, “My boss listens to work group‟s ideas and

suggestions”, “My boss uses work group‟s suggestions to make decisions that affect

us”, “My boss gives all work group members a chance to voice our opinions”, “My

boss considers work group‟s ideas when he/she disagrees with some of us” and “My

boss makes decisions that are based only on his/her own ideas”.

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results 66

Chapter 4: Analysis and Results

4.1 Introduction

The purpose of this chapter is to present data analysis and results. The chapter

commences with a discussion on the preparation of data which includes testing the

underlying assumptions for Pearson product-moment correlation, multiple linear

regression, and independent samples t-tests. SPSS version 21 was used for the

statistical analysis. The chapter also highlights the reliability of the instruments used

in a different context and justifies adaptations with statistical evidences and reasoning.

The discussion of the results is presented in the following chapter.

4.2 Assumptions and Parametric Tests

The data for the multiple linear regression analysis requires the fulfilment of certain

assumptions such as random and independent selected sample, normally distributed

data, residual analysis and homoscedasticity of the data (Cohen, 2003; Osborne &

Waters, 2002). Since normality assumption is indispensable in many parametric

statistical methods (Noughabi & Arghami, 2013), the normality of the data was tested

by calculating the z-scores of skewness and kurtosis statistics. The z-scores within ±

1.96 confirmed the normality of the dataset. The normality of the data was further

confirmed with visual inspection of Q-Q plots, histograms and box-plots. The

decision of the normality of data is also guided by the sample size. If the sample size

is small (n<100) in a correlational study, the z-scores for Skewness and Kurtosis

within the range of ± 1.96 is accepted as normally distributed. Further, the central


limit theorem also accepts the assumption of normality of a dataset if a sample size is

at least 30. The given dataset with 72 organisational leaders and 364 subordinates

fulfilled the condition of normality. For the homoscedasticity (homogeneity of

variance), a test was conducted using One Way ANOVA and the Levene‟s statistics.

The test showed that variances were not significant from each other fulfilling the

criteria of homoscedasticity for parametric tests (Kuye & Sulaiman, 2011).

4.3 Adaptation of Scale

The six-item organisational culture subscale of PPDM had a Cronbach‟s alpha of .62

and the table of total–item statistics indicated that with the deletion of the fourth item,

„I am free to make decisions as I wish in my organisation‟, the overall reliability of

the subscale marginally improved to the extent of .64 as shown in Table 4.1. Based on

the statistical evidence, the items were revisited. The fourth item warranted deletion

because it purported to elicit views from the leaders as an individual discerning the

principle of participative decision making as compared to other items in the subscale.

Accordingly, the fourth item was deleted. The three-item power sharing subscale had

Cronbach‟s alpha of .570 but deletion of any of the remaining items indicated no

substantial improvement. The items were revisited and found coherent to one another.

With these adaptations, the original scale was retained and alpha derived was

considered appropriate for the study as in the case of a similar study conducted by

Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin and Langford (2003). One subscale of the PPDM i.e.,

„organisational commitment‟ had a poor reliability ( =.371) and how this was

addressed is discussed in the next section under 4.4 Factor Analysis.


Table 4.1: Cronbach’s Alphas and Factor Loadings of the PPDM Subscales

Items Alpha

Factor

Loadings

PPDM: Organisational Culture (n=72) .641

Organisational Culture1

.472

Organisational Culture2 .485




PPDM: Organisational Effectiveness (n=72) .869

Organisational Effectiveness on Decision Quality1

.660

Organisational Effectiveness on Decision Quality2 .896

Organisational Effectiveness on Productivity .876

Organisational Effectiveness on Subordinate Self-efficacy .776

Organisational Effectiveness on Communication .885

Organisational Effectiveness on Positive Relationship .793

PPDM: Power Sharing (n=72) .570

Power: Degree of Mutual Trust

.736

Power: Transfer of Power .708

Power: Information Dissemination .547 n=number of respondents

Table 4.1 presents Cronbach‟s alpha values and the factor loadings of the three

subscales of PPDM from the modified analyses. Cronbach‟s alpha value of .6 or .7 is

the desired threshold of reliability test (Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003).

However, Cronbach‟s alpha value of .5 is accepted when the instruments are

administered to cross-cultural audiences (Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003;

Peng, Lu, Shenkar & Wang, 2001). Thus, the Cronbach‟s alpha value of power

sharing that was slightly lower than .6 (as shown in Table 4.1) still fulfills the

reliability condition.


In addition to the PPDM subscales, an individual leader‟s belief in the level of power

distance and the two dependent variables were tested for reliability as shown in Table

4.2. Power distance with the Cronbach‟s alpha .681 was retained as the items read

consistently and the test did not indicate the necessity of any further action.

Pertaining to the dependent variable, verbal participative behaviour, the test indicated

that the deletion of the fifth item would improve the reliability of the subscale from

.858 to .912. The items were revisited and the fifth item, „I constructively criticise

subordinates‟ did not read consistently with the other five items of the verbal

participative behaviour. In a similar vein, the test indicated that the deletion of the

sixth item in consultative participative behaviour variable would improve the alpha

value. The item, „I make decisions that are based only on my own ideas‟, did not bear

compatibility with the remaining five items because all other items relate to

involvement of subordinates in group for participative decision making.


Table 4.2: Cronbach’s Alphas and Factor Loadings of Power Distance and

Dependent Variables

Items Alpha Factor

Loadings

Power Distance (n=72) .681

Individual Belief in Power Distance1 .885





Verbal Participative Behaviour (n=72) .912

Verbal Participative Behaviour1 .846





Consultative Participative (n=72) .907

Consultative Participative Behaviour 1 .870





n=number of respondents

4.4 Factor Analysis

The four subscales of PPDM (organisational commitment, organisational culture,

organisational effectiveness and power sharing) were factor analysed with principal

component extraction method in order to examine the properties of the scales. The

results from the factor analysis in conjunction with the Cronbach alpha analysis were

considered in order to make final decisions on scale adaptation. The eighteen-item

subscales were forced onto a four-factor solution with Oblimin Kaiser Normalisation

rotations in order to examine the factor loadings of all items. All the items of the


organisational effectiveness and power sharing loaded separately from each other onto

their respective factors with loadings from .547 to .896. The organisational

commitment items Com1 and Com2 loaded onto the organisational effectiveness

factor while the third item Com3 loaded onto the fourth power sharing factor.

Therefore, organisational commitment in totality was removed due to poor reliability

and factor cross-loadings. The other three subscales of the PPDM (i.e., organisational

culture, organisational effectiveness and power sharing) accounted for 59.31% of the

total variance explained.

The factor solutions of the two dependent variables loaded well with the exception of

two items. Firstly, the fifth item of verbal participative behaviour had a weak factor

loading of .096 and cross-loaded onto the power distance factor with .297. The item

was also found inconsistent with other items, affecting the reliability, and was deleted

from further analysis. Secondly, the sixth item in consultative participative behaviour

cross-loaded onto other factors and when forced onto a single un-rotated factor

solution, the item weakly loaded with .268. The alpha value of consultative

participative behaviour also improved upon the removal of the item (as was discussed

above) and accordingly it was discarded.

In summary, the research study by Parnell, Shwiff Yalin and Langford (2003)

indicates that factor loading of .302 with no significant cross-loadings is acceptable to

proceed for further statistical analysis. The adapted PPDM subscales in the current

research surpassed the minimum acceptable factor loading and alpha values.


Table 4.3 presents a summary of the bivariate correlations amongst the variables with

means and standard deviations. However, it is worth focusing on the correlation of

independent variables with the dependent variables. Firstly, power distance was

negatively correlated with verbal participative behaviour and consultative

participative behaviour. Secondly, PPDM significantly correlated with verbal

participative behaviour and not with consultative participative behaviour. PPDM was

also significantly correlated with all three subscales of organisational culture,

organisational effectiveness, and power sharing. These relationships will be

investigated further in the following hypotheses testing section.


Table 4.3: Bivariate Correlational Table

Variables Mean SD Org.

Culture

Org.

Effect.

Power

Sharing

Power

Distance

Verbal

Behaviour

Consultative

Behaviour

PPDM

Organisational

Culture 4.12 .76 1.00

Organisational

Effectiveness 4.70 .96 .36** 1.00

Power Sharing 3.15 .94 .09 .02 1.00

Power Distance 2.02 .70 .17 -.03 .33** 1.00

Verbal Behaviour 5.29 .63 .27* .31** .09 -.26* 1.00

Consultative

Behaviour 4.36 .47 .12 .14 .06 -.21 .67**

1.00

PPDM 3.90 .59 .68** .72** .59** .23 .34** .16 1.00

Leaders‟ Age 2.93 .78 .17 -.09 -.06 .05 -.07 -.06 -.01

**. Correlation is significant at p < 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at p< 0.05 level (2-tailed)


4.5 Hypotheses Testing

Hypotheses were tested with multiple regression analysis, independent samples t-test

and Pearson correlation.

4.5.1 Multiple Regression Analysis

Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to examine the predictability of the

independent variables of leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance in the variance of

the dependent variables i.e., verbal participative behaviour and consultative

participative behaviour. The regression analyses were sequenced in the following

order:

Leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with the leaders‟ self-assessed

verbal participative behaviour.

Leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with the leaders‟ self-assessed


PPDM subscales with leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal participative

behaviour.

PPDM subscales with leaders‟ self-assessment of consultative participative

behaviour.


Table 4.4: Leaders’ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders’ Verbal


a) Model Summary

Model R R2 Adjusted R

2

Std. Error of the

Estimate

.489a .240 .206 .557

a. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance

b. Dependent Variable: Verbal Participative Behaviour

b) ANOVA

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 6.649 3 2.216 1.140 .000b

Residual 21.108 68 .310

Total 27.758 71 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour

b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance

c) Coefficients

Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

Model B Std.

Error

Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 4.247 .528 8.050 .000

Age of Leaders - .037 .085 -.046 -.432 .667

PPDM .451 .116 .422 3.878 .000

Power Distance -.318 .097 -.357 -3.278 .002

a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour

b. Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance


Table 4.5: Leaders’ Age, PPDM and Power Distance with the Leaders’

Consultative Participative Behaviour

a) Model Summary


2

Std. Error of the

Estimate

. 303a .092 .052 .458

a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance

b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour.

b) ANOVA

a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Behaviour.

b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Age, PPDM, Power Distance

c) Coefficients

Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

Model

B

Std. Error

Beta

T

Sig.

