# Employees' participation in decision-making and its influence on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior

Libertine Gertrude Macaspac

► To cite this version:

Libertine Gertrude Macaspac. Employees' participation in decision-making and its influence on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. Divine Word International Journal of management and Humanities, 2024, 3 (4), pp.970-995. hal-05135518

HAL Id: hal-05135518

https://hal.science/hal-05135518v1

Submitted on 30 Jun 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Employees' participation in decision-making and its influence on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior

Libertine Gertrude R. Macaspac: Associate Professor and Accreditation and Quality Assurance Director, Divine Word College of Laoag.

## ARTICLE INFO

Article history:

Received: August 1, 2024

Received in rev. form. September 2, 2024

Accepted: October 20, 2024

Published: December 22, 2024

**Keywords:** Participation in decision-making, organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, affective commitment.

## ABSTRACT

This study examined how employees' involvement in decision-making affects organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. By reviewing relevant literature, the study aimed to contextualize these concepts and identify potential relationships. A descriptive assessment and correlational research design were used to analyze data from questionnaires completed by employees. Statistical analysis involved calculating the weighted mean and employing Pearson's correlation to measure relationships among variables.

Results indicated high levels of participation in decision-making, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior among employees. However, correlation analysis showed no significant relationship between employees' involvement in decision-making and their organizational commitment or citizenship behavior, leading to the rejection of the initial hypothesis. Given these findings, exploring other factors influencing commitment and citizenship behavior may provide deeper insights into enhancing these organizational outcomes.

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This open-access article is distributed under the terms and conditions of the [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

JEL Classification: M15

## Introduction

The principle of participative management emphasizes the inclusion of all stakeholders, including customer representatives when necessary. This management approach is fundamentally about accomplishing goals through collaboration rather than relying on the directives of a single leader. Today, democratic or participative leadership is valued over authoritarian leadership, as it fosters an environment where employees' ideas are recognized, motivating them to engage more fully in their work (Zylfijaj et al., 2014). Such leadership is adaptable across various settings, including business, government, and education (Cherry, 2023). Research shows it to be one of the most effective leadership styles, resulting in higher productivity, greater member contributions, and enhanced group morale (Amanchukwu et al., 2015). The unrestricted exchange of ideas also enhances organizational competitiveness (Gil-
Cordero et al., 2023). However, within this open environment, leadership remains essential to guide discussions toward the organization's strategic direction when needed.

Numerous studies have explored the impact of participative leadership on employee commitment and organizational performance, consistently finding a positive correlation between participative leadership or management and enhanced performance. For instance, Miao et al. (2013) identified a strong link between participative leadership and both affective and normative commitment among employees, while Khassawneh and Elrehail (2022) confirmed its positive impact on employee performance. Additionally, Ochieng et al. (2023) found that participative leadership significantly influences organizational performance. These studies suggest that encouraging employees to engage in problem-solving within the organization is a beneficial management practice, and decisions should ideally be made after careful deliberation with employees.

Despite extensive research on participative leadership, studies specifically examining the effects of employees' involvement in decision-making on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) are lacking. Organizational commitment (OC) is critical for improving organizational performance and global competitiveness (Slocombe & Dougherty, 1998; Wood, 2015). Similarly, OCB is vital in achieving both individual and organizational performance outcomes (Lily, 2016; Notanubun, 2020).

The current study aims to examine how employees' participation in decision-making influences their organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The findings of this research are intended to inform improvements in leadership and management practices that encourage active employee involvement in decision-making. This study is structured into several sections: introduction, literature review, research methodology, data presentation and analysis, results and discussion, and conclusion.

# Literature Review

## Participative management

The concept of participative management forms the basis of employee involvement in decision-making processes. This approach is aligned with foundational management principles. Follett (1941) defined management as the art of achieving objectives through people, emphasizing that employees become more engaged, productive, and satisfied when treated as valued contributors in decision-making. She advocated for a collaborative approach over a hierarchical one, urging managers to embrace lateral and innovative problem-solving (Graham, 1995; Tonn, 2003). Similarly, Koontz (1961) described management as "an art of getting things done through and with people in formally organized groups," recommending that managers foster an environment where individuals cooperate to achieve organizational goals. Koontz argued that this process holds universally, regardless of an organization's nature. Although participative management is not a recent concept, studies exploring it date back over 60 years. Foundational research by Levin et al. (1939), Coch and French (1948), and Likert (1967) confirmed its effectiveness as a management and leadership style (Likert, 1967; Yukl, 2010). Maritz (1995) described participative management as a philosophy grounded in trust and the recognition of the collective abilities of an organization's members. Maisela (1995) characterized it as a proactive management style that invites employee input to address work-related challenges. Furthermore, Marchant (1982) asserted that participative management reflects a willingness by management to share authority with employees, fostering an atmosphere of trust and empowerment. Scholars like Rolková and Farkašová (2014), Huang et al. (2010), and Bass and Bass (2008) simplified participative management as a process of encouraging and involving employees in decision-making, while Sashkin (1984) suggested that its definition should encompass various forms of participation, including goal-setting, decision-making, problem-solving, and organizational change.
For the purposes of the current study, participative management pertains to employees' involvement in resolving work-related issues (Sashkin, 1984). This approach centers on leaders who motivate and empower employees to engage in workplace decision-making (Somech, 2006; Huang et al., 2010; Sauer, 2011; Rolková and Farkašová, 2015). As Yukl (2010) emphasized, participative management is about a leader's ability to facilitate and encourage employee participation in significant decisions, thereby fostering a shared sense of responsibility and power.

Extensive research underscores the positive effects of participative management on organizational performance. Huang (2011) demonstrated that this style encourages positive behavior, such as reduced absenteeism and improved organizational effectiveness. Similarly, O'Brien's (1988) earlier findings revealed that participative management positively influenced job satisfaction, even in times of organizational decline. Such benefits—reduced absenteeism and heightened job satisfaction—naturally translate into increased productivity. Studies by Park et al. (2015), Kashani and Shahsavarani (2015), and Khassawneh and Elrehail (2022) further supported this, illustrating that employee participation positively impacts both organizational and individual work performance.

## Forms of decision-making participation

In a complex and rapidly evolving environment, management must adapt its leadership approach. A team-based structure that values each member's input can strengthen an organization's capacity to face challenges. Participative management and decision-making signal recognition and trust in employees, affirming their potential to contribute meaningfully to the organization's success (Rima'a, 2020).

Participation in decision-making is commonly defined as an employee's opportunity to contribute to work-related or organizational decisions (Zanoni & Janssen, 2007). Valverde (2019) posits that it involves giving employees a voice in organizational matters, based on the belief that their contributions will enhance commitment and performance. Kalleberg et al. (2009) defined participation as enabling employees to make decisions about their work and conditions. Heller et al. (2004) described it as a process allowing employees to exert influence over their work and its context. Additionally, Arnstein (1969), Pateman (1976), and Wilkinson and Dundon (2010) suggested that participation varies in degree, from mere information-sharing to genuine empowerment in decision-making processes.

Several scholars categorize decision-making participation in unique ways. Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) distinguished it across four dimensions: degree, form, level, and scope. The degree of involvement reflects the extent of employee influence over decisions, while the form refers to representation, such as through unions or other representative bodies (Markey & Townsend, 2013). Participation levels can occur individually, in groups, or departmentally, with some authors advocating for operational and strategic involvement in organizational goals. White (1996) similarly identified four participation types: nominal, instrumental, representative, and transformative. Nominal participation exists merely to legitimize the process, without true influence; instrumental participation harnesses specific skills to meet objectives; representative participation offers input through a delegate; and transformative participation seeks to empower individuals to reshape institutional structures (Tisdall, 2013).

Arnstein (1969) presented a three-part classification of participation: nonparticipant, tokenism, and citizen power. Nonparticipant levels merely serve the leader's agenda without real consultation. Tokenism involves superficial feedback opportunities that do not influence the power holder's actions, whereas citizen power provides individuals with genuine influence, allowing for impactful contributions to decision-making.

In the context of this study, participative decision-making involves employees' participation in operational decisions directly related to their roles and work conditions (Kalleberg et al., 2009). Miller (2012) and Carmeli et al. (2009) argued that employees' participation measures their ability to express opinions about organizational activities and
influence decision-making. By granting autonomy and flexibility, managers foster creativity and performance in employee tasks, as noted by Sia and Appu (2015).

