You are on page 1of 11

R J Economics, Marketing and Management, Vol. 1, Issue. 1, June 2018. pp.

9-19

The Effect of Principals’ Decision-Making Styles on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction


*
Muhammad Sarfaraz Ahmad MIRZA 1, Muhammad IQBAL2
1. University of Lahore, Pakistan
2. University of Education, Lahore, Pakistan
*Corresponding Author: msamirzapk@gmail.com

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effect of principals‘ decision-making styles on their subordinate
teachers‘ job satisfaction. The study was quantitative in its nature with causal-comparative design. Out of the total
sample of 500 teachers, 423 teachers participated in the study. A questionnaire to measure demographics, principals‘
decision-making styles, and teachers‘ job satisfaction was developed by the researchers. The psychometric aspects of
the research instrument were ensured before its administration for data collection. From sampled degree colleges,
data were collected through personal visits. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used for data analysis.
The results, overall, of the study indicate that teachers‘ job satisfaction is a significant function of their principals‘
decision-making styles. At the end, certain implications and recommendations were made.

Keywords: Decision-making styles, job satisfaction, principals, teachers.

This study focused on four decision-making


styles. (a) autocratic: where managers do not consult
Introduction any member of the organization and make final
decision alone (Bogler, 2001), (b) consultative: where
managers get advice from the members of the
In an organization, the fundamental
organization, take it into consideration and make final
managerial function is decision making and the
success or failure of the organization depends upon decision alone (Bogler, 2001), (c) democratic: where
the quality of decisions that are made by the leader gives up the ownership and control of the
decision allowing the group in majority to decide the
managers (Leonard, Scholl, & Kowalski, 1999;
action (Verma, 2009). In other words, democratic
Robbins & Coulter, 2005; Yukl, 1994). Decision
decision-making style ―reflects the wishes of the
making is a process of making a choice among two or
majority of the people‖ (Mokoena 2003, p. 53) and
more alternative courses of action (Campling, Poole,
Wiesner, &Schermerhorn, 2006; Daft, 1994) to (d) consensus: where the leader gives up total control
achieve a desired result (Verma, 2005) or to resolve a of the decision; whole group of subordinates is
involved in decision-making process and everyone
specific problem (Kalra, 1997). Robbins and Coulter
must agree and ―buy in‖ on the decision (Verma,
(2005) emphasize that decision-making is not mere
2009). Garcia (1986) emphasizes, ―Although decision
an act of preferring a course of action from among
making by consensus takes time, cooperation and
alternatives rather it is a comprehensive process.
Conclusively, we can say that decision making is a practice, the results are not only good decisions, but
also a sense of ownership and satisfaction among
comprehensive process of deriving the best possible
faculty members involved in the process‖ (p. 50).
course of action to achieve an objective.

Decision-Making Styles Job Satisfaction

The first formal definition of job satisfaction


A decision-making style is a habitual or
has been traced by Herzberg in the work of Hoppock.
habit-based pattern which an individual utilizes while
Hoppock (as cited in Winfrey, 2009) declares, ―Job
formulating decisions (Driver, 1979; Scott & Bruce,
1995). Harren (1979) describes that decision-making satisfaction is any combination of psychological,
style is a typical manner of an individual to perceive physiological, and environmental circumstance that
causes a person to truthfully say I am satisfied with
and respond to decision-making task.
my job‘‘ (p. 15). Hulin and Judge (2003) describe,
―Job satisfactions are multidimensional psychological
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