(Constant)

4.098

.434

9.432

.000

Age of Leaders -.029 .070 -.047 -.406 .686

PPDM .175 .096 .217 1.824 .073

Power Distance -.175 .080 -.259 -2.176 .033 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self- Assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour.

These statistical results in reference to Table 4.4 and Table 4.5 are used to test the

hypotheses of the study.

Hypothesis 1

H1: Younger leaders will engage in higher level of verbal and consultative

participative behaviours than older leaders.


Regression 1.444 3 .481 2.287 .086b

Residual 14.311 68 .210

Total 15.755 71


In the first hypothesis, leaders‟ age was used to predict the variability in verbal

participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. The result indicated

that age did not significantly predict the variability in the leaders‟ participative

behaviour. Therefore, the finding did not support hypothesis 1.

Hypothesis 2

H2: Leaders with a higher level of PPDM will engage in more verbal and

consultative participative behaviours.

PPDM was found to be a significant predictor of verbal participative behaviour

indicating a positive relationship, but PPDM was not a significant predictor of

consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis was

partially supported and the null hypothesis was rejected.

Hypothesis 3

H3: Leaders who believe in high level of power distance will exhibit lower

level of verbal and consultative participative behaviours.

Power distance was a negative and significant predictor of verbal participative

behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, hypothesis 3 was

supported.


Table 4.6: PPDM Subscales with Leaders’ Self-assessment of Verbal


a) Model Summary


2

Std. Error of the

Estimate

. 362a .131 .093 .596

a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing

b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.

b) ANOVA

a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.

b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing

c) Coefficients

Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) 3.786 .494 7.656 .001

Org. Culture .149 .101 .180 1.478 .144

Org. Effectiveness .156 .079 .241 1.985 .051

Power Sharing .051 .076 .076 .673 .503 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Verbal Participative Behaviour.

Further the regression analysis was conducted at PPDM subscales level to investigate

the predictability of each subscale in the variability of verbal participative behaviour.

Of the three subscales, only organisational effectiveness was found to significantly

and positively predict the variability in the verbal participative behaviour.


Regression 3.633 3 1.211 3.413 .022b

Residual 24.125 68 .355

Total 27.758 71


Table 4.7: PPDM Subscales with Leaders’ Self-assessment of Consultative


a) Model Summary


2

Std. Error of the

Estimate

. 163a .026 -.017 .475

a. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing

b. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour

b) ANOVA

a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour

b. Predictors: (Constant), Predictors: (Constant), Org. Culture, Org. Effectiveness and Power Sharing

c) Coefficients

Unstandardised

Coefficients

Standardised

Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

(Constant)

3.839

.394

9.739

.000

Org. Culture .047 .080 .075 .586 .560

Org. Effectiveness .052 .063 .107 .834 .407

Power Sharing .025 .060 .050 .415 .679 a. Dependent Variable: Leaders‟ Self-assessment of Consultative Participative Behaviour

In the regression analysis on PPDM subscales in relation to consultative participative

behaviour, none of the PPDM subscales accounted for the variability in consultative

participative behaviour.


Regression .416 3 .139 .615 .608b

Residual 15.339 68 .226

Total 15.755 71


Difference between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment

H4: Leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal and consultative participative

behaviours differ from the assessment of his/her immediate

subordinates.

To test hypothesis 4, leaders‟ self-assessment of participative behaviour and

assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour by subordinates are compared.

Bivariate correlations and independent samples t-test were applied for comparison.

Table 4.8: Bivariate Correlations between the Leaders’ and Subordinates’

Assessments

To examine the overall correlation between the assessment of the leaders and the

subordinates on the two dependent variables, bivariate Pearson correlational analysis

was conducted. An individual leader‟s self-assessment of verbal participative

behaviour and consultative participative behaviour were correlated with the average

values of immediate subordinates‟ assessment. A total of 72 leaders were correlated

with 72 groups of subordinates. The results were not significant as shown in Table

4.8. On the other hand, the leaders‟ self-assessment of verbal participative behaviour

Variables Mean SD (SV) (SC) (LV) (LC)

Subordinate‟s Assessment of Verbal

Participative Behaviour (SV) 4.36 1.26 1.00

Subordinate‟s Assessment of Consultative

Participative Behaviour (SC) 3.66 0.92 .82**

1.00

Leaders‟ Self-Assessment of Verbal

Participative Behaviour (LV) 5.29 .63 -.07 -.02 1.00

Leaders‟ Self-Assessment of Consultative

Participative Behaviour (LC) 4.36 .47 -.15 -.21 .70** 1.00 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


with consultative participative behaviour were significantly and positively correlated.

Similarly, the correlation between the subordinates‟ assessment of leaders‟ verbal

participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour was significant.

Further, to examine the difference between leaders‟ self-assessment and subordinates‟

assessment based on the two dependent variables i.e., verbal and consultative

participative behaviours, independent samples t-test was conducted. The leaders‟

(M=5.29, SD=.63) self-assessment and the assessment by immediate subordinates

(M=4.41, SD=1.20) on verbal participative behaviour indicated a significant

difference, t (193.73) = 9.16, p=.000), two tailed. Again when the leaders (M=4.36,

SD=.47) self-assessment and the assessment by immediate subordinates (M=3.69,

SD=.92) on consultative participative behaviour was examined, the result of

independent sample t-test indicated significant difference, t (197.05) = 9.04, p=.000),

two tailed. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is supported.

4.6 Gender and the Participative Behaviour

Since both males and females participated in the research from the both groups of

leaders and subordinates, it was important to examine whether males and females

differ in their assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour. To examine differences

in the assessment of verbal participative behaviour and consultative behaviours based

on gender amongst the leaders, an independent samples t-test was conducted. The

preliminary assumption of normality was not violated as the Levene‟s test was non-

significant in the assessment of verbal participative behaviour by male leaders


(M=5.33, SD=.63) and female leaders (M=5.13, SD=.57). Thus, equal variances are

assumed. The test showed no significant difference, t (16.84) = 1.05, p=16.84), two

tailed. Similarly, the difference between male leaders (M=4.37, SD=.48) and female

leaders (M=4.30, SD=.45) in relation to their assessment of consultative behaviour

was non-significant, t (16.45) = .49, p=16.45), two tailed. Although, the number of

female leaders is low when compared to male leaders, at an average, female leaders

did not differ in their assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour from the male

leaders. Consequently, no significant difference was found between the two samples.

The gender difference amongst the subordinates was also examined in relation to the

two dependent variables. The normality assumption was not violated as the Levene‟s

test was non-significant. Accordingly, equal variances are assumed. In the assessment

of verbal participative behaviour, male subordinates (M=4.39, SD=1.23) and female

subordinates (M=4.42, SD=1.16) did not show significant difference, t (316.43) =-.23,

p=.822), two tailed. In their assessment of the leaders‟ consultative participative

behaviour, male subordinates (M=3.67, SD=.94) and female subordinates (M=3.37,

SD=.89) did not show significant difference t (316.67) = -.67, p=.504), two tailed.

Therefore, it was concluded that males and females did not differ in their assessment

of the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.

Similarly, independent samples t-test did not show significant difference between

males and females leaders in terms of their views on PPDM subscales: organisational

culture, organisational effectiveness and power sharing.

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion 83

Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion

5.1 Introduction

The chapter discusses of the findings of this research study. In the first part of the

chapter, the discussion focuses on the major findings of the research relating to the

research objectives and hypotheses. The research investigated the relationship

between leaders‟ age, PPDM and power distance with leaders‟ participative behaviour.

In the second part, important theoretical contributions are discussed. This section

highlights the operationalisation of the PPDM model and measuring verbal

participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour as sub-dimensions of

the dependent variable: PDM. The third part of the chapter presents practical

implications in the context of an emerging economy, emphasising an approach to HR

development for the implementation of PDM. Finally the chapter closes with the

research limitations and directions for future research.

5.2 An Overview of the Findings

The overall research findings show that the independent variables: PPDM and leaders‟

belief in the level of power distance, accounted for more variance in verbal

participative behaviour than in consultative participative behaviour. The key findings

on the hypothesised relationships between the variables in this research are illustrated

in the Figure 5.1. The arrows with darker lines indicate significant relationships

between the variables and dotted lines indicate non significant relationship. The


nature of each relationship is indicated with mathematical notations of (+) for positive

relationship and (-) for negative relationship.

Figure 5.1 Relationship between the variables

The leaders‟ age did not impact either of the dependent variables i.e., verbal

participative behaviour or consultative participative behaviour. PPDM was found to

significantly influence leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour. However, when PPDM

was examined at the three subscale levels i.e., organisational culture, organisational

effectiveness and power sharing, organisational effectiveness was the most influential

in the variability of verbal participative behaviour. Pertaining to power distance, the

study found that leaders who believed in a higher level of power distance tend to

exhibit a lower level of both verbal participative behaviour and consultative

participative behaviour. The relationships between these variables are discussed under

section 5.3 and 5.4 in conjunction with the respective hypotheses.

Leaders‟ Age

PPDM

Power Distance

Verbal

Participative

Behaviour

Consultative

Participative

Behaviour

(+)

(-)

(-)


5.3 Major Findings

Verbal Participative Behaviour and Consultative Participative Behaviour

The first objective of the research study was to examine whether organisational

leaders engage in specific participative behaviour within the implementation of PDM

in corporate organisations in emerging economies. Interestingly, the research revealed

that leaders‟ PPDM and power distance significantly predicted verbal participative

behaviour than consultative participative behaviour. Plausible reasons are examined

supporting this finding below.

Firstly, employee behavioural patterns and practices in organisations draw influence

from macro-environmental factors such as societal culture (Stamper & Fitzsimmons,

2014). Informal two-way leader-subordinate verbal participation on work-related

matters (Wilkinson, Townsend, & Burgess, 2013) depicts an influence of societal

culture in the Bhutanese corporate context. Culturally, the Bhutanese maintain strong

social bonds at an individual level which could influence leaders having more

engagement in verbal participative behaviour. The Bhutanese are sensitive to the

feelings of others and censor contradictory issues in formal meetings. As a result,

employees feel more comfortable to discuss matters informally and verbally, rather

than in formal group meetings (Wilkinson, Townsend, & Burgess, 2013).

