ABSTRACT
This study investigated the relationship between teachers’ decisional participation and job satisfaction in secondary schools in Ekiti State. The study also examined the level of teachers’ participation in decision making and level of job satisfaction. A descriptive research design of correlation type was adopted for the study while the population for the study comprised all the teachers’ teaching in the public secondary schools in Ekiti State. The sample consisted of 270 teachers selected through multistage and simple random sampling techniques. Data were collected with the aid of a questionnaire. The reliability coefficient for the instrument used was 0.84. The data obtained were analyzed using frequency counts, mean, standard deviation, Pearson product moment correlation and multiple regression analysis. Hypotheses formulated for the study were tested at 0.05level of significance. The study revealed that the level of teachers’ participation in decision making in their respective schools was low. The study also revealed that there was significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation and their job satisfaction. It was also revealed that teachers’ job satisfaction was significantly related to the level of teachers’ decisional participation in school financial matter, conflict resolution, examination matters, staff welfare, disciplinary matters, school academic work and co – curricular activities. Based on the findings, that the levels of teachers’ decisional participation in school management were relatively low, government and stakeholders in education should ensure that teachers actively participate during school decisions making which would somehow influence their profession. Effort to bridge the communication gap and alienation, principals of senior secondary schools should allow their teachers to participate in decision making process on school financing, conflict resolution, staff welfare, disciplinary matters, academic work, and co – curricular activities. This could boost teachers’ level of job satisfaction.
Key words: Teachers’ decision, participation, job satisfaction, secondary schools.
Decision making is central to the practice of administration. That task of deciding pervades the entire administrative organization quite as much as the task of doing. Decision making is not only the central function of
administration, but it is even more important than other functions of administration, because other functions can best be interpreted in terms of the decision making process. Decision making is an issue to the individual, group of people, corporate bodies, firms, and government agencies. Decisions made could have negative or positive implication on the subject concerned or the source of the decision. The repercussion of decision resolution is what necessitated its thoroughness right from the formulation to the implementation stage.
In the secondary school context, principal is the administrator. The vice principal(s), head of department(s), from teachers, class teachers are regarded as members of teaching staff, while bursar, account clerk, typist, office assistant, laboratory attendant(s), and guards are as well regarded as member of non – teaching staff. The principal is the head of academic and administrative staff. He is the link between the educational managers, teachers, students, parents, and community at large.
The principal performs series of professional duties that include inspection of school records, curriculum planning and development, programme planning for the session, examination function, recruitment and development of teachers, provision of facilities, budgeting function to perform the virtue of his position in the school system. The principals are saddled with the administrative duties that include students’ welfare, staff’s welfare, regular meeting with staff and other bodies, public relations function, clerical functions, maintenance of school facilities, staff and students’ discipline. It is apparent that, the principal alone cannot successfully carry out all the aforementioned duties without embracing the idea of teachers’ decisional participation and delegation of duties within the staff that surround him. The principals are the chief accounting officer of the schools. They are accountable for everything that happens to the live and properties on ground in the school environment.
Experience has shown that the school administrators usually dictate the school academic issues, which include time – table preparation, scheme and records of work preparation, broad sheet entry, daily attendance register, teachers’ lesson plan format, afternoon lesson etc. without constituting any standing committee to work on it and gives feedback to the entire member of staff after briefing the school principal in his office.
In some secondary schools, disciplinary matters are resolved mainly by the principals alone or along with the contribution or opinion of their vice principal(s). When disciplinary matters ensue probably between students and teachers, some principals will still cleverly turn down the committee’s recommendations. They may be silent on the case or manipulate the committee’s resolutions on the matter.
Some teachers are usually not aware of school administrators’ plans on the co-curricular activities that comprise agricultural practical, social activities, literary devices, sports, clubs and organizations. The decision is always made by the school principal without due consultation with the entire members of staff. Most of the programmes under co-curricular activities usually fail because teachers feel that they have been neglected and considered insignificant.
