02whole

i
PARTICIPATIVE MANAGEMENT AND ITS RELATIONSHIPS
WITH EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE BEHAVIOUR:
A STUDY IN THE UNIVERSITY SECTOR IN MALANG
INDONESIA
Burhanuddin
B.A (Ed) (UNLAM)
Drs (EdAdmSup) (IKIP MALANG)
M.Ed (MEdMgmt) (FLINDERS)
This thesis is submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, School of Education
Faculty of the Professions
The University of Adelaide
September 2013

iii
Table of Contents
Page
Abstract........................................................................................................................... xi
Declaration.....................................................................................................................xii
List of Figures...............................................................................................................xiii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................. xv
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................xvii
Chapter One: Introduction ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background of the Study......................................................................................................3
1.1.1 An overview of participative management ............................................................4
1.1.2 Participative management from research perspective...........................................5
1.1.3 The context of higher education management in Indonesia..................................8
1.2 Statement of Research Problem........................................................................................16
1.2.1 The emerging need for participative management system .................................16
1.2.2 Lack of studies on the effects of participative management on employee
performance behaviour .........................................................................................17
1.2.3 Lack of studies on participative management in the university context ............17
1.2.4 Lack of previous studies on leadership related to contingency factors..............18
1.2.5 Personal perspective ..............................................................................................19
1.3 Purpose of the Study...........................................................................................................20
1.4 Research Questions ...........................................................................................................21
1.5 Aims and Objectives of the Research..............................................................................22
1.6 Contribution to the Discipline...........................................................................................23
1.6.1 More comprehensive understanding about participative management ..............24
1.6.2 Research development in educational management............................................24
1.6.3 Information on management effectiveness based on employee and leader
perceptions.............................................................................................................24
1.6.4 Examination of the interaction effects among the research variables ................25
1.6.5 Information for practitioners of university organisation.....................................25
1.7 Definition of Terms ............................................................................................................25
1.8 Limitations of the Research ...............................................................................................27

iv
1.9 The Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................28
1.10Summary............................................................................................................................30
Chapter Two: Review of Previous Studies on Participative Management.................. 31
and Employee Performance Behaviour ........................................................................ 31
2.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................31
2.2 Overview of Management versus Leadership Concepts..................................................31
2.3 The Conceptual Underpinning of Participative Management .........................................33
2.3.1 Participative management defined........................................................................33
2.3.2 The paradigm of participative management and its compatibility with
other leadership constructs ...................................................................................35
2.3.3 The Likert profile of organisation.........................................................................38
2.3.4 Characteristics of a participative organisational climate.....................................41
2.3.5 Employee performance behaviour and organisational effectiveness .................44
2.3.6 Implementation of participative management in improving organisational
effectiveness ..........................................................................................................46
2.4 Previous Studies on the Relationships between Participative Management and
Employee Performance Behaviour...................................................................................49
2.4.1 Defining the terminology of employee performance behaviour.........................49
2.4.2 Linking participative management behaviour with employee performance
behaviour in organisation .....................................................................................52
2.4.3 The direct impact of participative management on employee performance
behaviour ...............................................................................................................56
2.4.4 The indirect impact of participative management through employee work
attitude....................................................................................................................57
2.4.5 Moderating effects of contingency factors...........................................................62
2.5 Summary .............................................................................................................................69
Chapter Three: Participative Management Framework and Research Model .......... 71
3.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................71
3.2 The Use of Participative Management Style in University Organisations .....................72
3.3 Participative Management and its Relationships with Employee Performance
Behaviour...........................................................................................................................76

v
3.4 Mediating Factor of Employee Work Attitudes on the Effectiveness of Participative
Management.......................................................................................................................79
3.4.1 The job characteristics model ...............................................................................80
3.4.2 Job characteristics and their association with employee performance
behaviour ...............................................................................................................80
3.4.3 Indicators of employee work attitude and employee performance behaviour...82
3.5 Situational Factors of Participative Management.............................................................90
3.5.1 Fiedler‟s contingency model.................................................................................91
3.5.2 House‟s path goal theory of leadership ................................................................93
3.5.3 Participative management and its contingency factors .......................................94
3.6 The Hypothesised Research Model of the Participative Management in the
Context of University......................................................................................................100
3.6.1 The main purpose of the research model ...........................................................101
3.6.2 The theoretical model for the study....................................................................102
3.6.3 Directions of relationships and influencing factors among research
variables...............................................................................................................104
3.7 Summary ...........................................................................................................................106
Chapter Four: Research Design and Instrumentation........................................... 108
4.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................108
4.2 Research Design ...............................................................................................................108
4.2.1 Reasons of using mixed research method ..........................................................109
4.2.2 Explanatory mixed methods designs..................................................................109
4.2.3 The strength and weakness of qualitative and quantitative approaches...........111
4.2.4 Steps of a mixed methods study .........................................................................113
4.2.5 Participants...........................................................................................................115
4.3 Instrumentation.................................................................................................................119
4.3.1 The development of the items in the questionnaire...........................................119
4.3.2 The format of the questionnaire .........................................................................125
4.3.3 Translation of the items in the questionnaires ...................................................127
4.3.4 Pilot study.............................................................................................................128

vi
4.4 Data Collection .................................................................................................................130
4.4.1 Approval of the ethics committee and permissions from research sites ..........130
4.4.2 Administration of the questionnaire for the main data collection ....................130
4.4.3 The interview and document review ..................................................................131
4.5. Summary ..........................................................................................................................134
Chapter Five: Methods of Data Analysis................................................................. 135
5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................135
5.2 General Methodological Considerations.........................................................................135
5.2.1 Missing values .....................................................................................................135
5.2.2 Notion of causality...............................................................................................138
5.2.3 Significance testing in social science research ..................................................139
5.2.4 Level of analysis ..................................................................................................139
5.3 Quantitative Data Analysis ..............................................................................................141
5.3.1 The use of PASW statistics/SPSS software .......................................................141
5.3.2 The Use of AMOS for confirmatory factor analysis and single level path
analysis.................................................................................................................143
5.3.3 Confirmatory factor analysis for testing the construct validity of the
instruments...........................................................................................................145
5.3.4 Path analysis.........................................................................................................151
5.3.5 The use of Conquest for Rasch Model in item analysis....................................153
5.3.6 Hierarchical Linear Modelling (HLM)...............................................................157
5.4 Qualitative Data Analysis.................................................................................................163
5.4.1 Analysing qualitative data of the interview .......................................................164
5.4.2 Analysing documents ..........................................................................................168
5.4.3 Validation of the qualitative data........................................................................169
5.5. Summary ..........................................................................................................................170
Chapter Six: Preliminary Analysis and Scale Validation .......................................... 172
6.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................172
6.2 Data Description ...............................................................................................................172
6.2.1 Demographic and descriptive information on respondents...............................172
6.2.2 Missing values .....................................................................................................180

vii
6.2.3 Test for normality ................................................................................................181
6.3 Reliability..........................................................................................................................181
6.3.1 Internal consistency obtained from the pilot study............................................182
6.3.2 Internal consistency obtained from the main study...........................................183
6.4 Validity..............................................................................................................................184
6.4.1 Face validity.........................................................................................................185
6.4.2 Construct validity.................................................................................................186
6.5 Confirmatory Factor Analysis..........................................................................................186
6.5.1 Model fit indices..................................................................................................187
6.5.2 Five alternative models .......................................................................................188
6.5.3 Fit comparison of the five alternative models....................................................189
6.5.4 Final structure of the measurement model.........................................................192
6.6 Scale Validation for Employee Questionnaire Using the Rasch Model .......................203
6.6.1 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Participative
Management (PM) scale.....................................................................................207
6.6.2 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Organisational
Culture (ORG) scale............................................................................................211
6.6.3 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee
Work Attitude (EWA) scale ...............................................................................213
6.6.4 Results of the response model parameter estimates for the Employee
Performance Behaviour (EPB) scale. ................................................................216
6.7 Summary ...........................................................................................................................219
Chapter Seven: Single Level Path Analysis: Employee Level ................................... 221
7.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................221
7.2 Test for Multicollinearity of Independent Variables at Employee Level......................221
7.3 Variables Used in the Employee Level Path Analysis ...................................................223
7.4 Results of Employee Level Path Analysis ......................................................................225
7.4.1 Measurement model results at the employee level............................................225
7.4.2 Structural model results at the employee level ..................................................230
7.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Employee Level Path Model..............................................243
7.6 Summary ...........................................................................................................................244

