A STUDY OF AUTOMOBILE SECTOR OF HARYANA

(1)

EMPLOYEES PERCEPTION TOWARDS PARTICIPATIVE SCHEMES: A STUDY OF

AUTOMOBILE SECTOR OF HARYANA

Manju Devi

¹

, Shabnam Saxena

²

1Research Scholar, ²Professor, Haryana School of Business,

Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana (India)

ABSTRACT

Participative management is proved to be a significant contributor in an organisation. Since human capital is considered as an approach to modernization and overwhelming change. This study intends to observe the employees’ perception towards participative management schemes viz. JMC, WC and JC and inter-relationship between these participative schemes. A structured questionnaire was used on five point Likert scale and administrated to 360 employees of automobile sector of Haryana. t-test and One Way ANOVA has been applied to measures the perception of employees towards participative schemes across demographic variables viz.

experience, marital status, age, qualification and income. Pearson correlation method has also been used to measure the inter-relationship between participative management schemes. The study reveals that there is no significant difference among employees’ perception towards participative schemes when analysed across experience, qualification and income. But in case of marital status study found significant difference among employees’ perception towards WC. Employees’ perception towards WC and JMC schemes is significantly different across age. Additionally, the outcomes demonstrated that all the participative schemes which are incorporated in this study are found to be positively correlated except for JMC and JC.

Keywords: Participative Management Schemes, JMC (Joint Management Council), WC (Work Committees), JC (Joint Council)

I. INTRODUCTION

Success of an organisation depends on boosting the entire capacity of workforce, because it generates new ideas and better ways of working in today‟s turbulent environment (Singh, 2009). The importance of employees‟

participation as a business strategy was first stressed in the late 1920 and early1930. Participative management referred as associate open sort of management where workers are actively engaged in organization‟s decision making process (Rao & Rani, 2012). The concept of employees‟ participation in management is based on human relations approach to management which got a new set of attraction to workers as well as management.

Traditionally the concept of Employees‟ Participation in Management refers to participation of lower level employees in the decision-making process of the organization. Employees‟ participation is also known as

„labour participation‟ or „worker participation‟ in management. In Germany it is known as co-determination whereas in Yugoslavia it is recognized as self-management (http://www.whatishumanresource.com/workers-

(2)

participation-in-management). Participative management can also be termed as Industrial Democracy, Employee Involvement as well as Participative Decision-Making. Participative management is developed by managers who actively seek strong and cooperative relationship with their employees (Rao & Rani, 2012).

Employees‟ participation in management involves psychological and expressive contribution of workers in the management of an organisation. To achieve organizational objectives participative management plays a vital role in process of decision making with others (Knoop, 1995). Employees‟ who involves their-self in organizational decision making process have more satisfaction, organisational commitment with the job (Katuwal, 2011, Bhatti, and Qureshi, 2007, Lin, and Huany, 2012, Khan et. al., 2011, Asgiri and Hanspour, 2013, Ahmad et al. 2014, Helms, 2006). Participative management is a power which should be share by managers with their subordinates to enhance performance and job satisfaction (Spreitzer, Kizilos &

Nason, 1997). Participative management and supervisory communication has significant relationship with the job satisfaction in Government Sector Organisation in Pakistan (Altaf et al., 2013).

Participative management shows the way to perform much better to compete its competitors (Bhatti, and Qureshi, 2007). Participative management with consideration is a significant factor to enhance the effectiveness of the organisation and their workforce. Participative management provides sense of achieving goals, increase morale and enhance information about organisational policies (Jena & Rautaray, 2010).

Empowerment is the concept of power is used to make balance with power redistribution by a senior position in their subordinates (Tulloch, 1993, Wanger, 1994). Participation in decision making increases employee motivation, job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Pearson & Duffy, 1999). PDM gives a signal to employees that they are valued by their employer at different level of organisation for decision making and to influence others (Cotton, Vollrath, & Forggatt, 1998). Participative management gives a sense of empowerment to employees (Moss & Rowles, 1997).

Participative management makes the employees more responsible for their organisation. Participative management is an HRM practices which are helpful for promoting industrial relations between the organisations. The main finding of this study described that industrial relations are poor where employees have low involvement in participative management (Rao and Rani, 2012). It is revealed from the review of literature that no particular study is available on the topic employees perception towards participative schemes thus the researchers intends to carry on this study.