*The effect of participation in decision-making on performance*

While involving every member in decision-making may be challenging, especially in larger organizations, this does not justify excluding employees from these processes. Employee participation in decision-making is an employer-driven initiative, where managers play a critical role as facilitators of this engagement (Valverde, 2021). As Wohlgemuth et al. (2019) suggest, managers can foster employee participation through trust-building and informal control. Marchington and Wilkinson (2005) also emphasize that some form or level of participation should always be possible, enabling employees to contribute to decisions that directly impact their work. Excluding employees from these processes can harm their trust, sense of control, and productivity (Chang & Lorenzi, 1983), while including them can improve decision quality (Williamson, 2008). Moreover, when employees participate in decision-making, monitoring costs can be reduced, and diverse viewpoints are incorporated into the process, fostering richer insights (Arthur, 1994; Spreitzer & Mishra, 1999; Kemelgor, 2002). Furthermore, Noah (2008) highlights that encouraging employee participation in decision-making can minimize communication barriers between management and staff.

Beyond these practical benefits, involving employees in decision-making leads to a variety of positive outcomes. For instance, Zivkovic et al. (2009) note that involving employees in planning can foster innovation and recognition within the organization, which positively impacts overall performance (Witte, 1980; Sagie & Aycon, 2003; Kuye & Sulaimon, 2011; Sikanyika & Chibomba, 2020; Ojokuku, 2014; Chimaobi & Chikamnele, 2020). Since organizational performance is an aggregate of individual contributions, enabling employees to participate in decision-making promotes creativity and individual productivity, ultimately enhancing firm performance (Olantuji et al., 2017). Landry (2020) further underscores that employee involvement in decision-making can lead to valuable ideas and potential solutions that improve the efficiency of systems or processes. Additionally, participation influences job satisfaction, which in turn boosts job performance (Mohsen & Sharif, 2020). Employee involvement in decision-making doesn't only improve performance outcomes but can also positively reshape employees' attitudes (Pereira & Osburn, 2007).

*Organizational commitment: A multidimensional construct*

Organizational commitment, rooted in social exchange theory and the norms of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960), suggests a mutual exchange in which both employer and employee benefit from their relationship (Khan & Iqbal, 2020a). Recognizing its essential role in effective management, scholars have extensively explored organizational commitment, though it remains a complex and multifaceted concept. Various researchers have proposed different dimensions of organizational commitment, reflecting ongoing debate. For instance, Meyer and Allen (1997) identified three key dimensions: affective, continuance, and normative commitment. In contrast, O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) proposed compliance, identification, and internalization as the main components, while Wechsler (1996) identified identification, affiliation, and exchange. Despite these variations, Meyer and Allen's (1997) framework is widely accepted, as it encompasses many elements presented in the models of O'Reilly and Chatman (1986) and Wechsler (1996). Thus, this paper adopts Meyer and Allen's (1997) dimensions as the primary lens for analyzing affective, continuance, and normative commitment.

In defining commitment, scholars distinguish between attitudinal and behavioral perspectives, aligning affective commitment with psychological attachment and both continuance and normative commitment with behavioral loyalty. Consequently, an employee's commitment varies individually, influencing their decision to remain with the organization through various circumstances (Mahdavi, Arabi, & Mahmoudi, 2014). Porter et al. (1974) define employee commitment as "an attachment to the organization, characterized by the intention to remain in it; an identification with the values and goals of the organization; and a willingness to exert extra effort on its behalf" (p.
604). This nuanced view of commitment underscores the importance of fostering a strong organizational attachment that benefits both parties.

## Affective organizational commitment

Employees' commitment to an organization is a central concern for management, as it is through this commitment that organizational objectives can be effectively achieved (Ulabor & Bosede, 2019). Various organizational factors influence this commitment, including leadership style, management practices, work nature, and length of service, all of which contribute to employees' desire to remain with the organization (Ulabor & Bosede, 2019). Among these factors, the work environment is particularly important, as a positive psychosocial environment significantly affects affective organizational commitment, according to Deepak (2020). Mercurio (2015) emphasizes that affective commitment—the emotional attachment of employees to their organization—is fundamental to organizational commitment, as it strongly correlates with both employee retention and performance. Meyer and Allen (1997) define affective commitment as an employee's emotional connection to their organization, often stemming from a personal alignment between their values and those of the organization (Lowry, 1973). When employees feel an emotional bond, they are more likely to remain and contribute positively to the organization (Meyer et al., 2012).

High-quality performance necessitates highly motivated and committed employees, which requires management to prioritize various aspects of the employee-organization relationship, including economic and social exchanges (Alcover et al., 2020). Alcover and colleagues (2020) found that team performance improves when members experience autonomous motivation and affective commitment. This finding aligns with Jantan's (2018) research, which identified pay, promotion, team support, and intrinsic motivators like autonomy and involvement in decision-making as correlates of affective commitment. Lowry (1973) similarly highlights emotional attachment as essential for sustaining employees' active contributions to organizational success. Johnson and Chang (2006) found that employees with strong affective commitment are more inclined to exert additional effort, demonstrating a higher level of intrinsic motivation and loyalty to the organization.

Abraham Maslow, as cited by Lowry (1973), advised that providing employees with affection and security encourages them to reciprocate with loyalty and dedication. This strategy attracts skilled employees to remain with the organization, fostering a competitive edge (Aguirre et al., 2009; Alvino, 2014). In today's competitive and uncertain landscape, organizational focus on employee commitment is vital (Cohen, 2007; Gibb, 2011; Meyer et al., 2002). Alvino (2014) asserts that commitment to an organization's mission motivates productivity, and Akinyemi (2012) found that affective commitment influences organizational citizenship behaviors, with employees often going beyond formal job duties to support the organization and colleagues.

Research also supports the link between affective commitment and enhanced job performance. Studies by Hashmi et al. (2021) and Ullah et al. (2021) reveal that employees with high affective commitment show greater work dedication, align closely with organizational objectives, and contribute more effectively to organizational success. Similarly, Javeria (2013) and Khan & Iqbal (2020b) discovered that employees with higher affective commitment experience greater happiness and dedication compared to those with lower levels of commitment, underscoring the role of affective commitment in fostering a motivated and resilient workforce.

## Continuance commitment

Employees' reasons for remaining with an organization do not solely depend on affective commitment; many base their decisions on practical considerations. For some, staying in a job is a rational choice, rooted in the belief that it is economically beneficial to do so. This pragmatic approach reflects what is known as continuance commitment. According to Meyer et al. (2012), continuance commitment arises when employees weigh the costs of leaving versus staying and decide to stay if they perceive a higher personal benefit. In such cases, employees conduct a cost-benefit analysis, staying because they believe leaving would result in greater losses—such as giving up accumulated
investments, friendships, familiar routines, and benefits, as well as facing potential unemployment (Allen & Meyer, 1990; Halis, 2021; Meyer & Allen, 1984).

Continuance commitment is critical for organizations, as it influences employees' decisions to stay. While employers may not always create emotional bonds that encourage employees to stay, they can design programs to appeal to practical, economic motivations. Pay and benefits are therefore vital components in fostering continuance commitment. Research by Sukanebari and Konya (2020) and Ehijiele (2018) highlights a significant relationship between continuance commitment and organizational performance, suggesting that management should prioritize competitive pay and benefits to encourage retention. Similarly, studies by Kuhal et al. (2020), Parvee (2019), Metin and Asli (2018), and Effiong (2017) demonstrate that continuance commitment, grounded in financial incentives, positively impacts employees' job performance.

While economic motivations may not influence all employees equally, continuance commitment remains a valuable factor in organizational strategy. Suliman and Iles (2000) argue that continuance commitment can enhance job performance and, by extension, contribute to organizational success. They also note that this form of commitment is independent of demographic factors like gender, education, job status, and tenure, making it a universally applicable component of workforce retention.

## Normative commitment

Employee loyalty to an organization varies across individuals and can stem from different types of commitment— affective, continuance, or normative (Khan et al., 2021). While affective commitment is rooted in emotional attachment and continuance commitment in cost-benefit calculations, normative commitment arises from a sense of moral duty (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Employees with high normative commitment remain with an organization because they feel morally obligated to do so (Muhammad et al., 2021). This sense of duty reflects an internalized belief that staying with the company is “the right thing to do,” even if it means sacrificing job satisfaction or other benefits (Iverson & Buttigieg, 1999; Singh & Gupta, 2015).