viii
Chapter Eight: Single Level Path Analysis: Leader Level......................................... 246
8.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................246
8.2 Test for Multicollinearity of the Independent Variables................................................246
8.3. Variables Used in the Leader Level Path Analysis .......................................................248
8.4 Results of the Leader Level Path Analysis .....................................................................251
8.4.1 Measurement model results at the leader level..................................................252
8.4.2 Structural model results at the leader level ........................................................259
8.5 Fit indexes Obtained at the Leader Level Path Model ...................................................270
8.6 Summary ...........................................................................................................................271
Chapter Nine: Two-Level Model of the Employee Performance Behaviour in
University Sector in Malang Indonesia....................................................................... 274
9.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................274
9.2 Variables Used in the Two-Level Model........................................................................275
9.3 Two-Level Employee Performance Behaviour Model ..................................................278
9.3.1 Null model.........................................................................................................278
9.3.2 Final level-1 model...........................................................................................281
9.3.3 Full model .........................................................................................................282
9.4 The Effects of Level-1 Predictors on the Outcome Variable.........................................283
9.5 The Effects of Level-2 Predictors on Employee Performance Behaviour....................286
9.6 The Interaction Effects.....................................................................................................287
9.6.1 Interaction effect of average level of participative management with
age of employee...................................................................................................292
9.6.2 Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with age of employee..........................................................................................293
9.6.3 Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative
management.........................................................................................................294
9.6.4 Interaction effect of average employee performance behaviour with
employee work attitude.......................................................................................295
9.7 Summary ...........................................................................................................................297

ix
Chapter Ten: Results of the Interviews: Perceptions of Employees and Leaders .... 299
10.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................299
10.2 Responses from Employee Participants ........................................................................300
10.2.1 Employee conceptions of the possibility of the use of participative
management style .............................................................................................300
10.2.2 Preferred management styles............................................................................304
10.2.3 Management styles in use .................................................................................307
10.2.4 Attitude towards the job ....................................................................................312
10.2.5 Organisational commitment..............................................................................315
10.3 Responses from Leader Participants .............................................................................316
10.3.1 Leader conceptions of the use of participative management style .................316
10.3.2 Contribution of the current organisational structure to participative
management ......................................................................................................320
10.3.3 Influence of participative management on employee work attitudes.............325
10.3.4 Influence of participative management on employee performance
behaviour...........................................................................................................329
10.3.5 Factors determining the effectiveness of participative management .............333
10.4 Summary .........................................................................................................................338
Chapter Eleven: Discussion and Conclusion .............................................................. 340
11.1 Achieving the Research Aims........................................................................................340
11.2 The Effects of Participative Management on Employee Work Attitude ....................341
11.3 The effects of Employee Work Attitude on Employee Performance Behaviour .......342
11.4 The effects of Participative Management on Employee Performance Behaviour......344
11.5 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of Participative
Management..................................................................................................................347
11.6 The effects of Organisational Factors on Employee Perceptions of Employee
Performance Behaviour ................................................................................................350
11.7 Effects of Individual Factors on Perceptions of Participative Management and
Employee Performance Behaviour ..............................................................................354

x
11.8 Differences in Leaders and Average Employees‟ Perceptions about the Use of
Participative Management Style, Employee Work Attitude, Employee
Performance Behaviour, and their Relationships........................................................356
11.9 Differences in Perceptions of Participative Management in Government and
Private Universities.......................................................................................................358
11.10 Limitations and Further Research ...............................................................................360
11.11 Theoretical and Practical Implications........................................................................361
11.12 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................363
Appendices................................................................................................................... 365
Appendix A: The Employees‟ PMEP Questionnaire ...........................................................366
Appendix B: The Leaders‟ PMEP Questionnaire.................................................................376
Appendix C: Interview Protocol for Employees and Leaders .............................................386
Appendix D: Interview Transcription Samples.....................................................................387
Appendix E: Ethics Approval from the University of Adelaide..........................................399
Appendix F: Permission Documents from Sample Universities in Indonesia....................402
Appendix G: Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Employee Participants...........408
Appendix H: Descriptive Results of Item Responses from Leader Participants ................414
Appendix I: Standardised Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) ......................420
Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 441

xi
Abstract
This research study investigated employee and leader perceptions about the use of
participative management style and its relationships with employee work attitude and
performance behaviour in terms of commitment, quality of customer service, and
withdrawal behaviour. A mixed methods design was used by incorporating quantitative
and qualitative approaches. Questionnaire and interview were used to explore individuals‟
perceptions. Documents were gathered to access information about the universities
involved in the study. This study involved 808 employees and 52 Heads of Divisions from
six universities in Malang, Indonesia. Twenty four employees and 12 leaders were
interviewed. Attitudinal variables were measured employing scales: Participative
Management, Organisational Culture, Employee Work Attitude, and Employee
Performance Behaviour. The scales were validated using Confirmatory Factor Analysis
and Rasch Model. Path Analysis was used to examine relationships among the variables.
Hierarchical Linear Modelling was also used to examine the relationships among nested
variables and cross-level interaction effects on the outcome variable. The qualitative data
were analysed by themes related to key variables in the quantitative results. Results from
the employee and leader-level path analyses indicated that participative management was
positively associated with employee performance behaviour. This trend was produced
either as a direct effect on performance or indirectly through employee work attitude.
Further analysis using a two-level model indicated that, at the micro level, this style
provided a direct effect on performance. At the macro level, the direct effect was provided
by the organisational culture. Supported by the qualitative results, this study reveals overall
that participative management was found to improve the employee performance, with its
effectiveness varied according to situational factors. The theoretical implication of this
study is that participative management enhances performance through promoting
individual capacity and relationships. Future research needs to focus on wider contingency
factors to pursue broader insights about participative management and generate more
comprehensive conclusions.
Key words: Participative management, employee work attitude, employee performance
behaviour, management, leadership, leader, employee, organisational unit.

xii
Declaration
I certify that this work contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any
other degree or diploma in any university or other tertiary institution and, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, contains no material previously published or written by another
person, except where due reference has been made in the text. In addition, I certify that no
part of this work will, in the future, be used in a submission for any other degree or
diploma in any university or other tertiary institution without the prior approval of the
University of Adelaide and where applicable, any partner institution responsible for the
joint-award of this degree.
I give consent to this copy of my thesis, when deposited in the University Library, being
made available for loan and photocopying, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act
1968.
I also give permission for the digital version of my thesis to be made available on the web,
via the University‟s digital research repository, the Library catalogue and also through web
search engines, unless permission has been granted by the University to restrict access for
a period of time.
Signed: ____________________________
Date : ____________________________

