Teacher

A Decade of Teacher Empowerment

Empowerment: An Empirical
Analysis of Teacher
43
Involvement in Decision
Making, 1980-1991
Ellen Marie Rice
Barry University, Miami Shores, Florida, and
Gail T. Schneider
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

One of the most notable themes in American education during the past decade
has been the widespread call for educational reform. Reforming or restructuring
schools implies that existing patterns of organizational arrangements and
instructional strategies need to be changed. The reform efforts of the 1980s
focused on organizational, curricular and instructional changes necessary to
improve the quality of education. Almost without exemption, national reform
reports[1-5] advocated enhanced teacher involvement in decision making as a
means of fostering necessary changes within schools. The recent attention on
participative decision making is not without historical precedent. Participation
in decision making has been of critical concern to educators for decades[6,7].
While the successful transformation of American education presents a
comprehensive agenda, effective school research and the current educational
reform movement have strongly advocated increased teacher involvement in
school decision making. A basic assumption for this focus had been that lasting
school improvement will occur when teachers become more involved in
professional decision making at the school site. Effective involvement of teachers
in school decision making poses many questions, such as, when, to what extent,
and in what issues should teachers be involved; and these questions have guided
the research regarding teacher involvement in decision making.
The intent of this research project was to replicate a study conducted in
1980[8] to determine if, after a decade of explicit attention to and advocacy for
enhanced teacher professionalism and empowerment:

This article presents the results of a replication of a study conducted by Gail L. Thierbach,
Decision Involvement and Job Satisfaction in Middle and Junior High Schools, unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. The results of the original study were
reported by the researcher, Gail (Thierbach) Schneider, in[8]. The Schneider citation, since it is Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 32 No. 1, 1994,
more readily available than the dissertation, will be used in referring to the original study pp. 43-58. © MCB University Press,
throughout the text of this manuscript. 0957-8234
Journal of ● involvement in decision making had continued to be related to teachers’
Educational job satisfaction;
Administration ● teachers’ reported levels of actual and desired involvement in decision
32,1 issues had increased;
● teachers’ levels of interest and expertise in decision issues had changed;
44 ● teachers’ perceptions of their influence in the decision-making process
had increased;
● whether teachers’ job satisfaction had improved.

Theoretical Framework
This study was guided by theoretical frameworks pertaining to decision
making and job satisfaction. Within the field of organizational studies,
relationships between these participative management and job satisfaction
variables have been explored in various contexts. Nonetheless, the present
emphasis on teacher empowerment and its implied enhancement of
involvement in decision making raises questions as to whether the national
advocacy for increased professionalism among teachers has resulted in
increased levels of decision-making involvement and job satisfaction.