Consequently, when the organisational practice of verbal participation is dominant as

an important facet of PDM, leaders would tend to engage more in such behaviour.


Secondly, the growing corporate sector in Bhutan is at a stage of implementing

corporate practices such as PDM. In making a transition from public to corporate, it

takes time to shed old bureaucratic habits and inculcate new corporate practices of

collective decision making. Until the corporate sector matures and PDM practices

become well established, the leaders may continue to engage more in verbal

participative behaviour than consultative participative bahaviour.

Thirdly, verbal participative behaviour can be seen in the context of a dyadic

interaction between a leader and a subordinate enabling leader to engage in one on

one conversation gaining a deeper understanding of individual subordinate‟s inputs to

inform decisions (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008; Yukl, 2002). Subordinates will feel that

leaders give due importance and consideration for their inputs. For example, when

leaders ask subordinates for their opinion, leaders are conveying their respect for their

subordinates‟ expertise (Mohr & Wolfram, 2008). Subordinates will, therefore, feel

motivated to accept and practice PDM in the organisations. Verbal participative

behaviour also promotes an understanding of leaders-subordinate collective effort

towards the achievement of common goals, and reinforces their relationship.

On the other hand, consultative participative behaviour requires leaders to engage

with a group of subordinates in a decision making process, for example, a formal

meeting at the work group level, departmental or organisational level (Wilkinson,

Townsend & Burgess, 2013). Formal consultative participative decision making

alienates leaders-subordinate connectivity at the individual level as leaders interact at


a group level. Generally, employees have a tendency to avoid formal PDM

arrangements such as in groups (Townsend, Wilkinson & Burges, 2013). Bhutanese

leaders in corporate sector might find it difficult and in contradiction to their cultural

ways to engage in consultative participative behaviour: a formal form of PDM

arrangement.

The small size of organisations in Bhutan also means that leaders will have few

formal reports and be more inclined to use informal forms of communications at an

individual level. Consequently, within the relationship between the leaders and the

subordinates, participative decision making, takes place more at an individual and

informal level. Consultative participative behaviour in groups was not a feature of

these organisational leaders‟ participative behaviour. Therefore, in the context of the

Bhutanese corporate sector, small size of the organisations is likely to have

contributed to the use of more informal forms of communication.

Propensity to Participate in Decision Making (PPDM)

Hypothesis 2 proposed that leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative decision

making will result in leaders being more involved in participative behaviour. The

findings revealed a partial support for this hypothesis with PPDM significantly and

positively relating to verbal participative behaviour but not with consultative

participative behaviour.


The relationship between the variables measured at the subscale level is illustrated

below in Figure 5.2 based on a multiple regression analysis.

Figure 5.2 Relationships between PPDM subscales and participative behaviour

The arrows with dotted lines indicate no significant relationship; the arrow with a

darker line indicates a significant and positive relationship shown with the (+)

notation between the variables. Amongst the three PPDM subscales, only

organisational effectiveness was found to strongly predict leaders‟ engagement in

verbal participative behaviour. Interestingly none of the subscales predicted

consultative participative behaviour. This finding does not support synergy amongst

the subscales in relation to participative behaviour. The proponents of the PPDM

model, Parnell and Crandall (2001), state that PPDM subscales would operate

synergistically but with some possible variations due to other organisational and

personal variables. The finding here deviates from the proposed synergistic view

showing that organisational culture and power sharing did not significantly predict

both verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.

Organisational

Culture

Organisational

Effectiveness

Power Sharing

Verbal

Participative

Behaviour

Consultative

Participative

Behaviour

(+)


Organisational effectiveness was measured in terms of quality decisions, resolution of

differences amongst members, feeling of self-worth and effective communication

(Parnell & Crandall, 2001). The significant relationship between organisational

effectiveness and verbal participative behaviour indicates that the leaders who

believed in improving organisational effectiveness through participative decision

making are more likely to engage in verbal participative behaviour.

The core beliefs underpinning leadership behaviour explain certain dominant

initiatives (Sweeney & Fry, 2012). Leaders who strongly believe in the enhancement

of organisational effectiveness will initiate appropriate internal organisational

functions to improve organisational effectiveness (Muo & Oghojafor, 2012).

This aligns with the Bhutanese corporate sector mandate of highly efficient and

productive organisations. Leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour involves timely

information sharing with the subordinates and discussing issues pertaining to specific

work operation. Subordinates are clear about their task and jobs leading to timely

completion of the job contributing to the organisational effectiveness.

The PPDM subscale of organisational culture showed a low positive relation with

verbal participative behaviour. Organisational culture in the current research context is

measured based on prevailing PDM practices in organisations for the achievement of

shared organisational goals. The subordinates are viewed as informed and

experienced, and willing to participate in the organisational decision making.


However, the fact that organisational culture showed a low positive relation with

leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour could be attributed to the Bhutanese corporate

organisations undergoing a process of establishing participative structures and

practices.

Participative organisational culture is promoted through empowerment of

subordinates to participate in decision making with open and egalitarian ways of

interacting with various stakeholders (Spreitzer, 2007). Perhaps at this juncture of the

Bhutanese corporate sector development, participative organisational culture is at a

formative stage and the employees are acclimatising to PDM in practice. The low

positive relation correlation between organisational culture and verbal participative

behaviour indicate that organisational culture could support leaders‟ engagement in

participative behaviour in the organisations.

Power Sharing

The next PPDM subscale, leaders‟ willingness to share decisional power with

subordinates, was examined as a predictor of leaders‟ participative behaviour. Leaders

reported engagement in verbal participative behaviour, but they show a low level of

willingness to share decisional power with their subordinates. The power sharing

subscale accepts the notion that leaders‟ willingness to engage in participative

behaviour is linked to his/her belief that participation will lead to a loss of decisional

power (Parnell, Koseoglu & Dent, 2012). Consequently, leaders would be involved in

low power sharing with subordinates.


A probable reason for the low levels of leaders‟ belief in power sharing is that leaders

could be apprehensive to share information with subordinates because of the concern

that subordinates might use it for personal gains (Al-Yahya, 2008). Leaders‟

willingness to share information requires a trust in subordinates that they will use

information for the best interest of the collective decision. Therefore, the low level of

trust amongst Bhutanese corporate leaders in sharing confidential information with

their subordinates resulted in non significant relationship between power sharing and

verbal participative behaviour.

Power Distance

This research found that leaders‟ belief in a level of power distance was inversely

related to verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour. This

finding support hypothesis 3 and is consistent with the findings of earlier studies (Al-

Yahya, 2009; Ghosh, 2011; Khatri, 2009; Koc, 2013; Humborstad, Humborstad,

Whitfield & Perry, 2008). Where there is a low level of power distance, leaders-

subordinate communication and participation in decision making is more frequent.

Bhutanese corporate leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative behaviour is driven

by their belief in maintaining a low level power distance. This confirms the recent

finding of Ugyel (2013) that despite Bhutan being historically a hierarchical society,

power distance is moderately low.


Age

The level of participative behaviour of the younger corporate leaders did not

significantly differ from the older corporate leaders. This resulted in showing no

difference between the younger and the older leaders in their engagement in

participative behaviours. This finding challenges the initial assumption of the research

i.e., the younger leaders would be more involved in participative behaviour than the

older leaders.

Better education and aspirations to modernise may explain the non significance of age

(Sung, 2001) and development of a more of egalitarian culture (Ingersoll-Dayton &

Saengtienchai, 1999; Sung, 2001). Such a change in the socio-cultural environment is

likely to influence organisational practices. Bhutan is no exception, given the

increasing exposure of corporate leaders to international education and organisational

cultures and practices (Mathou, 1999). The Bhutanese corporate leaders in general

could be driven by the principles of participative leadership which resulted in no

significant difference between the younger and the older Bhutanese corporate leaders

in their participative behaviour. The finding supports a recent study conducted in

Bosnia where age does not predict a leaders‟ participative behaviour (Bogdanic,

2012). Therefore, the research finding did not support hypothesis 1 which relates age

with the leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative

behavior.


Difference between Leaders’ Self-assessment and Subordinates’ Assessment

The next area of investigation in this research study is whether the subordinates‟

assessment of leaders‟ participative behaviour is different from that of the leaders‟

self-assessment. When the leaders‟ self-assessment was compared with the

subordinates‟ assessment, there was a significant difference between the two,

supporting hypothesis 4. This finding is consistent with the earlier study of Atwater,

Roush, and Fischthal (1995), that leaders rated themselves high on their participative

behaviour while their immediate subordinates rated them lower.

The theory of self-esteem could explain why leaders rate themselves higher (Cast &

Burke, 2002). The premise of the theory asserts that an individual evaluates

himself/herself with an overall positive impression because of the belief of being a

competent and worthy person (Cooper & Johnson, 2014). Self-esteem theory has two

dimensions: “The competence dimension (efficacy-based self-esteem) refers to the

degree to which people see themselves as capable and efficacious. The worth

dimension (worth-based self-esteem) refers to the degree to which individuals feel

they are persons of value” (Cast & Burke, 2002, p.1042). In particular, the

competence dimension of self-esteem theory could explain why leaders see

themselves as capable of initiating and implementing participative decision making.

Their positive personal judgement could arise from their belief in their capability and

efficacy to engage in participative decision making behaviour (Cast & Burke, 2002).


On the other hand, subordinates‟ low rating of their leaders‟ participative behaviour is

subject to a number of specific factors. For example, when subordinates‟ participation

in decision making is constrained by their job responsibilities, they may get the

impression that the leaders are not participative. The lack of opportunity for the

subordinates to participate may result in them providing an unrealistically low rating

of their leaders‟ participative behaviour (Yammarino & Dubinsky, 1992).

Finally, despite leaders‟ indication of willingness to participate in decision making, in

reality they might not be actually engaging in participative behaviours. This could

result in the low ratings by their immediate subordinates. For example, in a large–

scale study of managers in fourteen countries including the US, Wood (1985) found

that the managers who whole-heartedly endorsed the idea of participative decision

making did not behave in a way that facilitated leaders‟ PDM. Leaders‟ endorsement

of engaging in PDM but not necessarily aligning behaviour with their belief and

commitment in PDM practice might be the case with some of the Bhutanese corporate

leaders. Therefore, they are rated lower in participative behaviour by their

subordinates.