xiii
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
Figure 2.1. The generic approaches to measuring organisational effectiveness...................45
Figure 2.2. Organisational development of system 1 or 2 compared to system 4 ................48
Figure 3.1. The use of participative management style in improving employee
performance in university.....................................................................................74
Figure 3.2. General organisational structure at university and faculty level.........................75
Figure 3.3. Conceptual framework of relationships between management systems and
employee performance behaviour........................................................................77
Figure 3.4. The model of how participative management works in improving
performance and productivity...............................................................................78
Figure 3.5. Relationships between participative management, employee work
attitude and performance behaviour.....................................................................81
Figure 3.6. Situational factors moderating the relationships between participative
management, employee work attitude, and employee performance
behaviour ...............................................................................................................94
Figure 3.7. Research model of the relationships among participative management,
employee work attitude, employee performance behaviour and influence
of the situational factors in a university context ...............................................105
Figure 4.1. Explanatory mixed methods design.................................................................109
Figure 4.2. Steps of a mixed methods study ......................................................................113
Figure 4.3. Map of Indonesia.............................................................................................116
Figure 4.4. Map of the city of Malang Indonesia showing the location of the
universities involved in the study ...................................................................117
Figure 4.5. Sources and development of questionnaire items for the research
variables...........................................................................................................122
Figure 5.1. Direct and indirect effect ................................................................................152
Figure 5.2. The process of the qualitative data analysis.......................................................165
Figure 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents by gender..............................................174

xiv
Figure 6.2. Distribution of employee respondents by age group.........................................174
Figure 6.3. Distribution of employee respondents by education level ................................175
Figure 6.4. Employment levels of employee respondents....................................................177
Figure 6.5. Length of service of employee respondents.......................................................177
Figure 6.6. Age of leader respondents...................................................................................179
Figure 6.7. Length of service of leader respondents.............................................................180
Figure 6.8. Hierarchical factor model of the participative management (PM) scale..........193
Figure 6.9. The hierarchical factor model of organisational culture (ORG) scale .............196
Figure 6.10. The hierarchical factor model of employee work attitude (EWA) scale........198
Figure 6.11. The hierarchical factor model of the employee performance behaviour
(EPB) scale ..........................................................................................................201
Figure 6.12. Characteristic curves showing the ordered responses in the five
categories.............................................................................................................206
Figure 7.1. The path model ....................................................................................................230
Figure 7.2. Employee level path model.................................................................................233
Figure 8.1. Leader level path model ......................................................................................254
Figure 9.1. Two-level employee performance behaviour Model ........................................275
Figure 9.2. The hypothesised variables of the two-level employee performance
behaviour model..................................................................................................277
Figure 9.3. Two level of employee performance behaviour ................................................285
Figure 9.4. Interaction effect of average level of participative management with age
of employee .........................................................................................................293
Figure 9.5. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with age of employee..........................................................................................294
Figure 9.6. Interaction effect of average age of employee with participative
management.........................................................................................................295
Figure 9.7. Interaction effect of average level of employee performance behaviour
with employee work attitude ..............................................................................296

xv
List of Tables
Table Title Page
Table 2.1. Characteristics of management systems ................................................................40
Table 4.1. Population of employees and heads of division in the six selected
universities ......................................................................................................118
Table 4.2. Sample of participants for the interview...........................................................119
Table 4.3. The development of the items of PMEP Questionnaire .....................................121
Table 4.4. Variables and expressions used in measurement scale.....................................126
Table 4.5. Items of the questionnaire before and after pilot study ......................................129
Table 4.6. The distribution of the questionnaire for the employees ....................................130
Table 4.7. The distribution of the questionnaire for leaders .............................................131
Table 6.1. Distribution of employee respondents in the university setting.........................173
Table 6.2. Crosstabulation of education level by gender of employees..............................176
Table 6.3. Crosstabulation of employment level by gender of employees .........................178
Table 6.4. Distribution of leader respondents in the university...........................................179
Table 6.5. Education level and gender of leader sample......................................................179
Table 6.6. Employment level of leaders................................................................................180
Table 6.7. The scales and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients obtained from the pilot
study.....................................................................................................................182
Table 6.8. The scales and Cronbach‟s alpha coefficients obtained from the main
study.....................................................................................................................183
Table 6.9. Model fit comparison............................................................................................189
Table 6.10. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of participative
management.........................................................................................................195
Table 6.11. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of organisational culture
(ORG) scale.........................................................................................................197
Table 6.12. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee work
attitude (EWA) scale...........................................................................................199
Table 6.13. Factor loadings of the hierarchical factor model of the employee
performance behaviour (EPB) scale ..................................................................202

xvi
Table 6.14. The range of fit mean square and the item fit interpretation ............................204
Table 6.15. The range of standardised values and the item fit interpretation .....................204
Table 6.16. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the participative management
(PM) scale............................................................................................................208
Table 6.17. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the organisational culture (ORG)
scale......................................................................................................................211
Table 6.18. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee work attitude (EWA)
scale......................................................................................................................214
Table 6.19. Model fit estimates and item deltas of the employee performance
behaviour .............................................................................................................217
Table 7.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the employee level........222
Table 7.2. Variables used in the employee level path analysis............................................224
Table 7.3. Results of measurement model at the employee level........................................229
Table 7.4. Results of structural model at the employee level ..............................................234
Table 8.1. Collinearity statistics of the independent variables at the leader level..............247
Table 8.2. Variables used in the leader level path analysis..................................................249
Table 8.3. Results of measurement model at the leader level..............................................255
Table 8.4. Results of the structural model in the leader level path analysis .......................260
Table 9.1. List of variables.....................................................................................................276
Table 9.2. Fully unconditional model- employee performance behaviour ........................280
Table 9.3. Final model – employee performance behaviour................................................284
Table 9.4. Estimation of variance components – employee performance behaviour.........297

xvii
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, my greatest thanks are to God, for providing me with strong spirit, and
for making possible the completion of this study.
I would like to express my gratitude for the generous help and continuous guidance of my
principal supervisor, Professor Tania Aspland and co-supervisors Dr I Gusti Ngurah
Darmawan and Dr Francisco Ben in completing this study. I would also like to thank the
Indonesian government through the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE), for
providing my scholarship under the overseas postgraduate scholarship program; the Rector
of the State University of Malang who assigned me, and supported me in pursuing a
doctoral degree overseas; the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide, the Dean of
Faculty of Professions, the Head of School of Education, and Postgraduate Coordinator,
who continuously provided support and inspiration throughout my candidature.
My thanks are also addressed to the Rectors of the following universities in Malang who
granted permission to administer the questionnaires and interviews on their sites: State
University of Malang, Brawijaya University, Maulana Malik State Islamic University of
Malang, University of Muhammadiyah Malang, Islamic University of Malang, and
Widyagama University; and to all the participants in the research study.
My appreciation is also extended to Dr Margaret Seacombe, Adjunct Senior Lecturer, who
helped me with the thesis editing; to Dr Michelle Picard, Director of Researcher Education
and Development, who guided me in improving academic writing; to Dr Christine Velde,
my first principal supervisor, who guided me in developing the initial proposal; and to the
team of academic and non-academic staff in the School of Education for their helpful
services and support during my study.
Particular thanks are addressed to my parent, Djamaluddin and Noor Laela, for their
encouragement and prayers, and to my wife, Hasunah, and my son, Oemar Syarif Burhan,
for their love and inspiration and for accompanying me to study overseas; to the rest of my

xviii
family in Indonesia especially my son, Mohammad Yasser Burhan, my daughters, Sophia
Burhan and Sarah Rosalina Burhan, and my brothers and sisters, who gave moral support
for my study. I am also grateful to my colleagues and friends in the School of Education at
the University of Adelaide and in the State University of Malang Indonesia, as well as the
other people who in one way or another gave moral support throughout my research
journey.
Finally, I present this work to everybody who is concerned with education.