The non-involvement of teachers in the process of decision making could cause low productivity, less commitment, and nonchalant attitude toward teachers’ statutory duties. Teachers may not be interested in embracing any decision that they have no input. The implication of this is that indiscipline, truancy, moral decadence, cheating, theft, fighting, poor academic performances, cultism, property destruction, examination malpractice, students’ loitering around the school compound may be peculiar in the students’ lifestyle.
Participation is a much used word these days. It means different content. In training, the trainees benefit by participating in the training activity they “learn from doing “ . In community work, participation means that the whole community, including those that do not usually speak up, participate in decisions that affect the future of the community.
It means that staff, not only the designated managers, have input and influence over the decisions that affect that organization. It is not that same as communal or co-operative management, where every staff member has the same weight in the decision making process. A voted majority, or a consensus, is not the final arbitrator for a contentious decision (Ajayi and Ayodele, 2002).
In decisional participation, the designated managers (or manager) still have (or has ) the final responsibility for making decisions and answering for them, but members of the staff who are affected by those decisions are actively sought to provide observations, analysis, suggestions and recommendations in the executive decision making process.
These guidelines can be used whole when you are setting up a new organization, can be made as a major conscious decision for an ongoing organization, or can be slowly added piece in an organization that is more monopolistic decision making where decisions are made only at the top.
Teachers’ decisional participation is an approach in management in which there is consultation with staffs and serious consideration of their opinions before making a decision. It allows for a reduction in the power differential between the school authority and staffs.
Teachers’ decisional participation is a motivational strategy that is capable of arousing management to make full use of the potential capacities of its human resources and also to gain a high degree of group loyalty. Teachers’ decisional participation is an approach that can lead to increased acceptance of the decision of those affected easier co – ordination, greater varieties of alternatives and solutions considered; greater job satisfaction and work achievements as well as greater individual integration into the organization.
Teachers require independence to function effectively. It will enable them to play active roles in decision making process, enjoy greater autonomy, readiness will be guarantee, and pave way for collaborative role in other areas (Folajin, 1987).
Practicing decisional participation has been long acknowledged as an essential ingredient in the quest for better schools. In characterizing successful schools, researchers commonly list five school-level factors, which include collaborative planning/collegial work and parental/community participation. Ajayi (2008) asserts that “high levels of planning, individual school autonomy and the resulting flexibility” are effective school characteristics that justify the implementation of participatory governance.
Golarz and Golarz (1995) point out; securing a “synergy of communities” is the key to attainment of educational benefits. It should be noted, however, that attempts to involve stakeholders should be geared beyond mere participation but towards meaningful involvement (Bush, 2003; Adeyemi, 2006; Ajibade, 2008; Ajayi, 2008).
Research findings show that allowing teachers and stakeholders to take part in decision-making yields salutary results. Employees’ satisfaction, motivation, moral and self-esteem are affected positively by involvement in decision-making and implementation (Durotolu, 2001; Ajayi and Ayodele, 2002; Gamage and Pang, 2003; Akomolafe, 2004).
Similarly, employers’ commitment and loyalty are fostered by collaborative school management practices (Beyerlein et al., 2003).
Moreover, researchers claim that better decisions and greater efficiency are reached since issues are discussed extensively via open communication among people having varying viewpoints involved in participative set-up.
Embracing teachers’ decisional participation will as well yield the following benefits: heads cannot easily manipulate people, teachers are given a sense of control over their own working lives, power inequalities are balanced and additional resources personnel become available to the organization.
Statement of the problem
It seems that secondary school teachers usually complain of over centralization of authority by their principals and are not allowed to participate in the various aspects of school management such as financing, disciplinary matter, conflict resolution, staff welfare, examination matter, academic matter, and co – curricular activities of the schools.
It appears that teachers are being neglected by their principals and being ruled authoritatively, making unilateral decision, and become unapproachable to the teachers serving under them.
It seems that the situation has caused negative effects on teachers’ level of job satisfaction, and made their job performance to be drastically dwindled.
In examining this problem, the following general questions were raised:
1. What is the level of secondary school teachers’ involvement in decision making?
2. What is the level of secondary school teachers’ job satisfaction?
Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study was to investigate the level of teachers’ participation in the process of decision making in the management of secondary schools in Ekiti State. The study would examine the level of teachers’ job satisfaction in relation to their expected duties. The study would explore the implication of involving teachers in decision making process and the level of his satisfaction.
