2

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the background of the study, statement of the problem, purpose of the
study, research questions, problem justification, limitation and scope of the study. This chapter
also highlights the theory on which the study will be based on.
1.1 Background to the Study
An employee centered workplace is one in which all individuals, programs, processes, and
systems are focused on helping employees become fully successful. Individuals who feel valued
will provide excellent products and service, which will result in the achievement of
organizational goals. In such an environment, everyone wins: workers, management, customers,
vendors, and other stakeholders (Delmastro, 2002). Management must make a conscious
decision to create an environment in which everyone and everything is aligned with employees’
success. Below are ten actions organizations can take to create or enhance a positive workplace
that motivates employees to perform their best.
Managers make solid decisions and commit to seeing them through. Losers put off decisions and
mess around with them once they are made. A key skill in becoming a successful manager is the
skill of decision making. It is surprising how many people don't like to make decisions. They do
all kinds of things to keep the moment of decision at arm length including: gathering more data,
talking to more people, not thinking about the decision, fretting over who the decision might
offend, worrying about the resources needed to pull the decision off, hoping the problem will go
away on its own, etc. Good leaders develop the skill of making the best decision possible with
the best information possible in the timeliest manner(Aghion and Tirole, 1997). They are quick
to decide and quick to take responsibility for their decisions - positive or negative.
Successful managers have learned that action is vital. They know procrastination kills. They live
with the reality of consequences and know there will always be uncertainty in decisions. No one
can see all possible ramifications; no one can predict every contingency; no one can absolutely
prevent failure. Leaders know that failure is not final, it is a learning opportunity. The real
1
danger surrounding decision making is not whether one makes the wrong decision but rather
whether the decision made is the best. Strong leaders will always recover from poor decisions -
they learn and become wiser. But losers will mess around and miss opportunities. And once they
finally make a decision, chances are their decision will have no momentum, no passion and no
urgency.
In addition to a bias for action, good decision makers approach decision making with some
foundational strategies. These strategies can best be summed up with three issues: If the liability
involved is significant, and is even marginally possible, then the decision is "no, go find other
options." One of the leader's most important jobs is to protect the organization. Exposing the
organization to undue risk is never wise or every decision is a trade-off between costs (usually
company resources) and benefits (usually claims aimed at increasing company resources). Smart
leaders use the cost/benefit ratio to leverage growth and profitability. Good decisions are highly
leveraged with low cost/high benefit. Poor decisions are high cost/low benefit. When leaders find
low cost/high benefit opportunities (with minor liability of course) the decision is, "Yes, let's do
it." Or Good leaders understand that making decisions goes far beyond being in charge and
calling the shots. Decision making is also one of the best developmental tools at their disposal. In
order to create momentum around decisions the leader must cultivate commitment. Asking for
input, especially from key stakeholders, is critical for momentum and effective implementation.
Thus leaders should solicit input from a variety of sources, builds consensus around a specific
direction, and allows the group to make a recommendation of which the leader must finally
approve. This level takes considerable skill and is where developing leaders often make
mistakes. Solid decision makers are well versed in the skill sets of this level. The authority and
responsibility should also be clearly shifted away from the leader (usually to a direct report).
Both the leader and the direct report live with the consequences - good or bad. The leader
reviews the decision, but does not change it and uses it as an opportunity for development.Leader
fully delegates the decision to a group (usually a committee). If the leader is part of the
committee then he/she is just one vote among many. The group processes all the decisions
involved, compromises positions until everyone is in agreement. Strong leaders understand the
process decisions must go through to be effective. As leaders move higher in organizations the
demand upon their time and influence also increases. Here the temptation of using the power of
2
position to make things happen is often high. These leaders will often get caught in this trap and
learn expensive lessons when decisions go bad. Hopefully you can avoid these mistakes and
make effective decision by using the three questions (Aoki, 1986).
Strategy on the other hand is critical in ensuring success of an organization. But often there are
two extremes in executive's minds - one that believes that strategy is everything, and
consequently spends too much time thinking than doing. The other extreme is that of an
operationally efficient mindset, that considers everything to be run efficiently without regards to
whether it is important or not. That's why decision making is so important. Successful
organizations believe in developing actionable strategy that is both adaptive and robust to
competitor and market space dynamics and delivers maximum results. Decision making must be
rich and option oriented, with clear choices and understanding of consequences. But most
importantly, decisions must be framed appropriately. Often organizations will spend valuable
time debating the wrong issue, or frame the issue at the wrong level. Management decision
making is not a lot different than in any other area of business. The biggest difference is the
potentially large impact on the company bottom line. Mistakes can be disastrous and good
decisions can propel a company to new heights. The keys for decision making in management is
to collect as much data as possible. A manager must have good information in order to
understand exactly what decision he is really making. Secondly, he or she must examine all the
alternatives for making the decision. Good decision-making requires a mixture of skills: creative
development and identification of options, clarity of judgment, firmness of decision, and
effective implementation.
Maseno University is where human resource management needs special attention and care.
Although actions have been taken to point out and address the issues concerning the employees
being allowed to participate more through their unions, nature of Human Resource practices and
their implementation and utilization in organizations of Maseno university are yet to be
standardized. This research pinpoints one issue of Human Resource practices namely employee
participation and its impact on performance of the organization. From time to time employees
apply for job rotations with a target of exploring more and with expectations of fully utilizing
their skills, This factor has motivated us to dig deeper into finding out what has caused the need
for employees to want to change jobs (Maseno University HR Records Management). In this
research, we have dwelt mostly the Human Resource practice that enables the employees to
participate and encourage them to do their work.
3
1.2 Statement of the Problem
The extent to which employees in Maseno University- main campus make decision on their own
and its influence in achievement of organizations’ strategic goals is not known. The study will
therefore embark with the aim of establishing guidelines that direct theses employees towards
decision making.
Strategic management requires a well-designed decision making process that permits quick and
reliable actions to be taken to ensure the achievement of the set objective. There is also a need of
ensuring that all the parties involved are given an opportunity to contribute their experiences in
the process of decision making. Decision making is therefore an essential element in the process
of management. The success of an organization is often judged by the correctness of its decisions
as the whole process of management involves decision making at different levels. Regardless of
this importance, relatively few businesses and organizations have given full and proper attention
to one of their most important activities which is making decisions regarding key questions such
as what strategies and business models to pursue, which products and services to offer, which
customers to target, what prices to charge and what employees to hire. Organizations with poor
decision processes and tools eventually encounter poor outcomes, and performance suffers.
Given both negative and positive incentives to get better, one might expect that organizations
would attempt to improve their decisions, that is, that they would prioritize them, examine their
current level of effectiveness, investigate new options for making them better and implement
some of those options. In this study the research assesses the relationship between decision
making process and its impacts on the strategic management.
1.3 The Objectives of the Study

The general objective of this study is to determine the influence of employees centered decision
making process in the achievement of organizations strategic goals.
Specific objectives:
1. To find out the effect of employee centered decision making on employees accountability
and effective use of resource in Maseno University.
2. To examine the effects of employee centered decision making process on effective time
management in these organizations.
4
3. To assess the relationship between the employees centered decision making process and
the job satisfaction among employees.
1.4 Research Questions

This study will answer the following questions:
1. What are the effects of employee centered decision making on employees
accountability and effective use of resource in Maseno University?
2. What are the effects of employee centered decision making process on effective time
management in this organization?
3. Is there any relationship between the employees centered decision making process
and the job satisfaction among employees?
1.5 Justification
This study was of great significant to the management function of Maseno University
administration. The study provided insights that aid delegation and centralization of authority by
managers. It also divulges the oversights that result from inept decision making in an
organization. Therefore this study generated data and information that is useful in strategic
managements. The study is also useful in modern management process which is faced with stiff
competitions among in the industry. The study also assists the organization to recognize the
contributions of employees centered decision making in strategic management that leads towards
the achievement of strategic goals of institutions in Kenya
1.6 The Scope of the Study
The study was carried out in Maseno University in Kisumu County. The population of this study
will include all the employees of this organization. The sample will include employees of all
management levels. Stratified sampling will be used to group these samples into homogenous
sub-groups after which simple random sampling will be used to collect the individual
employees’ responses.
1.6.1 Limitation of the Study