Decision Theory
The decision-making process is a complex phenomenon and, due to its reliance
on human involvement, is subject to factors which are not under the control of
the organization. Individuals involved in the process possess different
preferences, interests, expertise, experience, and need-dispositions. Lipham[9,
p. 84] defined decision making as a process in which “awareness of a
problematic state of a system, influenced by information and values, is reduced
to competing alternatives among which a choice is made, based on perceived
outcomes states of the system”; and he identified three dimensions in the
decision-making process: decision stages – how a decision is made, decision
content – what a decision deals with; and decision involvement – who
participates in making a decision.
Independent variables: zone of acceptance, decision conditions. Barnard[6]
conceptualized an area of decision content in which subordinates had little or no
interest. He called this area the zone of indifference and maintained that
subordinates accepted purely administrative decisions in this area. Others[10-
12] have developed models which incorporated and extended Barnard’s zone of
indifference. Each contended that principals should not involve teachers in
every decision; rather, administrators should determine teachers’ zones of
indifference by applying a “test of relevance” (interest) and a “test of expertise”
(knowledge). The combined levels of interest and expertise suggest whether or
not a decision is within the teachers’ zone of indifference and, thus, aid
administrators in determining when and to what extent teachers should be
involved in the decision-making process. The basic premise of these models is
that as the principal involves teachers in making decisions located in their zone
of indifference, involvement will be less effective. Also, as the principal involves Teacher
teacher in making decisions located outside their zones of indifference, Empowerment
involvement will be more effective. Thus, effective involvement of teachers in
school decision making requires that principals determine which issues are
located in teachers’ zones of indifference and which issues are not.
Besides varying involvement throughout the process, involvement may vary
by issue. Involvement in decision making has been examined in relation to 45
Parsons’[13] technical (operational at the teacher level) and managerial
(schoolwide in scope) domains indicating that teachers desire greater
involvement in technical issues than in managerial issues and that the desire to
participate is not evenly distributed throughout the organization[14,15].
Conley[16], in reviewing various perspectives regarding teacher involvement
within decision domains, noted that technical and managerial decision domains
are related but conceptually distinct constructs, and each implies a different
orientation of teacher involvement in decision making. She concluded that little
attention has been placed on specifying the decisions in which teachers are
expected to become involved.
The second aspect of decision involvement concerns how often an individual
or group should be involved in the decision-making process. Alutto and
Belasco[17] explored this question by investigating the relationship of the
extent of decision involvement to job satisfaction and found that denial of
involvement in decision issues of importance resulted in lower levels of
satisfaction. Their work relied on a discrepancy measure which assumed a
continuum of involvement and led to the formation of three conditions:
(1) decision deprivation, involvement in fewer decisions than desired;
(2) decision equilibrium, involvement in as many decisions as desired;
(3) decision saturation, involvement in more decisions than desired.
In Alutto and Belasco’s[17] study, teachers in the decision condition of
saturation scored higher in their perception of the system than those in the
condition of deprivation, but not as high as those in equilibrium. These findings
suggested the possibility of a curvilinear relationship between decision
involvement and job satisfaction. Conway[18] examined this relationship and
found minor support for the curvilinear relationship. Conway’s research
marked the beginning of the use of the degree of involvement, rather than the
measure of involvement or non-involvement.
The original study[8] on which this replication was based also found a
significant relationship existed between levels of teacher involvement and job
satisfaction; however, in Schneider’s study the conditions of equilibrium and
saturation were not found to exist; deprivation (desired involvement exceeding
actual involvement) was reported across all decision issues. Furthermore,
Schneider found that teachers reported higher levels of deprivation in
managerial than in technical decision issues. This finding was confirmed in a
later analysis when Schneider[19], extending the work of Alutto and
Belasco[17,20] and Conway[18], investigated the curvilinear relationship
Journal of between the level of decision involvement and job satisfaction in her synthesis of
Educational three studies[21-23] which covered elementary, middle/junior and senior high
Administration levels. These studies found a moderately strong linear relationship between
respondents’ decision condition and job satisfaction existed at all three school
32,1 levels. In each study, fewer than 5 per cent of the respondents were either at a
point of equilibrium or in a condition of saturation. Generally the point of
46 saturation had not been reached and a general condition of decision deprivation
existed among teachers.
Mohrman et al.[15], expanding the work of Barnard[6], Bridges[10], Alutto and
Belasco[17] and Conway[18], investigated teachers’ involvement in decision
making in relation to Parsons’[13] two organizational domains: technical and
managerial. Using this multi-dimensional approach, these researchers found
that teachers reported a higher level of actual and desired involvement in the
technical domain than in the managerial domain. These findings suggested that
managerial issues fall inside teachers’ zones of acceptance, while technical
issues fall outside teachers’ zones of acceptance. Yet, Schneider[8] found that
teachers reported low levels of actual involvement and high levels of desired
involvement in managerial issues, particularly in those issues pertaining to
determining the administrative and organizational structure of the school,
determining procedures to be used for teacher evaluation, selecting
departmental chairpersons or team leaders, evaluating subject departments or
teams, hiring new faculty members, setting and revising school goals, and
establishing schoolwide policies.
Bacharach et al.[24] argued that a multi-domain evaluative approach should
be used to examine teacher participation in decision making. They devised a
four domain (strategic-organizational, strategic-individual, operational-
organizational, and operational-individual) evaluative (respondent’s self-
reported degree of participation) framework for their study. They investigated
the relationship between decision participation (decision deprivation/
saturation) in each domain and four affective work outcomes: job satisfaction,
role ambiguity, role conflict, and organizational goal commitment and found that
areas of decision deprivation could be identified. They supported the
determination of specific strategies to increase teacher involvement in specific
decision issues.

Job Satisfaction
Many researchers have related involvement in decision making to the
organizational outcomes of job satisfaction and job performance[25]. Interest in
job satisfaction may stem from the consideration of the consequences which
evolve from its presence or absence. One area of particular interest has been
that of the relationship of involvement in decision making to job satisfaction. In
summarizing the literature concerning the relationship between decision
involvement and job satisfaction, Blumberg[26, p. 12] stated:
There is scarcely a study in the entire literature which fails to demonstrate that satisfaction
in work is enhanced… (by) a genuine increase in workers’ decision-making power… The
 participative worker is an involved worker, for his (her) job becomes an extension of Teacher
himself (herself) and by his(her) decisions he (she) is creating his (her) work, modifying and
regulating it. Empowerment
Several in non-educational settings[27-30] have explored the relationship
between decision making and organizational outcomes such as job satisfaction,
effectiveness, or productivity. In general, these studies have indicated that
employee job satisfaction is related to and affected by participation in the 47
decision-making process.
Dependent variable: Teacher job satisfaction. Following similar lines of
inquiry, teacher job satisfaction has been the focus of many of the studies[31-
34]. A major issue addressed within these studies is whether job satisfaction is
best determined by a single measure of overall job satisfaction or whether
measures assessing particular facets of job satisfaction yield more accurate
measures. In general, the researchers concluded that overall job satisfaction
could be defined as a function of the sum of job facet satisfaction.
Still other studies have explored the effects of organizational influences on job
satisfaction. Kreis and Brockoff[35] studied the relationship between teachers’
perceived autonomy within the work setting and their sense of job satisfaction.
These researchers made a distinction between within the classroom autonomy
and within the school but outside the classroom autonomy. They found that
teachers’ perceived autonomy within the classroom was statistically and
positively related to satisfaction in the work setting. Reyes[36] further examined
the relationship among organizational commitment, autonomy in decision
making and job satisfaction between public school teachers and mid-level
school administrators. He found that teachers and administrators experienced
similar levels of job satisfaction, commitment, and autonomy in decision
making. As the teachers in his study experienced high levels of autonomy in
decision making, Reyes questioned whether or not the efforts to empower
teachers with increased decision-making responsibilities were necessary.