Normative commitment is often driven by employees' belief in upholding the organization's values and policies. When an organization has established norms or policies that emphasize contractual obligations, employees may feel morally bound to stay and act in alignment with these standards (Marsh & Mannari, 1977). Wiener (1982) encapsulates this idea, describing commitment as "the totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets organizational goals and interests" (p. 421). Similarly, Meyer and Parfyonova (2010) describe normative commitment as a “mindset of obligation,” distinct from affective commitment’s emotional attachment and continuance commitment’s cost-benefit focus. According to Meyer and Allen (1991), employees with high normative commitment remain loyal because they believe it is morally right to support organizational objectives (p. 67).

Research on the impact of normative commitment on work and organizational performance presents mixed results. Some studies suggest that normative commitment is not consistently correlated with job performance (Metin & Asli, 2018; Jakada et al., 2019; Parvee, 2019; Oyeniyi, 2017; Genevičiūtė-Janonienė & Endriulaitienė, 2013). However, Nguyen et al. (2020) found that normative commitment can directly and indirectly influence employee motivation, fostering opportunistic behavior and knowledge sharing, which ultimately improves job performance. This finding aligns with studies by Stackhouse et al. (2022), Ahmad et al. (2014), Rebeka (2019), Anugrah and Priyambodo (2021), Dinc (2017), and Kuhal et al. (2020), all of which indicate a positive relationship between normative commitment, job satisfaction, and organizational performance.

The varying results in research may be attributed to differences in organizational cultures or environments, which can shape the forms and effectiveness of organizational commitment (Suradi, 2019; Dias et al., 2021). These
differences highlight the need for management to understand and consider cultural contexts when fostering normative commitment, as it can significantly impact organizational loyalty and employee behavior.

## Overview of organizational citizenship behavior concept

The concept of organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) finds its roots in political philosophy, where the term "citizenship" reflects responsibilities derived from civic roles and duties (Graham, 1991). Graham (1991), drawing on Aristotle (1941), Cary (1977), and Inkeles (1969), explains that "citizenship" encompasses three primary responsibilities: obedience, loyalty, and political participation. In the political realm, citizenship behavior extends beyond following laws to embodying loyalty and active participation in governance. Obedience implies respect for structures and processes, while loyalty entails protecting and upholding the state's values and reputation. Participation involves citizens' involvement in governance, such as engaging in discourse on societal issues and assisting in implementing or revising laws as required. In this sense, a "good citizen" is one who balances the responsibilities of obedience, loyalty, and participation (Graham, 1991).

This civic model translates to the organizational setting as “organizational citizenship behavior,” where the responsibilities adapt to the workplace environment. Inkeles (1969) classified these into organizational obedience, loyalty, and participation, with each dimension aligning to specific behaviors. Organizational obedience emphasizes adherence to policies, punctuality, and stewardship of resources. Organizational loyalty reflects employees’ alignment with the organization’s reputation and collective goals, often beyond their immediate responsibilities. Organizational participation entails active involvement in governance, like attending non-mandatory meetings, sharing insights, and defending organizational interests against detrimental ideas (Inkeles, 1969).

Early research on OCB, such as that by Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith, Organ, and Near (1983), aligned with these ideas, defining OCB as behaviors that exceed basic job descriptions, benefitting the organization and aligning with the ideals of obedience, loyalty, and participation. According to Katz (1964, cited in Smith et al., 1983), organizational success hinges not only on prescribed behaviors but also on innovative, spontaneous actions, such as acts of cooperation, goodwill, and helpfulness that contribute to organizational stability (Roethlisberger & Dickson, 1964, as cited by Smith et al., 1983).

As the OCB concept evolved, researchers began focusing on loyalty and participation rather than obedience (Graham, 1991). Organ and Ryan (1995) identified that positive work behaviors, often beyond formal rules, are vital to OCB. Bateman and Organ (1983) and Smith et al. (1983) identified two initial dimensions: altruism and general compliance. Organ (1988) later expanded these to five dimensions: conscientiousness, sportsmanship, civic virtue, courtesy, and altruism. Sportsmanship involves maintaining positivity despite challenges (Wang et al., 2013, as cited by Abun et al., 2021), while conscientiousness and courtesy reflect respect for colleagues and workplace harmony (Psychologist World, n.d., cited by Abun et al., 2021). Civic virtue denotes participation in organizational activities and attentiveness to organizational concerns, and altruism embodies a selfless willingness to assist others (Organ, 1988).

Further expanding the framework, Podsakoff et al. (2000) proposed seven dimensions, including helping behaviors, sportsmanship, organizational loyalty, compliance, individual initiative, civic virtue, and self-development. However, Fox and Specter (2002) later summarized these into one overarching dimension: altruistic behavior. This concept includes both individual-focused actions (OCBP) and organization-focused behaviors (OCBO), encompassing all forms of assistance to both colleagues and the organization as a whole, as initially outlined by Organ (1988) and Podsakoff et al. (2000).
## Conceptual Framework

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

Source: PDM (Scott, James, Ming, (2003,) Meyer and Allen (1997), Fox & Spector (2002)

Figure 1: the conceptual framework reflects the interconnected dynamics of employees' participation in decision-making and organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. It explains that employees' participation in decision-making may affect positively organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.

## Statement of the Problems

The study examined the influence of employees' participation in decision-making on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. It specifically answers the following questions:

1. What is the level of employee participation in decision-making?

2. What is the level of organizational commitment of employees in terms of:

a. Affective commitment

b. Continuance commitment

c. Normative commitment

3. What is the level of organizational citizenship behavior of employees in terms of:

a. OCBP

b. OCBO

4. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and organizational commitment?

5. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior?

Yoerger et al. (2015) highlighted the significant impact of employees' participation in decision-making on work engagement, while Mirbagheri et al. (2023) emphasized its effect on productivity. Building on these findings, the current study hypothesizes that employees' participation in decision-making also influences organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior.
## Research Methodology

This study employs a quantitative approach, utilizing a descriptive assessment and a correlational research design. It is conducted at the Divine Word College of Laoag, focusing on its employees as the target population. Data is collected through questionnaires, with both descriptive and inferential statistics applied for analysis. Specifically, the weighted mean and Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson r) are used to evaluate the data. To facilitate data collection, the researcher sent a letter to the President of the college, seeking permission to distribute the questionnaires, which were then collected by employee representatives. Ethical considerations were taken into account, and since the research does not involve sensitive human issues, the ethical review was waived.

The following ranges of values with their descriptive interpretation were used:

<table><thead><tr><td>Statistical Range</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21-5.00</td><td>Strongly Agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41-4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61-3.40</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81-2.60</td><td>Disagree/Low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00-1.80</td><td>Strongly Disagree/Very Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Data Presentation and Analysis

The study explored how employees' participation in decision-making affects both organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The data are organized and presented in alignment with the stated research problems.

### Problem 1: What is the level of employee participation in decision-making?

<table><caption>Table 1: Participation in decision-making</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>You have a say in how you perform your job</td><td>3.76</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>You contribute ideas on how to do your job</td><td>3.84</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>In general, how much say or influence do you have on what goes on in your workgroup</td><td>3.60</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>In general, how much say do you have on decisions which affect your jobs</td><td>3.57</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>My supervisor is receptive and listens to my ideas and suggestions</td><td>3.79</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.71</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Source: PDM (Dow Scott, James W.B, Ming X.C, 2003)

Legend:

<table><thead><tr><td>Statistical Range</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>4.21-5.00</td><td>Strongly Agree/Very High</td></tr><tr><td>3.41-4.20</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2.61-3.40</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>1.81-2.60</td><td>Disagree/Low</td></tr><tr><td>1.00-1.80</td><td>Strongly Disagree/Very Low</td></tr></tbody></table>

The data presented in the table indicate that employees' participation in decision-making received an overall mean rating of 3.71, which falls within the "agree/high" range. This suggests that while employees' participation in decision-making is neither very high nor low, it is rated positively. Notably, all indicators achieved the same mean rating, indicating a consensus among employees that they engage in decision-making regarding their job performance
both individually and as a group. Additionally, they believe that their supervisors listen to their ideas to a considerable extent, though not to an exceptional degree.