responses to one‘s job. These responses have 264). Herzberg‘s two factor theory presents good
cognitive (evaluative), affective (or emotional), and picture of two sets of factors (i.e. motivator factors
behavioral components‖ (p. 255). Locke (1976) and hygiene factors) that are determinant of job
defines job satisfaction as ―… a pleasurable or satisfaction. Presence of motivator factors creates
positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal satisfaction among employees and presence of
of one‘s job or job experiences‖ (p. 1304). Armstrong hygiene factors reduces dissatisfaction (Syptak,
(2007) says, ―Job satisfaction refers to the attitudes Marsland, & Ulmer, 1999). Certain factors that
and feelings people have about their work‖ (p. 264). determine job satisfaction are: achievement,
According to Spector (2007), job satisfaction is the recognition for achievement, responsibility for task,
degree to which individuals like or dislike their jobs. interest in the job, advancement to higher level tasks
and growth while typical factors the presence of
An intensive review of published literature, which reduces job dissatisfaction are: working
pertaining to the concept of job satisfaction, reveals conditions, quality of supervision, salary, status,
that there are different aspects in which job security, company, job, company policies and
satisfaction is viewed by the theorists, scholars, and administration, interpersonal relations (Value Based
researchers. These are intrinsic job satisfaction, Management.Net, 2009). Purcell et al. (as cited in
extrinsic job satisfaction (Brown, 2004; Armstrong, 2007) found, ―the key factors affecting
Hauber&Bruininks, 1986) and Global job satisfaction job satisfaction were career opportunities, job
(Kand&Rekor, 2005). Intrinsic job satisfaction is a influence, teamwork and job challenge‖. Winfrey
function of an employee‘s attitude towards tasks of (2009), while summarizing few studies regarding job
the job whereas extrinsic job satisfaction is a satisfaction, identified four common job satisfaction
reflection of the attitude that develops as the result of themes i.e. working conditions, interaction with
factors which are related but external to tasks of the colleagues and students, professional autonomy, and
work and are controlled by the organization opportunities for advancement.
(Hauber&Bruininks, 1986). Finchman and Rhodes
(as cited in Kand&Rekor, 2005) opine, ―Global job Owing to the importance of teachers‘ job
satisfaction reflects an individual‘s overall feelings satisfaction at work place, several studies have
towards his or her job. But in addition, people may focused on this variable (see, e.g., Cashwell 2009;
express feelings about particular aspects or facets of Crossman & Harris, 2006; Ejimofor 2007; Kamil
their jobs‖ (p. 9). 1997; Ma & MacMillan 1999; Oliver 2007;
Oshagbemi 1998; Walker 2009; Winfrey, 2009).
Many theorists have attempted to explain the Also, researchers have investigated the effects/
phenomenon that governs employees‘ feelings relationships of decision-making styles on/ with
regarding their jobs (Yip, Goldman & Martin, 1998) assorted variables in different settings (see, e.g.,
nevertheless theories on job satisfaction are not well Jacoby 2006; Mau 1995; Paivandy, Bullock,
developed (Ghosh&Ghorpade, 1991). Most of the so- Reardon, & Kelly, 2008; Price, 1973; Tinsley H.E.A.,
called job satisfaction theories are basically work Tinsley D.J., & Rushing, 2002). Nevertheless,
motivation theories i.e. content theories and process research has not been conducted to investigate the
theories. Content theories attempt to explain what effect/relationship of decision-making styles on/with
makes the employees motivated and satisfied at job satisfaction. Specifically, such research has not
workplace whereas process theories offer explanation been conducted in educational settings in Pakistan.
of how employees get satisfied (Naoum, 2001). This gap invited the researchers to investigate the
effect of principals‘ decision-making styles on their
subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction.
There are many factors that affect
employees‘ job satisfaction. According to Crossman
and Harris (2006), the factors that can affect teachers‘ Method
job satisfaction can be broadly categorized as
―environmental (the job itself or the working The study was quantitative in its nature with
environment) psychological (personality, behaviour casual-comparative design. Following research
attitude) or demographic (age, gender)‖ (p. 30). methods and procedures were used in the study:
Armstrong (2007) describes, ―The level of job
satisfaction is affected by intrinsic and extrinsic Population and Sample
motivating factors, the quality of supervision, social
relationships with the work group and the degree to
Population of the study was comprised of all
which individuals succeed or fail in their work‖ (p.
10
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