Design and Methodology

For the purposes of this study, as in prior studies, increased involvement in
decision making was assumed to result in increased job satisfaction. This
study’s major aim was to determine whether changes in the findings of the
original study[8] had occurred after ten years of direct attention to increasing
teacher involvement in decision making. Had teachers’ actual levels of
involvement increased? Has desired involvement increased? Had the reported
discrepancies between actual and desired involvement diminished? Had
conditions of equilibrium and saturation emerged? Had a curvilinear
relationship between involvement and job satisfaction arisen? Had teachers’
interest and expertise in technical and managerial issues changed over time?

Sampling and Data Collection Procedures

The population of this study included teachers in public middle or junior high
schools in Wisconsin. Twenty-three schools participated in the original study
Journal of and they ranged in size from 375 to 1150 students and included rural, suburban
Educational and urban districts. Twenty-two of the original schools agreed to participate in
Administration the follow-up study. The follow-up study used the same sampling and data
collection procedures as the first study. From lists provided by the principals, 12
32,1 teachers were randomly selected from each school. Schools were visited and
questionnaires were administered to the selected teachers. Of 264 teachers
48 selected, the responding 261 teachers constituted a response rate of 98 per cent.

Hypotheses
Regarding the current study, the following null hypotheses were empirically
tested:
H1. The mean scores attained on job satisfaction will not differ for each level
of decision involvement.
H2. The mean scores attained on job satisfaction will not differ with regard to
interest or expertise in the decision issues.
H3. There is no significant relationship between the independent variables of
level of decision involvement, interest and expertise, and the dependent
variable of job satisfaction.
H4. There is no relationship between teachers’ perceived levels of influence
and their level of decision involvement, interest in decision issues or job
satisfaction.
H5. There is no relationship between the level of implementation of site-based
management and the level of teacher involvement in decision making or
job satisfaction.
In comparing the current study to the findings of the original, the following
hypothesis was also tested: There is no increase in teachers’ actual involvement
in decision making, their desired levels of involvement, interest in decision
issues, expertise in decision issues, or job satisfaction.

Instrumentation
The Decision Involvement Analysis questionnaire used to define the constructs
of decision condition, interest, and expertise and job satisfaction operationally
was the same as the one used in the original 1980 study. The instrument
consisted of two parts. Part I provided measures of the independent variables of
decision condition, interest, and expertise assessing respondents’ perceptions of
their actual and desired involvement and interest and expertise in 20 decision
issues related to both the technical and managerial domains. Part II was a Job
Satisfaction Survey adapted[37,38] from the Index of Organizational
Reactions[39]. It consisted of 27 items which assessed nine scales(administration/
supervision, co-workers, career future, school identification, financial aspects,
work conditions, amount of work, pupil-teacher relations, community relations).
A pilot test of the instrument confirmed the original reliability coefficients with
Part I ranging from 0.77 to 0.91 and Part II 0.91. Demographic and school
organization data were collected to capture personal and organizational changes Teacher
which had occurred between the two studies. Empowerment
Part I: Decision Involvement Analysis
Decision condition and zones of acceptance.Part I of the instrument measured the
variables of decision condition, interest and expertise. Four substantive
questions regarding 20 decision issues were asked to measure these variables: 49
What is your actual extent of participation in making this decision?; What is
your desired extent of participation in making this decision?; To what degree are
you interested in this decision?; To what degree do you possess expertise
regarding this decision?
A four-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = low to 4 = high was used for each
question. Teachers responded to each question in relation to 20 decision issues.
Decision domains and issues. Factor analysis indicated that eight of the 20
decision issues pertained to the instruction/technical level, and the remaining 12
pertained to the schoolwide/managerial level of decision making. The selected
decision issues were:
(1) Instruction/technical domain issues:
● 01 Specifying the learning objectives for each unit of instruction.
● 03 Developing procedures for reporting student progress to parents.
● 04 Developing procedures for assessing student achievement in your
subjects or courses.
● 07 Assigning students to instructional groups within your team or
department.
● 09 Preparing the budget for your subject department or instructional
team.
● 13 Planning student record-keeping procedures and practices.
● 14 Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials.
● 16 Determining grading procedures for evaluating the progress of
your students.
(2) Schoolwide/managerial domain issues
● 02 Determining the administrative and organizational structure of
your school.
● 05 Establishing disciplinary policies in your school.
● 06 Developing in-service programmes for teachers in your school.
● 08 Planning the student advisory programme in your school.
● 10 Resolving problems or issues in school-community relations.
● 11 Setting and revising the goals of your school.
● 12 Determining the procedures to be used for the evaluation of
teachers.
Journal of ● 15 Allocating materials and equipment to subject departments or
Educational teams.
Administration ● 17 Selecting department chairpersons or team leaders.
32,1 ● 18 Developing procedures for involving parents in planning the
students’ learning programme.
50 ● 19 Evaluating how well your subject department or team is
operating.
● 20 Hiring a new faculty member to teach in your subject department
or instructional team.
The reliability of the Decision Involvement Analysis questionnaire was
determined by the use of Cronbach Alpha coefficients for each of the four
decision questions and ranged from 0.79 to 0.92. The factor analysis indicated
that one issue, evaluating subject departments or instructional teams, shifted
from the instruction/technical domain to the schoolwide/managerial domain in
the current study.