This study is anticipated to suffer from several limitations that includes, participants not being
open or sincere in responding to the questionnaires. Some of the participants did not feel free in
giving their views concerning the research topics. The participant’s involvements was hindered
5
by other factors such as their tasks or work schedules. Another challenge on the participants
included fear of participant being victimized. The study targeting employees in general also
faced a challenge of grouping the responses as employees had different personalities thus
different approaches towards decision making. However, the researchers carried out a pilot study
in order to eliminate such challenges which were as a result of the research instruments. The
participants were also briefed on the importance of the research being undertaken including its
use. This ensured that all the misunderstandings were eliminated.
1.8 Conceptual Framework

The study will be guided by the conceptual framework which describes the relationship between
the variables under study. From the conceptual framework it is quite evident that the quality of
the decision making will affect the achievement of organization objectives. The inclusion of the
employees views will enrich the decision made as well as reducing the time taken to deliberate
the same. This will in turn add positive value to the objective of strategic management whose
main aim is to create a competitive advantage. This relationship can be illustrated using the
following diagram:
The Conceptual Framework
Dependent Variable Independent Variable
Employee contributions Strategic Goals
Employee Participation in decision Effective time management
making
Effective use of resources
Job satisfaction
Accountability
Organization Policy and Regulation
Fig 1.2 (Adopted: Garicano, 2000)
6
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Overview
This chapter outlines various related studies which have been carried out by different scholars
both locally and internationally. It also depicts the research gap by looking at the prior work by
these scholars in terms of what has been done and what is to be done in the field of human
resource management and development.
2.1 Theoretical literature
2.1.1 The Concept of Decision Making

Quality and timely decision making is essential for the success of any firm. In fact, howan
organization chooses to design its decision-making rules are one of the most fundamental aspects
of its internal design; Brickley et al (2004) described the assignment of decision rights, along
with the reward system and the way performance is evaluated, as one the key aspects of an
organization’s architecture (or design). A firm’s ability to make good decisions is particularly
important in the face of increasing global competition, and the greater uncertainty from exposure
to more competitors and a greater number more markets that this brings. This paper empirically
investigates the allocation of decision making authority in workplaces using Australian data. In
particular, we are interested how both product-market characteristics as well as the internal
design of a firm affect the likelihood that an organization will choose to decentralize its decision
making (Gibbons, 2003).
This study was guided by self-determination theory, borrowed from psychology.
2.1.2 Review of self-determination theory
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality,

concerning people's inherent growth tendencies and their innate psychological needs. It is
concerned with the motivation behind the choices that people make without any external
influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-
motivated and self-determined. In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing
the intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and from growing understanding of the dominant role
intrinsic motivation played in an individual’s behavior but it was not until the mid-1980s that
SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT
to different areas in social psychology has increased considerably since the 2000s.Key studies
7
that led to emergence of SDT included research on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation
refers to initiating an activity for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as
opposed to doing an activity to obtain an external goal (extrinsic motivation).
Different types of motivations have been described based on the degree they have been
internalized. Internalization refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into
personally endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioral regulations that were originally
external. Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan (2002) later expanded on the early work
differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and proposed three main intrinsic needs
involved in self-determination. According to Deci and Ryan (1971) the three psychological
needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for
psychological health and well-being of an individual. These needs are said to be universal, innate
and psychological and include the need for competence, autonomy, and psychological
relatedness.SDT is centered on the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features,
that it repeatedly shows effort, agency and commitment in their lives that the theory calls
"inherent growth tendencies." People also have innate psychological needs that are the basis for
self-motivation and personality integration.
SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function and growth:
Competence, Relatedness, and Autonomy. These needs are seen as universal necessities that
are innate, not learned, and seen in humanity across time, gender and culture. Deci and
Vansteenkiste(2004) claim that there are three essential elements of the theory: Humans are
inherently proactive with their potential and mastering their inner forces (such as drives and
emotions), Humans have inherent tendency toward growth development and integrated
functioning, optimal development and actions are inherent in humans but they don’t happen
automatically. To actualize their inherent potential they need nurturing from the social
environment. If this happens there are positive consequence (e.g. wellbeing and growth) but if
not, there are negative consequences. So SDT emphasizes humans’ natural growth toward
positive motivation; however, this is thwarted if their basic needs are not fulfilled. Needs, SDT
supports three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied to foster well-being and health;
these needs can be universally applied. However, some may be more salient than others at
certain times and will be expressed differently based on time, culture or experience.
Competence-Seek to control the outcome and experience mastery, relatedness-is the universal
want to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for others, autonomy- is the universal
urge to be causal agents of one's own life and act in harmony with one's integrated self; however,
Deci and Vansteenkiste (2004) note this does not mean to be independent of others. SDT is
centered on the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features, that it repeatedly
shows effort, agency and commitment in their lives that the theory calls "inherent growth
tendencies." People also have innate psychological needs that are the basis for self-motivation
and personality integration.
8
2.1.3 Individual differences
SDT argues that needs are innate but can be developed in a social context. Some people will
develop stronger needs than others, creating individual differences. However, individual
differences within the theory focus on concepts resulting from the degree which needs have been
satisfied or not satisfied.Within SDT there are two general individual difference concepts,
Causality Orientations and Life Goals.Causality orientations are motivational orientations that
refer to either the way people orient to an environment and regulate their behavior because of
this or the extent to which they are self -determined in general across many settings. SDT created
three orientations: autonomous, controlled and impersonal: autonomous orientations: result
from satisfaction of the basic needs, Strong controlled orientations: Result from satisfaction of
competence and relatedness needs but not of autonomy and is linked to regulation through
internal and external contingences, which lead to rigid functioning and diminished well-being,
impersonal orientations: Results from failing to fulfill all three needs. This is also related to
poor functioning and ill being. According to the theory people have some amount of each of the
orientations, which can be used to make predictions on a person’s psychological health and
behavioral outcomes. Life goals, Life goals are long-term goals people use to guide their
activities, and they fall into two categories, intrinsic aspirations: Contain life goals like
affiliation, generativist and personal development, extrinsic aspirations: Have life goals like
wealth, fame and attractiveness. There have been several studies on this subject that chart
intrinsic goals being associated with greater health, well-being and performance.
2.1.4 Implications of STD theory
Motivation of employees is ascribed to the autonomy in decision making, i.e. when employees
are given autonomy in some decisions, they are motivated in their work. This is vital because
they are the key implementers of the strategic plan. There is also compete flow of decision
making in an organization. Individual differences guarantees conflicts in the work place, this
implies that decision making and implementation cannot tally. Similarly, participative decision
making may not necessarily be actualized. This calls for autonomy in making, and especially,
daily routine decisions.
2.2 Empirical literature on decision making organization
Recognize employees’ contributions to the organization in ways that are meaningful to the
individuals involved. Research shows that the most effective forms of recognition are those that
create memories for workers and their families. Ensuring that employees view organizational
procedures and decision-making processes as fair will create value addition especially in their
9
job satisfaction. Research shows that even when employees do not like the outcome of a given
decision, they are likely to accept it if they believe the rules that led to that outcome are fair e.g.,
transparent, free of bias, and open to employee input (Garicano, 2000).Valuessuch as trust and
respect should be core part of your organization’s culture. This outcome arises when each
employee knows what those values “look like” in terms of his/her behaviors on the job and when
leaders exemplify those values every day. Providing employees with a meaningful voice also
adds value (Gibbons, 2003). This means they feel that they can offer their opinions freely and
safely, even when they disagree with management, and they believe that their views will be
taken seriously. Incorporating appreciative approaches in the workplace should also be assured.
Seeking out things that people do well, and build on those strengths. Asking questions that have
them searching for positive answers instead of negative ones. All these will earn an organization
competitive advantage given that it will make quick decisions that are owned by the employees
themselves thus enhancing responsibility taking. Despite the fact that practical recommendations
on market contingent organizational design are a standard part of business school and
undergraduate economics curricula, there have been surprisingly few empirical studies on the
allocation of managerial decision making. The vast bulk of the existing literature is case-study
analysis, which has yielded seemingly contradictory results. Case-study analysis shows, for
example, thatsome large organizations are currently moving to a more centralized structure while
otherfirms, seemingly faced with similar pressures, are decentralizing(Aghion and Tirole, 1997).
As a consequence, a more systematic empirical study could be useful. There have beenseveral
previous empirical studies on decision making. Adams (1999) examined therelationship between
formal training and decision-rights in Australian manufacturingworkplaces, also using the
Australian Workplace Industrial Relations Survey 1995.Adams suggested that formal training
programs for employees and the delegation ofdecision-making authority were complements; a
firm will have an incentive to increasethe human capital of an employee if they are to be given
decision-making responsibility.The empirical results confirmed these predictions. Adams also
found that decisionmaking was more likely to be delegated when the firm faces a volatile
product market.Colombo and Delmastro (2004) study the allocation of decision-making
authority in 428Italian manufacturing firms. The decision could be made alone by a plant
manager(decentralization), made by the plant manager with the formal authority still residing
witha corporate superior (partial decentralization) or the decision could be made by the
10
plantmanager’s corporate superior. The decisions investigated are: the introduction of
newtechnology; investment in new production lines; investment in stand-alone machinery; hiring
and dismissal of personnel; career paths; and the design of individual andcollective incentive
schemes(Aghion and Tirole, 1997). Using an ordered probity model with random effects,
theyfind that: organizations with more complex structures (more hierarchical levels) are
morelikely to decentralize; firms with multiple plants are more likely to centralize
decisionmaking; the adoption of advanced communication technologies leads to an increase in
thelikelihood that decision-making authority is decentralized, particularly for multiple-plantfirms
and, notably, and the positive relationship between number of employees anddelegation only
holds for firms that have not adopted these technologies; and, lastly,firms with capital-intensive
production are less likely to delegate. Further, Colombo andDelmastro (2004) find that labor-
type decisions are more likely to be delegated to theplant manager while capital-type decisions
are more likely to be centralized.
2.2.1Decentralize Decision Making