Regarding employees' participation in decision-making, Liverpool (1990) emphasized that employees should have a substantial voice, rather than merely "some say," in policy-oriented decisions, as this can significantly enhance motivation. Supporting this notion, various studies have highlighted the positive impact of employee involvement on cognitive and attitudinal outcomes (Farooq et al., 2019), well-being and work performance (Uribetxebarria et al., 2021), and overall productivity (Mirbagheri et al., 2023).

**Problem 2. What is the level of organizational commitment of employees in terms of:**

<table><caption>**Table 2: Affective commitment**</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I would be happy to continue my work in this organization until my retirement</td><td>3.89</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I feel sad if this organization is facing problems</td><td>3.75</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I feel like 'part of my family at this organization</td><td>3.69</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I feel 'emotionally attached to this organization</td><td>3.75</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>This organization has a great deal of personal meaning for me</td><td>3.89</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I feel a strong sense of belonging to this organization</td><td>3.68</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.78</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Meyer and Allen (1997).

Regarding organizational commitment, specifically affective commitment, the data reveals a composite mean of 3.78, interpreted as "agree/high." This mean rating suggests that while employees' affective commitment to the organization is not extremely high, it is also not low or moderate; rather, it is categorized as high. Even when examined individually, all items received similar high ratings. Employees express a strong desire to continue their work until retirement and feel a sense of belonging to the institution. This emotional attachment means they experience sadness when the organization faces difficulties, perceiving it as part of their family.

Agrifoglio and Metallo (2010) observed that employees with high affective commitment strongly identify with the organization and are motivated to pursue its goals. Additionally, Ardo et al. (2024) identified the positive influence of affective commitment on job satisfaction and performance, while Li et al. (2008) noted its beneficial impact on job skills.

<table><caption>**Table 3: Continuance commitment**</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>It would be very hard for me to leave my job at this organization right now even if I wanted to</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>If I leave my organization, too much of my life will be disrupted</td><td>3.37</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>Right now, staying with my job at this organization is a matter of necessity as much as desire</td><td>3.57</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I believe I have very few options to consider leaving this organization</td><td>3.51</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>The scarcity of available alternative jobs elsewhere prevents me from leaving this organization</td><td>3.39</td><td>Somewhat Agree/Moderate</td></tr><tr><td>One of the major reasons I continue to work for this organization is that leaving would require considerable personal sacrifice</td><td>3.55</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.51</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Meyer and Allen (1997).
The data presented in the table indicates that employees' continuance commitment received a composite mean rating of 3.51, categorized as "agree/high." This rating suggests that employees' continuance commitment is not extremely high, nor is it low or moderate; rather, it is considered high. However, an analysis of the individual items reveals variability in mean ratings. Some indicators were rated highly, while others received moderate evaluations.

Employees express a moderate agreement that leaving the organization would significantly disrupt their lives due to the scarcity of job opportunities elsewhere. Conversely, they acknowledge that, at present, they have limited options for leaving and view remaining with the institution as a necessity. For the time being, exiting the organization would be challenging even if they wished to do so, as it would require considerable personal sacrifice. Taing et al. (2010) argue that continuance commitment reflects employees' perceptions that they would incur greater losses by leaving the organization than they would gain. Their study suggests that continuance commitment is more heavily influenced by economic considerations than by the availability of alternative job options.

<table><caption>Table 4: Normative commitment</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicators</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I should remain with my organization</td><td>3.58</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Even if it were to my advantage, I do not feel it would be right to leave</td><td>3.52</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I would feel guilty if I left this organization now</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>This organization deserves my loyalty</td><td>3.72</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I would not leave my organization right now because of my sense of obligation to it</td><td>3.74</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I owe a great deal to this organization.</td><td>3.79</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Composite Mean</td><td>3.67</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Meyer and Allen (1997).

Regarding normative commitment, the data indicates that employees' normative commitment received a composite mean rating of 3.67, which is interpreted as "agree/high." This rating suggests that employees' normative commitment is high, though not extremely so. Analyzing the individual indicators reveals that all are rated similarly within the high range.

Employees express agreement that they should remain with the institution, even if leaving would be to their advantage. Many feel a sense of guilt about the idea of leaving because of their obligations; they believe the institution deserves their loyalty at this time. According to Battistelli et al. (2006), normative commitment encompasses employees' sense of obligation to the institution, even when they are dissatisfied or desire to pursue better opportunities elsewhere. They perceive staying as the right thing to do. Additionally, Riwu et al. (2022) highlighted the positive effect of normative commitment on job performance, underscoring its importance in the workplace.

<table><caption>Table 5: Summary of results on organizational commitment of employees</caption><thead><tr><td>Component</td><td>Composite Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Affective commitment</td><td>3.78</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2. Continuance commitment</td><td>3.51</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>3. Normative commitment</td><td>3.67</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Overall Mean</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr></tbody></table>

Overall, employees' organizational commitment is regarded as high, reflected in an overall mean rating of 3.65, categorized as "agree/high." When examining the dimensions separately, all three elements maintain a high mean rating. However, a closer analysis reveals that continuance commitment has the lowest mean rating among the three dimensions, followed by normative commitment, while affective commitment ranks the highest. This suggests that,
at present, employees' affection and emotional attachment to the institution are the primary drivers for their decision to remain.

**Problem 3. What is the level of organizational citizenship behavior of employees in terms of:**

<table><caption>**Table 5: OCBO**</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>I help new employees get oriented to the job</td><td>3.66</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I offered suggestions to new employees on how work should be done</td><td>3.66</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I volunteered for extra work assignments</td><td>3.63</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I said good things about your employer in front of others</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I said good things about your school in the community outside the school</td><td>3.66</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I give up meals and other breaks to complete the work</td><td>3.60</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I offered suggestions for improving the work environment</td><td>3.67</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I came in early or stay late without pay to complete a project or task</td><td>3.71</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>I volunteer to share new job knowledge or skills with other</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.65</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Source: Spector & Fox (2002).

The data in the table indicates that employees' organizational citizenship behavior, specifically in terms of OCBO (behaviors that help the organization), received a composite mean rating of 3.65, which is interpreted as "agree/high." This suggests that employees' organizational citizenship behavior, particularly their concern for the organization, is high, though it is not excessively high or low. Furthermore, when examining the indicators individually, all items maintain a high mean rating. Employees report that they assist their colleagues in job orientation, willingly sacrifice their time to take on extra tasks, and refrain from speaking negatively about the institution or their employers in front of others outside the community. They also demonstrate a willingness to share new skills and knowledge and offer innovative ideas to enhance the work environment. According to Lilly (2016), such behaviors are beneficial to organizations and contribute to their overall functioning. Hasani et al. (2013) emphasized that fostering organizational citizenship behavior can significantly enhance organizational commitment.

<table><caption>**Table 6: OCBP**</caption><thead><tr><td>Indicator</td><td>Mean</td><td>Descriptive Interpretation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lent a compassionate ear when someone has a work problem</td><td>3.76</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Lent a compassionate ear when someone has a personal problem</td><td>3.80</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Change vacation schedules, workdays, or shifts to accommodate co-workers' needs.</td><td>3.70</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Help a less capable co-worker lift a heavy box or other objects</td><td>3.80</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Went out of the way to encourage co-workers or express appreciation</td><td>3.76</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Defended co-worker who was being 'put down' or spoken ill by other co-workers or supervisors</td><td>3.71</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>Help co-workers with personal matters such as sharing food or drinks</td><td>3.80</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Composite Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.76</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

Spector & Fox (2002).

Regarding organizational citizenship behavior focused on positive interactions with co-workers, the data in the table indicates that employees received a composite mean rating of 3.76, which is considered high. This reflects that employees' organizational citizenship behavior, particularly their care for fellow employees, is high—not excessively high, but notably above a moderate level. Moreover, when examining the indicators individually, all items consistently reflect a high mean rating. Employees affirm that they assist their colleagues during personal and work-related challenges and that they refrain from speaking negatively about their co-workers, often defending them in front of superiors. Alexander-Passe (2017) highlighted that fostering caring relationships can enhance employees'
work commitment and engagement. Therefore, Roffey (2016) suggested the importance of cultivating positive relationships in the workplace among employees and management through open communication.