Research questions
The relevant questions which the study focuses on include:
1. Is there a relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in the various aspects of school management and job satisfaction?
2. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on school finance and their job satisfaction?
3. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on conflict resolution and their job satisfaction?
4. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on examination matters and their job satisfaction?
5. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on staff welfare and their job satisfaction?
6. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on disciplinary matters and their job satisfaction?
7. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on school academic work and their job satisfaction?
8. Is there any relationship between teachers’ participation in decision making on school co- curricular activities and their job satisfaction?
Research hypotheses
Based on the research questions earlier stated, the following null hypotheses were formulated:
1. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in the various aspects of school management and job satisfaction.
2. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on school finance and job satisfaction.
3. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on conflict resolution and job satisfaction.
4. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on examination matters and job satisfaction.
5. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on staff welfare and job satisfaction.
6. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on disciplinary matter and job satisfaction.
7. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on school academic work and job satisfaction.
8. There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on school co-curricular activities and job satisfaction.
Significance of the study
The study will provide education stakeholders, state and federal governments with necessary information on teachers’ decisional participation and job satisfaction in secondary schools.
The study will be of great help to education managers at all levels on how to boost teachers’ level of job satisfaction. It will enable them to realize the various machineries that can be put in place to enhance greater degree of teachers’ efficiencies.
The study will help to reduce the administrative hardship been experienced by the school authority in decision making as teachers will be co – opted right into the formulation, deliberation, enactment, and implementation and evaluation stage.
Lastly, the study will help to bridge the gap between teachers’ and other stakeholders in education industry; by being acquainted with the various areas where teachers can be professionally served for the smooth running of the school affairs and the same can enhance teachers’ level of satisfaction.
Research design
The descriptive research of the correlational type was adopted in the study. The research design is descriptive because it involves collection of data in order to describe phenomena as they exist in the field and there was no manipulation of the variables involved in the study.
Population
The population for this study comprised all the 3536 teachers in the 167 public senior secondary schools in Ekiti State.
Sample and sampling techniques
A total of 270 teachers were used for the study. The multi-stage random sampling technique was used in the selection of the sample for the study. Multistage random sampling and sample random sampling techniques were used. It involves selection of subjects from the population in stage without basis. The first stage was random selection of 3 local government areas from each senatorial district in Ekiti State. The second stage involved selection of 5 senior secondary schools in each local government areas for the study. The third stage involved selections of 6 teachers each from the school selected for the exercise. That means 270 teachers were used as a sample for the study.
Research instrument
The Teachers’ Decisional Participation and Job Satisfaction Questionnaire (TDPJSQ) was designed for this study by the researcher. It consisted of three sections. Section A requires personal information from the respondents. This information includes: L.G., sex, marital status, age, educational qualification, work experience, salary grade level, and designation at work; section B consists of 35 Items which elicit information on teachers’ decisional participation in their school, while Section C consists of 15 items which elicit information on teacher’s job satisfaction.
Validity of instrument
In order to determine the content and face validity of the instrument designed for the study, it was given to the appointed supervisor and other experts in the Department of Educational Foundation and Management, Faculty of Education, University of Ado Ekiti. Suggestions and corrections made were utilized in the final draft of the questionnaire items.
Reliability of instrument
The reliability of the instrument was carried out using test – retest method. This involved the administration of the instrument twice within an interval of two weeks on 27 teachers, in a pilot study of six senior secondary schools that were not included in the sample schools for product moment Correlation Coefficient in order to obtain the reliability co-efficient of the instruments. The reliability co- efficient was considered high enough for the reliability of the instrument.
Administration of the instrument
Copies of the questionnaire were distributed to the teachers through the principals of the sampled schools. The completed copies of the instrument were retrieved from the subjects immediately. The questionnaire was personally administered by the researcher to enhance good respect from the respondents.
Data analysis
Data collected were analyzed with frequency counts, percentage scores, mean, standard deviation, and Pearson product moment correlation. Specifically, Pearson correlation coefficients were used to test hypotheses two to eight, while multiple regression analysis was used to test the hypotheses that examined the various aspects of the school management.