It is not immediately obvious why someone in an organization such as an owner or a manager
would delegate decision-making authority. There are three suggested reasons for allocation
decision-making rights. They broadly can be categorized as: locating decision-making rights
with those who have the specific knowledge required to make an informed choice; providing
incentives to motivate employees; and optimal information processing. Jensen and Meckling
(1998) argued that quality decision making requires that the individual who makes a decision has
the required information to make an informed choice. This can be done in two ways: locate the
decision-making rights with the individual with the relevant knowledge; or, alternatively,
transfer the knowledge to the decision maker. The problem arises when knowledge is difficult to
transfer, Meagher, Orbay and Van Zandt (2003) refer to this are ‘specific knowledge’. Within a
firm, with specific knowledge it might be necessary to allocate decision-making rights to, for
example, a subordinate in order to make use of this information. There is, however, a trade-off
when decision-making rights are allocated to individuals who do not bear the wealth effects of
their decisions, as they require an incentive scheme in order to better align their interests with the
principal. The optimal allocation of decision-making rights depends, as a consequence, on the
11
trade-off between the quality of a decision (made with better information) and the control costs
(required to provide the correct incentives to the decision maker). Various factors, such as firm
size, technology and the rate of change, will affect this trade-off. For instance, Jensen and
Meckling (1998) suggested that when the marginal costs owing to poor information rise more
rapidly with size than theJensen and Meckling (1998) argued that in a market decision rights and
knowledge co-locate as: individuals with the decision rights (ownership) expend resources to
acquire knowledge; and/or those parties with the relevant knowledge have a higher willingness
to pay, so they are able to buy the decision rights (which arise with ownership). Brickley et al
(2004) makes a similar argument, suggesting that the benefits of decentralization are: more
effective use of local knowledge; conservation of the time of senior managers; training and
motivation for local managers. On the other hand, the costs of decentralization are; incentive
problems; coordination costs and failures; less effective use of central information. Each firm
will make a choice concerning the allocation of decision-making rights weighing up these costs
and benefits. These arguments suggest that workplace size, organization size and the rate of
change(unpredictability) affect the allocation of decision-making rights. All of these variables
are included in the empirical analysis below. Aghion and Tirole (1997) take a different approach
to delegation. They noted that a party that has the legal power to make a decision – for example
an owner of a firm – may merely rubberstamp the decision made by a subordinate. In this case
the party with‘formal authority’ opts to accept the decision of someone else – it is in fact the
letterperson who has ‘real authority’. In their model the principal (boss) is uncertain about which
project to implement. To increase the probability that they will become informed about the
potential projects both the principal and the agent (subordinate) can take a costly action. The
problem for the principal is that the interests of the two parties might not be the same – the agent
might prefer a project that gives her a private benefit, even if that project is of no value to the
principal (Gibbons, 2003). Both parties have a prior belief concerning the probability that the
interests of the two parties are aligned (so that the principal’spreferred project is also the project
preferred by the agent). In the model, first, the legal right to make the decision is allocated; with
P-formal authority the principal has the legal right to make the decision and with A-formal
authority the agent has the legal right. For the meantime, we focus on situations in which the
principal has formal authority (as in most firms). Second, each party chooses their effort level
that determines the probability of being informed about what is a good project. Third, if he was
12
informed, the agent can make a recommendation to the principal. As the principal has formal
authority, if she was also informed she will implement her preferred project. If not, she will
implement the project suggested by the agent, as with some probability the agent’s preferred
project will also benefit her. In this case, the principal relinquishes her formal authority, merely
rubberstamping the agent’s decision; the agent has the real authority. The principal will
relinquish her real decision-making authority to the agent when the agent has superior
information (is better informed) and when the preference of the two parties are similar (there is a
high degree of congruence so that it is likely that the principal’s preferred project is also the
agent’s).The advantage to the principal of being informed is that she gets to make the decision.
The disadvantage is that the possibility that they will be overruled reduces the agent’sincentive to
expend effort to learn about the potential projects.
In equilibrium, the agent’sincentive to put in effort is decreasing in the principal’s effort level, as
when the principal becomes more informed the agent is less likely to have real authority. As a
consequence, there is a tradeoff for the principal between loss of control and providing
incentives to the agent. One way of giving the agent more incentive to put in effort is to give him
the formal authority to make the decision. If this is not possible, the principal may wish to make
credible commitments to not override the agent’s proposals. This model, as well as having a
significant impact in the literature, is of relevance to this empirical study. The model focuses on
the implementation of a non-routine project. This is exactly the type of decision that we are
investigating in this paper. Second, the model of Aghion and Tirole (1997) has several
empirically testable predictions. For example, consider the case when P-formal authority is
dominated, but it is not possible for the principal to legally delegate her decision-making powers.
In this case, the principal could. The payoffs are such that no party would opt to suggest a project
without being informed – there is one potential project which, although ex ante is identical to all
other projects, is catastrophic. Structure of the firm to provide a credible commitment not
intervene. Gibbons (2003) propose that by increasing the number of subordinates, a principal can
‘overload’ themselves, increasing the real authority (and incentive to invest) of the subordinates.
The testable prediction is, as a consequence, that the real authority of an agent is increasing in
the number of subordinates a principal has.
13
Another empirical prediction of the model is that if the principal investigates the value ofa
project after the agent has made their proposal, the benefit of being better informed needs to be
weighed up against the cost of an additional delay in implementing the decision – that is, the
principal is more likely to cede real authority the more urgent the decision (Garicano,
2000).Zabojnik (2002) makes a similar point to Gibbons 2003. In his model a boss needs a
subordinate to work on a project. This project can either be the boss’s idea or the idea of the
subordinate. The problem for the boss is that a worker may not be enthusiastic about the success
of the boss’s suggested project – the worker low posterior of success makes it more costly to
induce effort – so will consequently require more high-powered incentives to work on the
project. If the worker is wealth constrained, it is difficult to punish the worker in the case of a
bad outcome, so incentives will need to come in the form of larger bonuses in the case of a good
outcome. This raises the worker’s expected pay. Thus, a forsome parameter value, the cost of
motivating the worker outweighs the benefit of the boss’s better information. It can be that the
delegation of the decision of which project to implement is delegated to the worker, even if the
boss has better information. Although it has similarities, the rational for delegation is slightly
different than in Aghion andTirole (1997). In Aghion and Tirole real authority increases the
agent’s incentive to put in effort as they get a private benefit from a project; in Zabojnik’s model
the benefit arises because the agent puts a higher probability of success of they get to work on
their own project, making it easier to elicit more effort. It is worth making a few additional
points about allocating decision-making rights for the purpose of motivating employees. First,
Baker et al (1999) extended the analysis ofAghion and Tirole (1997) using an infinitely-repeated
game. Under the assumption that the principal has the formal authority, in order to credibly
commit to not interfere with a particular project, the cost to the principal from her loss of
reputation in the future must outweigh the cost from the proposed (inappropriate) project.
Second, there can be times when an employer will attempt to limit the incentive an employee has
to influence a particular decision – in this case decision-making rights will be allocated to
dampen rather than enhance a subordinate incentive to invest in decision-making effort
(Milgromand Roberts 1988). For example, employees have an incentive to expend effort in order
to increase their personal gain, even if it is at the expense of the organization’s goals. If the
benefit to the firm from the additional information is outweighed by the lobbying costs, an
organization may choose to limit lower managers’ discretion (centralization), to reduce
14
(Or eliminate) the incentive to lobby. With ‘team theory’ decision-making models, agents
selflessly act to maximize firm surplus; as a consequence, the problem for the organization
becomes then how to best to process information. Contributions over the last decade to hierarchy
theory, such asRadner (1993), Bolton and Dewatripont (1994), Meagher, Orbay and Van Zandt
(2003),Geanakopolis and Milgrom (1991), Prat (1999), Orbay (2002) and Garicano (2000)
haveled to a consensus over what Radner terms the ‘Iron Law of Delay’. This consensus has
produced a reduced-form relationship between the quantity of information and decision
algorithm a hierarchy makes its decision with, the number of managers involved and the delay in
making a decision. The tradeoff arises as the more extensive analysis of information (by people
higher up in the hierarchy) increases the quality of the decision made, but there is an increase in
the cost as involving more people increases the delay in the decision being made – it can be
optimal, therefore, to decentralize some decisions. It is also important to distinguish between
decentralized information processing – in which different agents process and then relay key
information ultimately to one person who makes a decision – with decentralized decision making
– which involves agents observing different information and makingdifferent decision, without
necessarily communicating with one another.
As shown by Van Zandt (2001)decentralized information processing hierarchies need not reflect
decentralized decision making. As an example, Aoki (1986) considered two alternative
hierarchical structures for coordinating a decision. The first involves a hierarchy with a senior
manager making decisions. The manger has perfect knowledge of technological possibilities ex
ante, but is not capable of monitoring events that affect these technologies or the changes at the
shop floor level that are required as a result. The alternative structure is horizontal –decisions
are made by semi-autonomous shops (decentralization). These semiautonomous shops have
imperfect knowledge ex ante, but can respond to changes more quickly and can make better use
of local knowledge. The relative performance of each system depends on the learning ability of
each subunit, the units’ initial knowledge, how quickly technology becomes obsolete, how
quickly management can respond to changes and the importance of coordination between
subunits. As a result, Aoki (1986) argued that decentralization more likely when there needs to
be a quick response to changing environments and the required knowledge is held by those in the
lower levels of the hierarchy. A possible implication of the model is the following. In a highly
15
competitive environment an organization may need to respond quickly to any changes. This
suggests that product-market competition will be positively correlated to decentralized decision
making. The effect of competition on decision-making authority is assessed in the empirical
model below. The basic idea presented here is that the higher the costs of delay, the more likely
it is that we see delegation of decision-making rights (Zabojnik, 2002). A similar argument can
be made concerning exports. Not only are export markets likely to be highly competitive, export
markets may differ from local markets, and may be susceptible to different shocks. To the extent
that knowledge of these changes, and the appropriate response, is held by those at lower levels in
the organization, a firm that is competing in export markets is more likely to decentralize their
decision making. The empirical model contains variables controllingfor when a workplace
exports its product as well as for import competition.
2.2.2 Decision Making and Strategic Management