1
Chapter One
Introduction
Organisational or institutional success in achieving goals not only depends on material
aspects such as money, technology, equipment, buildings or other assets, but also on the
successful management and leadership of the people within an organisation. The reason for
the focus on human capital is that an organisation needs people to operate its key activities.
The essence of the human factor in the organisation cannot be replaced by other
organisational components even in a very sophisticated machine. This is particularly true
when it involves empowering all staff members to perform better for the benefit of the
organisation (Gibson, Ivancevich, Donnelly, & Konopaske, 2006; Mondy, Gordon,
Sharplin, & Premeaux, 1990).
Many studies in management and leadership have demonstrated that executives of a public
organisation need to provide an effective management system which is able to encourage
their employees, empower them to achieve organisational objectives, and contribute to the
success of the mission of the organisation as a whole (Key, 2000; Kozlowski & Ilgen,
2006; Yukl, 2002). The effectiveness of a particular management system, which is applied
with a view to improving employee performance, depends on many individual and
organisational factors.
Within effective management systems, individual managers and leaders still have a
substantial contribution to the success of an organisation, according to Bass (1990).
However, their contribution is contingent upon their capacity to manage people within the
changing global market. Carew, Parisi-Carew, and Blanchard (2007), Bass (1990) and Key
(2000) also highlight that the ability to respond to a changing environment depends on the
ability to employ management styles appropriately. While the situation may demand that
organisations employ strict controls and increase work efficiency to survive, this may also
cause the devaluation of employees as human capital. Therefore, managers and leaders
need to be able to employ a management style that encourages employees to have positive
attitudes towards their jobs and towards their leaders, and eventually encourages them to

2
pursue higher performance for the success of the organisation within a changing
environment.
This kind of positive leadership style necessitates a management system that likewise
fosters positive attitudes and joint responsibility. There are various management systems
that can be employed by leaders in managing people at work. These include, for example,
participative or democratic, autocratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership (Yukl, 2002).
From the various management and leadership styles that have been studied, the literature
suggests that participative management style / or participative management system is the
most successful in engaging people, especially employees under corporate structures, and
in encouraging subordinates to pursue higher performance at work (Likert, 1967; Pelled &
Hill, 1997; Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002).
As is the case for all organisations, university governance relies on the managerial capacity
of its leaders to coordinate and utilise human resources for the benefit of the organisation
as a whole (World Bank, 2000). To achieve these goals, the university demands
management systems or management styles (Bajunid, 2011; Tjeldvoll, 2011) that are
appropriate for improving employee performance behaviour (Bryman, 2007) within the
individual and organisational context. Since the participative management system has been
shown to achieve these goals in other organisations, it is assumed that this system could be
potentially of benefit in the university context (S. Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012).
However, this has not been sufficiently tested, since most research in the university context
has focused only on the organisational level or top executive performance such as Dean,
Vice Chancellor, and Rector (Bajunid, 2011; Bolden, Petrov, Gosling, & Bryman, 2009;
Breakwell & Tytherleigh, 2008; Saint, Hartnett, & Strassner, 2003) and academic
leadership as performed by head teachers in vocational education institutions (Adams &
Gamage, 2008).
Additionally, research on participative management systems in organisations to date has
focused on the data acquired from line-officers (Steinheider, Bayerl, & Wuestewald, 2006)
or from organisational reports, but this sort of system has not been explored in the
university context. It is clear that participative management systems apply to universities,
and studies have focused on top level of leadership and ignored ordinary employees. There

3
is little research investigating the impact of the participative management system on
ordinary employees‟ performance levels (Angermeier, Dunford, Boss, Smith, & Boss,
2009) and work attitudes particularly in the context of university organisation. In addition,
existing management research has shown a lack of consistent findings (Yukl, 2002) and
has not been well integrated with leadership theories (Vilkinas & West, 2011). In order to
minimise this gap, therefore, it was the intention of the current study to examine the
impacts of the participative management system on employee performance behaviour
focusing on administrative staff or non-academic staff in university organisations. It is
important to note that this research is limited to the organisational context of Indonesian
universities in the city of Malang.
The Indonesian university context has been selected because there currently appears to be
no studies focusing on this style of management in Indonesian universities. The current
study contributes to filling this gap and adding to the management and leadership
literature. The remainder of this chapter includes the following sections: (1) background of
the study, (2) statement of the problems, (3) purpose of the study, (4) research questions,
(5) aims and objectives of the research, (6) contribution to the discipline, (7) definition of
terms, (8) limitations of the research, (9) the structure of this thesis, and (10) summary.
1.1 Background of the Study
Scholars have identified two basic styles in the provision of management and leadership
for public organisations. These are the autocratic and participative management styles
(Angermeier, et al., 2009; Blanchard et al., 2007). Autocratic management is intended to
reduce the costs of labour by exercising strict control and increasing work efficiencies,
while participative management is intended to increase organisational effectiveness by
rewarding performance, fostering commitment, and delegating decision making processes
to subordinates (Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984; Yukl, 2002).
There has been considerable and continuing interest in reforms that enable organisations to
empower people at work. Jones and George (2006) advocate “empowerment” as a modern
management approach or system that concerns human factors in the organisation, through

4
providing people with more active roles in management activities within the organisational
structure. The autocratic style is therefore criticised for devaluing the human factor in order
to attain organisational objectives. The participative management style has more recently
gained prominence in the competitive situation (Cabrera, Ortega, & Cabrera, 2003)
because of its contribution to the success of organisations in terms of strengthening
organisational and human values (Mohrman & Lawler, 1988). Thus organisation
executives need to be able to employ this style in order to improve the effectiveness of
their management practices. In particular, it is important for improving the performance of
organisational members (Burhanuddin & Aspland, 2012, August; Tuuli & Rowlinson,
2009).
Participative management as the key strategy for empowerment is consistent with the
context of contemporary management thought and the global demands placed on
organisations (Key, 2000). The main argument for this position is that it relates directly to
a strategy to empower organisational members so that they can cope effectively within a
“turbulent environment” (Sashkin, 1984, p. 21).
Despite the positive emphasis on this style in the literature, the ways in which it can
improve employee performance need to be explored within the Indonesian context, since
there is a lack of evidence of its efficacy in this context and its implementation in public
organisations. The following sections explore the following issues in more detail: (1) an
overview of participative management, (2) participative management from research
perspective, and (3) the context of higher education management in Indonesia.
1.1.1 An overview of participative management
Participative management as a style of management or leadership has become influential
over the recent years (Bass, 1990; T.-C. Huang, 1997; Yukl, 2002). This is described as the
third managerial revolution. The second revolution involved the separation of management
from ownership and the inventing of management professionalization, while the first
revolution involved the invention of hierarchy (Sashkin, 1984). Participative management
is generally defined as an approach that empowers organisational members or subordinates

5
by means of distributing information, knowledge, rewards, and authority to the lower
levels of an organisation (Key, 2000; Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984).
This style lies at the core of participative management theory. Key (2000) highlighted it as
a managerial approach focusing on the employees as individuals, and on the importance of
fostering their contributions to the attainment of organisational success. The subordinates
are well trained and prepared, enabling them to participate actively for the attainment of
organisational goals.
The core of the management style indicates that there is a move of power from the top to
the lower level hierarchy. This is assumed to enable an organisation to provide a climate
where subordinates are involved in decision making and implementation (Lawler, 1986)
The operation of the organisation is no longer determined by a single leader or the owner
of an organisation. In other words, there is a shift from the activities that were originally
specified by the owner of the organisation, characterizing the first management revolution
to a management system that provides employees with power, as described in the third
revolution in management practice (Sashkin, 1984).
Scholars who developed this style argue that participative management could enable
organisations to survive within unpredictable environments through human resource
empowerment. At the same time, it could satisfy organisational members by fulfilling their
basic human needs and expectations (Sashkin, 1984). Thus, participative management style
is seen as vital for the organisation in order to strengthen its existence and to make it
survive within a changing situation.
1.1.2 Participative management from research perspective
The participative management style has been employed widely in Western countries as a
way of securing employees‟ commitment to organisations (Lashley, 2000; Quinn &
Spreitzer, 1997). Consequently, the essence of the participative management style for
organisational effectiveness has been examined through a wide range of empirical studies
in the United States and other Western countries, as reported by Miah and Bird (2007) and
Yukl (2002). These studies highlight that the participative management style is typically