5.4 Related Findings

In addition to the main findings regarding the research objectives and hypotheses,

there are important findings that were not hypothesised, which contribute to our

understanding of leaders‟ participative behaviour in PDM. The findings draw

attention to the effect of gender and tenure on participative behaviour.


Gender and Tenure

Gender is an important demographic variable in the study of PDM. For example, the

earlier findings of Parnell and Crandall (2001) show that male and female

organisational leaders rated differently on the PPDM scales. Later, Parnell, Koseoglu,

and Dent (2012) similarly conclude that gender is influential on the PPDM

dimensions. However, in contrast to these earlier findings, the present study found no

difference between male and female leaders in terms of their views on organisational

culture, organisational effectiveness and decisional power sharing. No significant

difference was found between male and female leaders based on the two dependent

variables of verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative behaviour.

There was also no difference between male and female subordinates in the assessment

of their leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative

behaviour.

This finding specifically pertaining to the organisational context of participative

decision making could support the view that there is no gender difference and is not a

strong determinant of organisational behaviour in Bhutan. This view is supported by

the findings in the Gender Pilot Study in 2001 (Planning Commission/UN Gender

Study, 2001), where Bhutan is reported to have gender equality in socio-economic

matters. It is also consistent with the finding of Bogdanic (2012) where gender does

not influence engagement in participative behaviour and assessment of participative

behaviour.


In addition, the tenure of both the leaders and the subordinates did not show a

relationship with either of the dependent variables of verbal participative behaviour

and consultative participative behaviour. Therefore, it can be concluded that tenure

did not influence participative behaviour of organisational leaders.

5.5 Theoretical Contributions

The empirical findings of the research make important theoretical contributions to the

literature of leaders‟ participative behaviour. Firstly, the present research has extended

and operationalised the PPDM model developed by Parnell and Crandall (2001) by

taking into account the behavioural dimensions that make up our understanding of

PPDM as shown in Figure 5.3.


Construct Variables Desired Outcome

Figure 5.3 PPDM model

Adapted from Rethinking participative decision making - A refinement of the

propensity for participative decision making scale by J.A., Parnell, & W. Crandall,

(2001), Personnel Review, 30(5-6), 523-535

Since the initial conceptualisation of the PPDM model by Parnell and Bell (1994) and

subsequent refinement by Parnell and Crandall (2001), the proposed relationship

between the subscales and engagement in participative behaviour remained to be

empirically examined. The present research specifically examined the relationship

between the variables measured by the subscales to verbal participative behaviour and


The research findings contributes not only to our understanding that PPDM influences

leaders to engage in verbal participative behaviour, but that amongst the three

Organisational Dimension

Organisational effectiveness

Organisational culture

Individual Variables

Power

PPDM

Participative

Decision Making

Consultative

Participative

Behaviour

Verbal

Participative

Behaviour


subscales, organisational effectiveness and organisational culture were significantly

and positively related to verbal participative behaviour. In addition organisational

effectiveness significantly predicted leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative

behaviour. Therefore, the research has contributed theoretically to our understanding

that leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour is influenced by their perception of

organisational effectiveness and participative organisational culture. The PPDM

subscales were seen to have no significant relationship with consultative participative

behaviour.

Secondly, the research has also made a contribution to the literature of participative

decision making by investigating the extent to which the model applies to a non-

Western emerging economy. Not all the PPDM subscales could be used in the present

study, after the survey, reliability test and factor analysis were conducted on the data.

The research instruments were adapted with the deletion of a few items to suit the

present research context. Organisational commitment was deleted owing to low

reliability and cross-loadings. Similarly, the fifth item in verbal participative

behaviour, „I constructively criticise subordinates‟ was removed from further analysis

because of cross-loading and inconsistency with other items. The sixth item, „I make

decision that are based on my own ideas‟, in the measurement of consultative

participative behaviour was deleted due to weak factor loading and inconsistency with

other items. Thus, this research study reaffirms the finding of earlier studies (Coffey

& Langford, 1998; Parnell, 2010; Parnell & Crandall, 2003; Parnell, Koseoglu &


Dent, 2012; Parnell, Shwiff, Yalin & Langford, 2003) that the PPDM instrument

requires revalidation and adaptation when applied in a different context.

Thirdly, the research has added to our understanding that verbal participative

behaviour and consultative participative behaviour are viewed and treated differently

by leaders in organisations. Leaders‟ engagement in verbal participative behaviour

can reflect socio-cultural elements (Khatri, 2009); such as an informal social and

communication network that is a dominant means of information sharing and social

cohesion. These socio-cultural elements plus the small size of corporate organisations

may influence participative practices in organisations.

Fourthly, as emerging economies integrate with the global economy, they are

susceptible to the risks of global business environmental volatility (Boissot & Child,

1996; Peng & Heath, 1996). Emerging economies are challenged with resource

constraints and increased domestic consumption (Morfaw, 2012). These

environmental and domestic challenges require corporate organisations in emerging

economies to be more competitive and enhance operational efficiencies (D'Aunno,

Succi, & Alexander, 2000). Organisational adaptability to a changing environment

requires acceptance and support for collective decisions from organisational members,

thereby emphasising the need and importance of PDM (Zhou, Tse, & Li, 2006). In

this context, this research has contributed to the literature that despite hierarchical

social structure and power inequalities, organisations in emerging economies, is

beginning to engage more in verbal participative decision making.


Finally, this research is the first study of PDM in the context of Bhutanese corporate

sector. The research expects to draw the attention of management scholars to the

underlying factors affecting corporate leadership behaviour in emerging economies.

The research is also expected to deepen our understanding of participatory

management in Bhutan.

5.6 Implications for Policy and Practice

The research findings also have an important implication for both policy and practice

in the Bhutanese corporate sector. The subordinates reported that their leaders were

not as participative in decision making as the leaders themselves claim. An

established organisational culture will lead to more PDM practices in the organisation.

A plethora of research studies support that PDM essentially contributes to positive

organisational outcomes (Lashley, 2000; Legge, 2005; Shipper & Manz, 1992; Wood,

1985) and employees‟ psychological wellbeing (Cotton, Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-

Hall & Jennings, 1988; Fisher, 1989; Smith & Brannick, 1990). Therefore, for

sustainable practice and promotion of participative decision making in organisations,

a policy intervention will be necessary in the Bhutanese corporate sector. For

example, a Human Resource Development policy should foster regular in-house

familiarisation workshops on the importance and practices of both verbal and

consultative participative decision making. An iterative exercise of participative

decision making implementation and reflective assessment at the departmental level

will initially bring more clarity in the practices which can be expanded into

consultative decision making practices.


Leaders‟ engagement in participative behaviour could be incorporated as one of the

key performance indicators (KPI) for effective leadership in organisations. Leaders

should be encouraged to engage more in participative behaviour leading to a positive

performance evaluation for promotion and reward. Leaders‟ belief of engaging in

participative behaviour could also encourage more subordinates to engage in PDM,

promoting participative culture in organisations.

5.7 Limitations and Future Directions

The research has made contributions broadly in the area of participative decision

making behaviour. Specifically, the research has integrated the PPDM model with an

inclusion of leaders‟ verbal participative behaviour and consultative participative

behaviour as dependent variables. However, it is important to highlight the limitations

of this research study and directions for future research.

Firstly, further investigation into other socio-cultural and organisational factors might

help identify factors which also explain why leaders do not engage in consultative

participative behaviour. For example, do leaders feel apprehensive about group

participative decision making? If leaders are apprehensive, is it because they fear

being branded as incompetent leaders (Francesco & Chen, 2000) or are concerned of

losing socio-culturally driven informal ties with subordinates? A qualitative approach

to future research using interviews or a semi-structured survey questionnaire could

address these types of questions.


Secondly, not every organisation was represented proportionately, leading to some

sampling bias. Insufficient numbers of leaders participated from some organisations;

thereby comparison between organisations on the leaders‟ participative behaviour

could not be made. Future research could address this limitation as it would be helpful

in identifying organisations with leaders engaging more in participative behaviour.

Exclusion of smaller and economically less important organisations from the study

poses another limitation. Perhaps, leaders may engage more in participative decision

making in those smaller organisations. This could have provided a different

perspective of participative decision making practices in the Bhutanese corporate

sector. Future research could address this limitation by including organisations of all

sizes to get a holistic understanding of participative decision making practices in the

Bhutanese corporate sector.

Thirdly, for the generalisability of the findings to other emerging economies, it is

important to consider doing further research using comparable parameters (Chen &

Tjosvold, 2006) such as the level of corporate sector development, diversity of the

corporate sector, and similarities in socio-cultural values.

Fourthly, the difference between leaders and subordinates on the assessment of

leaders‟ participative behaviour could be either the absence of PDM policy in

organisations or ineffective implementation of PDM practices. Future research could

include a preliminary study on the availability of PDM policy documents. This would


enable the researcher to compare and contrast the research findings with the existing

policies and practices for meaningful recommendations on the implementation of

participative decision making.

Fifthly, reliance on the self-assessment report by the leaders is questionable for

accuracy and honesty of the responses (Donaldson & Grant-Vallone, 2002; Poksakoff,

MacKenzie, Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006). Leaders may have a tendency to

rate themselves high on the positive attributes and to indicate they are proactive in

providing PDM opportunities to their subordinates. Future research could collect data

from alternative sources such as peers and superiors besides immediate subordinates

(Lee & Podsakoff, 2003; Maloney & Federle, 1993; Poksakoff, MacKenzie). Such an

approach would add to a more accurate report on leaders‟ participative behaviour.

Lastly, while the research makes a valuable contribution to the participative decision

making literature, a future longitudinal study would be able to highlight trends in the

practice of PDM in the Bhutanese corporate sector. A longitudinal study could

establish whether verbal participative behaviour continues to be a key PDM practice

or whether there is a shift to more consultative participative behaviour or other forms

of participative behaviour. It could also explore whether PPDM, age and belief in

power distance vary in their influence over time on participative behaviours of

leaders.


5.8 Conclusion

In conclusion, this research contributes to the body of participative decision making

literature by expanding our understanding of the relationship between leaders‟

willingness to participate in decision making and leaders‟ participative behaviour.

Specifically, the research contributes to the literature from the perspective of an

emerging economy: Bhutan. The research highlights that leaders‟ desire to enhance

organisational effectiveness and organisational culture and their belief in the equality

of power are important factors influencing the leaders‟ engagement in verbal

participative decision making behaviour. These are important findings in the context

of corporate leadership practices in Bhutan.