Strategic management consists of the analysis, decisions, and actions an organization undertakes
in order to create and sustain competitive advantages (Zabojnik, 2002). This definition captures
two main elements that go to the heart of the field of strategic management. First, the strategic
management of an organization entails three ongoing processes: analysis, decisions, and actions.
That is, strategic management is concerned with the analysis of strategic goals (vision, mission,
and strategic objectives) along with the analysis of the internal and external environment of the
organization. Next, leaders must make strategic decisions. These decisions, broadly speaking,
address two basic questions: These questions also often involve an organization’s domestic as
well as its international operations. And last are the actions that must be taken. Decisions are of
little use, of course, unless they are acted on. Firms must take the necessary actions to implement
their strategies. This requires leaders to allocate the necessary resources and to design the
organization to bring the intended strategies to reality. As we will see in the next section, this is
an ongoing, evolving process that requires a great deal of interaction among these three
processes. Second, the essence of strategic management is the study of why some firms
outperform others. Thus, managers need to determine how a firm is to compete so that it can
obtain advantages that are sustainable over a lengthy period of time. That means focusing on two
fundamental questions: How should we compete in order to create competitive advantages in the
marketplace? For example, managers need to determine if the firm should position itself as the
16
low-cost producer, or develop products and services that are unique which will enable the firm to
charge premium prices-or some combination of both. Managers must also ask how to make such
advantages sustainable, instead of highly temporary, in the marketplace. Ideas that work are
almost always copied by rivals immediately. In the 1980s, American Airlines tried to establish a
competitive advantage by introducing the frequent flyer program. Within weeks, all the airlines
did the same thing. Overnight, instead of competitive advantage, frequent flyer programs became
a necessary tool for competitive parity, not competitive advantage.
The challenge, therefore, is to create competitive advantage that is sustainable. Michael Porter
argues that sustainable competitive advantage cannot be achieved through operational
effectiveness alone. Most of the popular management innovations of the last two decades-total
quality, just-in-time, benchmarking, business process reengineering, outsourcingallare about
operational effectiveness. Operational effectiveness means performing similar activities better
than rivals. Each of these is important, but none lead to sustainable competitive advantage, for
the simple reason that everyone is doing them. Strategy is all about being different from
everyone else. Sustainable competitive advantage is possible only through performing different
activities from rivals or performing similar activities in different ways. A company with a good
strategy must make clear choices about what it wants to accomplish. Often, trying to copy
everything that the rivals do eventually lead to mutually destructive price competition and not
long-term advantages in the organizations. Thus it is important to centralize the decision making
process as a measure of ensuring the decision making process.
17
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the study area, research design, population and sample size, sampling
techniques, data collection instruments, research procedure, reliability and validity, data analysis
tools and ethical considerations.
3.1 Research Design