Part II: Job Satisfaction Survey

The Job Satisfaction Survey used in this study was an adaptation of the Index of
Organizational Reactions (IOR), which was normed on white-collar workers, and
based on the Job Descriptive Index (JDI), a well-known measure of job
satisfaction, which was normed on blue-collar workers. Mendenhall[37] adapted
the Index of Organizational Reactions to develop a Job Satisfaction Survey with
50 items and eight scales. Speed[38] refined Mendenhall’s Job Satisfaction
Survey to include 27 items with nine scales. The nine scales assessed
respondents’ satisfaction with:
(1) administration/supervision;
(2) co-workers;
(3) career future;
(4) school identification;
(5) financial aspects;
(6) work conditions;
(7) amount of work;
(8) pupil-teacher relations;
(9) community relations.
The Cronbach Alpha reliability coefficient for the overall scale was 0.90.

Analysis of Data
Before testing the hypotheses and comparing the results of the two studies, the
general decision condition (DC) of all respondents was determined with regard to
their actual (A) and desired (D) levels of involvement. Conditions were calculated
(using the formula: DC = A–D) for each respondent across all 20 decision issues. Teacher
These scores ranged from –51 to +5 (possible range –60 to +60) and had a mean Empowerment
of –14. The range of mean scores suggested that, as in the original study, a
general state of deprivation existed and the conditions of equilibrium and
saturation had not emerged in the intervening years. Therefore the data were
trichotomized to form three levels of decision involvement: low (≤ –18), medium
(–17 < m ≤ –10), and high (> –10). In a similar fashion, the interest and expertise 51
scores were summated across all 20 decision issues. The range of scores for
interest was +35 to +80 and for the expertise +36 to +78 (possible range for
each variable +20 to +80). Median splits were used to form two groups (low and
high) for each variable.
The analytic procedures used in this study included: descriptive analysis;
factorial analysis of variance; correlational analysis; regression analysis; t-tests
for two independent samples.
A 2 × 3 × 2 factorial design was used to analyse the main and interactive
effects of the independent variables (decision condition, interest, and expertise)
on the dependent variable (teacher job satisfaction). Correlational analyses were
used to explore relationships regarding:
● perceived influence in decision making and job satisfaction; and
● level of implementation of site-based management and decision
condition or job satisfaction.
Furthermore, a stepwise regression analysis was conducted to determine which
factors accounted for the reported variance in teachers’ job satisfaction. Also,
the inferential statistical techniques of the t-test for two independent samples
assessed whether changes had occurred in teacher involvement in decision
making and job satisfaction between the first and second studies.

Findings
Teachers in the current study (1991), as in the original study (1980), reported a
general decision condition of deprivation. The discrepancy range for teachers in
the present study was –51 to +5 within a possible range of –60 to +60 whereas
the discrepancy range for teachers in the first study was –45 to +2. In general,
teachers reported higher levels of decision deprivation in managerial/
schoolwide issues than in technical/instructional issues (see Table I). As in the
1980 study, the highest discrepancies existed on issues pertaining to hiring new
faculty members, determining procedures for evaluating teachers, determining
the administrative and organizational structures, selecting department
chairpersons or team leaders, and evaluating departments or instructional
teams. Within the technical/instructional domain, the widest differences
between actual and desired involvement involved issues regarding assigning
students to instructional groups within teams or departments and preparing
budgets for teams or departments.
A three-way analysis of variance (see Table II) found a significant
relationship existed between respondents’ level of decision involvement and job
 52
32,1