<table><caption>Table 7: Summary of results on organizational citizenship behavior of employees</caption><thead><tr><th>Component</th><th>Composite Mean</th><th>Descriptive Interpretation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. OCBO</td><td>3.65</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td>2. OCBP</td><td>3.76</td><td>Agree/High</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall Mean</strong></td><td><strong>3.71</strong></td><td><strong>Agree/High</strong></td></tr></tbody></table>

The summary table indicates that employees' organizational citizenship behavior, encompassing both OCBO (organizational citizenship behavior directed at the organization) and OCBP (organizational citizenship behavior directed at individuals), received an overall mean rating of 3.71, signifying a high level of engagement. This rating suggests that employees' organizational commitment is neither excessively high nor very low but remains firmly within the high range. When examined separately, both dimensions—OCBO and OCBP—maintain a consistent high mean rating. Notably, a closer analysis reveals that employees demonstrate a greater level of care for one another compared to their care for the organization. Lilly (2016) posited that organizational citizenship behaviors are positively correlated with productivity, efficiency, profitability, and customer satisfaction.

<table><caption>Problem 4. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and organizational commitment?</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Organizational Commitment</th><th colspan="2">Employees' Participation in Decision-making</th></tr><tr><th>r</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Affective Commitment</td><td>-.004</td><td>.959</td></tr><tr><td>Continuance Commitment</td><td>.012</td><td>.880</td></tr><tr><td>Normative Commitment</td><td>-.065</td><td>.410</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Overall</strong></td><td>-.023</td><td>.773</td></tr></tbody></table>

The results indicate that there is no significant relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and the three types of organizational commitment—affective, continuance, and normative—as well as overall organizational commitment. The p-values for all tests exceed the conventional threshold of 0.05, leading to the rejection of the hypothesis positing a relationship. Additionally, the correlation coefficients are close to zero, indicating a very weak or non-existent relationship.

This finding suggests that employees' affective, continuance, normative, or overall commitment to the organization is not influenced by their involvement in decision-making. In essence, employees' motivation to remain with the organization—whether driven by emotional ties, perceived costs of leaving, or a sense of obligation—does not significantly correlate with their participation in decision-making. Therefore, the level of employees' participation in decision-making does not appear to be associated with their organizational commitment. It is important to clarify this interpretation, as it contrasts with earlier assertions of a potential relationship in preceding discussions; a thorough review of the results is warranted to ensure consistency in the analysis.

<table><caption>Problem 5. Is there a relationship between employees' participation in decision-making and organizational citizenship behavior?</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB)</th><th colspan="2">Employees' Participation in Decision-making</th></tr><tr><th>r</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>OCBP</td><td>-.083</td><td>.293</td></tr><tr><td>OCBO</td><td>-.139</td><td>.079</td></tr><tr><td>Overall</td><td>-.118</td><td>.136</td></tr></tbody></table>
The results indicate that there is no significant relationship between organizational citizenship behavior (OCB) and employees' participation in decision-making. This conclusion is supported by the p-values for OCBP, OCBO, and overall OCB, all of which exceed the significance threshold of 0.05. Furthermore, the negative correlation coefficients suggest a very weak inverse relationship, although this is not statistically significant.

These findings imply that employees' willingness to engage in decision-making is not notably affected by their organizational citizenship behavior. In other words, the extra efforts they contribute to the organization are not influenced by their involvement in decision-making processes. Additionally, their personal commitment to the organization's well-being is not significantly driven by their participation in decision-making.

Essentially, participation in decision-making does not appear to enhance employees' tendency to exceed their designated responsibilities for the betterment of the organization.

## Discussions

The study aimed to examine the influence of employees' participation in decision-making on organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The findings indicate that while employees' participation in decision-making is high, their levels of organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior are also elevated. However, the data reveal that, despite this participation, it does not significantly impact their organizational commitment or citizenship behavior. In other words, the high levels of organizational commitment and citizenship behavior among employees are not attributed to their involvement in decision-making.

The negative results of the correlation analysis between employees' participation in decision-making and both organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior contradict previous findings. Earlier studies, such as those by Mambula et al. (2021), Hoell (2004), and Han et al. (2010), have shown a positive correlation between participation in decision-making and organizational commitment, suggesting that employees' involvement can enhance their commitment to the organization and foster positive perceptions about it. This indicates that participation in decision-making does not necessarily affect employees' psychological states that motivate them to dedicate themselves fully to the organization (Mueller & Straatmann, 2014) or to exhibit loyalty. Similarly, with regard to organizational citizenship behavior, the current study demonstrates that employees' participation in decision-making does not lead them to develop a greater affinity for their organization or to invest extra time and energy beyond their job duties to assist the organization, a finding that contradicts Kim's (2023) assertion that such participation fosters work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior.

These contradictory findings between the current study and previous research lead us to conclude that participation in decision-making does not produce uniform effects across different contexts. In one context or culture, it may yield positive outcomes, such as increased organizational commitment and citizenship behavior, while in another, it may not have the same impact. Thus, the results of the current study contribute to a deeper understanding of employees' participation in decision-making. Involving employees in decision-making is context-dependent and should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, in the context of Divine Word College of Laoag, such participation may not necessarily enhance commitment or affinity for the institution, suggesting that management should explore other factors that could influence these outcomes.

## Conclusion

The study aimed to investigate the influence of employees' participation in decision-making on their organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior. The findings reveal that while employees' participation in decision-making is high, so too are their levels of organizational commitment and citizenship behavior. However, the correlation analysis indicates that this participation does not significantly contribute to increased organizational
commitment or citizenship behavior. Consequently, the differences observed in organizational commitment and citizenship behavior cannot be attributed to employees' involvement in decision-making, leading to the rejection of the study's hypothesis.

The study also acknowledges its limitations, particularly the restriction of its population to the Divine Word College of Laoag. To enhance the validity of future research, it is essential to include a larger sample that encompasses other Divine Word Colleges, as these institutions exist within diverse contexts and cultures that may influence the outcomes of the study.

**Authors' contributions:** The conceptualization, research methodology and analysis of this paper is performed by the author

**Conflict of interest statement:** All authors declare no conflict of interest.

**Ethical review statement:** the research is submitted to the ethical review board and approved for the conduct of the study. It does not involve human-sensitive issues.

**Funding:** the study is funded by the authors.

## References

Abun, D., Magallanes, T., Acidera, E.B., Encarnacion, M.J. & Domingcil, C.U. (2021). Work environment and work engagement of employees of Catholic Colleges in The Ilocos Region, Philippines. *Technium Social Science Journal*, *19*, 439-464

Agrifoglio, R., Metallo, C. (2010). *ERP acceptance: The role of affective commitment*. In: D'Atri, A., De Marco, M., Braccini, A., Cabiddu, F. (eds) Management of the interconnected world. Physica-Verlag HD. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7908-2404-9_10

Aguirre, D., Post, L., & Hewlett, S. A. (2009). The talent innovation imperative. *Strategy+ business*, *56*, 39-49.
Ahmad, N., Iqbal, N., Javed, K. & Hamad, N. (2014). Impact of organizational commitment and employee performance on employee satisfaction. *International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research*, *1*(1), 84-92.

Akinyemi, B. (2012). The influence of affective commitment on citizenship behavior and intention to quit among commercial banks' employees in Nigeria. *Journal of Management and Sustainability*, *2*(2). https://doi.org/10.5539/jms.v2n2p54

Alcover, C.M., Chambel, M.J. & Estreder, Y. (2020). Monetary incentives, motivational orientation and affective commitment in contact centres: A multilevel mediation model. *Journal of Economic Psychology*, *8*, 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2020.102307

Alexander-Passe, N. (2017). *Working relationships*. In: The Successful Dyslexic. Sense-Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6351-107-0_7

Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990). The measurement and antecedence of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. *Journal of Occupational Psychology*, *63*, 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
Amanchukwu, R.N., Nwachukwu, O.P., & Stanley, G.J. (2015). A review of leadership theories, principles and styles and their relevance to educational management. *Management, 5*(1):6-14.
https://doi.org/10.5923.j.mm.20150501.02

Alvino, L. (2014, 29 September). Engage your employees or lose billions. *Forbes Magazine*. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/womensmedia/2014/09/29/engage-your-employees-or-lose-billions/

Anugrah, P.G. & Priyambodo, A.B. (2021). Correlation between organizational commitment and employee performance when working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic. *KnE Social Sciences: International Conference of Psychology, 2021*.

Ardo, M.A., Gurin, I.M. & Buhari, M. (2024). Effect of affective commitment on the relationship between job satisfaction and job performance of public-school teachers in Yobe state, Nigeria. *Indonesian Journal of Entrepreneurship & Startups (IJES)*, 2(1), 1-16.