This study adopted a survey research design. Nesbary (2000) defines survey research as “the
process of collecting representative sample data from a larger population and using the sample to
infer attributes of the population” (p. 10). The main purpose of a survey is to estimate, with
significant precision, the percentage of population that has a specific attribute by collecting data
from a small portion of the total population (Dillman, 2000; Wallen & Fraenkel, 2001). The
researcher wanted to find out from members of the population their view on one or more
variables. As noted by Borg and Gall (1989), studies involving surveys comprise a significant
amount of the research done in the education field. Data are ever-changing and survey research
portrays a brief moment in time to enhance our understanding of the present (Leedy & Ormrod,
2001).
This design was used because it is economical, thus it will allow rapid data collection and easy
understanding of the entire population from a sample drawn from it. This design also allows
18
extensive research. This design allows random selection of all the participants and as such
allowed the generalization of the study’s findings. The survey is a non-experimental, descriptive
research method. This study employed both quantitative and qualitative methods. The qualitative
research aims at generating data concerning the employees’ opinions of the topic of study while
the quantitative research aims at enhancing the relationship between the variable under study.
3.2 Study Area
This study was carried out in Maseno University, In Maseno Township, in Kisumu county-
Kenya, the study areas was chosen owing to its convenience.
3.3 Study Population
This study population includes all the employees in Maseno University in Strategic positions that
in 500. However, due to the large size of population, researchers used a sample out of the entire
population.Thus this study will use an accessible population of 50 which is 10% of the target
population. 10% sample size is enough for a for a research survey study (Mugenda 2003).
3.5 Research Instruments

In collecting the responses from the participants this study made use of 50 questionnaires as the
main instruments for collecting data. This enabled for the collection of data concerning the
employees’ job satisfaction and the time taken to in making decisions. A questionnaire was used
since the study is concerned mainly with variables that cannot be directly observed such as
views, opinions, perceptions and feelings of the respondents.
3.6 Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments

Finding the right instrument is the challenge. A research instrument must be assessed prior to use
for both validity and reliability. Survey research begins with assessing the validity and reliability
of the research instrument selected. A systematic approach to establishing validity and reliability
of a research instrument is required. Review the literature evidence of content validation studies
and reported reliability statistics from published studies that have used the instrument. Reliability
of an instrument is the measure of the degree to which a research instrument yields consistent
results of data after repeated trials. Reliability on the other hand, refers to the consistency
19
overtime. In this case, reliability can be achieved if the instruments attract the same response or
carry the same meaning to an individual or group of people over time. In order to test the
reliability of the instrument to be used in the study, a pilot study was carried using selected
participants who not are included in the actual survey.
Validity on the other hand is the extent to which the inferences made on the basis of scores from
an instrument are appropriate, meaningful and useful. It is the judgment of the appropriateness of
a measure for specific inferences or decision that results from the scores that generated. In short,
it refers to the degree to which the instruments measures what they are meant. This will be
achieved by testing the collected data against the set research objectives. The researcher will also
involve the research experts in establishing the validity of the study.
3.7 Research Procedure

This study employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative research design
is an excellent way of finalizing results and proving or disproving a hypothesis. The structure has
not changed for centuries, so is standard across many scientific fields and disciplines. After
statistical analysis of the results, a comprehensive answer is reached, and the results can be
legitimately discussed and published. Quantitative experiments also filter out external factors, if
properly designed, and so the results gained can be seen as real and unbiased. Quantitative
experiments are useful for testing the results gained by a series of qualitative experiments,
leading to a final answer, and a narrowing down of possible directions for follow up research to
take. Quantitative research will involve asking people for their opinions in a structured way so
that you can produce hard facts and statistics to guide you. To get reliable statistical results, this
study surveyed people in fairly large numbers and made sure they are a representative sample of
the target group.
3.8. Data Analysis

The data collected from the study was presented using frequency distribution tables and graphs.
The data was then be edited by examining the collected raw data to detect errors and omissions
and correct them. This included a careful scrutiny of the completed questionnaires The data will
be analyzed with the aid of a SPSS(Statistical Package For Social Sciences). All the analysis will
be done using the split data.
20
3.9. Ethical Considerations
The researchers’ obtained for permission from the relevant authorities before carrying out
research or collecting views from the participants. The data collected was treated with privacy
and confidentiality. All the participants engaged in the study were informed of the reasons of
carrying the study as well as not to include their identity on the questionnaires. The research
instruments were critically examined to ensure that the language used is formal and does not
provoke the participants’ emotions.
21
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses results obtained from the field, addressing specific study objectives. The
results were obtained from the field through administered questionnaire to Maseno University in
Kisumu County. 48 questionnaires were returned out of the 50 issued which represents 96%
response rate.
4.2 Presentation of Findings
4.2.1 Response Rate
Table 1: Response Rate
Category Frequency Percentage