II. OBJECTIVES

 To study the employees perception towards participative schemes in automobile sector of Haryana.

 To find out the inter-relationship between participative management schemes in automobile sector of Haryana.

III. STATISTICAL HYPOTHESIS

Following hypotheses are formulated on the bases above mentioned objectives:

3.1 Hypothesis



H01:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across various demographic variables towards participative management schemes.

(3)

To test this main hypothesis, four sub-hypotheses were proposed:

 H01.1:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across work experience towards participative management schemes.



H01.2:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across marital status towards participative management schemes.

 H01.3:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across age towards participative management schemes.

 H01.4:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across qualification towards participative management schemes.



H01.5:

There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across income towards participative management schemes.

3.2 Hypothesis

 H02:

There exists insignificant relationship between the perception levels of employees towards participative management schemes.

IV. METHODOLOGY

4.1 Sample Size and Data Collection

The sample size of research consists of 360 employees in automobile companies of Haryana, wherein, the demographic profile (Table 1) of sample from which the data has been collected is predominately of married (N=206, 57.2%), age falling under 25-35 years group (N= 241, 66.9%), experience falling under 1to10 years group (N=123, 34.2%), income falling under up to 5 lakh annual salary group (N=214, 59.4%). The majority of sampled employees are graduates (N=89, 24.7%).

Primary data has been collected through self-structured questionnaire. Questionnaire contains 24 statements consisting 8 statements each for JMC, WC and JC. All items of scale measured on 5-point Likert Scale ranging from 1(never) to 5(always). Questionnaire also contains the demographic variables of the employees. The demographics of the sample are shown in Table1. The background variables studied were: (1) Experience, (2) Sex, (3) Marital Status, (4) Age, (5) Qualification, (6) Nature of job, and (7) Income. Two demographic variables viz. sex and nature of job have been dropped for this study, because the number of female and temporary employees was too small to justify the use of statistical analysis.

Table 4.1.1: Demographic Profile

(4)

Experience

 1-10

 10-20

 20-30

 30-40

Frequency 123 79 82 76

Percentage 34.2 21.9 22.8 21.1 Sex

 Male

 Female

345 15

95.8 4.2 Marital Status

 Married

 Unmarried

206 154

57.2 42.8 Age

 25-35

 35-45

 45-55

 55-65

241 42 49 28

66.9 11.7 13.6 7.8 Qualification

 Up to Secondary High School

 Graduate

 Post Graduate

 Professional Course

 Others

76 89 50 83 62

21.1 24.7 13.9 23.1 17.2

Nature of Job

 Permanent

 Temporary

315 45

87.5 12.5 Income

 Up to 5 Lakh

 5-8 Lakh

 8-10 Lakh

 Above 10 Lakh

214 118 26 02

59.4 32.8 7.2 0.6 Sources: Primary data

4.2 Statistical Analysis

SPSS 18 version has been used to analyze the data obtained by the questionnaire survey. The data has been analyzed by applying statistical tool such as mean, standard deviation, ANOVA, t-Test & Pearson correlation method. t- test and ANOVA has been applied to examine variation among the employees‟ perception across demographic variables at 5%, & 1% level of significance. Pearson correlation has been used to find out the

(5)

interrelationship among participative management schemes. The analysis has been explained and interpreted with the help of following tables.

Table 4.2.1: Experience-Wise Analysis of Participative Management Schemes

Experience N Mean S. D F-Value Sig.(2-tailed) Is the Difference

Statistically Significant

JMC

 1-10

 10-20

 20-30

 30-40

123 79 82 76

4.13 4.10 4.32 4.30

0.79 0.73 0.50 0.54

2.43 0.06 No

(p>.05)

WC

 1-10

 10-20

 20-30

 30-40

123 79 82 76

4.42 4.31 4.51 4.42

0.50 0.63 0.41 0.62

1.89 0.13 No

(p>.05)

JC

 1-10

 10-20

 20-30

 30-40

123 79 82 76

4.27 4.18 4.22 4.24

0.53 0.75 0.65 0.53

0.29 0.82 No

(p>.05)

Sources: Primary data * Significant at 5% level

It is evident from the above (Table 2) that the employees of various work experience (in years) has no different perception for Participative Schemes, Joint Management Council, Work Committees and Joint Council. The value of significance level for F-Test is more than 0.05 for participative management schemes. It means there is not any significant difference between the different experienced employees towards various participative management schemes.

