title page company performance - university of nigeria nsukka adaobi vivian.pdf · workforce. most...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
TITLE PAGE
THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION ON COMPANY PERFORMANCE (A STUDY OF ACCESS BANK NIGERIA PLC, ENUGU) ODO ADAOBI VIVIAN PG/MBA/06/45751 A PROJECT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (MBA) IN MANAGEMENT.
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA ENUGU CAMPUS
SEPTEMBER, 2011
3
CERTIFICATION I, ODO ADAOBI VIVIAN, a Postgraduate student in the
Department of Management with Registration Number –
PG/MBA/06/45751 have satisfactorily completed the requirements
for the award of Master of Business Administration (MBA) degree in
Management.
I certify that the work contained herein is original and has not been
submitted either in part or in full for any Diploma or Degree of this
or any other University.
____________________________ Odo Adaobi Vivian PG/MBA/06/45751
4
APPROVAL
This project titled The Impact of Employee Participation on
Company Performance: (A study of Access Bank Nigeria
Plc, Enugu) written by Odo Adaobi Vivian, with Registration
Number PG/MBA/06/45751 has been certified and approved as
meeting the standard required in partial fulfillment for the award of
Master of Business Administration (MBA) in Management of the
University of Nigeria.
__________________ _________________ Dr .C.O. Chukwu Date Project Supervisor _________________ __________________ Dr .U.J.F. Ewurum Date Head of Department
5
DEDICATION
This Project is dedicated to God Almighty; our Creator. My
dedication also goes to my dear husband; Barr. Eugene Odo, and
my lovely children; Chidimma, Chisom, and Chimdalu.
6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Researcher has made efforts to put together a report finding
that is authentic, valid, and accurate. Wide consultations both by
way of literature review and personal interview were carried out. In
other words, this project is an outcome of extensive sourcing of
information.
I thank Almighty God for Life, His Love, Mercy, Guidance, and
Protection.
I am particularly indebted and grateful to my husband; Barr.
Eugene Odo, for his encouragement and financial support. I also
appreciate my children; for their understanding.
I am also grateful to the Staff of Access Bank Nigeria Plc, Ogui
Road, Enugu for their co-operation and information.
My sincere appreciation goes to my Supervisor; Dr Chukwu .C.O,
who patiently advised and supervised me throughout the period of
the research.
7
ABSTRACT
The research was carried out to ascertain the Impact of Employee
Participation on Company Performance; A study of Access Bank
Nigeria Plc, Enugu. Four departments in the Bank were used for
the study, while a sample size of 36 respondents participated in the
research study. The reason for growing interest in Employee
Participation and its effects were discussed. Also the different
categories of Employee Participation were examined to find out
their peculiarities and what can be done to improve their
participation and their outcome. Furthermore, the issue of
Employee Participation and welfare were put into consideration,
with emphasis on the right policies to be implemented in order to
get the best out of the employees. However, the analysis of the
data was based on the research questions answered by the
respondents. The questionnaire was analysed using simple
percentage distribution formula. The given level of significance was
at 95%. The hypothesis was analysed using chi-square and
correlation. Finally, the researcher discovered that the combination
of participation and welfare measures (such as equal opportunities
and family – friendly policies) help to enhance both Organisational
performance and the quality of working life. Policy support should
focus on union recognition and activity within a human rights
framework, since this can positively influence employees‟ behavior
towards Organisational goals and employer behavior towards their
employees.
8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page - - - - - - - - - - - - i
Certification - - - - - - - - - - - - ii
Dedication - - - - - - - - - - - -
iii
Acknowledgement - - - - - - - - - -
iv
Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - - -
v
Table of contents - - - - - - - -
vi
CHAPTER ONE :– INTRODUCTION - - - - - - 1
1.1 Background of the Study- - - - - - - -
1
1.2 Statement of the Problem - - - - - - - -
3
1.3 Objectives of the Study - - - - - - - -
4
1.4 Research Hypotheses - - - - - - - -
5
9
1.5 Significance of Study - - - - -- - - -
6
1.6 Scope of the Study - - - - - - - - -
8
1.7 Limitations of the Study - - - - - - -
8
1.8 Definition of Terms - - - - - - - - -
9
Chapter References - - - - - - - - - -
12
CHAPATER TWO: – LITERATURE REVIEW - - - - -
13
2.1 Background to growing interest in participation
and its effects - - - - - - 13
2.2 Categories of Employee Participation - - - - - 14
2.3 Impact of Employee Participation - - - - - - - 19
10
2.4 Employee Participation and Family Friendly Working - -
24
2.5 Policy Implication - - - - - - - - - - -
26
2.6 Outcomes of Participation - - - - - - - -
28
Chapter References - - - - - - - - - -
40
CHAPATER THREE:– RESEARCH METHODOLOGY - -
41
3.1 Research Methods and Designs - - - - - - - 41
3.2 Area of the Study - - - - -
42
3.3 Population of the Study - - - -
42
3.4 Sampling Distribution - - - - -
42
3.5 Sources of Data - - - - - -
43
3.6 Methods of Data Collection - - - -
44
11
3.7 Validity of the Research Instrument -
45
3.8 Methods of Data Analysis - - - -
45
CHAPTER FOUR: – DATA PRESENTTION, INTERPRETATION
AND ANALYSIS - - - - - - - - 48
4.1 Questionnaire Distributed and Returned - - - 48
4.2 Data Presentation - - - - - - 49
4.3 Analysis of Hypothesis - - - -- - - 63
CHAPTER FIVE: – SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS
OF RESEARCH FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND
CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary of Findings - - - - 75
5.2 Implications of Research Findings - - - 77
5.3 Recommendation s - - - - - 82
5.4 Conclusion - - - - - - - 83
5.5 Suggestion for Further Study - - - - 83
BIBLIOGRAPHY. - - - - - 84
Questionnaire - - - - - - 85
12
13
THE IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION ON COMPANY PERFORMANCE
(A STUDY OF ACCESS BANK NIGERIA PLC, ENUGU)
BY ODO ADAOBI VIVIAN PG/MBA/06/45751
DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
ENUGU CAMPUS
SEPTEMBER, 2011
14
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
The economy has witnessed a lot of changes in the recent
years. We have the emergency of Information Technology,
Privatization, and growing global competition for the provision of
goods and services. Continuous change in product and service
markets, combined with tightening quality demands, require
employers to seek more efficient and flexible means of production.
They seek the often contradictory elements of employee
commitment and disposability, often disguised by terms such as
employability and „new employment contract‟.
Partly in response to these economic demands and partly as a
consequence of other societal shifts, there have been
corresponding changes in the composition and activities of the
workforce. Most obvious is that the labour force is becoming
increasingly qualified, as older non – qualified staff, give way to
growing ranks of university and college – educated newcomers in
the labour market. Also apparent, is the rise in the proportion of
women in the paid labour market, and associated with this,
15
growing emphasis on part – time and flexible forms of labour. A
more diverse, potentially less secure workforce, also raises
questions of equality of treatment and rights at work, with the
danger that minority or vulnerable groups will lack the resources to
participate effectively in work place affairs, thereby reinforcing
their peripheral states.
For employers of scarce and highly – qualified labour, commitment
rather than control has ostensibly become the key objective of people
management. Under these changing conditions, it is not surprising
that concern by employers, policymakers, and employees themselves,
in safeguarding and promoting interests has been reflected in
different approaches to employee participation. Governments must
balance the needs of a competitive economy with welfare of their
citizens. Employers seek production efficiency, and recognize that the
means to this is increasingly locked in the heads of the people
they employ. Well – qualified employees, seek elusive objectives
of job satisfaction, stability, and life – enhancing employment,
while a more pressing priority for less advantaged and more
vulnerable employees may simply be to gain secure employment
and reasonable treatment from their employers. The rise of
global institutions presents other problems for workers, as
16
corporate decisions become more distant from the staff that they
employ: a decision made to close a plant in one country may have
been made many thousands of miles away, with little opportunity
for indigenous employees to combat, or even question decisions
which dramatically affect their lives.
Detachment from the company may also represent a problem for
growing number of home workers, and for those whose jobs
demand high levels of mobility.
Access Bank Nigeria Plc, where the researcher is focusing this
study on, places a high premium on the development of its
manpower, and consults with employees, on matters affecting the
performance of the group. The group draws extensively on training
programs around the world. Training courses are offered to
employees both locally and overseas. This is in order to get the
best out of the employees.
The rationale for introducing, „The Impact of Employee
Participation on Company Performance‟ is based upon different
economic, social and political assumptions.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:
17
Employee participation can be seen as a “contested terrain”. Not all
literature agrees on the universal positive effects of participation.
Some suggests that participation may have no effect or even
negative effects on performance. However, it is difficult to discern
a definitive pattern. In Access Bank, the management holds the
interest of the team above those of the individual, while showing
mutual respect for all employees and sharing information
throughout their organization. They develop further, their leading
role in talent acquisition and talent development. They also
eliminate the negative performance contributions of their banking
subsidiaries through their “One Bank strategy‟‟. Access Bank
encourages participation of employees in arriving at decisions in
respect of matters affecting the group and employee interests, with
a view to making inputs to decisions thereon.
The Bank places a high premium on the development of its
manpower. The problem is to find out the impact of these on
Company (Access Bank) performance.
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
The specific objectives of this research include:-
18
(i) To ascertain if the effects of participation schemes vary
with the environment into which they are introduced.
(ii) To determine the degree of influence granted to
employees under participation measures.
(iii) To find out if the combination of financial and work –
related participatory measures can have a positive impact
on company performance.
(iv) To assess the assumptions, that participation measures
affect all employees identically, regardless of gender, race,
age, and contractual status.
(v) To investigate in what circumstance, employees‟ voices
remain muted in terms of work – life balance and family -
friendly working.