Response 48 96%
No response 2 4%
Total 50 100%
Source: Researchers 2015
The results indicated above in table 2, shows that 96% of the respondents participated in the
study and this therefore was a high response rate which contributed to the availability of data
which was qualitatively analyzed to determine the effect of each independent variable on
dependent variable. Only 4% of the respondents did not return the questionnaires.
4.2.2 Age of the respondents
Table 3: Age of the respondents
Age bracket Frequency Percentage
Between 18-30 years 2 4.18%
Between 31-40 years 9 18.75%
Between 41- 55 years 12 25%
Between 56-65 Years 25 52.08%
Total 48 100%
The table 3 above shows the age distribution frequency which reveals that, the age between 56-
65 years gave the highest percentage with 52.08%, and the age between 18-30 years being the
lowest, with 4.18%. Age between 31-40 years gave 18.75% and the age between 41-55 years
gave 25%.
4.2.3 Years Worked
Table 4: Years worked
Years Frequency percentage
1-5 8 16.67%
6-10 10 20.83%
10-15 27 56.25%
16-20 5 10.42%
Total 48 100%
22
Table 4 above shows the number of years worked in Maseno University by the respondents.
Most of the employees have worked from 10-15 years which gave 56.26%; fewer respondents
have worked for less than 5 years which gave a percentage of 16.67%. Respondents who worked
between, 6-10 years and 16-20 years gave a percentage of 20.83% and 10.42% respectively.
4.2.4 Level of Employment
Table 5: Level of Employment
Level of employment Frequency Percentage
Support staff 4 8.33%
Supervisors 6 12.5%
Line management 12 25%
Top management 26 54.17%
Total 48 100%
Table 5 above shows representation of employment levels held by respondents. 54.17% of them
are from top management, 25% of them from line management, 12.5% from supervisors and
8.33% from support staff.
4.2.5 Response on the managers listening to employees’ ideas
Table 6: Managers listening to employees ideas
Response Frequency Percentage
Strongly disagree 3 6.25%
Disagree 14 29.17%
Agree 21 43.75%
Strongly agree 4 8.33%
Neither agree nor disagree 6 12.5%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the managers listen to employees ideas, responses were made as indicated in
table 6 above. It was noted that 6.25% strongly disagreed, 29.17% disagreed, 43.755 agreed,
8.33% strongly agreed, while 12.5%wereundecided.
4.2.6 Response on empowering employees to make effective decisions
Table 7: Empowering employees to make effective decisions
Disagree 10 20.83%
Agree 18 37.5%
Total 48 100%
23
Asked whether the managers do empower the employees to make effective decisions, responses
were made as indicated in table 7 above. It was noted that 20.83% disagreed, 37.5% agreed and
12.5% strongly agreed.
4.2.8 Response on listening to employees’ feedback by managers and taking it seriously
Table 8: feedback from employees to managers
Disagree 12 25%
Agree 9 18.75%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether managers listen to employees’ feedback and take it seriously, 33.3% strongly
disagreed, 25% disagreed, 18.75% agreed, 12.5% strongly agreed. While 10.42% were
undecided.
4.2.9 Response on availing information to employees in order to make informed decisions
on trade union representation.
Table 9: Availability of information to employees to make informed decisions on trade
union representation.
Disagree 14 29.17%
Agree 12 25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the managers make all the information available to employees in order to make
informed decisions, the results are indicated in table 9 above, those who strongly disagreed
tallied with those who disagree, with 29.17%, those who agreed were 25%, the undecided and
those who strongly agreed were both 8.33%.
4.2.10 Response on managers setting time for every task given to the employee
Table 10: Managers setting time on every task given to the employee
Disagree 5 10.42%
Agree 24 50%
24
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the managers sets time for every task given, the results were got as indicated in
table 10 above.,14.58% strongly disagreed,10.42% agreed,50% agreed, while those who strongly
agreed and the undecided both gave 12.5%.
4.2.11 Response on employees meeting deadlines.
Table 11: Employees meeting deadlines
Disagree 7 15.58%
Agree 21 43.75%
Strongly agree 12 25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the employees are able to meet deadlines, the responses were got as indicated in
table 11.4.17% strongly disagreed, 15.58 % disagreed, 43.75% agreed.25% strongly agreed, and
12.5% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.12 Response on certain periods of productivity
Table 12: Certain periods of productivity
Disagree 10 20.83%
Agree 12 25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether there were certain periods where they were more productive than the others,
29.17% strongly disagreed, 20.83% disagreed, 25% agreed, 8.33% strongly agreed, 16.67%
neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.13 Response on varied effectiveness
Table 13: Varied effectiveness
Disagree 15 31.25%
Agree 10 20.83%
25
Total 48 100%
Asked whether there were specific times of the day where the employees could be more
effective than the others, 27.07% strongly disagreed, 31.25% disagreed, 20.83% agreed, 10.42%
strongly agreed and 10.42% again neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.14 Response on management’s clear plan on dealing with disruptions and interruptions
Table 14: Management‘s clear plan to deal with interruptions and disruptions
Disagree 14 29.17%
Agree 11 22.92%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the management have a clear plan to deal with any disruptions and interruptions,
the responses got are indicated in table 14 above. 33.33% strongly disagreed, 29.17% disagreed,
22.92% agreed, 8.33% strongly agreed, while 6.25% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.15 Response on employees multitasking to complete their task in time
Table 15 Multitasking by employees to complete their task in time.
Disagree 5 10.42%
Agree 24 50%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the employees multitask to complete their task in time, 6.25% strongly disagreed,
10.42% disagreed, 50% agreed, 31.25% strongly agreed and 2.08% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.16 Response on whether the management uses a formal tracking system to understand
how employees spend their time
Table 16: Formal tracking system on employees’ time expenditure
Disagree 15 31.25%
Agree 7 14.58%
26
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the management has a formal tracking system to understand how employees
spend their time, 29.17 strongly disagreed, 31.25 disagreed, 14.58% agreed, 16.67% strongly
agreed, while 8.33% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.17 Response on department having enough personnel to complete tasks in time
Table 17: Response on adequate personnel to complete tasks in time
Disagree 3 6.25%
Agree 27 56.25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether there are enough personnel in their departments to complete their tasks in time,
4.17% strongly disagreed, 6.25% disagreed, 56.25% agreed, 20.83%strongly agreed while 12.5%
4.2.18 Response on management availing enough resources to be used
Table 18: Response on availability of resources
Disagree 15 31.25%
Agree 12 25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the management avails enough resources to be used by the employees, 35.42%
strongly disagreed, 31.25% disagreed, 25% agreed, 8.33% strongly agreed while 4.17% neither
agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.19 Response on management effectiveness in maximizing the potential of others
Table 19 Management’s effectiveness in maximizing the potential of others
Disagree 4 8.33%
Agree 23 47.92%
27
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the management id effective in maximizing the potential of others, 12.5%
strongly disagreed, 8.33% agreed, 47.92% agreed, 16.67% strongly agreed, while 14.58% neither
agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.20 Response on department effectively managing technological resources to achieve
objectives.
Table 20: Managing technological resources to achieve objectives
Disagree 3 6.25%
Agree 12 25%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether their various departments effectively manage technological resources to achieve
objectives, 2.08% strongly disagreed, 6.25% agreed, 25% agreed, 62.5% strongly agreed, 4.17%
4.2.21 Response on how many the respondents liked the work they did.
Table 21: Response on liking the job
Strongly disagree 0 0%
Disagree 2 4.17%
Agree 25 50.08%
Total 48 100%
On being asked whether they liked the job they were doing, 0% strongly disagreed, 4.17%
disagreed, 50.08% agreed, 41.67% strongly disagreed, 2.08% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.22 Response on work giving a form of personal accomplishment
Table 22: Work giving the respondents a feeling of personal accomplishment
Disagree 3 6.25%
Agree 22 45.83%
28
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the work the respondents were doing, gave them a form of personal
accomplishment, 2.08% strongly disagreed, 6.25% disagreed, 45.83% agreed, 41.67% strongly
agreed, while 4.17% neither agreed nor disagreed.
4.2.23 Response on low morale being a problem in the department
Table 23: Low morale being a problem in the department
Disagree 5 10.42%
Agree 19 39.58%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether low morale is a problem in the respondents’ departments, 6.25% strongly
disagreed, 10.42% disagreed, 39.58% agreed, 31.25% strongly agreed, 12.5% neither agreed nor
disagreed.
4.2.24 Response on satisfaction in the organization
Table 24: Response on satisfaction
Very dissatisfied 5 10.42%
Not satisfied 7 14.58%
Satisfied 17 35.42%
Very satisfied 16 33.33%
Neither satisfied nor 3 6.25%
dissatisfied
Total 48 100%
Asked whether they were satisfied being in the organization, 10.42% were very dissatisfied,
14.58% were not satisfied, 35.42% were satisfied, and 33.33% were very satisfied, while 6.25%
were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
4.2.25 response on the period the respondents intend to stay in the organization
Table 25 response on how long the respondents intended to stay in the organization

Until I retire 6 12.5%
29
Less than one year 3 6.25%
1-2 years 1 2.08%
3-5 years 3 6.25%
6-8 years 4 8.33%
More than 8 years 5 10.42%
Unsure 26 54.17%
Total 48 100%
Asked for how long they intended to stay in the organizations, the respondents gave results as
indicated in table 25.
12.5% were waiting for retire,6.25% were staying 1 year longer,2.08% were willing to stay
between a period of 1-2 years,6.25%:3-5 years,8.33%:6-8 years,10.42%:more than 8 years and
54.17% were unsure.
4.2.26 Response on co workers and managers scrutinizing the respondents’ work
Table 26: Response on co-workers scrutinizing the respondents work
Disagree 8 16.67%
Agree 11 22.92%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the manager and co-workers closely scrutinizes the respondents work, 6.25%
%strongly disagreed, 16.67% disagreed, 22.92% agreed, 43.75% strongly agreed, while 10.42%
4.2.27 Response on finger pointing by employees when things go wrong.
Table 27: Response on finger pointing by employees when things go wrong.
Disagree 14 29.17%
Agree 1 2.08%
Total 48 100%
Asked whether the employees engage in finger pointing or blame game when things go wrong,
62.5% strongly disagreed, 29.17 disagreed, 2.08% both agreed and strongly agreed while 4.17%
30
4.2.28 Response on factors that affect the organization based on the inclusion of the
respondents’ in decision making.
Table 28: Response on factors that affect the organization based on the inclusion of the
respondents’ in decision making.
2.08% 2.08%
100% 4.17%
6.25%
10.42%
2.08%
90% 16.67% 12.5%
6.25% 10.42% 4.17%
80% 8.33% 6.25% 2.08%
70% 8.33% 35..42% 27.08%
33.33%
60% 35.42%
25%
50% 56.25%
40% 52.08%
47.92% Strongly disagree
41.67% 43.75%
30%
20% Disagree
10% Undecided
0%
Agree
Strongly agree
The results in table 28 above shows the responses on factors affecting the organization as far as
inclusion in decision making of employees is concerned.
Resource management
Asked whether resource management affected the organization based on the inclusion of the
respondents’ in decision making, 41.67%,strongly agreed,25%,agreed,8.33% were
undecided,8.33% disagreed while 16.67% strongly disagreed.
Work environment
As the case above, 43.75% strongly agreed, 35.42% agreed, 6.25% were undicided, 12.5%
disagreed, while 2.08% strongly disagreed.
Employee-employer relationship
Asked whether this aspect affect the organization, 52.08% strongly agreed, 35.42% agreed,
6.35% were undecided, 4.17% disagreed while 2.08% strongly disagreed.
Time management
Asked whether time management was an aspect that affected the organization, 47.92% strongly
agreed, 33.33% agreed, 10.42% were undecided, 2.08% disagreed, while 6.25% strongly
disagreed.
Employee satisfaction
As the case above 56.25% strongly agreed, 27.08% agreed, 2.08% were undecided, 4.17%
disagreed, while 10.42% strongly disagreed.
31
4.3 Summary of Data analysis
Employee participation has an influence on achievement of organitions’s strategic goals of
Maseno University in Kisumu County.
32
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This chapter discusses the summary of the findings, conclusion, recommendation and
suggestions for further studies.
5.1 Summary of Findings