Question 1
What is the level of secondary school teachers’ involvement in the decision making process on education?
To answer the question, mean score of subjects on level of teachers’ involvement in the decision making process was computed. The standard deviation was also obtained. These [mean score and standard deviation] were used to categorize the subjects into low, moderate and high. The result is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 presents the level of secondary school teachers’ involvement in decision making process. The result shows that 157 (58. 1%) had low involvement in decision making process while 35 (13%0 and (28.9%) were highly and moderately involved in decision making process.
Question 2
What is the level of secondary school teachers’ satisfaction as regard the working package and expected duties of discharge?
To answer the question, mean score and standard deviation of subjects’ level of satisfaction were used to group the participants into low, moderate and high level of satisfaction. The result is presented in Table 2.
Table2 presents the level of job satisfaction of the secondary school teachers. The result shows that 64 (23.7%) of the total respondents were highly satisfied with their job, 37 (13.7%) had low level of job satisfaction, while 169 (62.6%) experienced moderate level of job satisfaction. Therefore, the level of secondary school teachers’ satisfaction as regard the working packages and expected duties to discharge is moderate.
Test of hypotheses
Eight (8) research hypotheses were tested using multiple Regression analysis and Pearson product moment correlation statistics at 0.05 level of significance. The results are presented as follows.
Hypothesis 1
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in the various aspects of the school management and job satisfaction.
In order to test the hypothesis, Multiple Regression Analysis was used. Components of decisional partici-pation were used as the independent variables while job satisfaction constituted the dependent variable. The regression model is specified as follows:
Y = bo+b1X1+b2X2+b3X3+b4X4+b5X5+b6X6+b7X7
Where Y = Job satisfaction
X1 = School Financial Management
X2 = Conflict Resolution
X3 = Examination Matters
X4 = Staff Welfare
X5 = Disciplinary Matters
X6 = School Academics
X7 = Co – curricular activities
The regression result is presented in Table 3. From the table, the following results are obtained: R = .423, R2 = .179, R2 = .157, F = 8.148, sig. F = .000.
Table 3 presents the relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in the various aspects of the school management and job satisfaction. The result shows that the relationship between teachers’ decisional participation and job satisfaction is moderate, positive and statistically significant at 0.05 level (r = .433, P <0.005). The null hypothesis is rejected. It implies that there is significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in various aspects of school management and job satisfaction.
The coefficient of determination (R2) is .179. This implies that teacher’s decisional participation accounts for 18% of the variation in job satisfaction. The remaining 82% unexplained variation in job satisfaction is caused by other variables outside the regression model which are otherwise included in the stochastic error term. Testing the effect of effect individual components of teachers’ decisional participation on job satisfaction, the result shows that only the effect of teachers’ participation in examination (t = 3.054, P<0.05), school academics (t = 3.147, P < 0.05) and co – curricular activities ( t = 2.836, P<0.05) job satisfaction are statistically significant at 0.05 level in each case. However, the effect of teachers’ participation in school financial management ( t=.718, P> 0.05), conflict resolution (t = 1. 466, P> 0.05), staff’s welfare (t = -.978, P > 0.05), disciplinary matters (t = -.296, P> 0.05) on job satisfaction are not statistically significant at 0.05 level.
The regression model is statistically significant in terms of its overall goodness of fit (F = 8.148, P < 0.05). In the estimated regression line above, bo (the constant term) is 122.146. This means that holding the value of elements of decisional participation constant, the value of job satisfaction will be about 122.146.
Considering the predictive power of each of the components of teachers’ decisional participation on job satisfaction, participation on examination matters constitute the best single predictor of job satisfaction with a beta weight of .166 (17%), conflict resolution with a beta weight of .105(11%), school financial management with a beta weight of .047(5%), disciplinary matters with beta weight of .047(-2%) while the least predictor of teachers’ decisional participation is staff’s welfare with a beta weight of .73(7%).