the teachers (N = 7280) of the public sector degree analysis, only those items were retained which
colleges working under the jurisdiction of Higher consistently remained loaded on single factor for both
Education Department, Government of the Punjab. ‗Principal Components‘ and ‗Maximum Likelihood‘
Sample of the study was drawn based on two strata of extraction methods with a cut-off value of .40 while
the population i.e. male stratum (N = 3396) and other items were dropped from the scale. Reliability
female stratum (N = 3884). In the first step, 50 was calculated in terms of Cronbach‘s alpha (α) for
degree colleges (25 male + 25 female) were selected the job satisfaction scale and was found .92 which is
randomly and in the second step, 10 teachers from quite acceptable. According to Brown (2004), as a
each sampled degree college were randomly selected rule of thumb, a coefficient of alpha for the social
using a table of random numbers. Hence, a final sciences should exceed .80.
sample of the study was comprised of 500 teachers
(250 male + 250 female) which was quite Data Collection and Data Analysis
representative of the total population, male stratum as
well as female stratum of the population. However, a Data were collected through personal visits to ensure
total sample of 423 could be available for data maximum return rate. However, a total sample of 423
analysis.
could be available for data analysis. Data were
analyzed using Statistical Package for Social
Research Instrument Sciences (SPSS) 14.0 for Windows Evaluation
Version. Both descriptive and inferential statistics
Keeping in view the context in which the were used for data analysis.
study was to be carried out, a questionnaire to
measure principals‘ decision-making styles Results
(predictor) and teachers‘ job satisfaction (criterion)
was developed by the researchers. Two pilot studies
Demographics
of the questionnaire were conducted. The purpose of
first pilot study was to improve the questionnaire by
restructuring or deleting ambiguous statements. After Majority of teachers in the public sector
restructuring and improving the questionnaire, a degree colleges is young and lies in the age group 21-
second pilot study was carried out. The purpose of 30 years (51.3%); is serving on contract (65.2%);
second pilot study was to investigate certain holds a highest degree of M.A. / M.Sc. (92.0%); and
psychometric aspects of the questionnaire. Hence, a has 0-5 year experience.
‗Master Questionnaire‘ of the study was finalized.
Research Questions
The ‗Master Questionnaire‘ consisted of
three parts: (a) Part-I (pertaining to demographics i.e. Research Question 1. Which are the most
age, gender, job status, education and experience), (b) dominating, backup, and least preferred decision-
Part-II (pertaining to the principals‘ decision-making making styles among college principals?
styles i.e. autocratic, consultative, democratic and
consensus) as perceived by their subordinate The findings (Figure. 1) revealed that the
teachers, and (c) Part-III (pertaining to teachers‘ job most dominant decision-making style among college
satisfaction). To make job satisfaction scale (15 items principals was democratic (n = 159; 37.6%), the
scale) meaningful in relation to the purpose of the backup style was autocratic (n = 125; 29.6%) and the
study and to minimize the effects of extraneous least preferred decision-making style was consensus
variables, during the development of the scale, only (n = 20; 4.7%).
those aspects of job satisfaction were included which
could be considered manipulateable by the decision- Research Question 2. Which are the most
making style of the principal. The measuring scale dominating, backup, and least preferred decision-
used for Part-I and Part-II was nominal while that of making styles among male college principals?
for Part-III was interval (5 point Likert-type scale).
The findings (Figure. 2) revealed that the
To be an instrument useful, it must satisfy most dominant decision-making style among male
certain psychometric quality aspects. In this regard, college principals was consultative (n = 80; 36.5%),
content validity and construct validity of the the backup style was democratic (n = 63; 28.8%) and
instrument was ensured through experts‘ judgment the least preferred decision-making style was
and factor analysis, respectively. During factor
11
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

consensus (n = 18; 8.2%). subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction, a Kruskal—