Aristotle. (1941). *Politics* (B. Jowett, Trans.). In R. McKeon (Ed.). *The Basic Works of Aristotle*. Random House.

Arnstein, S. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. *Journal of the American Institute of Planners* 35(4), 216-224.

Arthur, J.B. (1994). Effects of human resource systems on manufacturing performance and turnover. *Academy of Management Journal*, 37, 670-687

Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). *The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications* (4th ed.). Simon & Schuster.

Bateman, T. S., & Organ, D. W. (1983). Job satisfaction and the good soldier: The relationship between affect and 'citizenship. *Academy of Management Journal*, 26(4), 587-595. https://doi.org/10.2307/255908

Battistelli, A., Mariani, M., & Bellò, B. (2006). *Normative commitment to the organization, support and self-competence*. In: Minati, G., Pessa, E., Abram, M. (eds) Systemics of Emergence: Research and Development. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-28898-8_36

Carmeli, A.; Sheaffer, Z. & Halevi, M.Y. (2009). Does participatory decision-making in top management teams enhance decision effectiveness and firm performance? *Personnel Review*, 38, 696-714. https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480910992283

Cary, C. D. (1977). The goals of citizenship training in American and Soviet schools. *Studies in Comparative Communism*, 10(3), 281-297. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-3592(77)80019-7

Chang, G.S., & Lorenzi, P. (1983). The effects of participative versus assigned goal setting on intrinsic motivation. *Journal of Management*, 9, 55-64. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638300900106

Chimaobi, I. & Chikamnele, M.J. (2020). Employee participation in decision-making and its impact on organizational performance. *SSRN Electronic Journal*, 27,18. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3667548

Coch, L., & French, Jr. J.R.P. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. *Human Relations*, 1(4), 512-532.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674800100408
Cohen A. (2007). Commitment before and after: An evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. *Human Resource Management Review*, 17, 336-354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.05.001

Deepak, S. (2020). Psycho-social work environment influences on affective organizational commitment—an Empirical investigation in the information technology industry. *International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 9*(3).

Dias, A.L., Silva, V., Pereira, L.F. & Goncalves, R.A.H. (2021). Organizational environment and organizational commitment. *International Journal of Services and Operations Management, 2*(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11090406

Dinc, M.S. (2017). Organizational commitment components and job performance: the mediating role of job satisfaction. *Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, 11* (3), 773-789.

Effiong, M. (2017). *Organizational commitment and employee performance*. Factors that promote positive motivational behavior among the employees. Grin Verlag.

Ehijiele, E. (2018). The influence of employees’ commitment on organizational performance in Nigeria. *International Journal of Research Publication, 2*(1), 1-12.

Elele, J. & Fields, D. (2010). Participative decision making and organizational commitment: Comparing Nigerian and American employees. *Cross Cultural Management, 17*(4), 368–392. https://doi.org/10.1108/13527601011086586

Farooq, O., Farooq, M., & Reynaud E.(2019). Does employees’ participation in decision-making increase the level of corporate social and environmental sustainability? An investigation in South Asia. *Sustainability, 11*(2), 511. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11020511

Follett, M P. (1941). In H. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.) *Dynamic Administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett*. Harper & Brothers

Fox, S. & Spector, P.E. (2002). An emotion-centred model of voluntary work behavior: Some parallels between counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior. *Human Resource Management Review, 12*(2), 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-4822(02)00049-9

Genevičiūtė-Janonienė, G. & Endriulaitienė, A. (2013). Employees' organizational commitment: its negative aspects for organizations. *Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 140*, 558 – 564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.470

Gibb S. (2011). *Human resource development*. Palgrave Macmillan

Gil-Cordero, E., Ledesma-Chaves, P., Ortega-Gutierrez, J. & Han, H. (2023). Organizational value and participatory leadership for sustaining the competitive advantages of hospitality and tourism companies. *Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10*, 396 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01881-x

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. *American Sociological Review*, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623
Graham, J. W. (1991). An essay on organizational citizenship behavior. *Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 4*(4), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01385031

Graham, P. (1995). *Mary Parker Follett – Prophet of management*. Harvard Business School Press

Halis, M. (2021). *The relationship between organizational culture and organizational commitment: research in private health institutions*. In *Handbook of Research on Representing Health and Medicine in Modern Media*. IGI Global Publisher of Timely Knowledge

Han, T. S., Chiang, H. H., & Chang, A. (2010). Employee participation in decision making, psychological ownership and knowledge sharing: the mediating role of organizational commitment in Taiwanese high-tech organizations. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21*(12), 2218-2233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2010.509625

Hasani, K., Boroujerdi, S.S. & Sheikhesmaeili, S. (2013). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior on organizational commitment. *Global Business Perspectives, 1*, 452-470. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40196-013-0026-3

Hashmi, A., Ahmad, M. A., & Nawaz, M. A. (2021). The role of coordination, decision making and special data infrastructure on the disaster management in Pakistan: moderating role of information system. *Review of Applied Management and Social Sciences, 4*(1), 79-91

Heller, F., Pusic, E., & Strauss, G., (2004) *Organizational participation, myth and reality*. Oxford University Press.

Hoell, R.C. How employee involvement affects union commitment. *Journal of Labor Research, 25*, 267-277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12122-004-1036-3

Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31*, 122-143. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.636.

Huang, T.C. (2011). The effect of participative management on organizational performance: the case of Taiwan. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8*,5, 677-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851997341450

Huang, T.C. (2011). The effect of participative management on organizational performance: the case of Taiwan. *The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 8*,5, 677-689. https://doi.org/10.1080/095851997341450

Inkeles, A. (1969). Participant citizenship in six developing countries. *American Political Science Review, 63*(4), 1120-1141. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955075

Iverson, R. D., & Buttigieg, D. M. (1999). Affective, normative and continuance commitment: Can the “right kind” of commitment be managed? *Journal of Management Studies, 36*(3), 307-333. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00138

Jakada, M.B., Jakada, A.H., Hussein, M.A., Kurawa, N.S. & Rabi, A. (2019). Effect of affective, continuance, and normative commitment on job performance of employees of National Identity Management Commission, Northwest Zone, Nigeria. *Lapai International Journal of Management and Social Sciences, 11*(2).
Jantan, M. S. (2018). *Correlation Between Rewards and Commitment: An Empirical Investigation of Independent Financial Adviser in Malaysia.* Thesis. Retrieved April 29, 2024, from https://ssrn.com/abstract=3560753 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3560753

Javeria, A. (2013). Examining the Antecedents of Job Satisfaction and further its impact on Organizational Commitment. *Journal of Public Administration and Governance, 3*(3), 317-334.
https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v3i3.6224

Johnson, R.E. & Chang, C.H. (2006). “I” is to continuance as “We” is too affective: The relevance of the self-concepts for organizational commitment. *Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27*, 549-570. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.364

Kalleberg, A.L.; Nesheim, T. & Olsen, K.M. (2009). Is participation good or bad for workers? Effects of autonomy, consultation and teamwork on stress among workers in Norway. *Acta Sociology, 52*, 99-116.

Kashani, F.H. & Shahsavarani, H.R. (2015). The impact of participative management on the performance of Tehran Regional Water Company's Staff. *Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, 5*(2), 63-70

Katz, D. (1964). The motivational basis of organizational behavior. *Behavioral Science, 9*, 131-133.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830090206

Khan, A. J., & Iqbal, J. (2020a). Do high-performance work practices increase the organizational performance of public sector Companies? *An Investigation of Mediation Mechanism. Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 40*(2), 1007-1021.

Khan, A. J., & Iqbal, J. (2020b). Training and employee commitment: the social exchange perspective. *Journal of Management Sciences, 7*(1), 88-100. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.2007106

Khan, A.J., Bashir, F., Nasim, I. & Ahmad, R. (2021). Understanding Affective, Normative & Continuance Commitment through the Lens of Training & Development. *iRASD Journal of Management, 3*(2), 105-113

Khassawneh, O., Elrehail, H. (2022). The effect of participative leadership style on employees' performance: The contingent role of institutional theory. *Administrative Sciences, 12*(4),195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195

Kemelgor, B.H. (2002). A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between selected firms in the Netherlands and the U.S.A. *Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 14*, 67-87.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08985620110087023

Khan, A. J., & Iqbal, J. (2020a). Do high-performance work practices increase the organizational performance of public sector companies? An investigation of mediation mechanism. *Pakistan Journal of Social Sciences (PJSS), 40*(2), 1007-1021.