(vi) To present that policy support, should focus on union
recognition and activity within a human rights frame
work, since this can positively influence employee‟s
behaviour towards Organizational goals.
1.4. FORMULATION OF HYPOTHESIS
(i) A combination of financial and work – related
participatory measures can have a positive impact on
Company performance.
19
(ii) A combination of financial and work – related
participatory measures does not have a positive impact
on Company performance.
(iii) Links between participation and attitude change appear
to depend on the degree of influence granted to
employees under participation measures.
(iv) Links between participation and attitude change does not
depend on the degree of influence granted to employees
under participation measures.
(v) A combination of participation and welfare measures
(such as equal opportunities and family friendly policies)
appears to enhance Organizational performance and the
quality of working life.
(vi) A combination of participation and welfare measures
(such as equal opportunities and family friendly policies)
does not enhance Organizational performance and the
quality of working life.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
There are numerous different rationales for introducing employee
participation, often competing. Poutsma (2001) identified four
20
dominant approaches embracing; humanistic, power - sharing,
organizational efficiency and redistribution of results rationales.
These can be subsumed under three main operational rationales,
namely; economic, social and governmental. Each rationale derives
from different conceptual bases, such that predicted outcomes of
participative initiatives can vary accordingly. Each position will be
considered in turn.
(i) Economic Rationale:- Changes in employees‟ attitudes
and behavior are achieved through financial participation,
by offering employees a stake in the firm. Employees‟
association with management values and goals is thereby
increased, and they are more motivated and committed to
achieving those goals.
(ii) Social Rationale:- By catering for employees‟ social
needs, through improved job security and satisfaction and
quality of working life, higher performance is achieved.
Alternatively, satisfying social needs can be treated as an
end in itself.
(iii) Governmental Rationale:- Current Nigeria policy is to
improve national economic efficiency, while also improving
the experience of work for employees.
21
This study which is limited to Access Bank Nigeria Plc exposes the
impact which the employees makes on company performance
based on the above rationales. Application of these rationales will
go a long way in improving the performance of companies in
private and public sectors of the economy.
1.6. SCOPE OF THE STUDY
This study covers the Impact of Employee participation on
Company performance with reference to Access Bank Nigeria Plc.
1.7. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The limitations encountered in this study include respondents‟ bias
experienced when they were requested to fill the questionnaire.
Most were unwilling to co-operate with the researcher because
they felt they had limited time, compared to their volume of work.
There were also financial and time imposed constraints in
gathering the necessary data to study.
22
1.8 DEFINITION OF TERMS
(i) Surveys: A survey involves the collection of information,
usually by interviews or questionnaires from a sample of
the target population.
(ii) Collective Bargaining: Collective bargaining takes
place between management and trade unions at both
national and local (plant) level. However, the issues
covered by collective bargaining tend to be narrow,
concerning wages and other basic issues such as hours of
work and holidays.
(iii) Employee Empowerment: Empowerment is seen as
providing an extension to employee authority by allowing
workers to take decisions that were previously the
preserve of their line managers and to assume
responsibility for the consequences. This occurs within
an organizational culture of initiative, team work and
flexibility (Hyman and Cunningham, 1998).
(iv) Employee Involvement:- Employee involvement is a
term associated with schemes that involve low – level,
individualized participation, with little or no input into
corporate or high – level decision making.
23
(v) Employee Share Ownership Plans (ESOPS):- An
ESOP is a scheme designed to allow all employees to
become shareholders in their company. ESOPs can offer
majority shareholdings to employees. Examination from
income tax is available if shares are retained for a
minimum of five years in trust.
(vi) Joint Consultation Committees (JCCs):- A process
whereby management seeks the view of employees
before making a firm decision. In practice, it is rare for a
JCC to have veto power over managerial decisions. Two
specific types of JCCs are works councils and joint
working parties.
(vii) Suggestion Schemes: - Suggestion schemes are a
procedure for submitting and evaluating ideas.
Suggestion boxes, suggestion committees, or individual
management can all be used as the transmission agency
for ideas.
(viii) Worker Co-operatives:- Co-operatives are businesses
owned and controlled by the people working in them. Co-
operatives are democratic organizations, administered by
people elected or appointed in a manner agreed by the
24
members and accountable to them. Members enjoy equal
voting rights (one member, one vote) and participation in
decisions affecting their enterprises.
(ix) Work Councils: - Works councils potentially involve
employee representatives in strategic decision making.
They may also serve as a channel for information
disclosure and consultation.
25
REFERENCES
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2005) - Employee Participation and Company Performance. http://www.jrf.org. UK/sites/files/jrf/1859352995.pdf.
Juliette Summers (University of Stirling) and Jeff Hyman (University of Aberdeen) (2007) – Employee Participation And Company Performance: A Literature Review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. http: //www.jrf.org.uk/node/2322
Access Bank Nigeria Plc – Annual Report & Accounts 2008. March 2008,(P 35).
26
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. BACKGROUND TO GROWING INTEREST IN
PARTICIPATION AND ITS EFFECTS.
Economic changes in recent decades have required employers, to
seek more efficient and flexible means of production. Deregulation
and privatization have also significantly altered the nation‟s
industrial relations climate, with a decline in trade unions‟ influence
and membership in the private companies. Mirroring this, has been
the growth in “new” forms of work – related participation by
employees. This is under the banner of human resource
management, associated programmes, and strategies for
partnership and high commitment.
Governments must balance the needs of a competitive economy
with the welfare of their citizens. A change in political climate has
seen social partnership currently being promoted by all interested
parties. Reflecting this change, the inclusion of trade unions in
government consultation exercises is significant.
The growing emphasis on all forms of flexibility in industry is in
response to competitive pressures. Subsequent changes in work
organization and the current political climate is reflected in the
27
emerging models of participation. These models tend to reflect
(and promote) both the individualization of the employment
relationship and the new partnership being encouraged, amongst
employees, unions, and employers.
2.2. CATEGORIES OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
Operationally the term; “Employee Participation” can be divided
into two primary categories: Financial and Work – Related
Participation.
Financial Participation:- Financial participation schemes take
two main dimensions, and both are important from a policy
perspective. The first approach involves distribution of shares to
employees, based on the assumption that share ownership induces
positive attitudinal and behaviourial responses. Share – based
schemes can be classified into two principal approaches, one where
employees are offered shareholdings as part of remuneration, and
a second where employees have an option to buy shares in their
own company. The first of the distributive schemes was introduced
in 1978 in UK as the so – called approved deferred share trust
(AOST) programme, in which companies distribute share according
to a stipulated formula to all full – time employees, who satisfy
eligibility criteria. The option approach, first introduced in 1980 in
28
UK, allows employees to buy shares in their companies, at
favourable rates through an Inland Revenue approved savings
institution, such as a building society. Both approaches have
subsequently been improved financially, and participation has been
extended to part – time employees. A derivative option approach
was the much derided (though heavily patronized) and now
terminated “discretionary” (or “executive”) share option scheme,
which was available only to specified (usually senior) personnel by
invitation.
For example, this scheme was introduced in UK in 1984 and
replaced in 1996 with the more broadly based company share
option plans. In 1989, the first employee share ownership plans
(ESOPs) were given statutory approval to go alongside ESOPs
founded on a combination of earlier legislation and common law
precedents. (See Pendleton 1995a, 1998, Pendleton 2001). These
schemes can offer much higher share proportions to employees
than the original Inland revenue approved all – employee schemes.
A second dimension of financial participation concerns flexibility of
pay, where an element of remuneration varies with profitability or
other appropriate performance measures. A recent example was
cash-based profit-related pay (PRP), in which income tax relief was
29
offered to schemes that met Inland Revenue requirements. Some
14,500 schemes were active at their peak in 1997, with tax relief
calculated at E1.5 billion (IDS1998). The escalation in the loss of
income tax prompted the Government to phase out tax relief on
PRP, concluding in January 2000 with no further relief.
Work – Related Participation: - Work – related participation
comes in a number of forms: individual or collective, and direct
(i.e. face to face) or indirect (i.e. via a representative) participation.
These can be grouped into two main types of work-related
participation:
Traditional Collective Participation: This aims for a more
equitable distribution of power throughout the organization.
“New” Forms of Participation: These are more direct and
individualized and have tended to grow out of management
strategies, such as HRM, aimed to secure employee commitment to
organizational objectives through sophisticated communication
procedures, individualized reward, and developmental initiatives
such as performance appraisal linked to performance – related pay.
Possibly the clearest – cut example of traditional collective
participation is the co-operative, where participation includes both
ownership and control elements (Pencavel 2001). However,
30
relatively few employees work in cooperatives, and the bulk of the
literature on employee participation deals with the more
conventionally organized and owned firms that introduced
participation measures. Of these firms, the ones that provide for
employee share ownership (ESOP) most closely, approximates the
co-operative, with its emphasis on employee ownership. However,
unlike the co-operative, the ESOP form does not guarantee
equitable collective participation, such as one – person – one –
vote or majority employee ownership (Pendleton, 2001) Recently,
ESOPs have veined from 100 percent employee ownership to
insignificant levels of worker ownership or involvement. Unlike
most other forms of collective participation, co-operatives because
of the small size of majority of the co-operatives (an average of
fewer than ten workers), tend to use direct forms of collective
participation. In addition, for reasons of economies of scale in
terms of numbers of workers, and also from a policy perspective,
indirect collective participation is the principal collective
participation. Collective bargaining, for instance still covers 45
percent enterprise in European countries, (Cully et al, 1999)
though the proportion of employees covered by negotiated
agreements has been in continuous decline since the early 1980s.
31
(Henry et al, 2003). Collective bargaining permits employee
participation in negotiations via elected representatives or full-time
officials, usually as part of a trade union network. Other forms of
indirect collective participation can include social partnership
agreements with trade unions, works councils, co – determination
agreements, and joint consultation committees.