Wallis one-way ANOVA was applied because data
Research Question 3.Which are the most were not normally distributed and hence parametric
dominating, backup, and least preferred decision- assumption was violated. Dancey and Reidy (2004)
making styles among female college principals? indicate, ―The Kruskal—Wallis is used when your
data do not meet the assumptions required for the
parametric ANOVA‖ (p. 542). Levene‘s Test of
The findings (Figure. 3) revealed that the
most dominant decision-making style among female Homogeneity of Variances was statistically
college principals was democratic (n = 96; 47.1%), significant (F (3, 215) = 4.123, p = .007) indicating
that there was sufficient evidence of violation of the
the backup style was autocratic (n = 63; 30.9%) and
assumption of homogeneity of variances. Mean ranks
the least preferred decision-making style was
of the job satisfaction scores for four decision-
consensus (n = 6; 2.9%).
making styles are given in table 4.
Research Question 4. Does there any
Results of Kruskal—Wallis one-way
significant effect of college principals‘ decision-
ANOVA indicated that there were statistically
making styles on teachers‘ job satisfaction?
significant differences among the decision-making
styles in terms of teachers‘ job satisfaction (Х 2 =
To investigate the effect of college 24.315, p < .001).
principals‘ decision-making styles on their
subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction, one-way
To investigate where the differences lie, pair
ANOVA was applied. Levene‘s Test of Homogeneity
wise comparisons of decision-making styles were
of Variances was not statistically significant (F (3,
made using Mann-Whitney test. Due to multiple
419) = .709, p = .547) indicating that there was
insufficient evidence of violation of the assumption testing, Achieved Significance Level (ASL) was
calculated dividing .05 (the traditional value for
of homogeneity of variances. Means and standard
significance) by 6 (number of performed tests).
deviations of the job satisfaction scores for four
Hence, calculated ASL value was .008. This means
decision-making styles are given in table 1.
any ASL > .008 may be due to sampling error
(Dancey&Reidy 2004). Table 5 indicates statistically
Results of one-way ANOVA indicated that significant multiple comparisons, produced using
there was statistically significant main effect of Mann—Whitney test, between decision-making
principals‘ decision-making styles on their styles.
subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction (F (3, 419) =
32.595, p < .001). A summary of the results of one-
way ANOVA is presented in table 2. Research Question 6. Does there any
significant effect of female college principals‘
decision-making styles on female teachers‘ job
Tukey HSD test was applied to explore satisfaction?
which particular decision-making styles differ from
each other in terms of job satisfaction. The test
confirmed that teachers working under consensus To investigate the effect of female college
decision-making style showed significantly more job principals‘ decision-making styles on their
subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction, one-way
satisfaction (M = 75.600) as compared to the teachers
ANOVA was applied. Levene‘s Test of Homogeneity
working under autocratic (M = 58.888), consultative
of Variances was not statistically significant (F (3,
(M = 55.386) and democratic (M = 63.503) decision-
200) = 1.087, p = .356) indicating that there was
making style. Table 3 indicates statistically
significant multiple comparisons, produced using insufficient evidence of violation of the assumption
of homogeneity of variances. Means and standard
Tukey HSD test, between decision-making styles for
deviations of the job satisfaction scores for four
job satisfaction.
decision-making styles are given in table 6.
Research Question 5. Does there any
significant effect of male college principals‘ decision- Results of one-way ANOVA indicated that
there was statistically significant main effect of
making styles on male teachers‘ job satisfaction?
principals‘ decision-making styles on their
subordinate teachers‘ job satisfaction (F (3, 200) =
To investigate the effect of male college 2.781, p < .05). A summary of the results of one-way
principals‘ decision-making styles on their
12
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

ANOVA is presented in table 7. Another finding confirmed that autocratic


decision-making style produced more job satisfaction
than consultative decision-making style. This finding
is contradictory to the findings of Rice and Schneider
(1992), who identified that less involvement of the
Fisher‘s LSD test was applied to explore
teachers in decision making was related to less job
which particular decision-making styles differ from
satisfaction. This contradictory finding is not out of
each other in terms of job satisfaction. The test
confirmed that teachers working under democratic logic. Although, consultative decision-making style
decision-making style showed significantly more job (a style in which principal consults his/ her teachers
but reaches at the final decision alone ) is less
satisfaction (M = 63.9375) as compared to the
dictatorial and more participative as compared to
teachers working under autocratic (M = 60.2063) and
autocratic decision-making style yet one possible
consultative (M = 59.7949) decision-making style.
strong reason behind this finding might be that when
Table 8 indicates statistically significant multiple
comparisons, produced using LSD test, between teachers are asked for suggestions or opinions during
decision-making styles. decision making and their opinions are not
considered by the principals while reaching at final
decisions, it produces frustration among teachers and
Discussion consequently leads towards less job satisfaction.