6
and positively related to long-term teamwork performance in achieving organisational
outcomes. The alternative autocratic styles are only effective under certain conditions.
Managers who employ the participative style are assumed to be able to provide their
employees with a favourable organisational climate that consequently increases
organisational effectiveness (Likert, 1967).
Indeed, the influence of the participative style on increased organisational effectiveness is
supported by much evidence (Hrebiniak, 1974). Numerous findings both from empirical
studies and meta-analyses have reported that the participative management style improves
employee performance and job satisfaction in the workplace (Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009).
For example, Sashkin (1984) mentioned that fifty years of action research had
demonstrated that participative management, when properly implemented, would
effectively improve performance, productivity, and job satisfaction. Based on various
studies, scholars have recorded evidence of the impacts of participative management on
employee performance behaviour (Angermeier, et al., 2009; Likert, 1967; Yukl, 2002),
especially in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour. On the other hand, numerous studies have found that
participative management has an association with the likelihood of improved employee
work attitude (G. R. Jones & George, 2006; Sashkin, 1984; Tuuli & Rowlinson, 2009), and
there was evidence that self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of security, and job
satisfaction could become mediators of the effects of the participative management system
on employee performance behaviour (X. Huang, Shi, Zhang, & Cheung, 2006). In other
words, the effect of participative management on employee performance behaviour is
mediated by the fulfilment of positive work attitudes. The changes in the extent of self-
autonomy, the feelings of job security, and job satisfaction then lead to the improved
performance behaviour of the employees in the workplace.
Since the impacts of participative management (PM) are assumed to relate to the two
components mentioned above (performance and work attitude), many studies focusing on
participative management have provided two different sets of findings. Firstly, some
studies support a conclusion that participative management has a direct effect on employee
performance behaviour (Angermeier, et al., 2009; Likert, 1967). This direct effect of

7
participative management on performance is indicated by the improved employee
performance behaviour (EPB) in terms of organisational commitment, the quality of
customer service, and lower employee withdrawal behaviour. The evidence from other
studies supports a conclusion that this management style has only an indirect effect on
employee performance (Steinheider, et al., 2006). Sashkin (1984) and Likert (1967) seem
to support both sides of this issue. They argue that participative management has strong
and positive effects on the level of employee performance behaviour. However, their
explanation on the association between the two variables implies that the effect of this style
on performance is less straightforward. In other words, its effect on performance is
mediated through the fulfilment of the components of employee work attitude (EWA) in
terms of self-autonomy, meaningful task, feelings of job security and job satisfaction.
Thus, it can be summarised that the possibility of associations of this style with the other
two variables can be illustrated as a combination of a direct effect (PM  EPB) and an
indirect effect (PM  EWA  EPB).
Furthermore, it is argued in this study that the associations among these variables are also
determined by the situational factors that may modify the strengths of the effects of PM on
its dependent variable or outcome variable, as well as EWA and EPB. Studies in
management and leadership indicate the situational factors have been found to determine
the effectiveness of leadership (Fiedler, 1981). In particular they moderate the effect of
participative management on both employee work attitude and employee performance
behaviour (Sashkin, 1984). In much of the literature, situational factors refer to individual
factors, as well as organisational and environmental factors (Yukl, 2002). The individual
factors include the characteristics of employees and leaders within the organisational
structure, as well as gender, age, education, employment level, and length of service. The
organisational factors relate to the age or history of the organisation, the status of the
establishment, size of organisation, and organisational culture. The organisational
effectiveness depends on how its leaders apply the management and leadership styles
within the given situations.

8
1.1.3 The context of higher education management in Indonesia
Competitiveness in outcomes challenges organisations all over the world to pursue the
highest level of nation building programs, especially in the development of technology,
economics, and education (Damme, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2004). Indonesia, as a
developing country, confronts this situation by being actively involved in developing its
capacity by improving the quality of human resources across the nation (UNESCO, 2006;
World Bank, 2000). To deal with such a demand, the Indonesian government has invested
resources into nation building programs to increase its profile in international
competitiveness (Marginson, 2006; Marginson & Sawir, 2006). One of the nation-building
efforts in Indonesia is the implementation of quality improvement programs in the higher
education system (DGHE, 2003). This is needed desperately to create quality human
resources and a work force that demonstrates competencies required for the international
market (Brodjonegoro, 2002).
However, the implementation of the development programs through the higher education
sector has often been constrained by the internal factor of the management of higher
education itself (Azra, 2008; DGHE, 2003; Tadjudin, 2000; World Bank, 2000). This
situation is assumed to be an organisational issue due to the inappropriate way university
organisations manage people at work to achieve their maximum contribution and
accomplish organisational objectives. Indonesian government views this issue as
problematic, and has been trying to deal with it appropriately. The need to improve the
quality or the performance of higher education management at the university level, thus, is
highlighted as a strategic issue for organisational survival (Damme, 2001; Tadjudin, 2000;
UNESCO, 2006) in a competitive environment (Duderstadt, 2000). In this study, it is
argued that this deficiency can be overcome by providing effective participative
management and leadership to the human resource sector within the university structure to
ensure that employees can contribute to the mission of the university in responding to the
demands of the global market.

9
The government paradigm underpinning the development of higher education
management in Indonesia
With respect to the challenging factors discussed in the previous section, in 1994 the
Indonesian government through the Directorate General of Higher Education (DGHE)
introduced a new paradigm of higher education management where autonomy and
accountability became strategic issues (DGHE, 2003). The basic policy on autonomy
coupled with accountability was provided to institutions. The authority from the central
government was devolved to the lower level or to higher education institutions. In
particular, universities have been encouraged to develop a management process that
promotes innovation, efficiency, and excellence. At the same time, they are accountable for
designing a management system which ensures the effective use of resources, the
accomplishment of organisational activities and gaining results that are appraisable by their
stakeholders, including the community. The development of higher education
management, thus, is required in order for the universities to be “organisationally healthy”
or well managed, which potentially contributes to the nation‟s competitiveness (DGHE,
2003; World Bank, 2000).
Based on this paradigm underpinning the development of higher education management,
the Indonesian government has provided higher education institutions with policies and
guidelines of development programs, specifically internal management systems for
attaining higher levels of organisation performance. The consequence of the
implementation of the new paradigm in managing higher education has been the rapid
increase of development programs in the public university sector over the last ten years.
For example, there are some advances in terms of access and equity due to an increase in
student enrolments (Welch, 2007), and various human resource development programs
have been implemented especially which involve predominantly participants from
academic staff. The vision for the improvement in higher education management is to
ensure that Indonesia has a competitive leverage that is demonstrated by reputable higher
education institutions in the future (DGHE, 2003; World Bank, 2000).

10
To pursue its vision of higher education management, the Indonesian government has
focused on the development of organisational performance. Policy makers and university
executives are encouraged to develop and implement strategic management systems to
maximise the organisational effectiveness of the institution in the global environment and
make effective use of resources (Marginson, 2006; Marginson & Sawir, 2006; McCaffery,
2010; Schwartzman, 2001) especially human capital (Idrus, 1999; Kim, 2002). As a
consequence, various professional development programs for building institutional
capacity have been implemented. These include, for example, instructional development
programs for academic staff through postgraduate studies and training in domestic
institutions and overseas, and the procurement of new buildings and facilities. Most
financial resources from national and international grants are invested in these areas
(DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006).
Although various programs have been implemented, it is acknowledged that many of the
expected results of management reforms have not been achieved (Azra, 2008; UNESCO,
2006). The development policies proposed by the Indonesian government are conceptually
important initiatives. However, the programs implementing the policies are probably not
well prepared, and possibly not completely relevant to the demands of the incumbent
universities (World Bank, 2000). Furthermore, there are some weaknesses especially in the
implementation of the development programs. For example, although the issue of
university management has become a part of government policy in higher education
reformation programs in the context of organisational health policy (DGHE, 2003), there
has been no specific strategy for improving the management and leadership competencies
of the administrative leaders or „non academic‟ executives in the university structure
(UNESCO, 2006; World Bank, 2000). Development programs are currently still prioritised
mostly for „instructional or academic staff, and the procurement of new buildings and
facilities. Most human resource development programs are still focused on academic areas
through postgraduate studies and training programs in domestic and overseas institutions.
From the researcher‟s experience, backed up by some reports from UNESCO (2006) and
World Bank (2000), development programs for non-academic staff have not been high in
the priority list and, as a result, higher education institutions‟ capacity in undertaking