In this section, the answers for the influence of employee participation in the achievement of
organization’s strategic goals. The general objective of this study is to determine the influence
of’ employees centered decision making process in the achievement of organizations strategic
goals. This was achieved by seeking opinions and views of mainly key personnel and support
staff representatives in the organization .The above finding show that employee participation
directly affects their performance and therefore the organization makes attempt to engage
employees so as to achieve its strategic goals. From the study the specific objectives were
confirmed by responses from the respondents that are shown above that there is relationship
between employee participation and achievement of organization’s strategic goals. The findings
show a direction that employee participation motivated employees making them perform better.
Responses on factors that affect the organization based on the inclusion of the respondents in
decision making, Resource management, work environment, employee- employer relationship,
time management and employee satisfaction is also confirmed by highest number of respondents
strongly agreeing that they affect organizational performance.
5.3 Conclusions
Engaged employees can help an organization achieve its mission, execute its strategy and
generate important business results. Employee participation and involvement do not only
enhance efficiency, growth and innovation but they also increase employee motivation and trust
in the organization. If employees feel appreciated for their work and are involved in decision-
making, their enhanced enthusiasm and motivation will lead to better productivity and loyalty.
Based on the study findings, it can be deduced that employee participation plays an essential part
in enhancing employee motivation towards organizational tasks. By allowing employees to get
involved and appreciating them for their work done internally satisfies them with their job,
organization and organizational environment. Thus their enthusiasm and motivation towards
33
accomplishment of tasks increases. Thus the employee participation in the organization and
organizational effectiveness are directly related.
5.4 Recommendations
The study recommends that management should frequently involve staff when coming up with
decisions. This is because when employees participate in the decision making process they get
committed to their organizational goals and hence a committed employee will register high level
of performance. Based on the findings and conclusion of this study, the researcher found it
necessary to make the following recommendations in order to enhance approaches in
achievement of organization’s strategic goals.
5.4.1 Employee Empowerment
Empowerment is as an approach to leadership that empowers subordinates as a main constituent

of managerial and organizational effectiveness. Employees are given authority and the freedom
to make decisions, which encourages them to discover and use their full potential. Having more
control over their own jobs will be the main driving force of empowerment that encourages
growth and better productivity. Therefore, the empowerment process focuses on solving the
problems of the organizations by people. Furthermore, empowering makes workforce fell
appreciated and that their feedback on performance is valuable for the organization.
The contribution of the employees and their participation in designing the organization are
essential for the well-being of the organization, as individuals should do efforts in the
environment where they are responsible for their actions. Empowerment gives people
responsibility and authority to act as if they are in control of their own destinies. Therefore it is
essential for an organization to recognize the quality and the results of the employees’ work, as
next time they will be even more efficient to get more recognition.
5.4.2 . Increased Operating Margins and Training
Employees who clearly understand their individual goals-and how they relate to those of your
company-naturally become more engaged with their work. Once employees see how they can
make a direct contribution to your company's success, they begin to focus on finding ways to
work smarter and more efficiently. This boost in employee productivity will naturally lead to
increased operating margins and profitability for your company. In order to open platforms for
employees decisions they need to be well informed therefore training programmes should be
established to enable them learn and obtain the necessary skills to make good decisions.
34
5.4.3 Employee suggestion scheme and communication Process
Management should evaluate employee suggestion scheme and act on them and use the feedback
from the workforce to improve the organizational environment and fulfill their needs and skills.
This can mainly be achieved through establishing a good communication system that is
asymmetrical in nature so as to ensure both parties are given chance.
5.4.4 Suggestions for further Study
The study offered extensive findings that can benefit several organizations and scholars in
addition to the management and government to improve performance level of employees by
enabling them to participate and ensuring employee retention. But then still there is a lot that can
be studied on factors affecting employee participation in decision making process. Further
research should be conducted on how various Human Resource practices like job design,
recruitment, selection, training, and compensation and performance management can enhance
employee engagement and participation through decision making in achievement of strategic
goals of organizations. Research should also be done on what factors influence employees’
decisions when delegated to duties and responsibilities.
35
References
Aghion, P. and J. Tirole (1997), ‘Formal and Real Authority in Organizations’, Journal of
Political Economy, 105(1), 1-29.
Aoki, M. (1986), ‘Horizontal vs. Vertical Information Structure of the Firm’, American
Economic Review, 76(5), 971-83.
Baker, G., R. Gibbons and K. Murphy (1999), ‘Informal authority in organizations’,
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 15(1), 56-73.24
Bolton, P. and M. Dewatripont (1994), ‘The Firm as a Communication
Network’,Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109(4), 908-39.
Brickley J., C. Smith and J Zimmerman (2004), Managerial Economics
And Organizational Architecture, 3rd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, New York
Colombo, m. and M. Delmastro (2004), ‘Delegation of authority in

businessorganizations: an empirical test’, Journal of Industrial Economics, 52(1), 53-80.
Christie, A., M. Joye and R. Watts (2003), ‘Decentralization of the firm: theory andevidence’,
Journal of Corporate Finance, 9, 3-36.Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (Eds.), (2002).
Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and

basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology.
Ricerche di Psichologia, 27, 17–34.
Delmastro, M. (2002), ‘The determinants of the management hierarchy:

evidence fromItalian plants’, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 20, 119-
137
Donath, B. (1998), ‘Pick a role model: General Motors or Dell’, Marketing

News,October 12, 32 (21), 9-10.
Garicano, L. (2000), “Hierarchies and the organization of knowledge in
production”Journal of Political Economy, 14, 159-181.
Geanakoplos,J. and P. Milgrom (1991), “A Theory of Hierarchies Based on
36
LimitedManagerial Attention", Journal of the Japanese and International Economies,
5(3), 205-25.
Gibbons R. (2003), ‘Team theory, garbage cans and real organizations:

some history andprospects of economic research on decision-making in organizations’,
Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(4), 753-787.
Jensen, M and W. Meckling (1998), ‘Specific and General Knowledge, and

Organizational Structure’, in M. Jensen, Foundations of Organizational Strategy,Harvard
University Press, Cambridge Massachusetts.
Meagher, K., H. Orbay and T. Van Zandt (2003), ‘Hierarchy size and
environmentaluncertainty’, In: M. Surtel and S. Koray (Eds.) Advances in Economic
Design, SpringerVerlag, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 439-457.
Meagher, K., H. Orbay and T. Van Zandt (2004), ‘Market contingent

managerial hierarchies’, mimeo.
Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1988), ‘An economic approach
to influence activities inorganizations’, American Journal of Sociology, 94, S154-S179.
Mugenda .O. Mugenda .A. (2003) Research Methods:
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Nairobi: Acts Process
Orbay, H. (2002), ‘Information Processing Hierarchies’, Journal of Economic Theory,