Hypothesis 2
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on school financial management and job satisfaction
Item relating to teachers’ level of participation in decision making in school financial management correlated with items on job satisfaction using Pearson product moment correlation statistics at 0.05 level of significant. The result is presented in Table 4.
Table 4 presents the relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making on school financial management and job satisfaction. The results show that r-cal (.294) is greater than r -table (.195) at 0.05 level of significant. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is significant relationship between teachers’ level of participation in decision making in school financial management and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 3
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in conflict matter resolution and job satisfaction
In order to test the hypothesis, scores on teachers’ level of decisional participation in conflict matter resolution and job satisfaction were subjected to statistical analysis using Pearson product moment correlation statistics at 0.05 level of significance. The result is presented in Table 5.
The relationship between teachers’ level of participation in conflict resolution matters and job satisfaction is presented in Table 5. The result reveals that r-cal (.222) is greater than r- table (.195) at 0.05 level of significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected. It implies that there is significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in conflict matter resolution and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 4
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on examination matter and job satisfaction.
Scores on teachers’ decisional participation on examination matters and job satisfaction were computed. These two sets of scores were subjected to statistical analysis involving Pearson product moment correlation at 0.05 level of significance. The result is presented in Table 6.
Table 6 shows that there exists significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in examination matter and job satisfaction (r = .321, P < 0.05). The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in examination matters and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 5
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on staff’s welfare and job satisfaction.
In order to test the hypothesis, computed scores on teachers’ decisional participation on staff’s welfare and job satisfaction were subjected to statistical analysis involving Pearson product moment correlation at 0.05 level of significant. The result is shown in Table 7.
Table 7 shows r-cal(.196) is greater that t table (.195). The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in staff’s welfare and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 6
There is no significant relationship between teachers’’ decisional participation on disciplinary matters and job satisfaction.
Table 8 presents the relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on disciplinary matters and job satisfaction. The result reveals that r-cal(.457) is greater than r -table (.195) at 0.05 level of significance. The null hypothesis is rejected. Therefore, there is significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on disciplinary matters and job satisfaction.
Hypothesis 7
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ participation on school academic work and job satisfaction.
In order to test the hypothesis, computation of scores on teachers’ decisional participation on school academic work and job satisfaction were subjected to statistical analysis involving Pearson product moment correlation at 0.05 level of significance. The result is presented in Table 9.
Table 9 presents the relationship between decisional on school academic work and job satisfaction. The result shows that there is relationship between teachers’ decisional participation and job satisfaction at 0.05 level of significance, since r - calculated (.303) is greater than r table (.195). Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
Hypothesis 8
There is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in school curricular activities and job satisfaction.
Testing the hypothesis involves computation of scores on teachers’ decisional participation in school curricular activities and job satisfaction. These sets of scores were subjected to statistical analysis using Pearson product moment correlation statistics at 0.05 level of significance. The result is presented in Table 10.
Table 10 presents the relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on co – curricular activities and job satisfaction. The result shows that r -cal(.233) is greater than r- table (.195) at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation on school co- curricular activities and job satisfaction is rejected.
The study revealed that the level of teachers’ involvement in decision making in Ekiti State Senior secondary Schools was low. This low level of teachers’ participation in decision making in the school might not be unconnected with fact that many senior secondary schools’ principals make themselves autocratic and unapproachable. They fail to involve their teachers while making decision. It is worthy of note that teachers would want to be involved in the decisional making process of their schools. The findings of this study contradict that of Folayin (1987), Charters and Pellagrin (1993), Adeniyi (2000) and Alebiosu (2006). They believe that there is no correlation between teachers’ decisional participation and job satisfaction. The findings of this study corroborate that of (Adeniyi, 2000), who believes that there exists a relationship between teachers’ decisional participations and job satisfaction. The study revealed that there was significant relationship between teacher’s decisional participation and their job satisfaction. The reason for this result might be due to the fact that teachers who are allowed to participate in the decision making process of their schools would have high sense of belonging.
Teachers that are not involved in the decision making process of their schools are likely to be unhappy, dissatisfied and uncooperative on the job. The findings of this study corroborate that of Adeniyi (2000), that effectiveness and decisional participation lead to more job satisfaction. Dada (2008) emphasized that well applied decisional participation improves workers’ job satisfaction.