Table 4.2.2: Marital Status- Wise Analysis of Participative Management Schemes

(6)

Marital Status

N Mean S. D. t- Value Sig.(2-tailed)

Is the Difference Statistically Significant

JMC Married 206 4.15 0.71

-1.59

0.11

No (p> .05)

Unmarried 154 4.27 0.62

WC Married 206 4.37 0.58

- 2.02

0.04*

Yes (p>.05)

Unmarried 154 4.48 0.49

JC Married 206 4.20 0.61

-1.08

0.28

No

(p>.05)

Unmarried 154 4.27 0.61

Sources: Primary data

* =Significant at 5% level of significance

It can be extracted from Table 3 that the mean value for JMC and JC for married and unmarried respondents is 4.15, 4.27 and 4.20, 4.27 with S.D .71, .62 and 0.61, 0.61. The t value is -1.59 and -1.08 at significance level of 2-tailed is 0.11 and 0.28. To evaluate, it can be analysed that there is not a significant difference between the perception of married and unmarried employees‟ regarding JMC and JC. Further, the mean values for WC is 4.37 for married and 4.48 for unmarried with S.D .58 and .49 respectively. The t value is -2.02 at significance level of .04. It can be extracted that there is a significant difference found between the perception of married and unmarried employees‟ regarding work committee scheme.

Table 4.2.3: Age-wise analysis of Participative Management Schemes

Age

N Mean S. D. F-Value Sig.(2-tailed)

Is the Difference Statistically Significant JMC

 25-35

 35-45

 45-55

 55-65

214 118 26 02

4.28 3.90 4.21 4.00

0.61 0.88 0.60

0.81 3.44

0.00*

Yes

(p<.05)

WC

 25-35

 35-45

 45-55

 55-65

214 118 26 02

4.47 4.10 4.41 4.47

0.45 0.85 0.64 0.36

4.33 0.00* Yes (p<.05)

(7)

JC

 25-35

 35-45

 45-55

 55-65

214 118 26 02

4.27 4.16 4.07 4.32

0.55 0.71 0.79 0.56

1.31 0.26 No (p>.05)

It is evident from the above (Table 4) that the employees of various income-wise has not a significant different for Participative Schemes viz. Joint Management Council, Work committees and Joint Council. The F- value is 3.44, 4.33 and 1.31 at significance level of .00, .00 and .26 in which JMC and WC has less than .05 and JC has greater than .05. So, it can be extracted that there is a significant difference between the perceptions of employees regarding JMC and WC not for JC.

Table 4.2.4: Qualification-wise analysis of Participative Management Schemes

Qualification N

Mean S. D. F-Value

Sig.(2- tailed)

Is the Difference Statistically Significant JMC

 Graduate

 Post Graduate

 Professional Courses

 Others

76

89 50 83 62

4.14

4.25 4.44 4.13 4.11

0.63

0.61 0.46 0.82 0.71

2.29 0.06

No (p>.05)

WC

 Graduate

 Post Graduate

 Others

76

89 50 83 62

4.35

4.51 4.49 4.33 4.43

0.54

0.42 0.48 0.66 0.56

1.73 0.14 No (p>.05)

JC

 Graduate

76

89

4.27

4.26

0.64

0.59 1.54 0.19 No

(8)

 Post Graduate

 Others

50 83 62

4.38 4.17 4.12

0.33 0.66 0.68

(p>.05)

It can be analysed from above (Table 5) analysis that employees‟ perception of various qualification has insignificant different at 5% significant level for various participative schemes viz. JMC, WC and JC. The value of significance level for F-test is greater than .05. It means there is not any significant difference between the employees perception toward participative schemes.

Table 4.2.5: Income-wise analysis of Participative Management Schemes

Income N

Mean S. D. F-Value

Sig.(2- tailed)

Is the Difference Statistically Significant JMC

 Up to 5 Lakh

 5-8 Lakh

 8-10 Lakh

 Above 10 Lakh

214 118 26 02

4.21 4.22 4.64 4.12

0.63 0.71 0.89 0.17

0.53 0.65

No (p>.05)

WC

 Up to 5 Lakh

 5-8 Lakh

 8-10 Lakh

 Above 10 Lakh

214 118 26 02

4.46 4.32 4.49 4.68

0.41 0.72 0.55 0.08

2.12 0.09

No (p>.05)

JC

 Up to 5 Lakh

 5-8 Lakh

 8-10 Lakh

 Above 10 Lakh

214 118 26

02

4.30 4.13 4.15

4.26

0.57 0.67 0.60

0.35

2.02 0.10 No (p>.05)

*= Significant at 5% level of significance

It is analyzed from the above (Table 6) that the employees of various income has not a significant difference for Participative Schemes viz. Joint Management Council, Work committees and Joint Council. The F- value is .53, 2.12 and 2.02 at significance level of .65, .09 and .10 which is greater than .05. So, it can be extracted that there is not any significant difference between the employees‟ perception towards participative schemes.