The results of the study indicate that While considering public sector male
teachers‘ job satisfaction is a significant function of colleges only, the study identified that principals‘
principals‘ decision-making styles. This result is most dominant decision-making style was
consistent with the earlier researches (Bogler, 2001; consultative and that it was significantly less
Ingersoll, 2001). Maier (1998) indicates that effective decision-making style in producing job
employees derive their job satisfaction from the satisfaction than consensus and democratic decision-
decisions made and the way decisions are made by making styles. Moreover, findings indicated that
the managers. The results of the study confirmed that consensus decision-making style was more effective
principals‘ consensus decision-making style was the in producing job satisfaction than democratic and
most effective style in producing job satisfaction consultative decision-making style. This suggests that
among teachers. Literature shows that participative consultative decision-making style should be
decision making is positively related to job replaced with democratic and eventually with
satisfaction (Rossmiller, 1992). This suggests that consensus (most effective) decision-making style,
increasing teachers‘ participation in decision-making whenever possible, to enhance teachers‘ job
process, discussing problems with them, listening to satisfaction.
their suggestions, and preferring to make decisions
which reflect the wishes of the majority of the
teachers enhance teachers‘ job satisfaction. The study, As for as public sector female colleges are
concerned, democratic decision-making style was
at the same time, revealed that consensus was the
found to be the most dominant and most effective
least preferred decision-making style among
style in producing job satisfaction among female
principals of the public sector colleges. This suggests
teachers. This shows that right style is being used by
that principals of the public sector colleges should
reconsider their decision-making behavior and prefer the principals at public sector female colleges.
consensus decision-making style while making However, consensus decision-making style was not
found to be significantly different from any of the
important decisions at colleges, whenever possible.
other decision-making styles, which negates the
This will help to enhance teachers‘ job satisfaction
notion that more involvement of teachers in decision
and consequently their performance (Judge &
Klinger, 2007). making produces more job satisfaction (Bogler,
2001).
On the other hand, findings of the study
disclosed that principals‘ most dominant decision- Recommendations of the Study
making style was democratic and that it was the
second most effective decision-making style. This Following recommendations are made for
suggests that whenever consensus decision-making the principals to enhance their subordinate teachers‘
style is not possible to use due to certain constraints, job satisfaction:
principals should prefer democratic style.

