DECISIONAL DEPRIVATION, EQUILIBRIUM AND SATURATION AS VARIABLES IN TEACHER MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND MORALE IN NIGERIA

Introduction/Conceptual Background

Decision-making is a key responsibility of all school administrators. While some single handedly take decisions, others consult with their subordinates before taking decisions, yet some others involve subordinates and they both take decisions collectively. This latter phenomenon has been aptly described as participative or collective decision making.

One other major concern of educational administrators has been how to motivate, ensure a feeling of job satisfaction and engender high morale in their teachers and other subordinates. This is because it is assumed that motivated, satisfied teachers with high morale are likely to be more committed to their duties and also be more productive in their work. Decision making style can be used to bring about these much desired increased production related factors.

The theoretical literature and research is replete with findings about teacher participation in decision-making and from which a number of propositions can be deduced. Some of these prepositions relevant to the theme of this investigation are as follows:

1. The opportunity to share in decision-making is an important factor in the morale of teachers and in their enthusiasm for the school organization.

2. Subordinate participation in decision-making can result in increased task motivation.

3. When subordinates identify with a decision they become motivated to help make the decision successful; they come to identify with a decision when they are involved during the decision-making process.

4. There is a positive relation between degree of participation and an increase in-group performance in most situations.

5. Participation in decision-making is positively related to the individual teacher’s satisfaction with the profession of teaching.

6. Workers have more intrinsic job satisfaction when the amount of involvement in decision-making equalled the amount desired than when they were allowed to make more decisions than they desired (see Hoy and Miskel, 1987; Baumgartel, 1956; Argyle et al, 1958; Tosi, 1970; Yukl, 1967; Coch and French, 1948; Maier and Hoffman, 1962; Vroom, 1959; Fleishman, 1965).

The research findings of Yukl (1975), however, have revealed that increased commitment to carry out decisions is not conceptually equivalent to increase task motivation. Similarly, the generalizations do not imply that “the more participation there is the greater will be group productivity”. In fact, Hoy and Miskel (1987) have opined that “too much involvement in every decision can be as detrimental as too little” (p. 338). Anderson (2002) strongly believe that one reason for teacher’s participation in decision-making is meaningful teacher empowerment.

Statement of the Problem

The degree to which school executives involve teachers in decision-making vary greatly, from deprivation through equilibrium to saturation (Alutto and Belasco, 1971). According to Alutto and Belasco, decisional deprivation refers to subordinates participation in fewer decisions than they preferred. Decisional equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that subordinates participate in as many decisions as they desire. Finally, decisional saturation refers to a situation in which subordinates participate in more decisions than they desired. The question that one may ask at this juncture is, how are the various states of decisional participation related to teachers’ level of motivation, job satisfaction and morale in Warri South Local Government Area of Delta State of Nigeria?

Research Questions

Three research questions have been asked to guide this study. These are:

1. What is the most prevalent state of teachers participation in decision-making in secondary schools in Warri Metropolis?

2. At what state of decisional participation do teachers feel more motivated, more satisfied and have a high morale in their work place?

3. At what state of decisional participation do they feel least motivated, least satisfied and have low morale?

Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses have been formulated for testing:

1. There will be no significant difference between the three states of decisional participation and the varying levels of teacher work motivation.

2. There will be no significant difference between the three states of decisional participation and teacher job satisfaction.

3. There will be no significant difference between the three states of decisional participation and teachers morale.

Method and Procedure

The population of the study consisted of the 858 teachers in the ten secondary schools in Warri South Local Government Area of Delta State. The ten schools are in fact concentrated within Warri Metropolis. The random sampling technique was used to select the sample which consisted of 400 teachers. In constituting the sample, no less than twenty teachers were randomly selected from each of the ten schools, depending on the academic staff strength of the school.

An instrument called Decisional Participation and Teachers’ Motivation, Job Satisfaction and Morale Questionnaire (DPTMSMQ) was developed by the researcher based on the survey form initially developed by Belasco and Alutto (1971). The questionnaire for this study consisted of seven items, three to elicit demographic data and four to elicit information about respondents’ degree of participation in their school decisions, their motivation, job satisfaction and level of morale.

It was validated by three experts in the area of organisational theory and it has a test – retest reliability of 0.87 when it was administered to a group of ten teachers within an interval of two weeks.

The survey forms were personally administered on the respondents and collected back with the assistance of co-operating staff. Of the 400 administered, 363 useable questionnaires were retrieved and used for the study. This represented a 91% return rate. Descriptive statistics – frequency and percentages – and inferential statistic – the chi-square contingency table, were used to analyze the data. The null hypotheses were tested for significance at the .001 level.