References 105

References

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Power equalization, participative decision making and

individual differences. Human Relations, 36(8), 683-704. doi:

10.1177/001872678303600801

Abugre, J.B. (2012). How managerial interactions affect employees' work output in

Ghanaian organisations. African Journal of Economic and Management

Studies, 3(2), 204.doi:10.1108/20400701211265009

Adler, N.J. (1991). International Dimensions of Organisational Behaviour (2nd ed.).

Belmont, CA: Publishing.

Ahiauzu, A., & Amah, E. (2013).Employee involvement and organisational

effectiveness. The Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 661-

674. doi: 10.1108/JMD-09-2010-0064

Ahluwalia, M. S. (2002). Economic reforms in India since 1991: has gradualism

worked? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 67-88.

Ahn, M.J., Adamson, J.S., & Dornbusch, D. (2004). From leaders to leadership:

Managing change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

10(4), 112-123.

Akdere, M. (2011). An analysis of decision making process in organisations:

Implications for quality management and systematic practice. Total

Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(12), 1317-1330.

doi:10.1080/14783363.2011.625180

Allen, N.J., & Meyer, J.P. (1990).The measurement and antecedents of affective,

continuance and normative commitment to the organisation. Journal of

Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-

8325.1990.tb00506.x

Alutto, J.A., & Belasco, J.A. (1972).A typology for participation in organisational

decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(1), 117-125.

Al-Yahya, K.O. (2008). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization,

and organizational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in

comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory: J-PART, 19(2), 385-407. doi:10.1093/jopart/mun005

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JMD-09-2010-0064

References 106

Al-Yahya, K.O. (2009). Power-influence in decision making, competence utilization,

and organizational culture in public organizations: The Arab world in

comparative perspective. Journal of Public Administration Research and

Theory, 19(2), 385-407.

Amah, E., & Ahiauzu, A. (2013). Employee involvement and organizational

effectiveness. Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 661-674.

doi:10.1108/JMD-09-2010-0064

Analoui, F. (2000). What motivates senior managers? Journal of Managerial

Psychology, 15(4), 324-340. doi:10.1108/02683940010330984

Arnold, J.A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J.A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering

leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale

for measuring leader behaviours. Journal of Organisational Behaviour,

21(3), 249-269. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(200005)21

Argyris, C. (1998). Empowerment: The emperor's new clothes. Harvard Business

Review, 76(3), 98-105.

Ashford, S.J. (1989). Self-assessment in organizations: A literature review and

integrative model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, 133-174.

Ashmos, D., & McDaniel, R. (1996).Understanding the participation of critical task

specialists in strategic decision making. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 103-

121. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb00845.x

Atwater, L.E., & Yammarino, F.J. (1992). Does self-other agreement on leadership

perceptions moderate the validity of leadership and performance

predictions? Personnel Psychology, 45(1), 141-164. doi. 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.1992.tb00848.x

Atwater, L., Roush, P., & Fischthal, A. (1995). The influence of upwards feedback

on self and follower ratings of leadership. Personnel Psychology, 48(1),

35-39. Doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01745.x

Aulakh, P.S., & Kotabe, M. (2008).Institutional changes and organizational

transformation in developing economies. Journal of International

Management, 14(3), 209-216. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2008.04.001

Avolio, B.J., Walumbwa, F.O., & Weber, T.J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories,

research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1),

421-449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

References 107

Bacharach, S., Bamberger, P., Conley, S., & Bauer, S. (1990).The dimensionality of

decision participation in educational organisations - the value of a

multidomain evaluative approach. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 26(2), 126-167.

Bamel, U.K., Rangnekar, S., Rastogi, R., & Kumar, S. (2013). Organisational process

as antecedent of managerial flexibility. Global Journal of Flexible

Systems Management, 14(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1007/s40171-013-0026-9

Bass, B.M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill’s Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research,

and Managerial Application. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Bass, B.M., & Yammarino, F.J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership

ratings of naval officers for understanding successful performance.

Applied Psychology, 40(4), 437-454. doi:10.1111/j.1464-

0597.1991.tb01002.x

Bates, W. (2009). Gross national happiness. Asian‐Pacific Economic Literature,

23(2), 1-16.

Bechtold, B.L. (1997). Toward a participative organisational culture: Evolution or

revolution? Empowerment in Organisations, 5(1), 4-15.

doi:10.1108/14634449710168750

Bergman, D., Lornudd, C., Sjöberg, L., & Von Thiele Schwarz, U. (2014). Leader

personality and 360‐degree assessments of leader behavior.

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 55(4), 389-397. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12130

Betsch, T., & Haberstroh, S. (2005). The routines of decision making. Mahwah, N.J:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bhatti, Z.A., Ahmad, H.G., Aslam, A., Nadeem, U. & Ramzan, M. (2012).

Leadership styles and behaviours in institutional context.

Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(2),

744-762.

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

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

doi:10.1177/001872679705000705

Bogdanic, D. (2012). Expectations of participative leadership behaviour in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. Journal of Engineering Management and Competitiveness

(JEMC). 2(2), 64-68

References 108

Boisot, M., & Child, J. (1996). From fiefs to clans and network capitalism: Explaining

China's emerging economic order. Administrative Science Quarterly,

41(4), 600-628.

Brownell, J. (1994). Creating strong listening environments: A key hospitality

management task. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality

Management, 6(3), 3-10. doi: 10.1108/09596119410059182

Bruton, G.D., Ahlstrom, D., & Obloj, K. (2008). Entrepreneurship in emerging

economies: Where are we today and where should the research go in

the future. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 32(1), 1-14.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00213.x

Carey, H. H. (1937). Consultative supervision. Nation's Business, 25(4), 44.

Carlson, M.S. (1998). 360-Degree feedback: The power of multiple perspectives.

Popular Government, 63(2), 38-49.

Carson, C. M. (2005). A historical view of douglas McGregor's theory Y.

Management Decision, 43(3), 450-460.

doi:10.1108/00251740510589814

Cast, A.D., & Burke, P.J. (2002). A theory of self-esteem. Social Forces, 80(3), 1041-

1068. doi:10.1353/sof.2002.0003

Chang, H., & Lin, G. (2008).Effect of personal values transformation on leadership

behaviour. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(1),

67-77. doi: 10.1080/14783360701601967

Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. (2006). Development of the leader behaviour assessment

profile. Irish Journal of Management, 27(2), 33-48.

Chen, Y.F., & Tjosvold, D. (2006). Participative Leadership by American and

Chinese Managers in China: The Role of Relationships. Journal of

Management Studies, 43(8), 1727-1752.

Church, A.H. (1997). Managerial self-awareness in high-performing individuals in

organizations. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(2), 281-292.

doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.281

Cieslik, J., & Kaciak, E. (2009).The speed of internationalization of entrepreneurial

start-ups in a transition environment. Journal of Developmental

Entrepreneurship, 14(4), 375-392. doi:10.1142/S1084946709001375

References 109

Coffey, M., & Langford, D. (1998). The propensity for employee participation by

electrical and mechanical trades in the construction industry.

Construction Management and Economics, 16(5), 543-552.

doi:10.1080/014461998372088

Coleman, P.T. (2004). Implicit theories of organisational power and priming effects

on managerial power-sharing decisions: An experimental Study1.

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 297-321.

doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02549.x

Collings, D.G., Demirbag, M., Mellahi, K., & Tatoglu, E. (2010). Strategic

orientation, human resource management practices and organizational

outcomes: Evidence from turkey. The International Journal of Human

Resource Management, 21(14), 2589-2613.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.523577

Collins, D. (1994). The disempowering logic of empowerment. Empowerment in

Organizations, 2(2), 14-21. doi:10.1108/09684899410061627

Coch, L., & French, J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human

Relations, 1(4), 512-532. doi:10.1177/001872674800100408

Cohen, J. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral

sciences. Mahwah, N.J: L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cooper, R., & Johnson, N. (2014). So close yet no agreement: The effects of threats to

self-esteem when using instant messaging and audio during seller

buyer negotiations. Decision Support Systems, 57(1), 115-126.

doi:10.1016/j.dss.2013.08.005

Cotton, J.L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and

Work Attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cotton, J.L., Vollrath, D.A., Froggatt, K.L., Lengnick-Hall, M.L., & Jennings, K.R.

(1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes.

The Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.

Cunningham, I., & Hyman, J. (1999). The poverty of empowerment? A critical case

study. Personnel Review, 28(3), 192-207.

doi:10.1108/00483489910264589

Dachler, H.P., & Wilpert, B. (1978). Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of

participation in organisations: A critical evaluation. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 23(1), 1-39.

References 110

Daft, R.L. (2009). Organisation Theory and Design (10th

ed.). Mason, Ohio:

Thomson South-Western.

D'Aunno, T., Succi, M., & Alexander, J. A. (2000). The role of institutional and

market forces in divergent organizational change. Administrative

Science Quarterly, 45(4), 679-703.

Dawkins, C.E., & Frass, J.W. (2005). Decision of union workers to participate in

employee involvement: An application of the theory of planned

behaviour. Employee Relations, 27(5), 511-531.

doi:10.1108/01425450510612031

De Cremer, D. (2007). Emotional effects of distributive justice as a function of

autocratic leader behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,

37(6), 1385-1404. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00217.x

De Cremer, D. (2006). Affective and motivational consequences of leader self-

sacrifice: The moderating effect of autocratic leadership. The

Leadership Quarterly, 17(1), 79-93. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.10.005

De Jong, J.P.J., & Den Hartog, D.N. (2007). How leaders influence employees'

innovative behaviour. European Journal of Innovation Management,

10(1), 41-64. doi: 10.1108/14601060710720546

Department of Labour. (2015). Labour force survey report: 2013. Retrieved from

http://www.molhr.gov.bt/molhrsite/?page_id=577

Detert, J.R., & Burris, E.R. (2007). Leadership Behavior and Employee Voice: Is the

Door Really Open?. The Academy of Management Journal, 50(4), 869-

884

Denton, D.K. (1995). Merck's face-to-face communication. American Journal of

Management Development, 1(1), 26-36.

Donaldson, S.I., & Grant-Vallone, E.J. (2002). Understanding self-report bias in

organizational behavior research. Journal of Business and Psychology,

17(2), 245-260. doi:10.1023/A:1019637632584

Dundon, T., Lewin, D., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., Archer, R., & Wilkinson, A.