Table 4.2.6: Inter-item correlation between participative management schemes

(9)

*

=Significant at 1% level of significance

In order to understand the relationship between participative management schemes correlation analysis is applied. Table 7 depicts the correlation between participative management schemes. All the participative management schemes viz. JMC and WC, WC and JC are found to be positively correlated among the scheme expect for JMC and JC. The significance value for participative management schemes is at 1% significance level.

Table 4.2.7: Statistical Hypotheses and Results

Serial No. Hypotheses Results

3.1Hypotheses

^H01:There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across various demographic variables towards participative management schemes.

To test this main hypotheses, four sub-hypotheses were proposed

:

H01.1: There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across

experience towards participative management schemes.

H01.2:There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across marital status towards participative management schemes.

H01.3:There is no significant difference in the perception of employees

Not Supported

Partially Supported Participative

Management Schemes JMC WC JC

J M C JMC

Pearson Correlation

1 .131^* -.040

Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .444

N 360 360 360

W C WC

Pearson Correlation

.131^* 1 .129^*

Sig. (2-tailed) .013 .014

N 360 360 360

J C JC

Pearson Correlation

-.040 .129^* 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .444 .014

N 360 360 360

Mean 4.20 4.42 4.23

S. D. .67 .54 .61

(10)

across age towards participative management schemes.

H01.4:There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across qualification towards participative management schemes.

H01.5:There is no significant difference in the perception of employees across income towards participative management schemes.

Partially Supported

Not Supported

3.2Hypotheses

^H02:There exists insignificant relationship between the

participative management schemes.

Supported

4.3 Hypothesis:

The results showed whether or not the means of various group were significantly different from one another, as indicated by t and F statistics and its significant level. Statistical analysis summarized that there is insignificant difference in the perception of employees across experience, qualification and income. So, the null hypotheses are not rejected. But, in case of marital status and age statistical analysis summarized that there is a significant difference in the perception of employees towards participative management schemes. So the null hypotheses are rejected.

4.4 Hypothesis:

Correlation was examined to test the inter-correlation between each participative management schemes. The results found positively inter-correlation between JMC and WC, WC and JC, but JMC and JC have negatively. So, the null hypothesis is rejected.

V. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION

The main limitation of this study was restricted geographic region. Analysis ought to be conducted on larger geographic region and enormous sample size for higher illustration. This study involves three hundred sixty employees of Haryana which may be conducive for generalization of findings. Future analysis may be conducted to beat this limitation. Thus, this analysis additionally encourages the researchers for any investigation on this subject.

VI. CONCLUSION

Participative management provides various benefits at different level of the organisation like a sense of self- esteem; motivate employees, creativity and innovation to increase productivity, efficiency and effectiveness.

Participative management has been adopted by several organisations to beat the competition in the market, because it welcome the innovative ideas and thoughts from the staff and involve them in decision making process. Many studies of participation on commitment, job performance, job satisfaction, productivity and profit have been found in different economy. But when employees‟ perception towards participative management schemes were considered very few studies were available. Thus, this study focused on the employees‟ perception towards participative schemes across demographic variables in automobile industries in

(11)

Haryana (India) to fill the gap. The study reveals that there is no significant difference among employees‟

perception towards participative schemes when analysed across experience, qualification and income. But in case of marital status study found significant difference among employees‟ perception towards WC and employees‟ perception towards WC and JMC schemes is significantly different across age. Additionally, the outcomes demonstrated that all the participative schemes which are incorporated in this study are found to be positively correlated among the scheme expect for JMC and JC.

REFERENCES

[1]. Ahmad, N. L., Tobi, S. N. M., Rahim, R. A., Shobri, N. D. M. and Wahab, S. (2014), “The Relationship between Participative Management and Job Satisfaction”, Proceeding of The Austrialian Academy of Business and Social Science Conference’, ISBN 978-0-9925622-0-5.