11
organisational improvement has not been increased, nor is it likely to be improved in the
foreseeable future.
The use of participative management style in improving employee performance in the
context of university organisations in Indonesia
Many management theories such as participative management have been developed and
practised in the United States. Consequently, many scholars have criticized the assumption
that this style can be applied, or is transferable to other countries, especially non-Western
countries (Pelled & Hill, 1997), like Indonesia. The work of Hofstede (1980) demonstrates
that in terms of culture, countries have differences in four dimensions: power distance,
uncertainty avoidance, individualism and collectivism. These are believed to affect the
implementation of any particular technique or theory of management that is adopted from
another country.
Based on the cultural map presented by Hofstede (1980), Indonesia is positioned as one of
the countries that is characterised as having a culture with a large power distance. In this
kind of culture, ordinary organisational members have less power compared with those
who have more powerful positions in the organisation. In this context, people are more
likely to accept that power is distributed unequally. Thus, a management theory or a
management technique or style that is developed in a context where there is less of a power
distance is likely to prove not applicable to the Indonesian context. Participative
management as an approach that promotes the strategy of employee empowerment through
power sharing, delegation and leading, with the full confidence and trust of their
employees probably would not adapt well in a culture which is used to large power
distance. This is because management practices in cultural environments that keep a
greater power distance between superiors and subordinates tend to avoid sharing power
with others, especially employees. It is questionable therefore whether the participative
management style can be effectively implemented for improving employee performance in
such cultural contexts (Pelled & Hill, 1997).

12
However, contextually, it can be argued that not all managerial efforts are influenced by
cultural factors. Some management styles that have been applied in non-Western countries
have a common pattern or strategy to those applied in the USA or other Western countries.
If differences in the effectiveness of the management styles are found, then they are
possibly due to other contextual factors (Easterby-Smith, Malina, & Yuan, 1995).
Indonesia as a developing country is challenged to adjust to the demands of the
international market (DGHE, 2003; Key, 2000) in responding to technological advances
and global competitiveness. This has become the main contextual factor that is considered
in promoting management effectiveness in many organisations. To enable the higher
education system to survive in the international environment, Indonesian government
through DGHE has initiated the paradigm of management development prioritising the
issues of autonomy and accountability as the basic policies in management practices.
This paradigm has some basic elements in common with styles applied in many Western
countries. For example, in the implementation of management functions in the human
resource area, Indonesian organisations employ management functions that are generally
the same as those used in the system of human resource management across many nations,
including the USA. This is very similar to the management practices applied by
organisations in other Asian countries, where managers suggest that a culturally universal
theory of management may be applied to any institution in the world (Swierczek, 1991).
The differences between Western and Asian organisations, however, may be found in the
way the managerial activities are applied in the particular context. Compared with US
companies, for example, the payment or reward systems implemented in Asian countries
are rather different. This is assumed to be due to financial constraints, that are contextual,
rather than cultural factors. Additionally, in terms of the implementation of the
organisational structure, most Indonesian institutions employ similar styles in accordance
with the dynamics of the changing systems of the universities in international context,
especially as it is influenced from the Western systems. Even if there are some differences
in perceiving the implementation of the organisational structures and communication

13
system, this could be “a matter of different stages of history/evolution rather than anything
deeply rooted in a particular society” (Easterby-Smith, et al., 1995, p. 52), such as cultural
aspects per se.
A study involving 12 Asian countries, including Indonesia, showed that most managers in
these countries preferred a participative leadership style. Although the small number of
respondents made it difficult to generalize, the finding from “this group of very diverse
Asian managers does suggest that a culturally universal theory of leadership may be
possible” (Swierczek, 1991, p. 10). This is in line with the assumption that some
management theories can be transferred from one country to other countries across cultures
(Bass, 1997; Pelled & Hill, 1997). Thus, it can be assumed that participative management
as a management style or system can be applied in Indonesia, in the context of university
organisations in order to improve the performance of all employees, particularly non-
academic staff.
The extent to which this style can effectively improve employee performance, however,
needs to be studied, taking into account contingency aspects (Sashkin, 1984), such as
organisational factors and individual characteristics. These aspects need to be explored in
order to provide reasonable conclusions about the effectiveness of a particular management
system in improving organisational performance, in this case employees in the context of
Indonesian university organisations.
Factors influencing management reformation
A number of underlying factors were identified by UNESCO (2006) and DGHE (2003) as
inhibitors of the internal capacity of universities in Indonesia to implement management
re-formation. These factors are perceived to influence the effectiveness of higher education
reform (Schwartzman, 2001). This study argued that the organisational performance the
university is dependent to organisational and individual factors. Organisational factors
include size, history or age of the university, status (private/government), and
organisational culture. These factors influence the work of employees, and determine the
effectiveness of leadership or management styles employed in an organisation (DGHE,

14
2003; Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984). Depending on what factors characterise the
performance of university organisations, employees may perform differently from what is
expected by their leaders. The reason is that the employees‟ perceptions about management
behaviour can vary, depending on the circumstances that exist in the workplace (Yukl,
2002).
The status of a university (government/private) in Indonesia is acknowledged as an
important factor that influences its management. The Indonesian government has allowed
the establishment of both government and private universities (Ministry of National
Education Indonesia, 2000). Under this system, private universities have been established
throughout the country and are found in almost every city in Indonesia. The number of
private universities currently exceeds the figure of government universities (DGHE, 2010).
The rapid expansion of the private sector has led to a management problem for government
and community (DGHE, 2003). Since the government has limited financial and human
resources, education programs in government universities have been given priority
(DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006).
Compared with private universities, government universities have many advantages.
Government sectors receive more financial assistance from government in implementing
instructional and staff development programs (UNESCO, 2006). Most staff are employed
on a permanent or official basis (DGHE, 2008, 2009). On the other hand, the private sector
is challenged because of insufficient qualified staff (DGHE, 2003, 2009). Although the
government supplied the private sectors with a number of permanent staff both
administrative and academic, many private universities still have less permanent staff and
rely on part time staff (DGHE, 2003). Limited resources constrain their capacity to provide
better support, particularly salaries for staff. Such a situation is triggered by the lack of
resources in the foundations and communities which own or support the private
universities in implementing the development programs for organisational and professional
improvement (World Bank, 2000).

15
The different status of the university can also influence the way leaders manage their
employees. Although all educational institutions are controlled under government laws and
regulations, the operation of each organisation is based on its own regulations, as proposed
and decided by the Rector and the Senate members (Government of the Republic of
Indonesia, 1999; Ministry of National Education Indonesia, 2000). However, in some
private universities, the foundations and community organisations which established the
educational institutions have more power and influence to determine the way the university
is organised and managed. Thus, the different status of the university and its staff are
assumed to be potential factors that can affect the leadership and management behaviour,
employee work attitude, and motivation, and the way the employees perceive
organisational and individual performance.
As recognised in the literature, Indonesia has a culture that is different from Western
countries (Hofstede, 1980; Key, 2000; Swierczek, 1991). Indonesia is in the early stages of
industrialisation and historically has had an autocratic form of government (Key, 2000, p.
30) and a large power distance (Hofstede, 1980). Consequently, some institutions,
including Indonesian universities, are hierarchically structured and oriented towards
respecting superiors. Such a culture which has been embedded in public organisations for a
long time is assumed to affect managerial performance (Bartol, Martin, Tein, & Matthews,
2002; Idrus, 1999). Authorities have tried to implement styles of management reform,
which come mostly from Western systems. Various management types have been explored
and implemented, but, these have not provided any significant improvement in
organisations, especially in terms of university governance (DGHE, 2003). This is
probably due to leaders who have not been able to comprehend the situation and
effectively employ the management styles within the particular context concerned.
Individual factors include those personal characteristics of leaders and subordinates which
could influence the effectiveness of a management style implemented in the workplace
(Bartol, et al., 2002). The individual factors incorporate leader and subordinate
characteristics, as well as age, gender, education, rank of employment, and length of
service (Ferreira & Hill, 2008; G. R. Jones & George, 2006). Yukl (2002) argues that
individual factors determine both the possibility of increased employee performance and