Analysis of Data

The analysis of data that follows has been presented according to the specific research questions and hypotheses:

Research Question I: What is the state of Teachers Participation in Decision Making?

The data relevant to providing answer to this research question have been analyzed and presented in Table I. An inspection of the table shows that of the 363 respondents, 219 (60%) of them reported decisional deprivation, 135 (37%) decisional equilibrium and 9 (3%) decisional saturation. The findings thus reveal the most prevalent state of teachers’ participation in decision-making to be that of decisional-deprivation. That is, teachers in Warri Metropolis participate in fewer decisions than they would have actually preferred. The least adopted decision-making style by principals is that of decisional saturation. Of the 363 teachers, only nine, representing three percent, reported a state of decisional saturation.

TABLE I: LEVEL OF TEACHERS PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING N = 363

Level of Decisional Participation	f	%
Decisional Deprivation	219	60
Decisional Equilibrium	135	37
Decisional Saturation	09	03

Research Question 2: At what state of Decisional Participation do Teachers feel more motivated, satisfied and have a sense of high morale?

The data relevant to addressing research question 2 have been analyzed and presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

TABLE 2: DECISIONAL DEPRIVATION AND LEVEL OF MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND MORALE OF TEACHERS

DECISIONAL DEPRIVATION N = 219			f	%
A.	Level of satisfaction with the Job	Very much Moderately Minimally Disliked	21 96 60 42 N=219	10 44 27 19 100
B.	Level of Motivation	Highly Minimally Not Motivated	9 99 111 N=219	4 45 51 100
C.	Level of Morale	High Low No Morale	36 153 30 N=219	16 70 14 100

TABLE 3: DECISIONAL EQUILIBRIUM AND LEVEL OF MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND MORALE OF TEACHERS N = 135

DECISIONAL DEPRIVATION N = 135			f	%
A.	Level of satisfaction with the Job	Very much Moderately Minimally Disliked	39 57 24 15 N=135	29 42 18 11 100
B.	Level of Motivation	Highly Minimally Not Motivated	30 51 54 N=135	22 38 11 100
C.	Level f Morale	High Low No Morale	54 69 12 N=219	40 51 09 100

TABLE 4: DECISIONAL SATURATION AND LEVEL OF MOTIVATION, JOB SATISFACTION AND MORALE OF TEACHERS

DECISIONAL DEPRIVATION N = 9			F	%
A.	Level of satisfaction with the Job	Very much Moderately Minimally Disliked	2 4 1 2 N=9	22 45 11 22 100
B.	Level of Motivation	Highly Minimally Not Motivated	1 4 4 N=9	11 44.5 44.5 100
C.	Level f Morale	High Low No Morale	3 5 1 N=9	33 56 11 100

An inspection of the tables reveal that teachers who are given the opportunity by their principals to participate in as many decisions as they desire (decisional equilibrium) are, on the whole, more motivated and satisfied with their job and have a high morale in the work place than their counterparts who are either deprived of or saturated with involvement in the school’s decision-making. For instance, of the 135 teachers who reported a state of decisional equilibrium, 96(71%) say they are at least moderately satisfied with their job, 81 (60%) are at least minimally motivated and 54 (40%) stated that they have high morale in doing their job.

Research Question 3: At what state of decisional participation do they feel least motivated, least satisfied and have very low morale?

An examination and comparison of the data in Tables 2, 3 and 4 also show that teachers are most likely to have a feeling of minimal satisfaction or dislike for their job, less motivated and have low morale in the performance of their duties if they are deprived of participation in decision-making they desire to be involved in.

Hypothesis Testing

HO₁: There will be no significant difference between the three states of decisional participation and the varying levels of teacher work motivation.

The data in Table 5 reveals that there is a significant difference between the levels of decisional participation and the levels of teacher motivation. The calculated chi-square of 27.52 is higher than the critical value of 18.46 at df = 4. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and conclude that those teachers who enjoy a state of decisional equilibrium experience a significantly higher-level of motivation than their counterparts who are either decisionally deprived or decisionally saturated.

It needs to be pointed out that when the useful rule of thumb was applied in the testing of the HO_I in relation to table 5 which is a 3 x 3 chi-square contingency table, the null hypothesis was still rejected. The rule of thumb states that chi-square test requires all expected frequencies (fe) to be larger than 5 and when fe in any cell is smaller than 5, you preferably combine several adjacent cells “or knock-off” that row or column of cells.