(2010). Conceptualizing employee participation in organizations.

London: Oxford University Press.

doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199207268.003.0001

Eddy, P.L., & VanDerLinden, K.E. (2006). Emerging definitions of leadership in

higher education: New visions of leadership or same old "hero" leader?

Community College Review, 34(1), 5-26.

doi:10.1177/0091552106289703

http://www.molhr.gov.bt/molhrsite/?page_id=577

References 111

Ejiogu, A.M. (1983). Participative management in a developing economy: Poison or

placebo? The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 19(3), 239-247.

doi:10.1177/002188638301900303

Ekvall, G., & Arvonen, J. (1994). Leadership profiles, situation and effectiveness.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 3(3), 139–161.

Fleenor, J. W., McCauley, C. D., & Brutus, S. (1996). Self-other rating agreement and

leader effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 7(4), 487-506.

doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90003-X

Foster-Fishman, P. G., & Keys, C. B. (1997). The Person/Environment dynamics of

employee empowerment: An organizational culture analysis. American

Journal of Community Psychology, 25(3), 345-369.

doi:10.1023/A:1024628711026

Foti, R. (1990). The role of cognitive categories in superior versus self-ratings. Paper

presented at the Academy of Management Conference, August, San

Francisco.

Francesco, A.M. & Chen, Z.X., (2000). Cross-cultural Differences within a Single

Culture: Power Distance as a Moderator of the Participation.

Outcome Relationship in the People’s Republic of China, BRC Papers

on Cross- Cultural Management. Retrieved from

http:// net2.hkbu.edu.hk/~brc/CCMP200007.pdf on 01/02/2012.

Furtado, L.C.D.R., Batista, M.D.G.C., & Silva, F.J.F. (2011). Leadership and job

satisfaction among Azorean hospital nurses: An application of the

situational leadership model. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(8),

1047-1057. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2011.01281.x

Galanes, G.J. (2003). In their own words: An exploratory study of bona fide group

leaders. Small Group Research, 34(6), 741-770. doi:

10.1177/1046496403257649

Goodson, J.R., McGee, G.W., & Cashman, J.F. (1989). Situational Leadership

Theory: A test of leadership prescriptions. Group & Organization

Management, 14(4), 446-461.

Goldstein, A., & Pusterla, F. (2010). Emerging economies' multinationals.

International Journal of Emerging Markets, 5(3/4), 289-306.

doi:10.1108/17468801011058398

Graham, J. W., & Verma, A. (1991). Predictors and moderators of employee

responses to employee participation programs. Human Relations,

44(6), 551-568. doi:10.1177/001872679104400602

References 112

Green, S. (1988). Strategy, organizational culture and symbolism. Long Range

Planning, 21(4), 121-129. doi:10.1016/0024-6301(88)90016-7

Hackman, M.Z., & Johnson, C.E. (1996). Leadership: A communication perspective.

2nd

ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.

Hakimi, N., & Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leader empowering behaviour: The leader's

perspective. British Journal of Management, 21(3), 701-716

Heakal, R. (2009). What is an Emerging Market Economy? Retrieved April 2, 2013,

from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/073003.asp

Heller, F.A., Drenth, P.J.D., Koopman, P.L., & Rus, V. (1983). A contingency model

of participative decision making: An analysis of 56 decisions in three

Dutch organisations. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 56(1), 1-18.

doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1983.tb00105.x

Henri, J. (2006). Organisational culture and performance measurement systems.

Accounting, Organisations and Society, 31(1), 77-103.

doi:10.1016/j.aos.2004.10.003

Hitt, M.A., Ahlstrom, D., Dacin, M.T., Levitas, E., & Svobodina, L. (2004). The

institutional effects on strategic alliance partner selection in transition

economies: China vs. Russia. Organization Science, 15(2), 173-185.

doi:10.1287/orsc.1030.0045

Hodson, R. (1996). Dignity in the workplace under participative management:

Alienation and freedom revisited. American Sociological Review,

61(5), 719-738.

Hoe, J., & Hoare, Z. (2012). Understanding quantitative research: Part 1. Nursing

Standard (Great Britain), 27(15), 52-57.

Hofstede, G. H. (1984a). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-

related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

Hofstede, G. (1984b). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific

journal of management, 1(2), 81-99.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,

institutions, and organisations across nations. Thousand Oaks, Calif:

Sage Publications.

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/073003.asp

http://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1983.tb00105.x

References 113

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we know about leadership. Review of

General Psychology, 9(2), 169-180. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.169

Holland, N.A. (1995). Participative management. Journal for Quality and

Participation, 18(5), 58-62.

Hollander, E. P., & Offermann, L. R. (1990). Power and leadership in organizations:

Relationships in transition. American Psychologist, 45(2), 179-189.

doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.2.179

Huang, X., Shi, K., Zhang, Z., & Cheung, Y.L. (2006). The impact of participative

leadership behaviour on psychological empowerment and

organisational commitment in Chinese state-owned enterprises: The

moderating role of organisational tenure. Asia Pacific Journal of

Management, 23(3), 345-367. doi:10.1007/s10490-006-9006-3

Humborstad,S.I.W., Humborstad, B., Whitfield, R., & Perry, C. (2008).

Implementation of empowerment in Chinese high power-distance

organizations. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 19(7), 1349-1364. doi:10.1080/09585190802110224

Ingersoll-Dayton, B., & Saengtienchai, C. (1999). Respect for the elderly in Asia:

Stability and change. The International Journal of Aging and Human

Development, 48(2), 113-130.

Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & House, R.J. (2006). In the eye of the beholder: Cross

cultural lessons in leadership from project GLOBE. Academy of

Management Perspectives, 20(1), 67-90.

Jesaitis, P. T., & Day, N. E. (1992). People: Black boxes of many organizational

development strategies. Organization Development Journal, 10 (1), 63-

71.

Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1981). Impact of employee participation in pay plan

development. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

28(1), 111-128. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(81)90018-0

Jing, R., & Graham, J.L. (2008). Values versus regulations: How culture plays its

role. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 791-806. doi: 10.1007/s10551-

007-9469-2

Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2007). Leadership and culture in Turkey: A multifaceted

phenomenon. Culture and leadership across the world: The GLOBE

book of in-depth studies of 25 societies, 835-874.

References 114

Kakabadse, A.P., & Kakabadse, N. (1999). Essence of Leadership. London:

International Thompson.

Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse,N, & Myers, A. (1998). Demographics and leadership

philosophy: Exploring gender differences. Journal of Management

Development, 17(5), 351-388. doi: 10.1108/02621719810220225

Katarina, A., Rastogi, R., & Garg, P. (2013). Organizational effectiveness as a

function of employee engagement. South Asian Journal of

Management, 20(4), 56-73.

Kearney, R.C., & Hays, S.W. (1994). Labour-management relations and participative

decision making: Toward a new paradigm. Public Administration

Review, 54(1), 44-51.

Kelly, J., & Khozan, K. (1980). Participative management: Can it work? Business

Horizons, 23(4), 74-79.

Keyton, J., Caputo, J.M., Ford, E.A., Fu, R., Leibowitz, S. A., Liu, T. & Wu, C.

(2013).Investigating verbal workplace communication behaviors.

Journal of Business Communication, 50(2), 152-169.

doi:10.1177/0021943612474990

Khatri, N. (2009). Consequences of power distance orientation in organisations.

Vision, 13(1), 1-9.

Kitchenham, B., & Pfleeger, S. (2002). Principles of survey research part 4:

Questionnaire evaluation. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes,

27(3), 20-23. doi:10.1145/638574.638580

Koc, E. (2013). Power distance and its implications for upward communication and

empowerment: Crisis management and recovery in hospitality services.

The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(19),

3681-3696.

Kocolowski, G.D. (2010). Shared leadership: Is it time for change? Emerging

Leadership Journeys, 3(1), 22-32.

Kotter, J.P., & Heskett, J.L. (1992).Corporate culture and performance. New York:

Toronto, Free Press.

References 115

Kur, E., & Bunning, R. (2002).Assuring corporate leadership for the future. Journal

of Management Development, 21(10), 761-779. doi:

10.1108/02621710210448039

Larsson, J., & Vinberg, S. (2010). Leadership behaviour in successful organisations:

Universal or situation-dependent? Total Quality Management &

Business Excellence, 21(3), 317-334. doi: 10.1080/14783360903561779

Lashley, C. (2000). Empowerment through involvement: A case study of TGI Fridays

restaurants. Personnel Review, 29(6), 791-815.

doi:10.1108/00483480010297211

Lee, M., & Koh, J. (2001). Is empowerment really a new concept? International

Journal of Human Resource Management, 12(4), 684-695.

doi:10.1080/713769649

Legge, K. (2005). Human Resource Management: Rhetorics and realities. New York:

Palgrave Macmillan.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in

experimentally created “social climates”. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 10(2), 269-299.

Li, H. (2001). Leadership: An international perspective. Journal of Library

Administration, 32(3-4), 177-195. doi:10.1300/J111v32n03_11

Lincoln, Y.S., Lynham, S.A., & Guba, E.G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies,

contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. The Sage Handbook

of Qualitative Research, 4, 97-128.

Lipowski, E.E. (2008). Developing great research questions.

American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy: AJHP : Official Journal

of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, 65(17), 1667-

1670. doi:10.2146/ajhp070276

Locke, E.A., & Schweiger, D.M. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more

look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior (pp.

265-340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and

prescriptions for research. Organisational Behavior and Human

Performance, 3(1), 68-106. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(68)90028-7

Maloney, W.F., & Federle, M.O. (1993). Practical models for organizational

assessment. Journal of Management in Engineering, 9(1), 64-81.

References 116

Manning, T., & Robertson, B. (2011). The dynamic leader revisited: 360-degree

assessments of leadership behaviours in different leadership situations.

Industrial and Commercial Training, 43(2), 88-97.

Margulies, N., & Black, S. (1987). Perspectives on the implementation of

participative approaches. Human Resource Management, 26(3), 385-

412.

Marti, M., Gil, F., & Barrasa, A. (2009). Organisational leadership: Motives and

behaviours of leaders in current organisations. Spanish Journal of

Psychology, 12(1), 267.