16
the manner in which leaders can act to improve work performance. As situational
variables, these factors influence subordinate preference for a particular pattern of
leadership or management system applied in the workplace and thus affect employee
performance (Yukl, 2002). Thus, leaders or managers need to consider these factors, and
design an appropriate management system which accounts for these factors, in order to
obtain the optimum contribution from their subordinates.
1.2 Statement of Research Problem
This section presents a description of the research problems that provided the initial frame
of reference for the research questions in this study. The research problems were generated
initially from current issues in higher education management in the context of universities
in Indonesia, and the gaps found in previous studies, which focused on participative
management in public organisations. These are highlighted in the following sections.
1.2.1 The emerging need for participative management system
In response to the contemporary challenges to public organisations, universities as a part of
public organisation require a reliable management strategy to assist them to survive and
respond to the demands of the local community and global market. Executives of the
university, especially the non-academic leaders that become the focus of this study in the
Indonesian context need to explore and implement management strategies that enable them
to motivate staff, improve employee commitment (Bush & Middlewood, 2005), as well as
enhance their work performance in order to ensure institutional sustainability in a
competitive environment. Organisational scholars have identified two management
paradigms named as the autocratic style and the participative style of management that
could be employed in improving organisational effectiveness (Angermeier, et al., 2009, p.
128). The autocratic management style is useful in generating organisational performance
by increasing efficiencies in the use of budget, workforces, facility, and applying strict
control upon the role of subordinates. Alternatively, the participative management style is
adopted by most managers in the competing environment (Cabrera, et al., 2003) to enable
organisations to increase employee performance through motivating, fostering

17
commitment, and involving all members to engage in the organisational activities for
example goal setting, decision making, organisational changes, and problem solving
(Holland, 1995; Likert, 1967; Sashkin, 1984). Thus, this style is assumed to be an
important approach for establishing sustainable university leadership (S. Jones, et al.,
2012) through the empowerment of non-academic staff. The main objective is to maximise
the use of human resource power as well their talent, skills, ideas and motivation in order
to generate the highest contribution from the whole staff for the success of the university.
1.2.2 Lack of studies on the effects of participative management on employee
performance behaviour
As explained previously, many studies in the United States and other countries have
presented evidence that the participative management style has had more influence on
employee performance than what has been achieved by the authoritarian style of
management (Miah & Bird, 2007; Reigle, 2001). However, there are only a limited number
of studies that associate participative management style with specific aspects of employee
performance (Angermeier, et al., 2009).
1.2.3 Lack of studies on participative management in the university context
There have been a limited number of research studies focusing on management systems of
the university organisation (Bryman, 2007), specifically concerned with management and
leadership of heads of division or school managers within the university structure. There is
no evidence of any single research report found in any English website that reports the
results of studies about the implementation of participative management in administrative
units in university sector in Indonesia. As a result, the effectiveness of leadership and
management in the university has not been properly assessed. In examining behaviour and
leadership styles of the university executives, for example, Bolden et al. (2009) highlight
that researchers and practitioners tend to support their explanations using normative
information and in a descriptive manner. They had insufficient evidence related to
effectiveness measures about managing people at work to prove which styles or strategies
were most effective in improving employee performance in the university context, in
Indonesia in particular (Bolden, et al., 2009; Bryman, 2007; S. Jones, et al., 2012).

18
In relation to the Indonesian higher education system, UNESCO (2006) reported that many
expected results of management reforms have not been achieved. However, the report was
not clearly supported by any managerial performance indicators required by a university
organisation and did not propose reliable standards for quality improvement programs in
higher education institutions (Sunarto, 2008).
1.2.4 Lack of previous studies on leadership related to contingency factors
Few previous studies have included organisational and individual contingency factors in
their research design, not enough, according to Yukl (2002), to test any hypothesis on
situational moderators of participative management. The effects of participative
management have most often been examined using organisational indicators such as the
implementation of managerial functions as causal and intervening variables, and
components of organisational performance as outcome variables. However, the effects of
situational factors on the relationships among those variables have often not been included
in the examination (T.-C. Huang & Hsiao, 2007; Mohrman & Lawler, 1988; Rank,
Carsten, Unger, & Spector, 2007; Tella, Ayeni, & Popoola, 2007). Furthermore, most of
the empirical data of the studies were based on the leader‟s perceptions without
incorporating situational factors of employees (Vilkinas & West, 2011; Yukl, 2002). In the
case of university system in Indonesia, for example, DGHE acknowledged there were
some underlying factors influencing the internal capacity to implement management
reformation, such as those related to individual employees, the particular organisation, and
its environment (DGHE, 2003; UNESCO, 2006). However, scientific investigations of
such factors have not been given a high priority. Likert (1967) argued that these omissions
might cause inaccurate research results, and in turn lead to different and inconsistent
patterns of relationships among the research variables.
From the above discussion it can be concluded that there are several gaps in research
findings on participative management style (Miah & Bird, 2007; Sashkin, 1984). This is
even more apparent in relation to higher education in Indonesia. Thus, to fill these gaps in
our knowledge and understanding of non-academic management in Indonesian

19
universities, it was considered necessary to carry out a study addressing the research
questions presented in the next section.
1.2.5 Personal perspective
In addition to the discussion in the previous section, from a personal point of view, this
researcher argues that inadequate management of non-academic staff can be identified as
one of the main issues that are problematic in higher education governance. The
researcher‟s history of experience as a leader in some administrative positions for about 16
years in a university organisation in Indonesia can be used to highlight this issue.
Based on the researcher‟s experience within the managerial works in the context of the
university organisation, management and leadership acumen can be perceived as the most
decisive factors in bringing success to a university organisation. Many managers or
administrative leaders in university organisations have not improved their management
strategy in empowering their subordinates at work. Substantial management deficiencies
have been found in some organisational lines. Leaders, specifically non-academic leaders,
who were the focus of the current study, have provided a less than favourable working
atmosphere for their staff members. Although many organisational units, or divisions,
within the university structure have sufficient financial support, grants, employees, and
other resources, some are still not able to provide the university organisation with sort of
management that can contribute to the effectiveness of university governance. It is perhaps
because some non-academic leaders of the units conceivably have not effectively
maximised the use of organisational resources, especially the staff as human capital, within
the university organisation. These personnel have not provided an environment which
inspires people to engage effectively in the organisation‟s activities.
Further, although many efforts have been made to create effective staff development
programs, these have concentrated more on development in academic areas. Development
programs continue to be directed to lecturers or academic staff, rather than to non-
academic staff. As a result, many employees (non-academic staff) dislike working hard and
demonstrate low commitment to their jobs. Even, if there is a willingness to work, these