Table I.
Journal of
Educational

Discrepancy Scales
Distribution of Means
Administration

for Actual, Desired and

Discrepancy
Actual extent Standard Desired extent Standard measure Standard
of involvement deviation of involvement deviation (actual-desired) deviation

Managerial/Schoolwide issues
02 Determining the administrative and 2.02 ± 0.05 0.80 3.02 ± 0.04 0.63 –1.00 ± 0.05 0.86
organizational structures of your school
05 Establishing disciplinary policies for teachers in your school 2.56 ± 0.05 0.88 3.40 ± 0.04 0.59 –0.85 ± 0.06 0.89
06 Developing in-service programmes for teachers in your school 2.30 ± 0.06 0.90 3.02 ± 0.05 0.78 –0.72 ± 0.05 0.84
08 Planning the student advisory programme in your school 1.89 ± 0.06 1.01 2.68 ± 0.06 0.96 –0.79 ± 0.06 0.94
10 Resolving problems or issues in school-community relations 2.03 ± 0.05 0.83 2.77 ± 0.05 0.74 –0.74 ± 0.05 0.80
11 Setting and revising the goals of your school 2.56 ± 0.06 0.90 3.23 ± 0.04 0.71 –0.67 ± 0.06 0.91
12 Determining the procedures to be used for the evaluation of teachers 1.56 ± 0.06 0.77 3.07 ± 0.05 0.81 –1.51 ± 0.06 1.00
15 Allocating materials and equipment to subject departments 2.20 ± 0.06 1.00 2.96 ± 0.06 0.93 –0.76 ± 0.05 0.87
17 Selecting department chairpersons or unit leaders 2.08 ± 0.08 1.23 3.07 ± 0.06 0.93 –0.99 ± 0.07 1.08
18 Developing procedures for involving parents in planning the students’
learning programme 2.13 ± 0.06 1.02 2.86 ± 0.06 0.90 –0.73 ± 0.06 0.92
19 Evaluating how well your subject department or team is operating 2.34 ± 0.07 1.10 3.32 ± 0.04 0.70 –0.98 ± 0.06 1.01
20 Hiring a new faculty member to teach in your subject department or 1.51 ± 0.05 0.85 3.08 ± 0.05 0.85 –1.56 ± 0.07 1.07
instructional team
Number of respondents 261 261 261
Mean score of managerial 2.10 ± 0.06 3.04 ± 0.06 –0.94 ± 0.06
Technical/instructional issues
01 Specifying the learning objectives for each unit of instructional 3.70 ± 0.04 0.65 3.82 ± 0.03 0.44 –0.12 ± 0.03 0.42
03 Developing procedures for reporting student progress to parents 3.05 ± 0.05 0.88 3.49 ± 0.04 0.62 –0.44 ± 0.05 0.73
04 Developing procedures for assessing student achievement in your 3.70 ± 0.04 0.64 3.82 ± 0.03 0.43 –0.12 ± 0.03 0.48
subjects or courses
07 Assigning students to instructional groups within your team or 2.71 ± 0.07 1.17 3.35 ± 0.05 0.84 –0.65 ± 0.06 0.91
department
09 Preparing the budget for your subject department or instructional team 2.95 ± 0.07 1.13 3.50 ± 0.04 0.71 –0.55 ± 0.06 0.93
13 Planning student record-keeping procedures and practices 2.82 ± 0.07 1.11 3.15 ± 0.06 0.93 –0.33 ± 0.05 0.73
14 Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials 3.38 ± 0.05 0.83 3.74 ± 0.03 0.50 –0.36 ± 0.04 0.67
16 Determining grading procedures for evaluating the progress 3.55 ± 0.05 0.82 3.78 ± 0.03 0.54 –0.23 ± 0.04 0.59
of your students
Number of respondents 261 261 261
Mean score of technical 3.23 ± 0.06 3.58 ± 0.04 –0.35 ± 0.05
 Teacher
Sum of Degrees of Mean Significance
Source of variation squares freedom square F of F Empowerment
Main effects 4296.097 4 1074.024 14.132* 0.000
Expertise 68.088 1 68.088 0.896 0.345
Interest 87.011 1 87.011 1.145 0.286
Decision condition 4223.374 2 2111.687 27.786* 0.000 53
Two-way interactions 600.300 5 120.060 1.580 0.166
Expertise × interest 165.897 1 165.897 2.183 0.141
Expertise × DC 49.671 2 24.835 0.327 0.722
Interest × DC 421.972 2 210.986 2.776 0.064
Three-way interactions 82.279 2 41.139 0.541 0.583
Expertise × interests ×DC 82.279 2 41.139 0.541 0.583
Explained 4978.676 11 452.607 5.955 0.000
Residual 18923.63 249 75.999
Total 23902.307 260 91.932
*p < 0.05 Table II.
Factorial Analysis