13
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

1. Principals should enhance teachers‘ participation References


by discussing problems with them while making
important decisions at colleges. Armstrong, M. (2007).A handbook of human
2. Principals should reach at unanimous decisions if resource management practice (10th ed.).
possible. However, if due to certain constraints it London: Kong Page Publishers.
is not possible, then at least they should make
decisions which reflect the wishes of majority of
Bogler, R. (2001).The influence of leadership style
the teachers. on teacher job satisfaction. Educational
3. Male principals are needed to re-adjust their Administration Quarterly, 37 (5), 662-683.
decision-making style from consultative to
doi:10.1177/00131610121969460
consensus.
4. As majority of the teachers is young, principals
should prefer to take into consideration the Brown, G. (2004). An improved job dimension to
suggestions of young teachers. measure job satisfaction in sales reps.
Journal of Academy of Business and
Economics. Retrieved from
Recommendations for Future Research http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting/300
319-1.html
Following recommendations are made for
future research: Campling, J., Poole, D., Wiesner, R.,
&Schermerhorn, J.R. (2006). Management:
1. This study showed a significant effect of Second Asia-Pacific edition. Sydney: Wiley
decision-making styles on job satisfaction. and Sons.
Therefore, duplication of the study is
recommended to determine if the decision- Cashwell, A. L. (2009). Factors affecting part-time
making styles reveal the similar results.
faculty job satisfaction in the Colorado
2. This study used quantitative research methods
community college system. (Doctoral
only. However, a study combining quantitative
dissertation). Retrieved from
research methods with qualitative research http://digitool.library.colostate.edu///exlibris
methods (mixed method) is recommended to be /dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R
conducted to provide more insightful responses.
0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS84
3. In this study, data pertaining to principals‘
MDMyNQ==.pdf
decision-making styles were collected from
teachers and reflect teachers‘ perceptions only.
Hence, it is recommended that principals‘ own Crossman, A., & Harris, P. (2006).Job satisfaction of
perceptions pertaining to their use of decision- secondary school teachers.Educational
making styles be taken into consideration in Management Administration & Leadership,
future research to increase its validity. 34 (1), 29-46.
4. Although scale developed for this study was doi:10.1177/1741143206059538
validated and its reliability was ensured by the
researchers yet it would be prudent for the Daft, R. L. (1994). Management (3rd ed.). London:
researchers to use standardized instrument, if Dryden Press.
available, in future studies.
5. Results of this study revealed that decision- Dancey, C. P., &Reidy, J. (2004). Statistics without
making styles accounted for variation in job maths for psychology: Using SPSS for
satisfaction to a very less magnitude indicating windows TM (3rd ed.). Harlow, England:
that there might be other variables that have a Pearson Prentice Hall.
bigger effect on job satisfaction. This
recommends, if possible on the part of the Driver, M. J. (1979).Individual decision-making and
researchers, more variables that are expected to creativity. Columbus, Ohio: Grid Press.
have strong relationships with job satisfaction be
included in future studies.
Ejimofor, F. O. (2007). Principals‘ transformational
leadership skills and their teachers‘ job
satisfaction in Nigeria. (Doctoral
dissertation). Retrieved from

14
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

http://etd.ohiolink.edu/send- http://www.timothy-
pdf.cgi/Ejimofor%20Francis.pdf?csu120223 judge.com/Job%20Satisfaction%20and%20
5575 Subjective%20Well-Being-
Judge%20&%20Klinger.pdf
Garcia, A. (1986). Consensus decision making
promotes involvement, ownership, Kalra, A. (1997). Efficient school management and
satisfaction. NASSP Bulletin, 70 (493), 50- role of principals. New Delhi: A.P.H.
52. doi:10.1177/019263658607049310 Publishing Corporation.

Ghosh, P. K., &Ghorpade, M. B. (1991).Industrial Kamil, S. B. A. (1997). Teachers‘ job


and organisational psychology. Mumbai: satisfaction.(Master‘s thesis, International
Himalaya Publishing House. Islamic University, Malaysia). Retrieved
from
Harren, V. A. (1979). A model of career decision- http://lib.iiu.edu.my/mom2/cm/content/view
making for college students.Journal of /view.jsp?key=YYalmWRWLLvkE38RGB
Vocational Behavior, 14 (2), 119-133. XW2wzd39I2odRo20070213151659093
doi:10.1016/0001-8791(79)90065-4
Kand, M., &Rekor, M. (2005). Perceived
Hauber, F. A., &Bruininks, R. H. (1986).Intrinsic and involvement in decision-making and job
extrinsic job satisfaction among direct-care satisfaction: The evidence from a job
staff in residential facilities for mentally satisfaction survey among nurses in Estonia.
retarded people. Educational and SSE Riga Working Papers 2005: 6 (74).
Psychological Measurement, 46 (1), 95-105. Retrieved from http://www.sseriga.edu.lv
doi:10.1177/0013164486461009
Leonard, N. H., Scholl, R.W., & Kowalski K. B.
Hulin, C. L, & Judge, T. A. (2003). Job attitudes: A (1999).Information processing style and
theoretical and empirical review. In W. C. decision making.Journal of Organizational
Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. klimoski Behavior, 20 (3) 407-
(Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Vol. 12, 420.doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199905)
pp. 255-276). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Retrieved from http://www.timothy- Lezotte, L. W. (2005). More effective schools:
judge.com/Hulin%20&%20Judge%20(2003 Professional learning communities in action.
).pdf In R. Dufour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.),
On common ground: The power of
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher professional learning communities (pp. 177-
shortages: An organizational analysis. 191). Bloomington, IN: National
American Educational Research Journal, 38 Educational Service.
(3), 499-534. doi:
10.3102/00028312038003499 Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job
satisfaction.In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Jacoby, J. M. (2006). Relationship between Handbook of industrial and organizational
principals‘ decision making styles and psychology (pp. 1297-1343). Chicago:
technology acceptance and use.(Doctoral Rand-McNally.
dissertation). Retrieved from
http://etd.library.pitt.edu/ETD/available/etd- Ma, X., & MacMillan, R. (1999).Influences of
01022007- workplace conditions on teachers‘ job
223237/unrestricted/jacobyjm2_etdPitt2006. satisfaction.Journal of Educational Research
pdf 93 (1): 39–47.