TABLE 5: TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEACHERS’ STATE OF c

STATE OF DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION	LEVEL OF MOTIVATION			ROW TOTAL	X2 Value
	HIGH	MINIMAL	NOT MOTIVATED
DEPRIVATION	09 (24)	99 (93)	III (102)	219	27.52*
EQUILIBRIUM	30 (15)	51 (57)	54 (63)	135
SATURATION	1 (10	4 (4)	4 (4)	9
COLUMN TOTAL	40	154	169	363

* Significant at P <.001, df = 4 = 18.46

NB: Figure in parenthesis indicates expected frequency (fe)

TABLE 6: TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEACHERS’ STATE F DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION AND THEIR LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION USING c²

STATE OF DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION	LEVEL OF JOB SATISFACTION				ROW TOTAL	c2 Value
	Very Much	Moderately	Minimally	Disliked
DEPRIVATION	21 (37)	96 (95)	60 (52)	42 (35)	219	24.94*
EQUILIBRIUM	39 (29)	57 (58)	24 (32)	15 (22)	135
COLUMN TOTAL	60	153	84	57	354

* Significant at P <.001, df = 3 = 16.27

TABLE 7: TEST OF SIGNIFICANCE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TEACHERS’ STATE OF DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION AND THEIR LEVEL OF MORALE USING c²

STATE OF DECISIONAL PARTICIPATION	LEVEL OF MORALE			ROW TOTAL	c2 Value
	HIGH	LOW	NO MORALE
DEPRIVATION	36 (6)	153 (137)	30 (26)	219	25.60*
EQUILIBRIUM	54 (34)	69 (85)	12 (16)	135
COLUMN TOTAL	90	222	42	354

* Significant at P <.001, df = 2 = 13.82

In the third row (i.e. decisional saturation row) in table 3, each of the cells has a fe that is less than 5. When fe is computed for the cells as it were each had a fe of 0. When the figures in the three cells along the row are excluded from the calculation of the chi-square only the df is affected as it becomes 2 instead of 4 and the critical value becomes 13.32 instead of 18.46 at df = 4. The calculated t value which still remained as 27.52 is greater than the newly obtained t-table value of 13.82 at df = 2, and therefore still significant. Because of this basic fact derivable from the application of rule of thumb, the decisional saturation row with each cell less than 5 was excluded in the computation of subsequent chi-squares in relation to the other two null hypotheses.

HO₂: There will be no significant difference between decisional participation and teachers’ level of Job Satisfaction.

The result of the data analysis presented in the 2 x 4 contingency table in Table 6 shows that there is a significant difference between the different levels of decisional participation and the level of job satisfaction of teachers. The calculated chi-square value of 24.94 which is above the critical value of 16.27 at df = 3 at .001 validates the above assertion. We therefore reject the null hypothesis and conclude that teachers who experience decisional equilibrium are more likely to have a higher level of job satisfaction in their job than those who are either deprived or saturated with involvement in decision-making.

HO₃: There is no significant difference between decisional participation and teacher’s level of morale.

The data presented in Table 7 is relevant to the third null hypothesis. The analysis of the data indicates that the computed chi-square (2 x 3 contingency table) value of 25.40 is greater than the critical table value of 13.82 at 2 df and .001. This implies that there is a significant difference between the levels of decisional participation and teachers’ morale. The third null hypothesis (HO₃) was therefore rejected and we conclude from the data that those teachers who participated in as many decisions as they desired (decisional equilibrium) have a higher morale than those who were either decisionally deprived or were decisionally saturated.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results of this study revealed that most secondary school principals in Warri Metropolis do not involve their teachers in decision-making as the teachers would otherwise have desired. In other words, the principals appeal to adopt an autocratic approach to decision-making. This finding cold be explained in the argument put forward by authorities such as Kaplan and Tausky (1977), Wahba and Brudwell (1976), Derber (1970), Morse and Lorsch (1970) that many educational administrators who may have worked hard and stood in line for years to attain headship position and power may not share decision-making with their subordinates. It is little wonder then that Wynne (2001) argued that many teachers need encouragement from administrators and colleagues to shift from their perception of isolation into recognition of themselves as active contributors in the school and in the larger context outside classroom walls.

The findings also show that teachers who participate in as many decision-making as they desired felt more motivated, satisfied and have a high morale while those who are decisionally deprived felt least motivated, least satisfied and have low morale in the workplace.

These findings support the generalizations of Hoy and Miskel (1987) and the evidence from the works of Baumgartel (1956) that the opportunity to share in decision making is an important factor in the morale of teachers and it is positively related to the individual teacher’s satisfaction with the profession of teaching and increased task motivation (Yukl, 1975).