Mean score Level of decision Low Medium High

job satisfaction involvement involvement involvement involvement

69.2289 Low
(n = 83) involvement

75.8736 Medium *
(n = 87) involvement
Table III.
78.7253 High * Scheffe Post Hoc
(n = 91) involvement Comparisons for
*p < 0.05 Decision Involvement ×
Job Satisfaction

satisfaction (F = 27.79, p = 0.000) and Scheffe post hoc procedures (see Table III)
revealed that respondents in a level of low perceived involvement had a
significantly lower level of job satisfaction than those in levels of medium or
high involvement. The variables of interest and expertise were not significantly
related to job satisfaction and no interactive effects were significant among the
independent variables of decision level, interest and expertise.
Correlational analyses (see Table IV) indicated that significant relationships
(p = 0.001) existed between teachers’ perceived levels of influence in schoolwide
decisions and their level of decision involvement (r = 0.2798), interest in decision
issues (r = 0.2028) and job satisfaction (r = 0.3764); and the higher the level of
implementation of site-based management, the higher the level of respondents’
decision participation (r = 0.2050), influence (r = 0.3534), and job satisfaction
Journal of
Perceived Implementation Discrepancy
Educational level of of site-based measure- Job
Administration Variable influence management (actual-desired) Interest Expertise satisfaction
32,1 Perceived level
of influence 1.000
54 Implementation
of site-based
management 0.3534* 1.000
Discrepancy
measured
(actual-desired) 0.2798* 0.2050* 1.000
Interest 0.2080* 0.0262 –0.2797* 1.000
Expertise 0.1450 –0.0197 –0.1175 0.4446* 1.000

Table IV. Job satisfaction 0.3764* 0.3026* 0.4660* –0.0359 –0.0170 1.000
Correlational Matrix of *p < 0.001
Selected Measures

(r = 0.3026). Stepwise regression indicated that three statistically significant

predictors explained the variation in job satisfaction:
(1) level of involvement/discrepancy between actual and desired (R 2 =
0.2171, F = 71.83994, p = 0.000);
(2) influence regarding schoolwide decisions (R2 = 0.2828, F = 50.8658, p =
0.000);
(3) the level of implementation of site-based management (R2 = 0.3018, F =
37.02882, p = 0.000).

Mean score Degress of freedom Two-tail

Variable 1980 1991 t-value freedom probability

Actual involvement 47.37 51.03 –0.484 503 0.000*

Desired involvement 63.13 65.13 –2.95 496 0.003*
Discrepancy measure –15.82 –14.10 –2.20 494 0.028*
Interest 63.90 65.55 –2.42 494 0.016*
Expertise 56.66 59.68 –3.89 490 0.000*
Influence 2.62 2.51 1.79 519 0.073
Job satisfaction 73.98 74.75 –0.92 500 0.358
Table V. *p < 0.05
T-test Results
In comparing the two studies, t-test results (see Table V) indicated that Teacher
respondents reported: Empowerment
● increased actual involvement in decision making (M(Gr1) = 47.37,
M(Gr2) = 51.03, t = –4.84);
● increased desired involvement (M(Gr1) = 63.13, M(Gr2) = 65.13, t =
–2.95); 55
● reduced deprivation (M(Gr1) = –15.8213, M(Gr2) = –14.0996, t = –2.20);
● increased interest in decision issues (M(Gr1) = 63.90, M(Gr2) = 65.55, t =
–2.42);
● increased perceived expertise in decision issues (M(Gr1) = 56.66, M(Gr2)
= 59.68, t = –3.89);
T-test results between the two studies indicated, however, that changes had not
occurred in respondents’ perceived levels of influence or job satisfaction.