Judge, T. A., & Klinger, R. (2007). Job satisfaction: Maier, N. R. F. (1998). Psychology in industry (4th
Subjective well-being at work. In M. Eid& ed.). New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing
R. Larsen (Eds.), The science of subjective Co. Pvt. Ltd.
well-being (pp. 393-413). New York:
Guilford Publications. Retrieved from
15
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

Mau, W. (1995).Decision-making styles as a Rossmiller, R. A. (1992). The secondary school


predictor of career decision-making status principal and teachers‘ quality of work
and treatment gains. Journal of Career life.Educational Management and
Assessment, 3 (1), 89-99. doi: Administration, 20 (3), 132-146.
10.1177/106907279500300107
Syptak, J. M., Marsland, D. W., & Ulmer, D. (1999).
Mokoena, S.P. (2003). Exploring effective decision- Job satisfaction: Putting theory into practice.
making of principals in secondary schools in Family Practice Management, 26-30.
the Free State province.(Doctoral Retrieved from
dissertation, University of South Africa). http://www.aafp.org/fpm/991000fm/26.html
Retrieved from http://etd.unisa.ac.za/ETD-
db/theses/available/etd-04122005- Tinsley, H. E. A, Tinsley, D. J., & Rushing, J.
151343/unrestricted/00front.PDF (2002).Psychological type, decision-making
style, and reactions to structured career
Naoum, S. (2001).People and organizational interventions. Journal of Career Assessment,
management in construction. London: 10 (2), 258-280.
Thomas Telford Publishing. doi:10.1177/1069072702010002008

Oliver, R. (2007). Relationship between teacher job Value Based Management.Net. (2009). Two factor
satisfaction and teaming structure at the theory—Herzberg, Frederick. Retrieved
middle school level. (Doctoral from
dissertation).Available from ProQuest http://www.valuebasedmanagement.net
Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI
No. 3290914). Verma, D. (2009). Decision making style: Social and
creative dimensions. New Delhi: Global
Oshagbemi, T. (1998).The impact of age on the job India Publications Pvt. Ltd. Retrieved from
satisfaction of university teachers. Research https://books.google.com.pk
in Education 59 (1), 95-108.
Verma, R. (2005). Educational administration. New
Paivandy, S., Bullock, E. E., Reardon, R. C., & Delhi: Anmol Publications Pvt. Ltd.
Kelly, F. D. (2008).The effects of decision-
making style and cognitive thought patterns Walker, C. W. (2009). Factors related to job
on negative career thoughts. Journal of satisfaction of secondary principals in rural
Career Assessment, 16 (4), 474-488. areas.(Doctoral dissertation).Available from
doi:10.1177/1069072708318904 ProQuestDissertations and Theses database.
(UMI No. 3374141).
Price, D. Z. (1973).Relationship of decision styles
and self-actualization. Family and Consumer Winfrey, D. (2009). How teachers perceive their job
Sciences Research Journal, 2 (1), 12-20. satisfaction is influenced by their principals‘
doi:10.1177/1077727X7300200102 behaviors and attitudes related to race and
gender. (Doctoral dissertation).Available
Rice, E. M., & Schneider, G. T. (1994). A decade of from ProQuestDissertations and Theses
teacher empowerment: An empirical database. (UMI No. 3363112).
analysis of teacher involvement in decision
making, 1980-1991. Journal of Educational Yip, P. M., Goldman, A., & Martin, A. L. (1998).Job
Administration, 32 (1), 43-58. satisfaction. Retrieved from
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~ctaylor/chapter9/
Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2005). Management jobsat.html
(8th ed.). New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India
Private Limited. Yukl, G. (1994). Leadership in Organization (3rd.
ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