[2]. Altaf, M., Yousaf, U., Tahir, M. and Bagram, M. M. M. (2013), “Job Satisfaction and Employees Participation in Government Sector Organisation of Pakista”, Asian Journal of Management Research, vol. 12 no. 3, pp. 384-393.

[3]. Asgari, M. H. and Hansapour, H. (2013), “Comparison of Impact of Managers‟ Participative and Collaborative Management Styles on Creativity, Job Satisfaction and Organisational Commitment of Secondary School Teachers, Rasht City, Iran”, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences, Vol. 5 No.4, pp.1081-1085.

[4]. Bhatti, K. K. and Qureshi, T. M. (2007), “Impact of Employee Participation on Job Satisfaction, Employee Commitment and Employee Productivity”, International Review of Business Research Papers, Vol.2 No. 3, pp.54-68.

[5]. Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnic - Hall, M. L. and Jennings, K.R. (1988), Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes, Academic Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.

[6]. Danish, R. Q. and Munir, Y. (2000), “Employees Participative Behaviour in Management Decision Making and its Impact on Organisational Outcomes”, The 8th International Postgraduate Research Colloquium: Interdisciplinary Approach for Enhancing Quality of Life, 23-30.

[7]. Helms, M. M. (2006), “Theory X and Theory, Encyclopedia of Management Education. In Muindi, F.K.

(2011). The Relationship between Participation in Decision Making and Job Satisfaction among Academic Staff in The School of Business”, University of Nairobi, Journal of Human Resource Management Research, Article id 246460, 1-34.

[8]. Jena, P. and Rautaray, B. (2010), “Participative Management in Medical College Libraries of Orissa: A Comparative Study”, Liberary Review, Vol. 3 No. 5, pp1016-.

[9]. Katuwal, S. B. (2011), “Influence of Job Related Factors on Workers‟ Desire to Participate in Decision Making”, PYC Nepal Journal of Management, IV (1), 52-59.

[10]. Khan, T. I., Jam, F. A., Akbar, A., Khan, M. B., and Hijazi, S. T. (2011), “Job Involvement as Predictor of Employee Commitment: Evidence from Pakistan”, International Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No.6, pp. 252-262.

(12)

[11]. Knoop, R. (1995), “Influence of Participative Decision Making on Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment of School Principals”, Psychological Report, Vol.

76 No. 2, pp. 379-382.

[12]. Lin, K. J. and Huany, Y. L. (2012), “Employee Participation – Trust and Affective Commitment”, Combridge Business and Economics Conference, ISBN- 9780974211428, 1-33.

[13]. Moss, R. and Rowles, C. (1997), “Staff Nurse Job Satisfaction and Management Styles”.,Nursing management, Vol. 28No. 1, pp. 32-34. In Romey, J. W., (2002). “The Relationship between Leadership Styles of Nurse Managers and Staff Nurse Job Satisfaction in Hospital Settings”, Marshall University Marshall Digital Scholar, Theses, Dissertation and Capstones, (i-57.)

[14]. Pearson, C. A. L. D. and Duffy, C. (1999),”The Influence of the Job Content and Social Information on Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction: A Study in Austtralian and Malaysian Nursing Contexts”, Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resource, Vol. 36No. 3, pp. 17-30.

[15]. Peter, T. J. and Waterman, R. H. (1982), “In Serach of Excellen: Lessons from American Best-Run Companies”, New York; Harper and Raw, Vol.20 No. 6, pp.119-137.

[16]. Rao, P. S. S. and Rani, P. S. (2012), “Participative Management in Post Liberalization- A Case Study of Indian Jute Industry”. European Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 4 No.8, pp. 37-46.

[17]. Ritchie, J. and Hersconitch, F. (1995), “From Likert to Love it; Engaging Blue Collar Workers in Focus Group Inquiries”, Journal of Occupational Health and Safety, Vol. 16 No.2, 83-94.

[18]. Singh, S.K. (2009). A Study on Employees Participation in Decision Making, Unitar E- Journal Vol. 5 No.1, pp. 20-39.

[19]. Wanger, and John A. (1994), “Participation Effects on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence”, Academy of Management Review, No.19, pp. 312-330.

E-REFERENCES

[20]. (http://www.whatishumanresource.com/workers-participation-in-management).