Second, there are the “new” forms of participation, which are
predominantly direct, such as briefings groups, and individual in
nature, e.g. attitude surveys or suggestions schemes. Most of
these forms are conflated into the term; “employee involvement”
or “employee empowerment‟‟ and, most of them can be included
under HRM strategies or approaches. These forms of direct
participation have become more important to managers seeking to
gain voluntary commitment from employees to organizational goals
(Walton, 1985). This is especially at times of heightened
competitive pressures and work insecurity. An associated impulse,
propelling managers towards a commitment – based regime,
derives from the growth of so – called knowledge sectors of the
economy, in which the means of production are locked in the head
of valued employees (Castells 2000). Hence, considerable academic
and managerial attention, has been drawn in recent years to the
32
identification and value of „high- commitment work practices‟ (see
for example, Huselid 1995), especially in new knowledge – based
sectors of the economy (Frenkel et al, 1999). In addition to the
forms of work – related participation outlined above, employee
participation in conventionally owned and organized firms can be
task – related (i.e. at the work station) or strategic (i.e at board or
corporate level), and participation at either of these level can be
communicative, consultative or negotiable.
2.3 IMPACT OF EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
The impact of employee participation on company performance can
be studied under the following perspectives:-
(a) Attitude Change: Participatory measures such as team
working and high – involvement work practices demonstrate
improvements in performance, but can also have less positive
outcomes for employee and their social well – being. Performance
changes may occur because participation leads to changed
attitudes which lead to higher performance. Alternately, changes to
behaviour and performance may be achieved not through attitude
changes, but through fear, and an insecure or intensified work
environment.
33
One explanation for these contradictory results is that participation
schemes are sometimes introduced as part of restructuring
packages. When employees are faced with an insecure
environment, participation may induce compliance, and not the
attitude changes necessary for employees‟ commitment to the
enterprise. If this is so, behavioral changes may not be of the order
anticipated.
The degree of influence accorded to employees is also important.
Low levels of participation with little employee autonomy have
been identified as a reason for disappointing results. Where
employees expectations have been raised by introducing
participation, but there is little real improvement in employee
influence, workers may express resentment and dissatisfaction.
Where participation is only from the top down, workers may feel
that they are being lectured and not listened to. Even where
participation is from the bottom up, workers may feel that
management is using their ideas, with no return seen by
employees.
High levels of participation also have their own problems. Some
authors claim that employees do not make hard decisions, opting
for outcomes that maximize income, not profit. Others claim that
employees are not able to discipline co - workers, and that decision
34
– making takes too long. From the management‟s perspective, high
degrees of employee influence may mean that managers‟ input in
decision – making is reduced. Whether from the concern that their
authority is being compromised, or through dilution of the decision
– making process, this may result in reduced competitiveness.
Participation can also be categorized as individual versus collective.
Individualized forms of participation may clash with existing
collective arrangements and fail to induce a harmonious climate.
Concerns have also been expressed over individualized financial
participation. A fall in share prices could make it harder to attract
high – quality staff. Collective participation, on the other hand, can
work with existing labour – relations channels and attitudes in a
productive way. The role of trade unions therefore continues to be
significant.
However, collective participation is no guarantee of positive
attitude change. Management also has to accept the ethos of
participation. However middle and supervisory management is a
particularly difficult group to influence.
(b) Combining Participation Measures: The potential for
positive impact on performance seems to arise when participation
measures are used in combination, either as financial and work –
35
related participation, or as representative and direct participation.
Either combination may act upon employee perceptions,
encouraging high – trust relations within the workplace and
allowing employees with different motivations to enjoy the benefits
of participation.
Employees are not a homogenous group responding identically to
participation initiatives. Different employees have different
motivations: Some respond to financial incentives and others, more
to social or work – related ones. This is why a combination of
financial and work – related participation appears to have a
positive effect on performance.
(c) Transferability: A further issue is the transferability of
participation schemes, particularly between large and small firms.
It is uncertain whether participation schemes suitable for large
firms will have positive effects in smaller companies, or whether
participation measures can be transferred between industrial
sectors and even between different national conditions. For
example, the success of Japanese profit – sharing and other
involvement techniques has been accounted for by Japan‟s unique
culture, which emphasizes mutual obligations by employee and
employer.
36
(d) Workplace Equality:- Questions arise concerning the benefits
of participation measures to workplace equality. Work – related
participation can place a premium on social factors such as ability
to communicate and the time available to commit to participation.
Participation can therefore amplify social advantage, and by the
same token social disadvantage. For example, caring
responsibilities may mean that some employees have relatively less
time to attend meetings. In addition, some schemes may be based
upon questionable assumptions about employees – for example,
that women are sometimes less committed to work, and perhaps
less willing to participate. However, a number of studies have
refuted this assumption. Other potentially excluded groups also
suffer from amplified disadvantage. They include ethnic minorities,
single parents, agency workers, and temporary workers, with
possibly limiting effects on their capacity and opportunity for
participation.
(e) Discrimination: - Less advantaged groups and individuals,
such as older workers, ethnic minorities and disabled people may
have a restricted “voice” within the workplace. Coupled with
greater employment insecurity, this can permeate workers‟
performance through frustration and impotence, with a negative
37
impact on both organizational performance and quality of working
life.
This evidence indicate that participation schemes in tandem with
welfare measures – such as equal opportunities and family-friendly
policies improve organizational performance and the quality of
working life. By contrast, perceptions of unfairness have a negative
impact.
2.4 EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION AND FAMILY FRIENDLY
WORKING
Some studies, which have examined the business consequences of
implementing family – friendly employment policies have found
benefits in doing so. Others have tried to determine whether
employees have a voice over work – life issues, and how
instrumental it might be in establishing family friendly employment
policies.
Employees appear to have a voice of some kind in larger
organizations. It tends to be collective, and expressed through
trade unions or staff associations.
Smaller enterprises typically lack collective means of expression,
though there can be direct communication between individual
employees and their employers over flexible working. Some studies
38
have reported individuals negotiating informal arrangements with
their managers in small and medium sized enterprises to suit their
individual circumstances, but not all employees have a powerful
enough voice to achieve this.
Family – friendly policies appear to be more widespread and deeply
embedded in enterprises which recognize unions, though this
association does not imply that unions have a more effective voice.
Various studies have confirmed the low-key role of trade unions
consultation; even with and among line managers also appears to
be rather restricted. The possible exception is the health services,
where there is an organizational cultural tradition of consultation.
However, the major factor influencing employers to implement or
extend family – friendly policies appears not to be collective or
individual employee pressures, but labour – market conditions
backed by minimal statutory requirements.
The management of time is an essential workplace process over
which employees – especially those with domestic responsibilities –
need a measure of control in order to combat tensions between the
demands of work and home. Despite some softening of the political
climate towards trade unions and scarcity of labour in some
sectors, there is little evidence that employees, collectively or
39
individually, have been able to make any significant impression on
the work – life agendas of companies, even when there can be a
business case for such policies. It also seems that some managers
continue to adopt a gender and possibly marginalized perspective
of work life issues.
Research have also shown that long working hours; another major
dimension of work – life conflict, have scarcely been touched by
the Working Time Regulations, or high – profile concerns
expressed in the media and elsewhere. In terms of the work – life
balance and family – friendly working, the evidence suggests that
employees voice out with precision and care.
2.5 POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The extent of current political support for employee participation is
mixed at times. It appears uncoordinated or even contradictory, as
evidenced by the Government‟s ambiguous stance towards greater
Nigerian influence over participation practice and work reforms
such as the Working Time Directive. In addition, work-related
participation policies focus on efforts to promote collective (though
not necessarily trade union – based) participation through
measures such as social partnership, while financial participation
40
legislation leans towards individualized programmes. Current policy
appears to be trying to appease both employers‟ and to a lesser
extent trade union aspirations, though initiatives to date seem to
point to the former direction.
This apparent lack of co-ordination of policy will have a
disproportionate impact on small firms. Small firms are less likely to
introduce work-related participation measures than larger
companies, therefore providing few opportunities to access the
positive effects of combining participations schemes.
On top of this, the Employment Relations Act works against the
development of collective participation in small firms through the
exclusion of enterprises with 20 employees and under from union
recognition rights. Since the quality and quantity of welfare policies
are associated with trade union presence, small firms and their
employees could be missing out on the positive effects of
combining participation and welfare schemes.
There are also some areas where the reach of policy is limited.
Participation measures are not isolated from the effects of the
external environment.
Economic fluctuations have an impact on share prices for instance,
and the voluntary nature of many participation schemes means that
41
they are vulnerable to cost – saving exercises. In addition, there
are discrepancies between how a policy is conceived at national or
organizational level, and how it is interpreted at company or
workplace level.
2.6 OUTCOMES OF PARTICIPATION
The outcomes of participation consider the effects of participation
schemes, not all of which achieve the outcomes desired by their
originators. The evidence for contradictory effects is examined. The
impact that different types of participation have on the processes
of participation into improved company performance is then
investigated, focusing on participation schemes, with different
degrees of employee influence.
Also studied is the empirical evidence as well as generalization of
participation effects.
(a) Contradictory Evidence:- The question remains, why should
the type of participation introduced affect performance differently?
This body of contradictory evidence is not surprising given the
often considerable lack of attention paid to the mechanisms by
which employee participation influences performance and the
assumptions made about causality, linking participation to attitude
42
change, then to changes in behaviour and finally, to improved
performance. These processes are all too frequently shrouded in
questionable assumptions about the nature of the workplace and
the casual effects of participation programmes. Of particular
concern are assumption made about change in employee attitudes,
especially that participation induces greater employee association
with management values, and that this will also improve
employment relations within the workplace. If this assumption
proves fragile, it sheds doubt on the assumed positive links
between participation and performance. A further assumption
which is rarely contested is the generalization of participation
schemes between different work places, industrial sectors and sizes
of enterprise. Finally of concern for the social outcomes of
participation is the assumption that participation affects all
employees identically, regardless of gender, age, race and contract
states.