105(2), 370-407.25
Prat A. (1997), ‘Hierarchies of Processors with Endogenous Capacity’, Journal of
Economic Theory, 77, 214-222.
Radner, R. (1993), ‘The Organization of Decentralized Information Processing’.
Econometrica, 61(5), 1109-46.
Zabojnik, J. (2002), ‘Centralized and Decentralized decision making in organizations’,
Journal of Labor Economics, 20(1), 1-22.
Dess, Gregory G., G.T. Lumpkin and Marilyn L. Taylor. Strategic Management. 2 ed. New
York: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2005.
37
APENDICES
Appendix I: Introduction Letter
Dear Sir/Madam
RE: DATA COLLECTION
We are Human Resource Students at Maseno University perusing a Degree in Business

Administration wit Information Technology. Our intention is to collect data on the Influence of
employee participation in the achievement of organization’s strategic goals of your organization.
The findings will be used to improve on approaches to enable your organization achieve its
strategic goals. It will also help us in attaining our degree of Business Administration. This
report will be availed upon request. Kindly be as objective as possible. Your cooperation,
assistance and response will be highly appreciated.
Yours sincerely
Human Resource Group
38
Appendix II: Questionnaire
Dear respondent,
RE: DATA COLLECTION
We are students at Maseno University taking a Degree in Business Administration, Human

Resource as a requirement to graduate we are required to undertake a research project. This
questionnaire is therefore issued with the purpose of collecting individual responses on the
Research topic: Influence of employee participation in the achievement of organization’s
strategic goals of Maseno University in Kisumu County. We kindly request you to respond to
these questions as appropriate as possible. All information will be treated with strict
confidentiality.
Looking forward to your corporation.
INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTICIPANTS
1. Do not write your name on any part of this questionnaire or indicate any personal details.
2. Please tick/fill in the Blank spaces as appropriate.
SECTION A: SOCIO ECONOMICAL AND PERSONAL CHARATERISTICS
1. What is your age? Kindly tick 18-30……31-40……41-55………56-65………….

2. What is your Gender?
Female [ ]
Male [ ]
3. What is your educational level?
Primary [ ]
Secondary [ ]
Professional [ ]
Degree [ ]
Higher degree [ }
4. For how long have you been working in this organization (in terms of years)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………….
39
5. What is your job category in the organization
Support staff [ ]
Supervisor [ ]
Line management [ ]
Top Management [ ]
SECTION B: EMPLOYEE-CENTERED WORKPLACE ASSESSMENT
Using the key provided below kindly indicate your opinion based the organizations inclusion of
you interests in decision making process
1 = Strongly disagree 4 = Agree

2 = Disagree 5 = Strongly agree
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
1. Senior managers listen to me and care about my ideas.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
2. Management encourages me to participate in important decisions.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
3. Management values my contributions and ideas about how to improve work in my

department.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
4. The managers involve us in decisions affecting our work.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
5. Managers empower employees to make effective decisions.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
6. Management really hears what employees say and takes their feedback seriously.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
40
7. Employees have all the information they need to make an informed decision about union
representation.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
8. Management sets time for every task given to employee.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
9. Employees meet deadlines with their tasks.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
10. There are certain periods that I could use more productively.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
11. There are specific times of day the day that I do my work most effectively.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
12. Management has a clear plan for dealing with disruptions and interruptions.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
13. Employees in the organization multitask to complete tasks in time.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
14. My department has enough personnel to complete our work in time.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
15. The management avails just enough resources to be used.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
16. There is less wastage of resources in our organization.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
17. The management has adequate funding and resources to accomplish our goals.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
18. My Department effectively manages technological resources to achieve objectives.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
19. The Leadership is effective in allocating financial resources
41
20. I like the kind of work I do.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
21. My work gives me a feeling of personal accomplishment.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
22. Low morale is a significant problem in my department

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
23. How satisfied are you in the organization.

o Satisfied
o Very satisfied
o Not satisfied
o Very dissatisfied
o Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied.
24. At this point, how long do you intend to remain with the organization as an employee?
Until I retire
Less than 1 year
1-2 years
3-5 years
6-8 years
More than 8 years
Unsure
25. Management holds employees accountable for tasks assigned to them.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
26. Employees don't engage in "finger pointing" or the "blame game" when things go wrong.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
27. Many people think their career development plans are their responsibility and not their
supervisors.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
42
28. Management takes action and follow-up on the results of assignments made during
meetings.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
29. Based on your inclusion in decision making process in this organization what is your
opinion on how it affects the following aspects of the organization?
Key SA-Strongly Agree A=Agree U=Undecided
D=Disagree SD= strongly disagree
Aspects to be assessed SA A U D SD
Resource Management
Work environment
Employees- Employer Relations
Time Management
Employee satisfaction
Thank you for participating.
43
Appendix III: Research Budget
BUDGET PLAN
Number Items Amount
SECTTION A LITERATURE REVIEW
 Internet 200.00
 Printing 400.00
SECTION B PROPOSAL
 Typesetting 800.00
 Photocopy 500.00
 Spiral Binding 100.00
SECTION C PROJECT
 Typesetting 1,000.00
 Photocopy 500.00
 Binding 400.00
TOTAL 3,900.00
Source: Research data (2015)
44
Appendix VI: Map of Maseno
45

2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER ONE

1.1 Background to the Study

1.3 The Objectives of the Study

1.4 Research Questions

1.6.1 Limitation of the Study

1.8 Conceptual Framework

Organization Policy and Regulation

Fig 1.2 (Adopted: Garicano, 2000)

2.1 Theoretical literature

2.1.1 The Concept of Decision Making

2.1.2 Review of self-determination theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality,

2.1.4 Implications of STD theory

2.2 Empirical literature on decision making organization

2.2.1Decentralize Decision Making

2.2.2 Decision Making and Strategic Management

3.1 Research Design

3.2 Study Area

3.3 Study Population

3.5 Research Instruments

3.6 Reliability and Validity of Research Instruments

3.7 Research Procedure

3.8. Data Analysis

Category Frequency Percentage

Response Frequency Percentage

Source: Researchers 2015

5.1 Summary of Findings

5.4.1 Employee Empowerment

Empowerment is as an approach to leadership that empowers subordinates as a main constituent

5.4.2 . Increased Operating Margins and Training

5.4.4 Suggestions for further Study

Colombo, m. and M. Delmastro (2004), ‘Delegation of authority in

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and

Delmastro, M. (2002), ‘The determinants of the management hierarchy:

Donath, B. (1998), ‘Pick a role model: General Motors or Dell’, Marketing

Gibbons R. (2003), ‘Team theory, garbage cans and real organizations:

Jensen, M and W. Meckling (1998), ‘Specific and General Knowledge, and

Meagher, K., H. Orbay and T. Van Zandt (2004), ‘Market contingent

Orbay, H. (2002), ‘Information Processing Hierarchies’, Journal of Economic Theory,

Appendix I: Introduction Letter

RE: DATA COLLECTION

We are Human Resource Students at Maseno University perusing a Degree in Business

Human Resource Group

RE: DATA COLLECTION

We are students at Maseno University taking a Degree in Business Administration, Human

Looking forward to your corporation.

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE PARTICIPANTS

1. What is your age? Kindly tick 18-30……31-40……41-55………56-65………….

SECTION B: EMPLOYEE-CENTERED WORKPLACE ASSESSMENT

1 = Strongly disagree 4 = Agree

1. Senior managers listen to me and care about my ideas.

2. Management encourages me to participate in important decisions.

3. Management values my contributions and ideas about how to improve work in my

5. Managers empower employees to make effective decisions.

8. Management sets time for every task given to employee.

9. Employees meet deadlines with their tasks.

13. Employees in the organization multitask to complete tasks in time.

14. My department has enough personnel to complete our work in time.

15. The management avails just enough resources to be used.

16. There is less wastage of resources in our organization.

18. My Department effectively manages technological resources to achieve objectives.

19. The Leadership is effective in allocating financial resources