20
employees do not have readiness and abilities to work very effectively. The inadequate
management of non-academic staff in the researcher‟s personal experience, needs to be
recognised as a factor that causes university organisations in Indonesia to be globally
uncompetitive.
1.3 Purpose of the Study
To explore the effectiveness of the participative management system, this study focused on
investigating employees and leaders‟ perceptions about the use of participative
management style by leaders and its impact on employee performance behaviour, taking
into account contingency aspects, including organisational and individual factors. The
focus of this study was the management system as applied within organisational activities
that were operated by administrative leaders, such as heads of bureaus, divisions, units and
sections in the universities under study here. This focus was used as the base for the
investigation because, as far as this researcher observed, until now there had been no
specific strategy for improving management and leadership competencies of the
administrative leaders or „non academic‟ executives in the university structure.
Some consequences of certain management systems that are applied in university
organisations are perceived to produce particular behaviours in employees as
organisational members. These include job satisfaction, organisational commitment,
quality of customer service, level of absenteeism, and turnover rate. Positive performances
in these areas are potential attributes for increasing the effectiveness of university
management in fulfilling its mission. Bush and Middlewood (2005) point out that support
staff have to be led and managed professionally in order to reach high performance levels
which contribute to goal achievement in higher education. They should be shaped and
directed for the benefit of the university organisation as a whole, and this could be
achieved when the internal system facilitates such a participative management style.
Although there is a controversy about the different views on management and leadership
(Yukl, 2002), for the practical purpose of this study, the term “participative management”

21
is used rather than “participative leadership”. The word “management” is better suited to
characterise administrative or organisational activities that are regularly conducted by
administrative heads or school managers in the organisational context of a university. The
administrative leaders are named as „managers‟, because they have direct relations with
employees or support staff and consequently influence work motivation (Bush &
Middlewood, 2005). The managers coordinate and carry out administrative leadership of
the employees in accomplishing technical and routine activities that have been structured
into the university organisation.
To investigate how the management system effectively improves the non-academic staff
(employees) in the university organisation, this study is designed to explore the perceptions
of the employees and leaders about the management systems that have been enacted by
administrative leaders or school heads in the context of their university. To what extent and
how managerial behaviour (as perceived both by leaders and employees) can be assumed
to produce certain impacts on employee attitudes and work performance, needs to be
investigated through a multidimensional approach. It is important therefore for this study
to examine the complex relationships among the research variables.
1.4 Research Questions
The research problem identified in the discussion above led to the formulation of the main
research question: “What are the perceptions of employees and leaders about the use of
participative management and its relationships with employee performance behaviour
specifically in relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour?” The research sub-questions were identified as follows:
1.4.1 Does the perceived participative management influence employee work attitudes,
specifically in relation to self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, the feelings of job
security, and job satisfaction; and do these qualities have direct and indirect effects
on organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and employee
withdrawal behaviour?

22
1.4.2 How does participative management influence employee performance behaviour
specifically in relation to organisational commitment, quality of customer service,
employee withdrawal behaviour including absenteeism, and turnover?
1.4.3 Do the organisational factors of age of university, status, size, and organisational
culture influence employee perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour?
1.4.4 Do the individual factors of gender, age, education, employment level, and length of
service influence employee perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour in terms of organisational
commitment, quality of customer service, and employee withdrawal behaviour?
1.4.5 Do leaders and employees have different perceptions about the use of participative
management style and its effects on employee performance behaviour in the
university?
1.4.6 Do the employee and leader perceptions about the use of participative management
and its effects on employee performance behaviour differ among government and
private universities?
1.5 Aims and Objectives of the Research
The main purpose of this research was to study employee and leader perceptions about the
use of participative management style and its relationships with employee performance
behaviour in the Indonesian university setting. Its specific objectives were:
1.5.1 To examine whether participative management influences employee work attitudes
especially in relation to the context of self-autonomy, meaningful tasks, feelings of
job security and job satisfaction; and whether these qualities mediate the effects of
participative management on organisational commitment, quality of customer
service, and employee withdrawal behaviour.
1.5.2 To investigate the influence of participative management on employee performance
behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour including absenteeism, and turnover intention.

23
1.5.3 To examine how the organisational factors influence employee perceptions about the
use of participative management style and its effects on employee performance
behaviour in terms of organisational commitment, quality of customer service, and
employee withdrawal behaviour.
1.5.4 To investigate whether the individual factors of gender, age, education, employment
level, and length of service influence employee perceptions about the use of
participative management and its effects on employee performance behaviour.
1.5.5 To examine whether employees and leaders have different perceptions about the use
of participative management style and its effects on employee performance
behaviour.
1.5.6 To explore whether the perceptions about the effects of participative management on
employee performance behaviour differ among government and private universities.
To meet the aims of this study, an explanatory mixed methods design was used to
investigate the perceptions of employees and leaders. Both primary quantitative and
qualitative data sources were collected through survey questionnaires, interviews, and
documents. To analyse the data from the two main sources, quantitative and qualitative
analyses were used to describe, comprehend the nature of the data, explain, and interpret
the findings referring to the research questions. The research design and methods of data
analysis are more fully explained in Chapter Four and Chapter Five respectively.
1.6 Contribution to the Discipline
Since there have been very few research studies about management styles (Bryman, 2007)
in the context of university organisations in Indonesia particularly, the findings of this
study were expected to make a significant contribution to the understanding and the
development of a body of knowledge in the area of education management and leadership.
It would provide useful information on the determinant factors of participative
management systems that could be considered to enhance scholarship in this area (Likert,
1967). In the practical setting, this study could help to explore the influence that the
participative management style has in improving employee performance in university

24
organisations in the Indonesian context. Specifically, the findings of this study are
expected to make a contribution to knowledge in the ways which are outlined forthwith.
1.6.1 More comprehensive understanding about participative management
This study could contribute to a more comprehensive understanding about participative
management from a multidimensional perspective, particularly the concept itself, its
characteristics and its relation to employee performance behaviour (Likert, 1967). The
study could provide significant findings on the effectiveness of this management style in
enhancing the employee performance behaviour in the workplace (Yukl, 2002), and hence
its appropriateness for university governance in the Indonesian context.
1.6.2 Research development in educational management
Many earlier studies about the impact of participative management system did not take
account of the situational factors that might moderate the relationship between this
management system and the outcome variable, as well as other dependent variables. The
current study included an investigation of situational factors as exogenous variables in the
research model. Thus, this study would add to the literature of leadership and management,
provided it could successfully find evidence of the relationships among the research
variables. It would then demonstrate how situational factors could become important
organisational antecedents (Lok & Crawford, 2004) that should be considered in studying
educational management and leadership in the future.
1.6.3 Information on management effectiveness based on employee and leader
perceptions
Many findings of studies on management systems have been based only on upper level
staff (leader) perceptions (Vilkinas & West, 2011; Yukl, 2002). Thus, the current study
would add to the literature by presenting findings that were based on perceptions from both
employee and leader levels in the university context. This would offer a new and
significant database for future researchers to examine the effectiveness of management
style in educational institutions.

25
1.6.4 Examination of the interaction effects among the research variables
Since many previous studies have not taken account of the interaction effects of the
situational variables on the influence of participative management, as the independent
variable on employees‟ performance behaviour as an outcome variable (Likert, 1967;
Miller & Monge, 1986; Odhiambo & Hii, 2012; Yukl, 2002). The current study intended to
add to the literature by employing a hierarchical linear modelling technique to examine the
cross-level interaction effects of these variables on the outcome variable.
1.6.5 Information for practitioners of university organisation
The Indonesian government, and in particular policy makers and practitioners in the higher
education system, could adopt the findings of this study as useful scientific information to
improve the outcomes of the sector. This would be important because there is little
research that has been carried out in the context of management system that can be applied
by administrative executives, especially heads of administrative divisions, within
university structures in Indonesia. Thus, the finding could be used as significant
information in designing programs of management reform, particularly in dealing with
support staff in the higher education sector of developing countries, such as Indonesia.
1.7 Definition of Terms
For the purpose of this study, some key words and technical terms that are used in this
study are defined concisely as follow.
Perception
The process through which people select, organise, and interpret sensory input– what they
see, hear, touch, smell, and taste. It is inherently subjective and influenced by personality,
values, attitudes, and moods as well as experience and knowledge. Based on their
perceptions, people make decisions and take actions (G. R. Jones & George, 2006).
Perspective
The way people regard facts, situations, experiences, and judge their relative importance
(Krebs, 2003)

02whole

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to 02whole

Similar to 02whole (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

02whole