(b) Degree of Employee Influence:-
(i) Low – Degree Influence: The literature clearly indicates
that the introduction of some forms of participation can have little
positive effect on company performance. Part of the explanation
for this is the level of participation offered to employees whether is
43
consultation or decision – making rights – and the level this is
operated at, board or work station. Low degrees of participation
with little employee autonomy have been identified as reasons for
disappointing participation results. This has been observed in some
firms where, after an initial “honeymoon” period, the workforce has
expressed more dissatisfaction with the firm than before the
introduction of participation, because of the raised and unmet
expectations of employee influence (Kruse and Blasi, 1995). The
scope of participation schemes may be so limited as to simply
irritate the workforce, thus failing to meet their expectations. A
workforce may also feel resentful about the amount of time, effort
and increased responsibility involved in a participation scheme
(Bryson and Millward, 1997; McMabband Whitfield, 1998),
especially if they see little return from management. One possible
explanation for these discrepancies can be gleaned from views
from the shop floor, which suggest that participation schemes have
had little effect on communications between employees and
management. Patterson et al‟s (1997) study found that employees
felt that, while management placed emphasis on quality goods and
services, little emphasis was placed on participation and
communication. This may go some way towards explaining Adam‟s
44
(1991) findings on the limited impact of quality circles. Ackroyd and
Procter (1998), support this alternative view of the UK situation
with their contention that in fact very little has actually changed in
employee relations.
They found out that employee relations have not moved towards
„softer‟ measures, such as communications and employee
motivation, but in fact have moved towards, “harder” measures.
This hypothesis is supported by the WERS 98 findings; employees
were less likely to report improvements in communications with
management than their managers were.
These shortcomings suggest that the role of the trade unions
remains significant, although this contention has to be measured
against a (possible) shift in worker identification away from unions.
Krieger and O‟ Kelly (1998) also found that the presence of a trade
union was important. It meant that higher degrees of employee
influence were associated with individualized, direct participation,
and that this situation produced significant cost – cutting results.
Where participation is only in one direction, from top down (e.g.
through briefing meetings), workers may feel that their views are
not being considered or given any weight, therefore, while they
feel indifferent about the increased communication from the top, this
45
may be accompanied by increased hostility towards management.
Marchington et al (1989) found a number of instances where team
briefing often heralded as a cornerstone to workplace
communication, was ineffective. Where one – way communication
is from the bottom up, for example through suggestion schemes,
workers may then feel that management is using their suggestions,
with no rewards seen by employees. Overall disillusionment within
the workforce could therefore rebound on management plans. In
other circumstances, where schemes have been introduced without
prior worker consideration, resentment may be the overriding
attitudinal change, not contentment.
Sisson and Frohlich‟s (1998) results support the thesis that low –
degree influence is unlikely to produce glowing results. In their
recent analysis of the Employee Direct Participation in Organization
Change (EPOC) survey, they found that where employees were
expected to act more autonomously, and take on responsibility
without any increase in employee influence, then participation had
no significant impact. They also found that the effects of
participation on increase in output were strongest where employee
participation involved a high degree of influence. Of particular
interest is their conclusion that team work has a significant effect
46
only when associated with high degrees of employee influence. On
the other hand, to reduce absenteeism, low levels of influence
were found to be the most effective means. This has implications
for Company choice of participation scheme – depending on
whether the primary motive is to reduce costs or to improve
output. However, Sisson and Frohlich (1998), concluded that
consultative forms of participation, “are more likely to be
associated with positive employment trends” more than delegate
forms of participation.
(ii) High – Degree Influence: - Where participation in
conventionally owned and organized firms occurs at strategic
decision – making levels, and is more than merely consultative,
many of the problems of associated with low – degree influence
forms of participation are bypassed. However other problems may
occur in this circumstance.
Hartley (1992, p. 302) maintains that employee owners (i.e. high –
degree influence participation) will be unwilling to, “make hard
decisions” or to discipline colleagues, and furthermore that
factionalism will develop. Hartley (1992) continues that employees
may be unwilling to take orders from managers, because employee
views formally hold equivalent weight in the decision – making
47
process. Further, where there is a significant element of employee
ownership, a manager may feel constrained from exercising
authority or from requesting an employee – owner to perform
certain tasks.
Ben – Ner and Jones (1995) suggest that decision making rights
without financial rewards for workers could mean that employees
do not take care when taking decisions, which could therefore
adversely affect company performance. Jones (1987) and
Defourney et al (1985) agree that worker involvement in decision
making could result in poorer decisions, because workers are
assumed to be less skilled or competent in this task (or they face
potential conflict of interest, for example as board members on
pension fund trusts). There is also the contention that, where
employees have decision – making rights, their decisions will be
income – maximizing and not profit –oriented (Bartlett, 1994),
though Bonin et al (1993) consider this view over – simplistic. Ber-
Ner and Jones (1995) also contend that, where workers have
control rights but no financial return rights, they will seek to
improve working conditions. This, Ben – Ner and Jones assume will
adversely affect Company Efficiency. However, this could also be
seen as a means to increase worker loyalty to the company,
48
thereby improving worker performance and reducing labour
turnover. Furthermore, employee involvement in decision making
may increase the amount of time, decision making takes, thus
disadvantaging firms in highly competitive markets. Jones (1987)
takes a different tack. He warns that with enforced strategic level
participation; for example legislation for co-determination
managers, may reduce their input and effort in decision making,
resulting in poorer company performance. However, Jones goes on
to add that worker involvement in, and acceptance of decisions can
reduce implementation problems, therefore lowering costs and
improving adaptability.
(c) Empirical Evidence: Empirical Evidence from Roche and
Geary‟s (2002) study of partnership at the Irish Airports Authority
(Aer Rianta), also suggests a positive outcome for both parties,
supporting the mutual gain thesis. The principles of Constructive
Participation by which the agreement operated at Aer Rianta
contained explicit directions that unions and management would do
all possible to improve company performance and living standards
for employees‟ (cited in Roche and Geary, 2002, P. 668). The main
benefit for the organization from this new agreement was that
workers were believed to have become more willing to contribute
49
voluntarily to the success of the company in ways that had been
absent in the past‟ (Roche and Geary, 2002, P.673), indicating at
least at a causal link between the advent of partnership and
employee attitude changes. This partially supports the claims for
improvements to the psychological contract, but Roche and Geary‟s
work contains no explicit reference to Organizational Performance
Improvements (this may have been assumed through employee
attitude changes). However, there was also significant opposition
to the new ways of decision making, from both worker directors
and middle management. Yet for the employees, a better quality of
working life was seen as a principal outcome. A key element of the
partnership agreement within this organization was the protection
of established collective bargaining procedures, and sphere of
influence overlaid by the new partnership structure and
procedures. These newer partnership arrangements consisted of
both established and new forms of collective representation in
decision making and individualized participation - including
employee share ownership.
In this respect, it was a combination of Collective and
Individualized participation (both a pluralist and unitary approach)
that achieved the outcomes of partnership for the organization and
50
its employees. Nevertheless, the partnership arrangement were put
in place as a direct response to an increasingly competitive
environment, the threat of privatization and a near full –
employment labour market. Thus, Streeck (1992, 1994, 1995, cited
in Roche and Geary, 2002) and Ramsay‟s (1977) doubts concerning
the durability and longevity of these participation arrangements
may well be relevant in these cases.
Guest and Peccei‟s (2001) work is also somewhat qualified, in its
support for partnership. This research also found support for the
combination of direct and representative forms of participation
(alongside forms of flexible working) in achieving attitude and
behaviour changes in favour of the organization. This attitude
change was also associated with improved labour retention and
absence levels, and with improvements to Organizational
performance, sales and profits. In principle, the authors conclude
that, while they found evidence of mutual benefits, these were
however skewed in favour of management in most of their sample.
This was particularly sharp in those organizations that „reported
only low progress towards partnership.‟ In this respect,
Organizational performance outcomes, held precedence over
employee welfare outcomes. So while performance was enhanced,
51
at what cost to employees, and for how long? Yet, where „high –
trust‟ relations existed within organizations, both employee welfare
and organization performance outcomes were observed. This led
Guest and Peccei to conclude that:
„It is only when employees are engaged in terms of attitudes and
behaviour, that performance gains are apparent. This implies that
too great a distortion in the balance of advantage, would fail to
lead to positive performance outcomes‟.
(d) Generalisability of Participation Effects.
A further mediating factor in the application and effects of
participation is the size of the workplace. Relatively little is known
about participation in the SME sector beyond what has been
published on co-operatives. Many of the more recent surveys and
studies, fail to differentiate between large and small organizations,
However, Bryson and Millward (1997, P.8) discovered that
participation is „less prevalent in small firms … than in larger firms.‟
A major survey that has looked into the state of participation in
small and large firms is the Workplace Employee Relations Survey
(WERS). The results for WERS 98 show that, while only 8 percent
of small firms had not introduced any new management or
employee involvement measures, less than 30 percent are using
52
five or more of these schemes, compared with well over half of the
larger firms. These findings have particular resonance given the
government„s continuing emphasis on expanding and encouraging
the small firms sector (DFEE, 1998) and on promoting share
ownership in small enterprises through programmes such as the
Enterprise Management Initiative.
Beyond arguments about enterprise size are concerns about the
Industrial sector within which participatory firms are located.