Mathou, T. (1999). Political reform in Bhutan: Change in a Buddhist monarchy. Asian

Survey, 39(4), 613-632. doi:10.1525/as.1999.39.4.01p0015q

Mathur, P., Aycan, Z., & Kanungo, R.N. (1996). Indian organizational culture: A

comparison between public and private sector. Psychology and

Developing Societies, 8(2), 199-222.

McConnell, C.R. (1998). Mixed motivations: The leadership contradiction. The

Health Care Supervisor, 17(2), 63-75.

McShane, S. L., & Von Glinow, M. A. Y. (2005). Organizational behavior. Boston:

McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Meglino, B.M., & Ravlin, E.C. (1998). Individual values in organisations: Concepts,

controversies, and research. Journal of Management, 24(3), 351-389.

doi:10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80065-8

Men, L. R. (2014). Strategic internal communication: Transformational leadership,

communication channels, and employee satisfaction. Management

Communication Quarterly, 28(2), 264-284.

Merat, A. & Bo,D. (2013). Strategic analysis of knowledge firms: The links between

knowledge management and leadership. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 17(1), 3-15. doi: 10.1108/13673271311300697

Merkin, R. S. (2006). Power distance and facework strategies. Journal of Intercultural

Communication Research, 35(2), 139-160.

doi:10.1080/17475750600909303

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G., & Xu, L. (2013). Participative leadership and

the organisational commitment of civil servants in China: The mediating

effects of trust in supervisor. British Journal of Management, 24(3),

S76-S92. doi:10.1111/1467-8551.12025

References 117

Miller, G.R. (2011). Gender and participation in decision making in labor-managed

firms: The context of the USA. Economic and Industrial Democracy,

32(1), 87-113. doi: 10.1177/0143831X10376420

Mohr, J., & Nevin, J. R. (1990). Communication strategies in marketing channels: A

theoretical perspective. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 36-51.

Mohr, G., & Wolfram, H. (2008). Leadership and effectiveness in the context of

gender: The role of leaders' verbal behaviour. British Journal of

Management, 19(1), 4-16. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00521.x

Morfaw, J.N. (2012). Seminar presentation topic: The Implementation of the National

Vision of Emergence. Retrieved from

www.cafrad.org/Workshops/Tanger24-26_09_12/2426092012

cafrad/5_Morfaw.pdf

Mudacumura, G. M. (2000). Participative management in global transformational

change. International Journal of Public Administration, 23(12), 2051-

2083. doi:10.1080/01900690008525538

Mudambi, R., & Hill, T.L. (2010). Far from silicon valley: How emerging economies

are re-shaping our understanding of global entrepreneurship. Journal of

International Management, 16(4), 321-327.

doi:10.1016/j.intman.2010.09.003

Muo, I. and Oghojafor, B.E.A. (2012). OHAZURUME: The Philosophy and Practice

of Decision Making and Consensus Building among the Ndigbo of

Nigeria. American Journal of Business and Management, 1(3), 154-161.

Nightingale, D. V. (1981). Work, formal participation, and employee outcomes. Work

and Occupations, 8(3), 277-296.

Northouse, P.G., (2004). Leadership Theory and Practice. 3rd

ed. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage Publications.

Noughabi, H.A., & Arghami, N.R. (2013). Testing normality using transformed data.

Communications in Statistics: Theory and Methods, 42(17), 3065-3075.

doi:10.1080/03610926.2011.611604

Nystrom, P.C. (1990). Vertical exchanges and organisational commitments of

American business managers. Group & Organisation Management,

15(3), 296-312. doi: 10.1177/105960119001500305

http://www.cafrad.org/Workshops/Tanger24-26_09_12/2426092012%20cafrad/5_Morfaw.pdf

http://www.cafrad.org/Workshops/Tanger24-26_09_12/2426092012%20cafrad/5_Morfaw.pdf

References 118

Oh, I.S., & Berry, C.M. (2009). The five-factor model of personality and managerial

performance: Validity gains through the use of 360 degree performance

ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(6), 1498–1513.

doi:10.1037/a0017221

Osborne, J., & Waters, E. (2002). Four assumptions of multiple regression that

researchers should always test. Practical Assessment, Research &

Evaluation, 8(2), 1-9.

Oshagbemi, T. (2004). Age influences on the leadership styles and behaviour of

managers. Employee Relations, 26(1), 14-29. doi:

10.1108/01425450410506878

O‟Toole, James (1995). The Executive‟s Compass. Leading Change. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press, Inc.

Paradine, T.J. (1996). Venturing abroad: The challenges of emerging economies. Risk

Management, 43(7), 73-75.

Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature

review and empirical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148-155.

doi:10.1108/00251740310457597

Park, W.W. (1997). Empowerment: Its Meaning and Application. Korean

Management Review, 26(2), 115–38.

Parnell, J. A. (2010). Propensity for participative decision making in Latin America:

Mexico and Peru. The International Journal of Human Resource

Management, 21(13/15), 2323-2338.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2010.516588

Parnell, J.A., & Bell, E.D. (1994). The propensity for participative decision making

scale: A measure of managerial propensity for participative decision

making. Administration and Society, 25(4), 518-530.

Parnell, J.A., & Crandall, W. (2001). Rethinking participative decision making - A

refinement of the propensity for participative decision making scale.

Personnel Review, 30(5-6), 523-535. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005937

Parnell, J.A., & Crandall, W. (2003). Propensity for participative decision-making,

job satisfaction, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship

behavior, and intentions to leave among Egyptian managers. The

Multinational Business Review, 11(1), 45-65.

doi:10.1108/1525383X200300003

References 119

Parnell, J.A., Koseoglu, M.A., & Dent, E.B. (2012). Propensity for participative

decision making (PPDM) in Turkey and the USA. International Journal

of Business Excellence, 5(3), 278-304.

Parnell, J.A., Shwiff, S., Yalin, L., & Langford, H. (2003). American and Chinese

entrepreneurial and managerial orientations: A management education

perspective. International Journal of Management, 20(2), 125–137.

Pasa, S.F. (2000). Leadership influence in a high power distance and collectivist

culture. Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 21(8), 414-

426. doi:10.1108/01437730010379258

Pearce, C.L., & Conger, A.D. (2003). Shared Leadership: Reframing the Hows and

Whys of Leadership. London: Sage Publications.

Peng, M. W., & Heath, P. S. (1996). The growth of the firm in planned economies in

transition: institutions, organizations, and strategic choice. The Academy

of Management Review, 21(2), 492-528.

Peng, M.W., Lu, Y., Shenkar, O., & Wang, D.Y. (2001). Treasures in the China

house: A review of management and organizational research on Greater

China. Journal of Business Research, 52(2), 95-110.

Planning Commission/UN Gender Study (2001).Gender Pilot Study. Retrieved from

http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rep_gpsr.pdf

Poksakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common

Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the

Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,

88 (5), 879-903.

Pollock, M., & Colwill, N.L. (1987). Participatory decision making in review.

Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 8(2), 7-10.

doi:10.1108/eb053611

Powell, R. M., & Schlacter, J. L. (1971). Participative management a panacea? The

Academy of Management Journal, 14(2), 165-173.

Rad, A.M.M. & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship between

managers' leadership style and employees' job satisfaction. Leadership

in Health Services, 19(2), 11-28. doi:10.1108/13660750610665008

Ramsdell, P.S. (1994). Staff participation in organisational decision making: An

empirical study. Administration in Social Work, 18(4), 51-71. doi:

10.1300/J147v18n04_03

http://www.gnhc.gov.bt/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rep_gpsr.pdf

References 120

Randeree, K., & Chaudhry, A.G. (2012). Leadership – style, satisfaction and

commitment. Engineering, Construction and Architectural

Management, 19(1), 61-85. doi:10.1108/09699981211192571

Reeves, D.W., Walsh, B.M., Tuller, M.D., & Magley, V.J. (2012). The positive

effects of participative decision making for midlevel correctional

management. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 39(10), 1361-1372.

doi:10.1177/0093854812453127

Rehman, R. U., Zhang, J., & Ali, R. (2014). Firm performance and emerging

economies. The Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(3), 701-714.

Ritchie, J. B. & Miles, R.E. (1970). An analysis of quantity and quality of

participation as mediating variables in the participative decision making

process. Personnel Psychology, 23(3), 347-357.

Roberts, T. (2012). Understanding survey research: Applications and processes.

British Journal of Midwifery, 20(2), 114-120.

Rousseau, D. M. (1990). Organisational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B.

Schneider (Ed.), Organisational climate and culture. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Russ, T.L. (2011). Theory X/Y assumptions as predictors of managers' propensity for

participative decision making. Management Decision, 49(5), 823-836.

doi:10.1108/00251741111130887

Sashkin, M. (1976). Changing toward participative management approaches: A model

and methods. Academy of Management Journal, 1, 75-86

Schuler, R.S. (1980). A role and expectancy perception model of participation in

decision making. The Academy of Management Journal, 23(2), 331-340.

Schwenk, C.R. (1984). Cognitive simplification processes in strategic decision-

making. Strategic Management Journal, 5(2), 111-128.

doi:10.1002/smj.4250050203

Scott-Ladd, B., & Marshall, V. (2004). Participation in decision making: A matter of

context? Leadership & Organisation Development Journal, 25(8), 646-

662. doi: 10.1108/01437730410564988

Shah, S. (1989). Developing Bhutan‟s economy: Limited options, sensible choices.

Asian Survey, 29(8), 816-831. doi:10.1525/as.1989.29.8

Shipper, F., & Manz, C.C. (1992). Employee self-management without formally

designated teams: An alternative road to empowerment. Organisational

Dynamics, 20(3), 48-61. doi:10.1016/0090-2616(92)90024-H

References 121

Shirokova, G., Berezinets, I. & Shatalov, A. (2014). Organisational change and firm

growth in emerging economies. Journal for East European

Management Studies, 19(2), 185-212.