16
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

150

Frequency
100

50

0
Autocratic Consultative Democratic Consensus
Decision Making Styles

Figure1. Bar graph showing frequency distribution of both male and female principals‘ decision-making styles

80

60
Frequency

40

20

0
Autocratic Consultative Democratic consensus
Decision Making Styles

Figure 2.Bar graph showing frequency distribution of male principals‘ decision-making styles

100

80
Frequency

60

40

20

0
Autocratic Consultative Democratic Consensus
Decision Making Styles

Figure 3.Bar graph showing frequency distribution of female principals‘ decision-making styles

17
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Job Satisfaction Scores for Decision-
Making Styles—Entire Sample
Decision-Making Style Means SD N
Autocratic 58.888 9.936 125
Consultative 55.386 10.976 119
Democratic 63.503 9.143 159
Consensus 75.600 6.201 20

Table 2. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for Decision-Making Styles—Entire Sample

Source SS df SM F Sig.
Between Groups 9428.352 3 3142.784 32.595 .000
Within Groups 40399.199 419 96.418
Total 49827.551 422
Note. Criterion: Job Satisfaction; R2 = .189 (Adjusted R2 = .183).

Table 3. Pair wise Comparisons of Decision-Making Styles—Entire Sample

Pair wise Comparisons Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


Consensus > Autocratic 16.712* 10.612- 22.812
Consensus > Consultative 20.213* 14.093 – 26.334
Consensus > Democratic 12.096* 6.088 – 18.106
Democratic > Autocratic 4.615* 1.588 – 7.643
Democratic > Consultative 8.116* 5.047 – 11.187
Autocratic > Consultative 3.501* 0.259 – 6.745
Note. Criterion: Job Satisfaction
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Table 4. Mean Ranks of Job Satisfaction Scores and Sample Size for Decision-Making
Styles—Male Sample

Decision-Making Style Mean Ranks N


Autocratic 102.05 62
Consultative 51.71 80
Democratic 128.58 63
Consensus 166.14 14

Table 5. Pair wise Comparisons of Decision-Making Styles—Male Sample

Pair wise Comparisons Mean Rank Difference U-value z- value p-value


Consensus > Autocratic 53.71 – 35.06 = 18.65 221.00 -2.871 .004
Consensus > Consultative 72.43 – 43.14 = 29.29 211.00 -3.731 .000
Consensus > Democratic 55.00 – 35.44 = 20.56 217.00 -2.981 .003
Democratic> Consultative 86.94 – 60.23 = 26.71 1578.50 -3.856 .000
Note. Criterion: Job Satisfaction; ASL= .008

18
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/
Mirza and Iqbal: The Effect of Principals‘ Decision-Making Styles……………….

Table 6. Means and Standard Deviations of Job Satisfaction Scores for Decision-Making
Styles—Female Sample

Decision-Making Style Means SD N


Autocratic 60.2063 9.797 63
Consultative 59.7949 10.923 39
Democratic 63.9375 8.9948 96
Consensus 64.0000 102762 6

Table 7. Summary of One-Way ANOVA for Decision-Making Styles—Female Sample

Source SS df SM F Sig.
Between Groups 776.694 3 258.898 2.781 .042
Within Groups 18618.301 200 93.092
Total 19394.995 203
Note. Criterion: Job Satisfaction; R2 = .040 (Adjusted R2 = .026).

Table 8. Pair wise Comparisons of Decision-Making Styles—Female Sample

Pair wise Comparisons Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval


Democratic > Autocratic 3.73115* 0.6463 – 6.8160
Democratic > Consultative 4.14263* 0.5299 – 7.7554
Note. Criterion: Job Satisfaction
* The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

19
Available at: http://www.rjoem.com/