Questions remain concerning whether successful participation
schemes are transferable between industry types. Lucas (1996)
found that, in the hotel and catering sectors, participation was
extremely low and much poorer than in other sectors. In addition,
participatory measures in this sector were unlikely to induce better
performance (Lucas, 1995). The hotel and catering sector, like
other low – skill sectors, e.g. clothing, has a relatively high staff
turnover. Management rationales for introducing participation
schemes in such a sector can be questioned because participation
cannot be used as a panacea for an industry‟s problems. In the
absence of a sustained policy to alter the underlying structural
conditions and clearer understanding of the high labour turnover in
these sectors, participation schemes are unlikely to have significant
positive impacts.
53
REFERENCES
Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2005) - Employee Participation And Company Performance. http://www.jrf. org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1859352995.pdf
Juliette Summers (University of Stirling) and Jeff Hyman (University
of Aberdeen) (2007) –Employee Participation and Company Performance: A Literature Review, Joseph Rowntree Foundation. http://www.jrf.org.uk/node/2322.
54
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter concentrates on the various methods used in colleting
the data and the techniques used in analyzing the data collected.
The Research methodology will be carried out under the following
headings:-
(1) Research Method and Designs
(2) Area of the Study
(3) Population of the study
(4) Sampling Distribution
(5) Sources of Data
(6) Methods of Data Collection
(7) Validity of the Research Instrument
(8) Methods of Data collection
REFERENCES.
3.1 RESEARCH METHODS AND DESIGNS
Survey method of research was employed for the study, and the
questionnaire was extensively used as the basic tool. Furthermore,
multiple choice questions were used in designing the questionnaire,
in order to exhaust all the possible responses that are relevant to
the research.
55
3.2. AREA OF THE STUDY
The area that will be covered under this study is Access Bank
Nigeria Plc, Ogui Road Enugu.
3.3 POPULATION OF THE STUDY
The population of the study is forty (40). It is got from the
Customer services unit of Access Bank PLC, Enugu. It is illustrated
thus:-
S/N DEPARTMENTS NO OF STAFF PERCENTAGE
1 Marketing 15 37.5
2 Operations 12 30.0
3 Security & Drivers 8 20.0
4 Cleaners 5 12.5
TOTAL 40 100.00
3.4 SAMPLING DISTRIBUTION
The sample size is thirty six (36). It is got from the population
units using Yaro Yamen‟s Statistical Distribution formula.
n = ___N_____ 1 + N (e) 2 Where n = Sample size
N = Population unit /size (40)
56
E = Sampling error taken at 5%
Hence, n = 40
1 + 40 (0.05)2
n = 40
1 + 0.1
n = 40
1.1
n = 36.4 Ω 36
n = 36
3.5 SOURCES OF DATA
The data used for the research project were collected through
primary and secondary sources.
(a) Primary Data: The questionnaire served as the main
primary data used. It was administered to the staff of Access Bank
Nigeria Plc Enugu. This is supplemented with oral interview and
personal observation.
(b) Secondary Data: These were mainly used in chapter two of
the research project, where related literatures were reviewed. I
visited the internet, went to the sites that has to do with Employee
57
Participation and Company performance, where I collected most of
the data.
3.6 METHODS OF DATA COLLECTION
The methods/instruments used for data collections were as follows:
(a) Questionnaire: A total of 36 questionnaires were distributed
to the staff of Access Bank Nigeria Plc Enugu. It is made up of
multiple choice questions comprising a total of twenty questions.
(b) Interview: The Interview gives the Researcher on the spot
response from the respondents. This provides a complementary
data to the questionnaire.
(c) Observations: Observations were made on the activities
taking place in the Organization. (a), (b), and (c) form the primary
method of data collection.
Secondary method of data collection involves collecting data, which
had been gathered by a different entity (agency) for their own
specific use, but which are of relevance to the researcher in
carrying out her work. They consist mainly of work of others in the
past, as contained in the textbooks, internet, company reports,
journals, information offices, etc.
58
3.7 VALIDITY OF THE RESEARCH INSTRUMENT:
The Researcher prepared the questionnaire herself, before giving
to a specialist, whose advice informed the researcher to make sure
it measured, what it intended. The supervisor finally approved it,
before they were distributed, as there was no interesting aspect of
the study that was omitted when designing the survey questions.
Furthermore, the copies of the questionnaire were completed at
the convenience of the respondents, and in an atmosphere free
from intimidation.
3.8 METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS:
The responses from the questionnaires were carefully collected and
classified, according to the number of items on the questionnaire
most relevant to the research questions.
The methods used for the analysis included:-
(a) The questionnaire was analyzed using simple percentage
distribution formula:-
Where r = Number of responses to each questionnaire
n = Observable sample size, which is the total respondents.
(b) The hypothesis: The Chi - Square (X2) will be used in
analyzing the data, and testing the hypothesis.
59
The formula is given thus:-
X2α(R-1) (C-1) = X
20.05(R-1) (C-1) = X20.05df
R = Row Number; C = Column Number
The level of significance is taken at 95%
The calculated value is from the formula,
X2df = ∑(o
i - e
i)
ei
Where oi Observed Frequencies
ei Theoretical Expected Frequencies
X2 Chi - Square
df = Degree of Freedom = (R - 1) (C - 1)
Σ = Summation sign; 0.05 means “95% chance”.
Decision Rule
The decision rule for the hypothesis is:
Accept Ho if and only if the table/critical value is greater than the
calculated value. Reject if otherwise. The Rejection and Acceptance
region are shown below:
60
(c) The Correlation Analysis:- This is used to show if there is
a positive or negative relationship between two variables. The co-
efficient of correlation (r) is calculated as follows:-
R = nΣxy - (Σx) (Σy)
(nΣx2 - (Σx) 2) (nΣy2 - (Σy) 2)
Where x = Independent variable
y = Dependent variable
Decision Rule: If the co-efficient of correlation (R) is positive
(+), then the null hypothesis will be accepted, otherwise it should
be rejected.
Reject Ho
95%
Accept Ho
61
CHAPTER FOUR
DATA PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION, AND ANALYSIS.
The purpose of this chapter is to present, interpret, and analyses
data collected in the course of this research study: The Impact of
Employee Participation on Company Performance – A study of
Access Bank Nigeria Plc Enugu. The analysis of data collected was
treated in accordance with the methodology stated in the previous
chapter. The questionnaire was designed to test the validity of
each research question posed in this study.
4.1 QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED AND RETURNED
TABLE 4.1
S/N DEPARTIMENT NO
GIVEN
%
GIVEN
NO
RETURNED
%
RETURNED
1 Marketing 14 38.9 14 38.9
2 Operations 11 30.6 11 30.6
3 Security &
drivers
7 19.4 7 19.4
4 Cleaners 4 11.1 4 11.1
TOTAL 36 100 36 100
This means that all the questionnaires distributed, were returned
62
4.2 DATA PRESENTATION
4.2.1. RESEARCH QUESTION 7:
The effects of participation schemes vary with the environment into
which they are introduced.
TABLE 4.2.0: RESPONSES
DEPT. YES % NO % TOTAL %
Marketing 12 33.33 2 5.56 14 38.89
Operations 9 25.00 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security & Drivers 4 11.11 3 8.33 7 19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 4 11.12
TOTAL 27 75.00 9 25.01 36 100.01
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From table 4.20, 27 respondents representing 75% said, „yes‟,
while 9 respondents representing 25% of the total sample said
„No‟. Therefore, we conclude that the effects of participation
schemes vary with the environment into which they are introduced.
63
4.2.2. RESEARCH QUESTION 8
Does an insecure workplace environment induce employees‟
compliance with participation measures?
TABLE 4.2.1: RESPONSES
DEPT.
YES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT
KNOW
%
TOTA
L
%
Marketing 7 19.44 4 11.11 3 8.33 14 38.88
Operations 8 22.22 2 5.56 1 2.78 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
4
11.11
1
2. 78
2
5.56
7
19.45
Cleaners 2 5.56 1 2.78 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 21 58.33 8 22.2
3
7 19.4
5
36 100.0
1
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.1, 21 respondents representing 58.33% said, „yes‟,
8 respondents representing 22.23% said, „No‟, while 7
respondents representing 19.45% said, „I do not know‟. Therefore
we conclude that an insecure workplace is likely to induce
employees‟ compliance with participation measures.
64
4.2.3. RESEARCH QUESTION 9
Does an insecure workplace help to achieve from the employees
the commitment needed for attitude change?
TABLE 4.2.2: RESPONSES
DEPT.
YES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT
KNOW
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 5 13.89 7 19.44 2 5.56 14 38.89
Operations 3 8.33 5 13.89 3 8.33 11 30.55
Security &
Drivers
2
5.56
4
11.11
1
2.78
7
19.45
Cleaners 1 2.78 2 5.56 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 11 30.56 18 50.00 7 19.45 36 100.01
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.2., 11 respondents representing 30.56% said, „Yes‟,
18 respondents representing 50% said, „No‟, while 7 respondents
representing 19.45% said, „I do not know”. Therefore we conclude
that an insecure workplace may not achieve from the employees,
the commitment needed for attitude change.
65
4.2.4. RESEARCH QUESTION 10
Links between participation and attitude change appear to depend
on the degree of influence granted to employees under
participation measures.
TABLE 4.2.3: RESPONSES
DEPT.
STRONGL
Y AGREE
%
AGRE
E
%
NOT
AGREE
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 4 11.11 7 19.44 3 8.33 14 38.88
Operations 3 8.33 6 16.67 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
3
8.33
3
8.33
1
2.78
7
19.44
Cleaners 1 2.78 2 5.56 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 11 30.55 18 50.00 7 19.45 36 100.00
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.3, 11 respondents representing 30.55% indicated,
„„Strongly Agree”, 18 respondents representing 50% said, “Agreed”,
while 7 respondents representing 19.45% said, “Not Agree”. We
therefore conclude that links between participation and attitude
change appear to depend on the degree of influence granted to
employees under participation measures.