Khan, A. J., & Iqbal, J. (2020b). Training and employee commitment: The social exchange perspective. *Journal of Management Sciences, 7*(1), 88-100. https://doi.org/10.20547/jms.2014.2007106

Khassawneh, O. & Elrehail, H. (2022). The effect of participative leadership style on employees' performance: The contingent role of institutional theory. *Administrative Sciences, 12*(4),195. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040195
Kim, B. J. (2023). Participation, engagement, and organizational citizenship behavior among public employees. *Public Personnel Management, 52*(2), 263-285. Theory Jungle. *Journal of the Academy of Management, 4*(3), 174-188. https://doi.org/10.2307/254541

Kuhal, A.J., Arabi, A., Zaid, M.F.M. & Ismawi, N. (2020). Relationship between affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment towards job performance. *Journal of Sustainable Management Studies, 1*(1), 19-27.

Kuye, O. & Sulaimon, A.A. (2011). Employee involvement in decision-making and firm performance in the manufacturing sector in Nigeria. *Serbian Journal of Management, 6*(1). https://doi.org/10.5937/sjm1101001K

Landry, L. (2020). Why Managers Should Involve Their Team in the Decision-Making Process. *Harvard Business School Online*. https://online.hbs.edu

Levin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created "social climates. *Journal of Social Psychology, 10*, 271-299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366

Li, W., Shi, K., He, D., Zuang, J. & Xu, Z. (2008). Effects of job satisfaction, affective commitment and job involvement on job skill ratings. *Frontier Business Research in China, 2*, 137-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11782-008-0008-5

Likert, R. (1967). *The human organization: Its management and value*. McGraw-Hill.

Lilly, J.D. (2016). *Organizational citizenship behavior*. In: Farazmand, A. (eds). *Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance*. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_125-1

Liverpool, P.R. Employee participation in decision-making: An analysis of the perceptions of members and nonmembers of quality circles. *Journal of Business and Psychology, 4*, 411-422.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01013604

Lowry R. J. (1973). *AH Maslow: An intellectual portrait*. Brooks/Cole

Mahdavi, M., Arab, M., & Mahmoudi, M. (2014). Organizational commitment and intention to leave among hospitals' employees in Tehran Hospitals. *Journal of Hospital, 12*(4), 19-29.

Maisela, T. (1995). Participative management facilitates a productive workplace. *Human Resource Management, 11* (5), 20-22.

Mambula, C.J., Francis, F. & Oaya, Z.C.T. (2021). Effect of employee involvement in decision-making and organization productivity. *Archive of Business Research, 9*(3), 28-34. https://doi.org/10.14738/abr.93.9848

Marchant, M.P. (1982). Participative Management, Job Satisfaction & Service. *Library Journal, 107* (8), 782-784.

Marchington, M. & Wilkinson, A. (2005, 398-423). *Direct participation and involvement, management of human resource: personnel management in transition*. Blackwell.

Maritz, F. (1995). Leadership and mobilizing potential. *Human Resource Management, 11* (9), 8-16.
Markey, R., & Townsend, K. (2013). Contemporary trends in employee involvement and participation. *Journal of Industrial Relations, 55*(4), 475-487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022185613489389

Marsh, R. M., & Mannari, H. (1977). Organizational commitment and turnover: A prediction study. *Administrative Science Quarterly, 22*, 57-75. https://doi.org/10.2307/2391746

Mercurio, Z. A. (2015). Affective commitment as an essence of organizational commitment: an integrative literature review. *Human Resource Development Review, 14*(4), 389-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484315603612

Messner, W. (2013). Effect of Organizational Culture on employee commitment in the Indian IT services sourcing industry. *Journal of Indian Business Research, 5*(2), 76-100. https://doi.org/10.1108/17554191311320764

Metin, K. & Asli, K. (2018). The relationship between organizational commitment and work performance: a case of industrial enterprises. *Journal of Economic and Social Development (JESD), 5*(1).

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1984). Testing the ‘side-bet theory’ of organizational commitment: some methodological considerations. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 69*, 372-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.3.372

Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. *Human Resource Management Review, 1*(1), 61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-Z

Meyer, J.P. & Allen, N.J. (1997). *Commitment in the workplace. Theory, research and application*. Sage

Meyer J. P., Stanley D. J., Herscovitch L., Topolnytsky L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. *Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61*, 20-52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842

Meyer, J.P. & Parfyonova, N.M. (2010). Normative commitment in the workplace: A theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. *Human Resource Management Review, 20*, 283-294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001

Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Jackson, T. A., McInnis, K. J., Maltin, E. R., & Sheppard, L. (2012). Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: A meta-analysis. *Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80*(2), 225-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.09.005

Miao, Q., Newman, A., Schwarz, G. & Xu, L. (2013). *Participative leadership and the organizational commitment of civil servants in China: The Mediating effects of trust in supervisor*. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12025

Miller, G.R. (2012). Gender trouble: Investigating gender and economic democracy in worker cooperatives in the United States. *Review of Radical Political Economics, 44*(1), 8-22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613411418049

Mirbagheri, S. M., Rafiei Atani, A. O., & Parsanejad, M. (2023). *The effect of collective decision-making on productivity: A structural equation modelling*. Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231219046

Mohsen, A. & Sharif, O. (2020). Employee participation in decision-making and its effect on job satisfaction. *International Journal of Research -GRANTHAALAYAH, 8*(7), 415-422. https://doi.org/10.29121/granthaalayah.v8.i7.2020.580
Muhammad, S., Afridi, F. K., Ali, M. W., Shah, W. U., & Alasan, I. I. (2021). Effect of training on employee commitment: the mediating role of job satisfaction. *Pakistan Journal of Society, Education and Language (PJSEL)*, 7(1), 28-37

Mueller, K., Straatmann, T. (2014). *Organizational commitment*. In: Michalos, A.C. (eds) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2030

Nawaz, M. A., Afzal, N., & Shehzadi, K. (2013). Problems of formally employed women: A case study of Bahawalnagar, Pakistan. *Asian Journal of Empirical Research*, 3(10), 1291-1299

Nguyen, H.N., Tran, Q.B., & Nguyen, T.H. Y. (2020). The impact of organizational commitment on employee motivation: a study in Vietnamese enterprises. *The Journal of Asian Finance, Economics and Business*, 7(6), 439-447.
https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no6.439

Noah, Y. (2008). Participation in management decision-making within selected establishments in Lagos, Nigeria. *Journal of Social Science, 17* (1), 31-39.

Notanubun, Z. (2020). The effect of organizational citizenship behavior and leadership effectiveness on public sectors organizational performance: a study in the department of education, youth and sports in Maluku Province, Indonesia. *Public Organization Review, 21*, 1-18 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-020-00475-4

O'Brien, R. M. (1988). *The effects of participative management on teacher satisfaction during periods of organizational decline*. Unpublished Dissertations: Western Michigan University.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/2166

Ochieng, L.T., Koshal, J. & Bellows, S. (2023). Participative leadership style performance of manufacturing small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Nairobi County, Kenya. Research Journal of Business and Finance, 2(1).
https://doi.org/10.58721/rjbf.v2i1.249

Ojokuku, R. M. (2014). Effect of employee participation in decision making on the performance of selected small and medium scale enterprises in Lagos, Nigeria. *European Journal of Business and Management*, 6(10).

Olantuji, F., Nwachukwu, C., Worlu, R., Ogunnaike, O., & Abimbola, A. (2017). Empirical assessment of the link between participatory decision-making and firm performance in Nigeria. *International Journal of Contemporary Management 4*, 285-301. https://doi.org/10.4467/24498939IJCM.17.048.8271

O'Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: The effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 71(3), 492-499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

Organ, D.W. (1988). *Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome*. Lexington Books

Organ, D. W. & Ryan, K. (1995). A meta-analytic review of attitudinal and dispositional predictors of organizational citizenship behavior. *Personnel Psychology, 48*, 4, 775-803. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1995.tb01781.x

Oyeniyi, K. O., Adeyemi, M. A., & Olaoye, B.O. (2017). Organizational commitment and employee's job performance: evidence from the Nigerian hospitality industry. *International Journal of Innovative Psychology & Social Development 5*(3), 15-22.
Park, J., Lee, K.-H., & Kim, P. S. (2015). Participative management and perceived organizational performance: The moderating effects of innovative organizational culture. *Public Performance & Management Review, 39*(2), 316–336.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/48537168

Parvee, S. (2019). Exploring the impact of organizational commitment on employees’ performance. *International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI)*, 8(12), 25-34.