Shubik, M. (1958). Studies and theories of decision making. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 3(3), 289-306. doi:10.2307/2390715

Singh, D. (2012). Emerging economies and multinational corporations. International

Journal of Emerging Markets, 7(4), 397-410. doi:

10.1108/17468801211264315

Smith, C.S., & Brannick, M.T. (1990). A role and expectancy model of participative

decision-making: A replication and theoretical extension. Journal of

Organisational Behaviour, 11(2), 91-104. doi:10.1002/job.4030110202

Somech, A. (2002). Explicating the complexity of participative management: An

investigation of multiple dimensions. Educational Administration

Quarterly, 38(3), 341-371. doi:10.1177/0013161X02383003

Sorrentino, R.M., & Field, N. (1986). Emergent leadership over time: The functional

value of positive motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 50(6), 1091-1099. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1091

Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban

legend? Organizational Research Methods, 9(2), 221-232.

doi:10.1177/1094428105284955

Spreitzer, G. (2007). Giving peace a chance: Organizational leadership,

empowerment, and peace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28(8),

1077-1095. doi:10.1002/job.487

Stamper, C.L., & Fitzsimmons, S.R. (2014). How societal culture influences friction

in the employee-organization relationship. Human Resource

Management Review, 24(1), 80-94. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2013.07.001

Steers, R.M. (1977). Individual differences in participative decision-making. Human

Relations, 30(9), 837-847. doi:10.1177/001872677703000906

Strauss, J. (1982). Determinants of food consumption in rural Sierra Leone. Journal of

Development Economics, 11(3), 327-353. doi:10.1016/0304-

3878(82)90010-4

Sung, K. (2001). Elder respect: Exploration of ideals and forms in East Asia. Journal

of Aging Studies, 15(1), 13-26. doi:10.1016/S0890-4065(00)00014-1

References 122

Sweeney, P.J., & Fry, L.W. (2012). Character development through spiritual

leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,

64(2), 89-107. doi:10.1037/a0028966

Tannenbaum, A.S. (1956). Control structure and union functions. American Journal

of Sociology, 61(6), 536-545.

Tannenbaum, R., Weschler, I.R., & Massarik, F. (1961). Leadership and

organization: A behavioral approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tavakol, M. & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of cronbach's alpha.

International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53-55.

Tiuraniemi, J. (2008). Leader self-awareness and its relationship to subordinate

assessment of organizational atmosphere in the social welfare sector.

Administration in Social Work, 32(4), 23-38.

Thinley, J. Y. (2005, June). What Does Gross National Happiness (GNH) Mean?. In

Keynote address by the Bhutanese Minister of Home and Cultural

Affairs to the Second International Conference on Gross National

Happiness, St Francis Xavier University, Antigonish, Canada (pp. 20-

24).

Tornow, W. W. (1993). Perceptions or reality: Is multi-perspective measurement a

means or an end? Human Resource Management, 32(2), 221-229.

doi:10.1002/hrm.3930320203

Tozer, J. (2012). Leading through leaders: Driving strategy, execution and change.

Philadelphia, Pa: Kogan Page Ltd.

Ugyel, L. (2013). Dynamics of Public Sector Reforms in Bhutan: Interaction of

Values within a Hybrid Administration. Crawford School Working

Paper No. 13 - 01, Crawford School of Public Policy. Canberra:

Australian National University

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of

leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.007

Ura, K., & Galay, K. (2004). Gross national happiness and development. Thimpu: The

Centre for Bhutan Studies.

Vandervelde, M. (1979). The semantics of participation. Administration in Social

Work, 3(1), 65-77. doi: 10.1300/J147v03n01_06

Veal, A. J. 1. (2005). Business research methods: A managerial approach. South

Melbourne, Vic: Pearson Addison Wesley.

References 123

Wagner, J.A. (1994). Participation's effects on performance and satisfaction: A

reconsideration of research evidence. The Academy of Management

Review, 19(2), 312-330.

Warr, P., Cook, J., & Wall, T. (1979). Scales for measurement of some work attitudes

and aspects of psychological wellbeing. Journal of Occupational

Psychology, 52, 129–148.

Westhuizen, D.W., & Pacheco, G., Webber, D.J. (2012). Culture, participative

decision making and job satisfaction. The International Journal of

Human Resource Management, 23(13), 2661-2679.

doi:10.1080/09585192.2011.625967

Wilkinson, A., Gollan, P. J., Marchington, M., & Lewin, D. (2010). The Oxford

Handbook of Participation in Organizations. Oxford University Press.

Wilkinson, A., Townsend, K., & Burgess, J. (2013). Reassessing employee

involvement and participation: Atrophy, reinvigoration and patchwork in

Australian workplaces. Journal of Industrial Relations, 55(4), 583-600.

doi:10.1177/0022185613489419

Wood, C.J. (1985). Participatory decision making: Why doesn't it seem to work? The

Educational Forum, 49(1), 55-64. doi:10.1080/00131728409335820

Yammarino, F.J., & Dubinsky, A.J. (1992). Superior-subordinate relationships: A

multiple levels of analysis approach. Human Relations, 45(6), 575-600.

doi:10.1177/001872679204500603

Yoo, B., Donthu,N., & Lenartowicz, T. (2011). Measuring Hofstede's five dimensions

of cultural values at the individual level: Development and validation of

CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing,23(3-4), 193.

Yukl, G. (1997). Effective leadership behaviour: A new taxonomy and model. Paper

presented at the Eastern Academy of Management International

Conference, Eastern Academy of Management, Dublin.

Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluative essay on current conceptions of effective leadership.

European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), 33-48.

doi:10.1080/135943299398429

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organisations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organisations, 6th

ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:

Prentice Hall.

References 124

Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behaviour: What we know and what questions

need more attention. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 26 (4),

66-85.

Yukl, G., & Fu, P.P. (1999). Determinants of delegation and consultation by

managers. Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 20(2), 219-232. doi:

10.1002/(SICI) 1099-1379(199903)20:2

Yukl, G., Gordon, A., &Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership

behaviour: Integrating a half century of behaviour research. Journal of

Leadership & Organisational Studies, 9(1), 15-32.

Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adaptive leadership is essential.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(2), 81-93.

doi: 10.1037/a0019835

Zaccaro, S.J., & Klimoski, R.J. (2002). The nature of organizational leadership:

Understanding the performance imperatives confronting today's leaders.

Hoboken: Pfeiffer.

Zhou, K. Z., Tse, D. K., & Li, J. J. (2006). Organizational changes in emerging

economies: Drivers and consequences. Journal of International Business

Studies, 37(2), 248-263. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400186

Zikmund, W.G. (2007). Marketing Research. South Melbourne, Vic: Cengage

Learning.

125

Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A: Questionnaire for Leaders

PART – A: Participant‟s Profile

1. Age:

2. Gender: Male Female

3. No. of years in the current position: Years

4. Total no. of years in managerial position: Years

5. Please tick ( ) your highest qualification:

Higher Secondary School Diploma

Bachelors degree Masters Degree

PhD

PART – B

Please indicate the extent of your agreement or disagreement with a tick ( ) mark

against each statement. The scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly

agree.

Statements 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Participative decision making is an effective

management style over the long term.

2. It is better for a manager not to solicit subordinate

participation than to do so and ignore the suggestions.

3. Participation works in some cases, but most of the

time manager should make the decision based on his

or her expertise and information.

4. My subordinates tend to have the same

organisational goals that I have.

5. My subordinates are generally informed and

experienced.

36 -45 Years

26 -35 Years

Below25 Years

56Years& above

46 - 55 Years

Appendices 126

6. Participative decision making is widely used in my

organisations.

7. I am free to make decisions as I wish in my

organisation.

8. Participative decision making is promoted within my

organisations.

9. My superior frequently solicits my participation in

his or her decisions.

10. Many organisational problems disappear when

everyone has a chance to participate in decision

making.

11. Participative decisions usually results in effective

decisions.

12. Group decisions are worth any extra time required.

13. Participative decisions stimulate feelings of self-

worth for subordinates.

14. Participative decision making is an effective

communication tool.

15. Participative decision making promotes positive

relationships at all levels of the organisations.

16. Participative decision making requires divulging too

much confidential information.

17. Participative decision making gives too much power

to subordinates.

18. Subordinates cannot be often trusted.

Appendices 127

PART – C


against each statement.

Kindly note the change in scale which ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =

strongly agree.

PART – D (i)




strongly agree.

Items 1 2 3 4 5

1. People in higher positions should make most decisions

without consulting people in lower positions.

2. People in higher positions should not ask the opinions

of people in the lower positions too frequently.

3. People in higher positions should avoid social

interaction with people in lower positions.

4. People on lower positions should not disagree with

decisions by people in higher positions.

5. People in higher positions should not delegate

important tasks to people in lower positions.

Items 1 2 3 4 5

1. I ask for the views of my subordinates.

2. I encourage subordinates to speak up about matters

that are important to them.

3. I precisely note subordinate‟s contribution.

4. I give opportunities for the subordinates to ask questions.

5. I constructively criticize subordinates.

6. I willingly explain when subordinates ask.

Appendices 128

PART – D (ii)




strongly agree.

Thank you

Items 1 2 3 4 5

7. I encourage work group members to express their

ideas/ suggestions.

8. I listen to the work group‟s ideas and suggestions.

9. I use the work group‟s suggestions to make decisions

that affect us.

10. I give all work group members a chance to voice their

opinions.

11. I consider the work group‟s ideas when I disagree

with some subordinates.

12. I make decisions that are based only on my own ideas.

Appendices 129

Appendix B: Questionnaire for Subordinates

PART – A: Participant‟s Profile

1. Age:

2. Gender: Male Female

3. No. of years in the current position: Years

4. Please tick ( ) your highest qualification:

Higher Secondary School Diploma

Bachelors degree Masters Degree

PhD

Part-B(i)



The scale ranges from 1 = strongly disagree to 6 = strongly agree.

Items 1 2 3 4 5

1. My boss asks for the views of his/her subordinates.

2. My boss encourages me to speak up about matters

that are important to me.

3. My boss precisely notes my contribution.

4. My boss gives me opportunities to ask questions.

5. My boss constructively criticises me.

6. My boss willingly explains when I ask.

36 -45 Years

26 -35 Years

Below26 Years

56Years& above

46 - 55 Years

Appendices 130

Part-B (ii)




strongly agree.

Thank you

Items 1 2 3 4 5

7. My boss encourages work group members to express

ideas/ suggestion.

8. My boss listens to the work group‟s ideas and

suggestions.

9. My boss uses the work group‟s suggestions to make

decisions that affect us.

10. My boss gives all work group members a chance to

voice their opinions.

11. My boss considers the work group‟s ideas when

she/he disagrees with them.

12. My boss makes decisions that are based only on

his/her own ideas.

PARTICIPATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF ORGANISATIONAL … · Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders...

Documents

Transcript of PARTICIPATIVE BEHAVIOUR OF ORGANISATIONAL … · Participative Behaviour of Organisational Leaders...