66
4.2.5 RESEARCH QUESTION 11
Is it true that low degrees of perceived influence granted to
employees are unlikely to produce positive results?
TABLE 4.2.4: RESPONSES
DEPT.
YES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT
KNOW
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 8 22.22 3 8.33 3 8.33 14 38.88
Operations 7 19.44 2 5.56 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
5 13.89 1 2.78 1 2.78 7 19.45
Cleaners 2 5.56 1 2.78 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 22 61.11 7 19.45 7 19.45 36 100.00
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
Table 4.2.4 showed that 22 respondents representing 61.11% said,
“Yes”. 7 respondents representing 19.45% said, “No". Also, 7
respondents representing 19.45% said, “I do not know.” We
therefore conclude that low degrees of perceived influence granted
to employees are unlikely to produce positive results.
67
4.2.6 RESEARCH QUESTION 12
Middle Management appears to resist participation initiatives, which
are perceived as reducing their influence or authority, thus posing
an obstacle to the success of participation programmes.
TABLE 4. 2. 5. RESPONSES
DEPT AGREE % DISAGREE % TOTAL %
Marketing 10 27.78 4 11.11 14 38.89
Operations 8 22.22 3 8.33 11 30.55
Security &
Drivers
4 11.11 3 8.33 7 19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 4 11.12
TOTAL 24 66.67 12 33.33 36 100
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.5, 24 respondents representing 66.67% indicated,
“Agree”, while 12 respondents representing 33.33% indicated,
“Disagree”. We therefore conclude that Middle Management
appears to resist participation initiatives, which are perceived, as
reducing their influence or authority, thus posing an obstacle to the
success of participation programmes.
68
4. 2. RESEARCH QUESTION 13
Do you agree that a combination of financial and work – related
participatory measures can have a positive impact on company
performance as employees do not all react to participation
initiatives in the same manner?
TABLE 4.2.6: RESPONSES
DEPT.
STRONGLY
AGREE
%
AGREE
%
NOT
AGREE
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 7 19.44 5 13.89 2 5.56 14 38.89
Operations 7 19.44 2 5.56 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security & Driver
4 11.11 3 8.33 - - 7 19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 - - 4 11.12
TOTAL 20 55.55 12 33.34 4 11.12 36 100.01
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
Table 4.2.6 showed that 20 respondents representing 55.55%
indicated; “Strongly Agree‟‟, 12 respondents representing 33.34%
said; “Agree”, while 4 respondents representing 11.12% said;
„„Not Agree”. We therefore conclude that a combination of financial
and work – related participatory measures can have a positive
impact on company performance as employees, do not all react to
participation initiatives in the same manner.
69
4.2.8: RESEARCH QUESTION 14
Some Employees respond well to financial initiatives and others
more to work – related elements
TABLE 4.2.7: RESPONSES
DEPT.
YES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT KNOW
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 8 22.22 4 11.11 2 5.56 14 38.89
Operations 7 19.44 3 8.33 1 2.78 11 30.55
Security &
Driver
3
8.33
2
5.56
2
5.56
7
19.45
Cleaners 2 5.56 1 2.78 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 20 55.55 10 27.78 6 16.68 36 100.01
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.7, the data showed that 20 respondents
representing 55.55% said; “yes‟‟, 10 respondents representing
27.78% said; “No”, while 6 respondents representing 16.68% said;
“I do not know”. From this we conclude that, some employees
respond well to financial initiatives, and others more to work –
related elements.
70
4. 2. 9: RESEARCH QUESTION 15
Do you agree to the assumptions that participation measures
should affect all employees identically, regardless of gender, race,
age, and contractual status?
TABLE 4.2.8: RESPONSES
DEPT. AGREE % DISAGREE % TOTAL %
Marketing 5 13.89 9 25.00 14 38.89
Operations 3 8.33 8 22.22 11 30.55
Security &
Drivers
2 5.56 5 13.89 7 19.45
Cleaners 1 2.78 3 8.33 4 11.11
TOTAL 11 30.56 25 69.44 36 100.00
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.8, 11 respondents representing 30.56 said,
“Agree”, while 25 respondents representing 69.44% said, “Not
Agree”. This shows that the assumptions that participation
measures should affect all employees identically, regardless of
gender, race, age, and contractual status is not agreed to.
71
4.2.10: RESEARCH QUESTION 16
Can the assumptions above, amplify social disadvantage?
TABLE 4.2.9: RESPONSES
DEPT.
Y ES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT
KNOW
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 8 22.22 3 8.33 3 8.33 14 38.88
Operations 8 22.22 2 5.56 1 2.78 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
4
11.11
2
5.56
1
2.78
7
19.45
Cleaners 3 8.33 1 2.78 - - 4 11.11
TOTAL 23 63.88 8 22.23 5 13.89 36 100
SOURCES: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.9, 23 respondents representing 63.88% said;
“Yes”, 8 respondents representing 22.23% said; “No‟‟, while 5
respondents representing 13.89% said; “I do not know”.
Therefore, we conclude that the assumptions above, can amplify
social disadvantage.
72
4.2.11: RESEARCH QUESTION 17
Disadvantaged groups, such as older workers, disabled people, and
those with caring commitments, may have only a restricted voice
at work.
TABLE 4.2.10: RESPONSES
DEPT.
YES
%
NO
%
SOME TIMES
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 8 22.22 2 5.56 4 11.11 14 38.89
Operations 6 16.67 2 5.56 3 8.33 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
4 11.11 1 2.78 2 5.56 7 19.45
Cleaners 2 5.56 1 2.78 1 2.78 74 11.12
TOTAL 20 55.56 6 16.68 10 27.78 36 100.02
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.10, 20 respondents representing 55.56% indicated;
“Yes”, 6 respondents representing 16.68% indicated; “No”, while
10 respondents representing 27.78% said; „„Sometimes”. We
therefore conclude that; disadvantaged groups, such as older
workers, disabled people, and those with caring commitments, may
have only a restricted voice at work.
73
4.2.12: RESEARCH QUESTION 18
Do you agree that a combination of participation and welfare
measures (such as equal opportunities and family- friendly policies)
appears to enhance Organizational performance and the quality of
working life?
TABLE 4.2.11: RESPONSES
DEPT. STRONGLY AGREE
% AGREE % NOT AGREE
% TOTAL %
Marketing 9 25.00 4 11.11 1 2.78 14 38.89
Operations 8 22.22 3 8.33 - - 11 30.55
Security &
Drivers
4
11.11
3
8.83
-
-
7
19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 - - 4 11.12
TOTAL 23 63.89 12 33.33 1 2.78 36 100
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.11, 23 respondents representing 63.89% indicated;
“Strongly Agree”, 12 respondents representing 33.33% indicated;
“Agree” while only 1 respondent representing 2.78% indicated;
“Not Agree”. We therefore conclude that, a combination of
participation and welfare measures (such as equal opportunities
74
and family – friendly policies) appears to enhance Organizational
performance and the quality of working life.
4. 2.13: RESEARCH QUESTION 19
Policy support should focus on union recognition and activity within
a human rights frame work.
TABLE 4.2.12: RESPONSES
DEPT YES % NO % I DO NOT
KNOW
% TOTAL %
Marketing 10 27.78 2 5.56 2 5.56 14 38.90
Operations 8 22.22 1 2.78 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
6
16.67
-
-
1
2.78
7
19.45
Cleaners 4 11.11 - - - - 4 11.11
TOTAL 28 77.78 3 8.34 5 13.90 36 100.02
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
The above table 4.2.12 depicts that 28 respondents representing
77.78% indicated; “Yes”, 3 respondents representing 8.34%
indicated; “No”, while 5 respondents representing 13.90% said; “I
do not know”. Therefore, we conclude that, policy support should
focus on union recognition and activity within a human rights
framework.
75
4.2.14: RESEARCH QUESTION 20
The statement above; (No 19), can positively influence employees‟
behaviour towards Organizational goals.
TABLE 4.2.13: RESPONSES
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
From Table 4.2.13, 31 respondents representing 86.11% indicated;
“Yes”,1 respondent representing 2.78% indicated; „„No‟‟, while 4
respondents representing 11.12% indicated; “I do not know”. We
therefore conclude that the statement, „Policy Support should focus
on union recognition and activity within a human rights
framework‟, can positively influence employees‟ behaviour towards
Organizational goals.
DEPT
YES
%
NO
%
I DO NOT
KNOW
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 13 36.11 - - 1 2.78 14 38.89
Operations 9 25.00 1 2.78 1 2.78 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
6 16.67 - - 1 2.78 7 19.45
Cleaners 3 8.33 - - 1 2.78 4 11.11
TOTAL 31 86.11 1 2.78 4 11.12 36 100.01
76
4. 3. ANALYSIS OF HYPOTHESIS
(1) Table (4.3.1) –
Ho – A combination of financial and work – related
participatory measures can have a positive impact on
company performance.
H1 - A combination of financial and work related participatory
measure does not have a positive impact on company
performance.
The above hypothesis 1 is analysed using research question 13.
Do you agree that a combination of financial and work-related
participatory measures can have a positive impact on company
performance as employees do not all react to participation
initiatives in the same manner?
TABLE 4.2.6: RESPONSES
DEPT. STRONGLY
AGREE
% AGREE % NOT
AGREE
% TOTAL %
Marketing 7 19.44 5 13.89 2 5.56 14 38.89
Operations 7 19.44 2 5.56 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
4
11.11
3
8.33
-
-
7
19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 - - 4 11.12
TOTAL 20 55.55 12 33.34 4 11.12 36 100.01
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
77
TABLE 4.3.1
From Table 4.3.1., ẋ = = 12.00
ẏ= =33.33
The standard deviation Sx of the values of x could be calculated
with the following formular.