It was found in the study that there was significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in school financial management and their job satisfaction. This could be as a result of the importance of funding in all life endeavors. This will enhance high job satisfaction of the teachers and high students’ academic achievement and students’ comportment. Bates (2001), Garret and Poole (2005) and Dada (2008) contended that workers’ participation in school finance would enhance their job satisfaction and as well induce productivity in their workplace. Adeniyi (2000) opined that it profits the manager to involve staff in decision making on fiancés of the school as this would more beneficial to the school too in all ramifications.
The study also revealed that there was significant relationship between decisional participation in conflict resolution in school and job satisfaction. It would be inferred from the findings that involvement of teachers in resolution of conflicts and disagreement in their schools would further enhance such teachers’ job satisfaction.
Teachers who are involved in conflict resolution would help to create and protect peaceful environment because of their high level of job satisfaction.
Teachers’ involvement in conflict resolution would help such teachers to know the problems of individuals and the possible solution to forestall its prevalence. It would however complement management effort in ensuring ideal learning environment for learning. Whereas, teachers who are not involved in conflicts resolution in their school may not work hard and show positive interest in any issue that can hamper the peaceful co – existence of both staff and students in the school system.
The study has shown that there was no significant relationship between teacher’s decisional participation on school examination matters and their job satisfaction. This means that the decision on the internal examination can be solely decided by the school principal and teachers are bound to comply with any directive given by the school management. The specifications for the periodic test and end of the term examination questions are still subjected to the school authority initiatives. Though the issue of examination is always taken serious in the academic environment and lapses by the teaching staff attract serve punishment that ranges from query, demotion, fines and probably termination of appointment. And more so, the teachers are now being paid examination hazard allowance. It is purely the statutory duty of the teachers to collaborate hazard allowance. It is purely the statutory duty of the teachers to collaborate with their school heads on the issue of examination, no matter the level of discontention.
But the study showed that considerable numbers of the respondents are involved in deciding the modes of setting questions, fixing date of examination materials. It therefore showed that either teachers are satisfied or not satisfied they are compelled to cooperate with their school management because that is what will be used to justify their input in their work place.
The study has shown that there was significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in staff welfares and their job satisfaction. Thus means that the active involvement of teachers in decision making process on staff welfares would enhance their level of job satisfaction. The staff welfare is very crucial and significant, because its gravity and consistency will however boost teachers’ morale to work hard. Good staff welfare packages will build up to high level of harmonious living. Once the school head prefers to co – opt teachers in deciding what, when and how to go about any issue that is concerned with teachers’ welfare, it will definitely induce their level of job satisfaction.
The study also revealed that there was significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation in disciplinary matters and their job satisfaction. It is expected that teachers, as a major actor in the education industry should not be in anyway excluded in the maintenance of discipline in schools system. Teachers are familiar to the students and know the better way of getting rid of the bad ones in their midst. More so, teachers stand a better position to offer counseling service without hesitation. It was found that there was significant relationship between teachers ‘decisional participation in school academic and their job satisfaction. It means that teachers’ participation in deciding academic matters such as time table for school lesson, preparation of scheme and record of work in subject basis, broad-sheet preparation, marking and recording of students’ scripts and conduct of terminal or end of session exams will boost the level of job satisfaction. Teachers are likely to pursue shared realistic goals rather than what others have and had over to them they do not give rooms for originality on their side. However, teachers who participate in the decision making as regards school academic matters are likely to accept any responsibility given to them with pleasure because it was their joint resolution.
The study further revealed that there was significant relationship between teachers’ decisional participation activities in co-curricular activities and their job satisfaction. The level of co-curricular activities in the school programme is used to determine the school standard. Bloom Taxonomy viewed learning under three dimensions viz: cognitive and psychomotor learning domain that will however help to ensure balance level of educational programme.
The more teachers are incorporated into the decision making on the co- curricular activities the more success they attain. Once teachers are incorporated into the decision making process on any aspects of the co-curricular activities the more they are elated and highly satisfied with their job.