Pereira, G.M., Osburn, H.G. (2007). Effects of participation in decision making on performance and employee attitudes: a quality circles meta-analysis. *Journal of Business Psychology, 22*, 145–153.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9055-8

Pateman C (1976) *Participation and Democratic Theory*. Cambridge University Press

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach, D. G. (2000). Organizational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. *Journal of Management, 26*, 513–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600307

Porter, L. W., Steers, R. M., Mowday, R. T., & Boulian, P. V. (1974). Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. *Journal of Applied Psychology, 59*(5), 603-609.
https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037335

Psychologist World (n.d). Consciousness: A big five personality trait. *Expand Your Mind*. https://www.psychologistworld.com

Rebeka, K.P.E. (2019). Employee commitment on organizational performance. *International Journal of Recent Technology and Engineering (IJRTE)*, 8(3).

Rima'a, D. (2020). Participation in decision making and affective trust among the teaching Staff: a 2-year cross-lagged structural equation modelling during implementation reform. *International Journal of Education Reform, 29*, 77–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056787919877857

Riwu, L.S., Malelak, M.L. & Pellokila, I.R. (2022). *The influence of affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment on employee performance at Sotis Hotel Kupang during the COVID-19 Pandemic*. Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-83-1_33

Roethlisberger, F.J, & Dickson, W. J (1964). Management and the worker. Wiley

Roffey, S. (2016). *Positive relationships at work*. In the book: The Wiley Handbook of the Psychology of the Positivity and strengths-based approaches at work. Wiley

Rolkováá, M., & Farkašováá, V. (2014). *The features of participative management style. 2nd global conference on business, economics, management and tourism*. Prague.

Rolkováá, M., & Farkašováá, V. (2015). The features of participative management style. *Procedia Economics & Finance, 23*, 1383-1387. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00391-3

Sagie, A., & Aycan, Z. (2003). A cross-cultural analysis of participative decision-making in organizations. *Human Relations, 56*(4), 453-473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726703056004003
Sashkin, M. (1984). Participative management is an ethical imperative. *Organizational Dynamics*, 12(4), 5-22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-2616(84)90008-1

Sauer, S.J. (2011). Taking the reins: The effects of new leader status and leadership style on team performance. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 96(3), 574–587. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022741

Sia, S.K. & Appu, A.V. (2015). Work autonomy and workplace creativity: the moderating role of task complexity. *Global Business Review*, 16, 772–784. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150915591435

Sikanyika, S. & Chibomba, K. (2020). Assessing the effect of employee participation on organizational performance: A Case Study of Lusaka. *The International Journal of Multi-Disciplinary Research*, 5(1).

Singh, A., & Gupta, B. (2015). Job involvement, organizational commitment, professional commitment, and team commitment. *Benchmarking: An International Journal*, 22(6), 1192-1211. Https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-01-2014-0007

Slocombe, T.E., & Dougherty, T.W. (1998). Dissecting organizational commitment and Its relationship with employee behavior. *Journal of Business and Psychology*, 12, 469–491 (1998).
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025055122988

Smith, C. A., Organ, D. W., & Near, J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior: Its nature and antecedents. *Journal of Applied Psychology*, 68(4), 653-663. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.68.4.653

Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. *Journal of Management*, 32(1), 132–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305277799

Spreitzer, G.M. & Mishra, A.K. (1999). Giving up control without losing control trust and its substitutes' effects on managers' involving employees in decision making. *Group & Organization Management*, 24(2), 155-187.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601199242003

Stackhouse, L. E., Zaman, F. M., & Turner, K. W. (2022). Effect of employee commitment on organizational performance; case of textile firms in Sweden. *Journal of Human Resource & Leadership*, 6(2), 1-10.
https://doi.org/10.53819/81018102t5074

Sukanebari, E. S., & Konya, K. T. (2020). Continuance commitment and organizational performance of manufacturing firms in Port Harcourt, Nigeria. *International Journal of Innovative Social Sciences & Humanities Research*, 8(1), 80-91.

Suradi, S. (2019). The Effect of organizational culture on organizational commitment for participants in leadership education and training Level IV of the Ministry of finance. *International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding*, 6(5).

Sylfijaj, K., Rexhepi, L. & Grubi, A.K. (2014). *Authoritarian leadership Vs participative leadership in organizations*. Società Editrice

Taing, M.U., Granger, B.P., Groff, K.W. Jackson, E.M. & Johnson, R.E. (2010). The multidimensional nature of continuance commitment: Commitment owing to economic exchanges versus lack of employment alternatives. *Journal of Business and Psychology*, 26, 269–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9188-z

Tonn, J. (2003). *Mary P. Follett: Creating democracy, transforming management*. Yale University Press
Ulabor, E.A. & Bosed, A.I. (2019). Employee commitment and organizational performance in selected fast food outlets in Osun State. *International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management (IJFAM)*, *1*(1), 23-37.

Ullah, M., Kamran, H., Akram, S., Nawaz, M., & Rehman, F. (2021). Organizational antecedents and talent turnover: A relational analysis of credit card departments of banks. *Management Science Letters*, *11*(4), 1211-1220

Uribetxebarria, U., Garmedia, A. & Elorza, U. (2021). Does employee participation matter? An empirical study on the effects of participation on well-being and organizational performance. *Central European Journal of Operations Research* 29(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-020-00704-7

Valverde-Moreno M., Torres-Jiménez M., Lucia-Casademunt A. M., & Muñoz-Ocaña Y. (2019). Cross-cultural analysis of direct employee participation: dealing with gender and cultural values. *Frontier in Psychology*, *10*,723. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00723

Valverde, M. (2021, August 05). Participative decision making (PDM). *Scholarly Community Encyclopedia*. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/12828

Wang, L., Hinrichs, K.T. & Prieto, L (2013). Five dimensions of organizational citizenship behavior: Comparing antecedents and levels of engagement in China and the US. *Asia Pacific Journal of Management*, *30*, 115-147.

Wechsler, B. (1996). Organizational commitment: Antecedents and outcomes in public organizations. *Public Productivity and Management Review*, 29, 256-277.

White, S. (1996). Depoliticizing development: the uses and abuses of participation. *Development in Practice*, *6*(1), 6-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564

Wiener, Y. (1982). Commitment in organizations: A normative view. *Academy of Management Review*, *7*, 418-428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/257334

Wilkinson, A. & Dundon, T. (2010). *Direct employee participation*. In: Wilkinson A, Gollan P, Marchinton M, Lewin D (eds). *The Oxford Handbook of Participation in Organizations* (167-185). Oxford University Press, 167-185.

Williamson, M.G. (2008). The effects of expanding employee decision-making on contributions to firm value in an informal reward environment. *Contemporary Accounting Research* 25(4). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.954349

Witte, J.F. (1980). *Democracy, authority, and alienation in work: workers' participation in an American corporation*. University of Chicago Press

Wohlgemuth, V.; Wenzel, M.; Berger, E.S.C. & Eisend, M. (2019). Dynamic capabilities and employee participation: The role of trust and informal control. *European Management Journal*, *37*, 760-771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2019.02.005

Wood, V.R. (2015). *Organizational commitment and international competitiveness*. In: Hawes, J. (eds). *Proceedings of the 1989 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) annual conference. Developments in marketing science: proceedings of the Academy of Marketing Science*. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17055-8_27

Yoerger, M.A., Crowe, J. & Allen, J.A. (2015). Participate or else: the effect of participation in decision-making in meetings on employee engagement. *Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research*, *67*(1). https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000029
Yukl, G. (2010). *Leadership in Organizations* (7th ed.). Prentice Hall

Zanoni, P. & Janssens, M. (2007). Minority employees engaging with (diversity) management: An analysis of control, agency, and micro-emancipation. *Journal of Management Studies, 44*, 1371–1397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2007.00700.x

Zivkovic, Z., Mihajlovic, I., & Prvulovic, S. (2009). Developing a motivational model as a strategy for HRM in small enterprises under a transitional economy. *Serbian Journal of Management, 4*(1), 1-27.

**Publisher's Note:** DWIJMH stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

© 2024 by the authors. Licensee DWIJMH. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/)

Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities. DWIJMH is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.