Sx = x-ẋ; From the table, x = 20, 12, and 4. ẋ = 12
Δ Sx = 20 – 12 = 8, 12 – 12 = 0, and 4 – 12 =- 8
Sy = y – ẏ. from the table; y= 56, 33 and 11. ẏ = 33.33.
ΔSy = 56 - 33.33 = 22.67; 33-33.33 = -0.33, and 11- 33 – 33
= - 22.33
OPTIONS
FREQU
ENCY
X
%
Y
dx=x-ẋ
dy=y-ẏ
dx2=(x-ẋ)2
dy2=(y-ẏ)2
dxdy= (x-ẋ)(y-ẏ)
Strongly Agree
20
56
8
22.67
64
513.93
181.36
Agree
12
33
0
-0.33
0
0.11
0
Not Agree
4
11
-8
-
22.33
64
498.63
178.64
TOTAL 36 100 0 0 128 1012.67 360
78
ẋ = Mean value of x
Ý = Mean value of Y
r = Co – efficient of Correlation
Δr = n xy - ( x) ( y)
[n X2 - x 2] [n y2 - y 2]
X = Independent variable
Y = Dependent variable
r = 3 1560 - 3600
[ 3 560) - 1296] [ 3 4346 - 10,000 ]
r = 1080 = 1080
(384) (3038) 1,166,592
r = 1080
1080 = + 1
r = + 1
DECISION:
There is a perfect correlation (i.e. + 1), which indicates that, the
null hypothesis which states that a combination of financial and
work – related participatory measures can have a positive impact
on company performance is accepted.
79
(2) Table (4.3.2.)
Ho - Link between participation and attitude change appear to
depend on the degree of influence granted to employees
under participation measures
H1 - Links between participation and attitude change does not
depend on the degree of influence of granted to employees
under participation measures.
The above hypothesis 2 is analysed using research question 10:
Links between participation and attitude change appear to depend
on the degree of influence granted to employees under
participation measures.
TABLE 4.2.3: RESPONSES
SOURCE: Questionnaire Responses
DEPT.
STRONGLY
AGREE
%
AGREE
%
NOT
AGREE
%
TOTAL
%
Marketing 4 11.11 7 19.44 3 8.33 14 38.88
Operations 3 8.33 6 16.67 2 5.56 11 30.56
Security &
Drivers
3
8.33
3
8.33
1
2.78
7
19.44
Cleaners 1 2.78 2 5.56 1 2.78 4 11.12
TOTAL 11 30.55 18 50.00 7 19.45 36 100.00
80
To calculate the expected frequencies, “E” or Eij
we use the formular, Eii = R x C n Where;
Eij = Expected Frequency
R = Row Total
C = Column Total
n = Total observation
So, for the following observed frequencies, we calculate the
expected frequencies thus;
“O” „„E‟‟
4 = 14 X 11 = 4. 3 36 7 = 14 x 18 = 7. 0 36 3 = 14 x 7 = 2. 7 36 3 = 11 x 11 = 3. 4 36
6 = 11 x 18 = 5. 5 36 2 = 11 x 7 = 2. 1 36 3 = 7 x 11 = 2. 1 36
81
3 = 7 x 18 = 3. 5 36 1 = 7 x 7 = 1. 4 36 1 = 4 x 11 = 1. 2 36 2 = 4 x 18 = 2. 0 36 1 = 4 x 7 = 0. 8 36
To calculate the Chi – Square (X2); the following calculation
follows:-
Oi Ei Oi - Ei (Oi - Ei) 2 (Oi-Ei)
2 EI
4 4. 3 - 0.3 0. 09 0.021
7 7. 0 0.0 0.00 0.000
3 2. 7 0.3 0 .09 0.033
3 3. 4 - 0.4 0. 16 0. 047
6 5. 5 0.5 0. 25 0. 046
2 2. 1 - 0.1 0. 01 0.005
3 2.1 0.9 0. 81 0.386
3 3. 5 -0.5 0. 25 0.071
82
1 1.4 -0.4 0. 16 0.114
1 1.2 -0.2 0. 04 0 .033
2 2.0 0.0 0 .00 0.000
1 0.8 0.2 0. 04 0. 050
36 36 0 0. 806
For the Table or Critical value, the table has 4 rows and 3 column
X2α(R-1)(C-1) = X295%(R-1)(C-1)
X20.05 (4-1) (3-1) = X20.05 (3) (2)
X20.056 = 12.59
:. The Table value = 12.59
The calculated value = O.806
DECISION:
Since the calculated value is well below the critical/table value, we
therefore:
Accept Ho: Links between participation and attitude change
appear to depend on the degree of influence granted to employees
under participation measures.
83
ACCEPTANCE REGION (SHADED REGION)
(3) Table (4.3.3)
Ho - A combination of participation and welfare measures (such as
equal opportunities and family friendly policies), appears to
enhance Organizational performance and the quality of
working life
H1 - A combination of participation and welfare measures (such as
equal opportunities and family friendly policies) does not
enhance Organizational performance and the quality of
working life.
REJECT Ho
95%
Critical
Value = 12 . 59
ACCEPT Ho
84
The above hypothesis 3, is analysed using research question 18:
Do you agree that a combination of participation and welfare
measures, (such as equal opportunities and family – friendly
policies) appears to enhance organizational performance and the
quality of working life?.
TABLE 4.2.1: RESPONSES
SOURCE: Questionnaire Reponses
To calculate the expected frequencies, “Eij”,
We use the formular; Eij = R x C n So for the following observed frequencies, we calculate the
expected frequencies thus;
“O” “Ei” 9 = 14 x 23 = 8. 9 36 4 = 14 x 12 = 4. 7 36
DEPT. STRONGLY AGREE
% AGREE % NOT AGREE
% TOTAL %
Marketing 9 25.00 4 11.11 1 2.78 14 38.89
Operations 8 22.22 3 8.33 - - 11 30.55
Security &
Drivers
4
11.11
3
8.33
-
-
7
19.44
Cleaners 2 5.56 2 5.56 - - 4 11.12
TOTAL 23 63.89 12 33.33 1 2.78 36 100
85
1 = 14 x 1 = 0. 4 36 8 = 11 x 23 = 7. 0
36
3 = 11 x 12 = 3.7
36
0 = 11 x 1 = 0.3
36
4 = 7 x 23 = 4.5
36
3 = 7 x 12 = 2.3
36
0 = 7 x 1 = 0.2 36 2 = 4 x 23 = 2.6 36 2 = 4 x 12 = 1.3
36
2 = 4 x 12 = 1.3 36 0 = 4 x 1 = 0.1 36
86
To calculate the Chi - square (X2), the following calculation
follows:-
Oi Ei Oi - Ei (Oi - Ei) 2 (Oi - Ei) 2 Ei
9 8.9 0.1 0.01 0.001
4 4.7 -0.7 0.49 0.104
1 0.4 0.6 0.36 0.900
8 7.0 1.0 1.00 0.143
3 3.7 - 0.7 0.49 0.132
0 0.3 - 0.3 0.09 0.300
4 4.5 -0.5 0.25 0.056
3 2.3 0.7 0.49 0.213
0 0.2 - 0.2 0.04 0.200
2 2.6 - 0.6 0.36 0.139
2 1.3 0.7 0.49 0.377
0 0.1 - 0.1 0.01 0.100
36 36 0 2.665
The calculated value = 2.665
For the table value, the table has 4 rows and 3 columns.
X2∝ (R-1)(C-1) = X295%(R-1)(C-1) = X20.05(4-1)(3-1) = X20.056
87
X2O.O56 = 12.59
:. The Table value = 12.59
DECISION:
Since the calculated value is well below the critical / table value,
we therefore:
Accept Ho : A combination of participation and welfare measures
(such as equal opportunities and family
opportunities and family – friendly policies), appears
to enhance organizational performance and the
quality of working life.
ACCEPTANCE REGION (SHADED REGION)
REJECT Ho
95%
Critical
Value = 12 . 59
ACCEPT Ho
88
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS,
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION.
5.1. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
After the analysis, the following were discovered:
(1) The effects of participation schemes vary with the
environment into which they are introduced.
(2) An insecure workplace is likely to induce employees‟
compliance with participation measurers.
(3) An insecure workplace may not achieve from the employees,
the commitment needed for attitude change
(4) Links between participation and attitude change, appear to
depend on the degree of influence, granted to employees
under participation measures.
(5) Low degrees of perceived influence granted to employees are
unlikely to produce positive results.
(6) Middle Management appears to resist participation initiatives,
which are perceived as reducing their influence or authority,
thus posing an obstacle to the success of participation
programme.
89
(7) A combination of financial and work – related participatory
measures can have a positive impact on company
performance as employees do not all react to participation
initiatives in the same manner.
(8) Some Employees respond well to financial initiatives and
others to more work –related elements.
(9) The assumptions, that participation measures should affect
all employees identically, regardless of gender, race, age,
and contractual status is not agreed to.
(10) The assumptions above, can amplify social disadvantage.
(11) Disadvantaged groups, such as older workers, disabled
people, and those with caring commitments may have only a
restricted voice at work.
(12) A combination of participation and welfare measures (such as
equal opportunities and family friendly policies) appears to
enhance Organizational performance and the quality of
working life.
(13) Policy support should focus on union recognition and activity
within a human rights framework.
(14) The statement above, (number 13), can positively influence
employees‟ behaviour towards Organizational goals.
90
5.2 IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH FINDINGS
In Research Finding 1:- The effects of participation schemes
vary with the environment into which they are introduced. This
means that the impact of employee participation on company
performance varies from companies to companies whether large or
small firms, and also varies between different national conditions.
The effect of employee participation on Access Bank, Enugu may
not be the same with First Bank, Enugu or any other company.
Also the effect may equally not be the same with Access Bank,
Lagos.