The three null hypotheses that were formulated and tested in this study were rejected. The results indicated that teachers who were given the opportunity by their principals to participate in as many decision-making as they desired (teachers n a state of decisional equilibrium) were more motivated, satisfied and have high morale and commitment to their work than those who were either decisionally deprived or saturated. The results also lend credence to the conclusion arrived at by Yukl (1975) after a thorough analysis of his results that greater participation in decision-making does not necessarily imply greater satisfaction, motivation, morale or productivity. For instance, in this study, the findings show that those teachers who reported too much involvement in their school decision-making process experienced lower degree of motivation, satisfaction and morale than their counterparts who reported that they were in a state of decisional equilibrium. Thus, it is important for school administrators to heed the advice of Hoy and Miskel (1987) that too much involvement in every decision can be as detrimental as too little.

From the results of this investigation, it is possible to suggest that there is need for school executives to re-examine their working knowledge of decision-making process. It appears most of the school executives studied adopt the “boss-centred” decision-making style. That is, they take decisions and announce them to the school. In such a case we do not expect teachers to be committed to carrying out such decisions successfully.

For principals to be able to use decisional participation as a veritable tool for bringing about increased task motivation, job satisfaction, and high morale in teachers and get their commitment to carrying out school decisions, they must acquire new, improved and modern skills and knowledge of decision-making. A knowledge of the concept of Zone of Acceptance or Zone of Indifference will be of immense value in this regard. An understanding of this zone helps school executives to involve subordinates appropriately in the decision-making process. Bridges (1967), Barnard (1969) and Ukeje et al (1992) explained the concept of Zone of Indifference to represent the extent to which subordinates willingly comply with and implement directives and the range of actions subordinates are willing to take without question at the administrators request. Issues in which individuals are not simply interested in or lack the expertise fall within this Zone and if you involve them they feel burdened (decisionally saturated).

Matters in which teachers’ interests are at stake and therefore have personal interests fall within the Zone of Sensitivity and would want to participate in the decision-making process; it is important that they should be involved. If they were not involved, they would develop a feeling of decisional deprivation. The understanding of modern techniques of decision-making is therefore very vital and can be acquired through school executives development programmes such as in-service training programmes – seminars, workshops, conferences, short-term courses or post-graduate studies.

REFERENCES

Alutto, J.A. and Belasco, J.A. (1971), “Decisional Deprivation, Equilibrium and Saturation as variables in Educational Research” (Working paper No. 93, State University of New York at Buffalo).

Anderson, Kirk (2002), “Why Teachers Participate in Decision-making and the Third Continuum”, Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 23 (November)

Barnard, C.I. (1969), The Functions of the Executive. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Baumgartel, H. (1956), “Leadership, Motivation, and Attitudes in Research Laboratories”, Journal of Social Issues, 12(2): 24-31.

Belasco, J.A. and Alutto, J.A. (1969), “Organizational Impacts of Teacher Negotiations” Industrial Relations, 9 (1): 67-79.

Belasco, J.A. and Alutto, J.A. (1975), ”Decisional Participation and Teacher Satisfaction” in V. Houghton et al (eds). The Management of Organizations and Individuals. London: The Open University Press. Pp. 220-232.

Bridges, E.M. (1967), “A Model for Shared decision making in the School Principalship”. Educational Administration Quarterly, 3: 49-61.

Coch, L. and French, J.P.R. (1948), “Overcoming Resistance to Change”, Human Relations, 1: 512:532.

Fleishman, E.A. (1965), “Attitudes versus skill Factors in Work Group Productivity”, Personnel Psychology, 18: 253-266.

Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G. (1987), Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3^rd ed., New York: Random House.

Maier, N.R.F. and Hoffman, L.R. (1962), “Group Decision in England and the United States,” Personnel Psychology, 15, 75-87.

Tosi, H. (1970), “A Re-examination of Personality as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation”, Personnel Psychology, 23: 91-97.

Ukeje, B.O. et al (1992), Educational Administration: Theory and Practice. Owerri: Totan Publishers Ltd.

Vroom, V.H. (1959), “Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59: 322-327.

Wahba, M.A. and Bridwell, L.G. (1976),“Maslow Reconsidered: A review of research on need hierarchy Theory”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, 15: 212-222.

Yukl, G. (1975), “Toward a behavioural theory of Leadership”, in Houghton et al (eds.) The Management of Organizations and Individuals. London: Ward Lock Educational.

Wynne, Joan (2001), “Teachers as Leaders in Education Reform”, Washington, D.C.: ERIC Clearinghouse. ED 462376.