Discussion
This replication makes an important contribution to the decision-making
literature in that it presents a longitudinal, empirical assessment of changes
which have occurred in teachers’ perceptions of their decision-making
involvement during a decade of attention and advocacy for increasing teacher
empowerment. In general, this study revealed that, although significant
increases in involvement were found, educators must continue to be concerned
by the decision condition of deprivation which has persisted over time.
Teachers continue to desire more involvement than they are afforded. Since
neither conditions of equilibrium nor saturation were perceived by respondents,
for analytic purposes, the pure decision conditions were replaced with levels of
decision involvement recognizing that all levels reflected varying degrees of
deprivation. Nonetheless, the higher the level of involvement the higher the
reported job satisfaction. Administrators, therefore, have considerable latitude
to involve teachers in decision making before risking a condition of saturation.
This finding is particularly true of involving teachers in managerial/schoolwide
issues. Involving teachers in issues pertaining to hiring and evaluating
teachers, selecting department or team leaders, and determining the schools’
administrative and organizational arrangements continued to be of interest to
teachers, as was the case in the previous study. Also, since the relationship
between involvement and job satisfaction continued to be linear rather than
curvilinear, administrators may assume that enhancing teacher involvement
will increase job satisfaction.
The follow-up study also noted the positive effects of teacher influence in
decision making. Teachers’ perceived levels of influence were positively
correlated with their reported levels of decision involvement, interest in decision
issues and job satisfaction. These findings suggest the importance of
legitimate, authentic teacher involvement in decision making. When teachers
do not perceive their decision involvement to be influential, their actual and
Journal of desired levels of involvement will decline as will their overall job satisfaction.
Educational Therefore, administrators need to clearly define the parameters surrounding
Administration the decision-making process, making sure that teachers understand the limits
of their authority and the scope of their decision-making responsibility. In a
32,1 similar vein, administrators who engage teachers in decision making need to
communicate with teachers regarding the influence their input has had on
56 decisions which are made. Without adequate feedback, teachers may perceive
that they are less influential than they actually are. Conversely, administrators
need to exercise care when they involve teachers in decisions in which they have
limited potential to influence the decision-making process. Careful definition of
the decision issues and the extent of appropriate decision involvement are
necessary prerequisities for teachers to engage in decision making at a
meaningful and substantive level and unless these parameters are clearly
defined teachers will presume that their involvement will be more influential
than it might reasonably be.
An exception to this general finding regarding influence was found in
teachers who reported their schools as site-based managed (SBM) schools. The
current study revealed that teachers from schools which were perceived as
having implemented site-based management to a high degree reported higher
levels of decision involvement and influence in decision making and higher
levels of job satisfaction than teachers from schools which are less involved in
site-based management. These findings suggest that SBM initiatives which
embody many of the basic premises of decision involvement are positively
affecting teachers’ perceptions of the decision-making process. In part, these
results may be attributed to the heightened awareness among teachers in SBM
schools of decision-making processes and opportunities which are inherent to
site-based management, and the positive outcomes may be attributed to explicit
presentation of the concept of site-based management and teacher agreement to
the implementation of SBM at their school. Nonetheless, the results of this study
appear to indicate that engagement in site-based management is positively
affecting teachers’ perceptions of their involvement in the decision-making
process.
Interestingly, in comparing the two studies, although teachers’ levels of
actual involvement, desired involvement, interest and expertise increased over
time and the discrepancy between actual and desired involvement decreased,
teachers’ perceptions of their influence did not increase nor did their job
satisfaction. These findings are of concern in that they may indicate that
although teachers are more involved in decision making than they have been in
the past, this enhanced involvement may be short-lived if efforts are not focused
on increasing their perceived and actual influence in the process.
In general, this replica study extended our knowledge of the relationships
between decision-making involvement and job satisfaction and revealed issues
of current and future concern for administrators and researchers interested in
understanding the dynamics and complexities of deciding who to involve in
making what decisions in our schools.
References Teacher
1. Carnegie Commission on Teaching as a Profession, A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the
21st Century, Hyattsville, MD, 1986. Empowerment
2. Holmes Group, Tomorrow’s Teachers, The Holmes Group, East Lansing, MI, 1986.
3. National Governors’ Association, Time for Results: The Governors’ 1991 Report on
Education, Center for Policy Research and Analysis, Washington, DC, 1985.
4. National Education Association, Employee Participation Programs: Considerations for the
School Site, Washington, DC, 1988. 57
5. National Education Association/National Association of Secondary School Principals,
Ventures in Good Schooling: A Cooperative Model for a Successful Secondary School,
Washington, DC, 1986.
6. Barnard, C., The Functions of the Executive, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA,
1938.
7. March, J.G. and Simon, H.A., Organizations, Wiley, New York, NY, 1958.