Teachers’ decisional participation in all variables of school management positively induces their level of job satisfaction. Better participation of teachers in school management variables such as school financial manage-ment, conflict resolution examination matters, staff welfare, disciplinary matters, school academic and co-curricular activities would positively enhance the teachers level of commitment because it will no doubt lead to high level of their job satisfaction. It is noteworthy that the variables of working conditions, student- teachers’ relationships and teachers – principals’ relationship would help to induce the level of teachers’ job satisfaction. Teachers’ decisional participation serves as an indicator to access the gravity of teachers’ satisfaction with the job. If teachers are excluded from participating in the various aspects of school management, their level of job satisfaction could be adversely affected.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn: - Teachers were not adequately participating in the decision making process on the various variables examined in the study. It was as a result of the school management that tends to be more autocratic, unfriendly and unapproachable. And it has caused demoralization on the part of the teachers because of the ill – treatment and unaccommodating leadership style of the school heads. The occurrence deteriorates teachers’ interest and diminishes the gravity of job satisfaction.
The following recommendations were made:
1. Since the level of teachers’ decisional participation in school management and teachers’ job satisfaction were low, the stakeholders in the running of senior secondary schools education should ensure that teachers are more involved in the decision making process of their schools. Government should mandate principals to allow their teachers’ initiatives while making decision in order to enhance higher level of teacher’s job satisfaction.
2. The stakeholders in the secondary school education should put in place every possible incentive to enhance higher level of teachers’ job satisfaction; such will include regular payment of salary, special allowances for special assignment, conferences and workshops. These will further boost the level of teachers’ job satisfaction and eliminate the thinking of alternative job.
3. Teachers need to be introduced to in – service training that will instill an ideal spirit of leadership in them. The trainings need to cover the system of management and power sharing. Such training will help to balance the disparity between born and made leaders, and help in the realization of the education objectives at the secondary school level.
The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.
REFERENCES
|
Adeniyi EO (2000). Participatory management, job satisfaction and commitment among secondary school teachers in Ogun State, Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Ibadan.
|
|
|
|
Adeyemi TO (2006). Fundamental of education management, Ikeja: Atlantic associated Publishers.
|
|
|
|
|
Ajayi IA, Ayodele JB (2002). Fundamental of educational management. Ado Ekiti: Green line Publishers.
|
|
|
|
|
Ajayi IA (2008). Educational management. Unpublished Lecture monograph, Ekiti State University, Ado Ekiti.
|
|
|
|
|
Ajibade ES (2005). The teacher: Moulding the millennium nation builder. Ibadan: Emia Publication.
|
|
|
|
|
Akomolafe CO (2004). School administration in Nigeria: Theory and practice. Ado Ekiti: Petoa Educational Publishers.
|
|
|
|
|
Alebiosu OA (2006). Quality of a good leader. A seminar paper presented to top civil servants in Ekiti State organized by Hythe Smith and Co. limited. Unpublished.30thJune.
|
|
|
|
|
Beyerlein MM, Freedman S, MeGee C, Moran L (2003). Beyond teams: Building the collaborative organization. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass.
|
|
|
|
|
Bush T (2003). Theories of educational management: (3rded.). London.
|
|
|
|
|
Charters WW, Pellegrin R (1993). Barriers to the innovation process: Four case studies of differentiated staffing. Educ. Adm. Q. 9(1):10-30.
Crossref
|
|
|
|
|
Dada CY (2008). Participatory management and productivity among secondary schoolteachers in South West Nigeria. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Ado- Ekiti, Nigeria
|
|
|
|
|
Durotolu AO (2001). Educational management, theories, principles and practices. Festus Digital Prints, Zone 4, Wuse, Abuja.
|
|
|
|
|
Folajin SO (1987). Relationship between participative management and teacher job satisfaction in Oyo State secondary schools. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Universityof Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
|
|
|
|
|
Gamage DT, Pang NS (2003). Leadership and management in education: Developing essential skills and competencies. Hong Kong: The Chinese university Press.
|
|
|
|
|
Golarz RJ, Golarz MJ (1995). The power of participation: Improving schools in democratic society. Illinois: Research Press.
|
|