In Research Finding 2:- An insecure workplace, is likely to
induce employees‟ compliance with participation measures. When
there is job insecurity in the bank or the economy the employee in
order to protect their jobs, will be willing to participate to move the
company forward, and thus prevent insecurity.
In Research Finding 3: An insecure workplace may not achieve
from the employees, the commitment needed for attitude change.
Even though the employees will be willing to participate in order to
secure their jobs, this does not necessarily mean that their
behaviours will change automatically. There may be other means
to achieve attitude change other than insecure work place.
91
In Research Finding 4:- Links between participation and attitude
change, appear to depend on the degree of influence granted to
employees under participation measures. Participatory measures
such as team working and high – involvement work practices
demonstrated improvements in performance, but can also have
less positive outcomes for employee and social well – being.
Performance changes may occur because, participation leads to
changed attitudes, which lead to higher performance.
In Research Finding 5: Low degrees of perceived influence are
unlikely to produce positive results. Where employees‟ expectations
have been raised by introducing participation, but there is little real
improvement in employee influence; workers may express
resentment and dissatisfaction.
In Research Finding 6: Middle management appears to resist
participation initiatives, which are perceived as reducing their
influence or authority, thus posing an obstacle to the success of
participation programmes. High degrees of employee influence
may mean that managers‟ input in decision – making is reduced.
This can be from the concern that their authority is being
compromised, or through dilution of the decision – making process,
which may result in reduced competitiveness.
92
In Research Finding 7:- A combination of financial and work -
related participatory measures can have a positive impact on
company performance, as employees do not all react to
participation initiatives in the same manner. This combination may
act upon employee perceptions, encouraging high – trust relations
within the workplace, and allowing employees with different
motivations to enjoy the benefits of participation.
In Research Finding 8:- Some Employees respond well to
financial initiatives and others more to work – related matters. This
shows that employment relationship tends to be individualistic.
Employees have their own preference in their relationship with
their employers, and this also depends on what is obtainable in the
company. This new partnership is being encouraged between
employees, unions and employers.
In Research Finding 9:- The assumption that participation
measures should affect all employees identically, regardless of
gender, race, age, and contractual status is not agreed to. A major
social obstacle to participatory forms of work organization is that
they can result in increased work effort and responsibilities, which
can be incompatible with family situations or caring responsibilities.
93
In Research Finding 10:- Assumptions above can amplify social
disadvantage. Other significant implications are that participatory
schemes may amplify existing social inequalities in the workplace.
This may result in not getting the necessary input from all
concerned.
In Research Finding 11:- Disadvantaged groups; such as older
workers, disabled people, and those with caring commitments, may
have only a restricted voice at work. The participation scheme is
likely to exclude certain individuals or groups as above, by making
it difficult for them to take part in these schemes. Compound
disadvantage may accrue through excluding these employees from
input into decision making, thereby possibly distancing them
further through consequent actions.
In Research Finding 12:- A combination of participation and
welfare measures (such as equal opportunities and family – friendly
policies appear to enhance Organizational performance and the
quality of working life. Certainly, there are indications that
possessing and expressing a „voice‟ in Organizational affairs, can be
associated with positive performance effects, and that a collective
voice may be most effective.
94
In Research Finding 13: - Policy support should focus on union
recognition and activity within a human rights framework. There
are practical problems, though the evidence shows that, even
where unions are recognized, their impact on human right issues,
such as work – life balance or promoting gender equality, may be
restricted. Second, employers do not necessarily associate union
presence with effective employee or Organizational performance.
In Research Finding 14: - The statement above can positively
influence employees‟ behaviour towards Organizational goals. It
has been argued that union revitalization will occur, as a result of
the „representation gap‟ for employees, which has been generated
through the decline of union presence. This suggests that
government policy consideration should be given to greater
support for union recognition and activity, and for a stronger
human rights framework for the protection of vulnerable individuals
and groups of employees. Unions themselves, as the prime
„champions‟ for human rights at work, also need to look at the
most effective ways, in which they could attract, represent, and
retain a more diverse membership.
95
5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS:
It has been found out that combinations of participation and
welfare measures (such as equal opportunities and family – friendly
policies) appear to enhance both Organizational performance and
the quality of working life.
Policy support should focus on union recognition and activity within
a human rights framework, since this can positively influence
employees‟ behaviour towards Organizational goals, and employer
behaviour towards their employees. One visible approach that
combines participation with welfare is trade union presence and
recognition. There is strong evidence that union recognition
improves the scope and scale of welfare policies such as family -
friendly employment within organizations, though not necessarily
their operation at workplace level.
Given the findings, policy - makers should be especially concerned
about the policy implications for participation in terms of potentially
excluded groups. This is especially the case, since small firms,
(which are particularly affected by the current lack of policy co-
ordination) employ a disproportionately high population of both
women and ethnic minorities. Ignorance of these differences within
96
the workforce could lead to participation schemes that undermine
equality of opportunity within the workplace.
5.4. CONCLUSION:
Without adequate knowledge of how and why participation
schemes are achieving results, studies will continue to produce
contradictory findings.
However, it seems clear that combinations of financial and work –
related participation schemes, also collective and individualized
participation schemes, can exert positively synergistic effects. Of
particular importance are the social and economic contexts, into
which a participation scheme is introduced. Changes in legislation
concerning participation and union recognition are important
considerations, given the evidence linking unionism to improved
performance. In addition, the role of other complementary
legislative and policy changes must be taken into account, since
the combination effect appears to extend beyond bundles of
participatory practices.
SUGGESTION FOR FURTHER STUDY.
Employee participation and Company performance: A review of the
literature by Juliette summers and Jeff Hyman is published by the
Joseph Rowntree Foundation as part of the Work and Opportunity
series.
97
BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Access Bank Nigeria Plc – Annual Report & Accounts 2008. March 2008,(P 35).
Ackroyd.S. and Procter.S. (1998), British Manufacturing
Organization and Work Place Industrial Relations: some attributes of the new flexible firm. British Journal of Industrial Relations, Vol. 36, No 2, PP 163 – 184.
Ben – Ner.A. and Jones .D.C. (1995), Employee Participation,
Ownership and Productivity: A Theoretical Frame Work, Industrial Relations, Vol. 134, No 4, PP532 – 554.
Bryson.A and Millward.N. (1997), Employee Involvement in Small
Firms. London: Policy studies Institute. Castells . M. (2000), The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford:
Blackwell. Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2005) - Employee Participation and
Company Performance. http://www.jrf.org. UK/sites/files/jrf/1859352995.pdf.
Juliette Summers (University of Stirling) and Jeff Hyman (University of
Aberdeen) (2007) – Employee Participation And Company Performance: A Literature Review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation. http: //www.jrf.org.uk/node/2322
98
QUESTIONNAIRE
APPENDIX - PERSONAL LETTER
Department of Management, Faculty of Business Administration, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus.
Dear Respondent,
I am a Post – Graduate Student of the University of Nigeria in the
above-mentioned department, with Registration Number –
PG/MBA/06/45751. Currently, I am conducting a research on the
topic: “The Impact of Employee Participation on Company
Performance; A Study of Access Bank Nigeria Plc, Enugu”. The
research is purely for academic documentation, and any
information divulged will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Please, study the questionnaire and kindly supply all the
information required.
Thanks for your co-operation
Yours faithfully,
Odo Adaobi .V.
99
INSTRUCTIONS
Please follow the instructions carefully, and tick (√) in the option of
your choice. Thank you.
PART 1
(1) Sex: (a) Male (b) Female
(2) Marital Status: (a) Single (b) Married
(3) Age:
(a) 21 - 30 years
(b) 31 - 40 years
(c) 41 - 50 years
(d) 50 years and above
(4) How long have you worked in this Bank?
(a) 5 - 10 years
(b) 11 - 20 years
(c) 21 - 30 years
(d) 31 years and above
(5) What section of the Bank do you belong?
(a) Operations
(b) Relationship office/Marketing
(c) Security
(d) Cleaners
100
6) To what category do you belong in the Bank?
(a) Management staff
(b) Senior staff
(c) Junior staff
PART 11
(7) Do you agree that the effects of participation schemes vary
with the environment into which they are introduced?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(8) Does an insecure work place environment induce employees‟
compliance with participation measured
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
(9) Does an insecure workplace help to achieve the commitment
needed for attitude change?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
101
(10) Links between participation and attitude change appear to
depend on the degree of influence granted to employees
under participation measures.
(a) Strongly Agree
(b) Agree
(c) Not Agree
(11) Is it true that low degrees of perceived influence granted to
employees are unlikely to produce positive results?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
(12) Middle Management appears to resist participation initiatives,
which are perceived as reducing their influence or authority,
this posing an obstacle to the success of participation
programmes
(a) Agree
(b) Disagree
102
(13) Do you agree that a combination of financial and work-
related participatory measures can have a positive impact on
company performance as employees do not all react to
participation initiatives in the same manner?
(a) Strongly Agree
(b) Agree
(c) Not Agree
(14) Some Employees respond well to financial to initiatives and
others to more work – related to more work – related
elements.
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
(15) Do you agree to the assumptions that participation measures
affect all employees identically regardless of gender, race,
age, and contractual status?
(a) Agree
(b) Disagree
(16) Can the assumption above, amplify social disadvantage?
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
103
(17) Disadvantaged groups, such as older workers, disabled
people, and those with caring commitments, may have only a
restricted voice at work
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) Sometimes
(18) Do you agree that a combination of participation and welfare
measures (such as equal opportunities and family friendly
policies) appears to enhance organizational performance and
the quality of working life?
(a) Strongly Agree
(b) Agree
(c) Not Agree
(19) Policy support should focus on union recognition and activity
within a human rights frame work.
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know
104
(20) The statement above (No 19) can positively influence
employees‟ behaviour towards organizational goals.
(a) Yes
(b) No
(c) I do not know