8. Schneider, G.T., “Teacher Involvement in Decision Making: Zones of Acceptance, Decision
Conditions, and Job Satisfaction”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol.
18 No. 1, 1984, pp. 25-32.
9. Lipham, J.M., “Making Effective Decisions”, in Culbertson, J.A., Hensen, C. and Morrison,
R. (Eds), Performance Objectives for School Principals, McCutchan, CA, 1974, pp. 83-111.
10. Bridges, E.M., “A Model for Shared Decision Making in the School Principalship”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol.3 No. 1, 1967, pp. 49-61.
11. Clear, D.K. and Seager, R.C., “The Legitimacy of Administrative Influence as Perceived by
Selected Groups”, Educational Administration Quarterly, 1971, pp. 46-73.
12. Hoy, W.K. and Miskel, C.G., Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice,
Random House, New York, NY, 1991.
13. Parsons, T., The Social System, The Free Press of Glencoe, New York, NY, 1951.
14. Duke, D.L., Showers, B.K. and Imber, M., “Teachers and Shared Decision Making: The
Costs and Benefits of Involvement”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1,
Winter, 1980, pp. 93-106.
15. Mohrman, A.M., Jr, Cooke, R.A. and Mohrman, S.A., “Participation in Decision Making: A
Multidimensional Perspective”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, 1978,
pp. 13-19.
16. Conley, S.C., “Who’s on First?’ School Reform, Teacher Participation, and the Decision-
making Process”, Education and Urban Society, Vol. 21 No. 4, 1989, pp. 366-79.
17. Alutto, J.A. and Belasco, J.A., “A Typology for Participation in Organizational Decision
Making”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 17 No. 1, 1973, pp. 117-25.
18. Conway, J.A., “Test of Linearity between Teachers’ Participation in Decision Making and
Their Perceptions of Their Schools as Organizations”, Administrative Science Quarterly,
Vol. 21 No. 1, 1976, pp. 130-9.
19. Schneider, G.T., “The Myth of Curvilinearity: An Analysis of Decision-making
Involvement and Job Satisfaction”, Planning and Changing, Vol. 17 No. 3, 1986, pp. 146-58.
20. Alutto, J.A. and Belasco, J.A., “Patterns of Teacher Participation in School System Decision
Making”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 9 No. 1, 1973, pp. 27-41.
21. Flannery, D.M., “Teacher Decision Involvement and Job Satisfaction in Wisconsin High
School, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI,
1980.
22. Thierbach, G.L., “Decision Involvement and Job Satisfaction in Middle and Junior High
Schools”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
WI, 1980.
23. Warner, W.M., “Decision Involvement and Job Satisfaction in Wisconsin Elementary
Schools”, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison,
WI, 1981.
Journal of 24. Bacharach, S.B., Bamberger, P., Conley, S.C. and Bauer, S., “The Dimensionality of Decision
Participation in Educational Organizations: The Value of Multi-Domain Evaluative
Educational Approach”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 26 No. 2, 1990, pp. 126-67.
Administration 25. Imber, M., Neidt, W.A. and Reyes, P., “Factors Contributing to Teacher Satisfaction with
32,1 Participative Decision Making”, Journal of Research and Development in Education,
Vol. 23 No. 4, 1990, pp. 216-25.
26. Blumberg, P., Industrial Democracy, Schocken Books, New York, NY, 1969.
58 27. Morse, N.C. and Reimer, E., “The Experimental Change of a Major Organizational
Variable”, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 52, 1956, pp. 120-9.
28. Powell, R.M. and Schlacter, I., “Participative Management: A Panacea?” Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, 1971, pp. 165-73.
29. Seashore, S.E. and Bowers, D., Changing the Structure and Functioning of an Organization,
Institute for Social Research, MI, 1963.
30. Vroom, V.H., “Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation”, Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 59 No. 3, 1959, pp. 332-27.
31. Chissom, B., Buttery, T.J., Chukabarah, Prince, C.O. and Henson, K.T., “A Qualitative
Analysis of Variables Associated with Professional Satisfaction among Middle School
Teachers”, Education, Vol. 108, 1987, pp. 75-80.
32. Holdaway, E.A., “Facet and Overall Satisfaction of Teachers”, Educational Administration
Quarterly, Vol. 14 No. 1, 1978, pp. 30-47.
33. Kreis, K. and Milstein, M., “Satisfying Teachers’ Needs”, The Clearing House, Vol. 59 No. 2,
1985, pp. 75-7.
34. Wanous, J.P. and Lawler, E.E., “Measurement and Meaning of Job Satisfaction”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 2, 1972, pp. 95-105.
35. Kreis, K. and Brockoff, D.Y., “Autonomy: A Component of Teacher Job Satisfaction”,
Education, Vol. 107 No. 1, 1986, pp. 110-15.
36. Reyes, P., “The Relationship of Autonomy in Decision Making to Commitment to Schools
and Job Satisfaction: A Comparison between Public School Teachers and Mid-Level
Administrators”, Journal of Research and Development in Education, Vol. 22 No. 2, 1989,
pp. 62-9.
37. Mendenhall, D.N., Relationship of Organizational Structure and Leadership Behavior in
IGE Schools”, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning,
Madison, WI, 1977.
38. Speed, N.E., Decision Participation and Staff Satisfaction in Middle and Junior High
Schools that Individualize Instruction, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for
Cognitive Learning, Madison, WI, 1979.
39. Dunham, R.B., Smith, F.J. and Blackburn, R.S., “Validation of the Index of Organizational
Reactions with the Job Descriptive Index, the MSQ, and Faces Scales”, Academy of
Management Journal, September 1977, pp. 420-32.

Further Reading
Conley, S. and Bacharach, S., “From School-site Management to Participatory School-site
Management”, Phi Delta Kappan, Vol. 71 No. 7, 1990, pp. 539-44.
Kawleski, S.J., Decision Making of the Instruction and Research Unit in IGE Schools: Functions,
Processes and Relationships, Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive
Learning, Madison, WI, 1976.
Porter, L., “Job Attitude in Management I: Perceived Deficiencies in Need Fulfilment as a Function
of Job Level”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 2, 1964, pp. 386-97.
Vroom, V.H. and Yetton, P.W., Leadership and Decision-making, University of Pennsylvania Press,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1973.