Teacher participation in organisational development efforts: the case of secondary schools in Bulawayo province of Zimbabwe

Teacher participation in organisational development efforts: the case of secondary schools in Bulawayo province of Zimbabwe

WJER

Teacher participation in organisational development efforts: the case of secondary schools in Bulawayo province of Zimbabwe 1*Thembinkosi Tshabalala and 2Alfred Champion Ncube 1*,2

Educational Management, Faculty of Arts and Education, Zimbabwe Open University, Zimbabwe

The study examined the extent of teacher participation in different areas of decision-making in secondary schools in Bulawayo Province of Zimbabwe and the impact of this involvement on school improvement through organisational development. A survey using self-administered questionnaires with a Likert-type scale assessing teachers’ actual and preferred participation in decision-making was employed. The sample comprised 200 teachers and 20 school heads. Of the sample respondents, 78% were female and 22% were male. Data were collected through semi-structured questionnaires. Descriptive statistical analysis was used to interpret data. The study indicated that the actual teacher participation in decisions concerning learners was fairly high, but quite low in respect of managerial decisions. The difference between the actual and the preferred levels of participation showed high levels of deprivation. Greater involvement in issues concerning learners and the lower levels of participation in respect of managerial issues were attributable to such dimensions as failure to adopt new decisions, passive resistance by teachers, bureaucracy and lack of knowledge by heads. The significance of the results of this study lies on the implications for school improvement practice: heads of schools should enhance teacher participation not only in issues relating to pedagogy but managerial issues as well.

Key Words: Organisational development, school improvement, decision-making, climate, secondary schools, province, staff motivation INTRODUCTION In recent years, a great deal of focus has been made on the concept of Organisation Development as a process of school improvement. Across the diverse bodies of research, one factor consistently seems to be vital: people. According to Robbins (2010), there is an increasing amount of evidence that successful organisations put people first. Organisations that put people first have a dedicated and committed workforce which then in turn translates into higher employee productivity (Wilkinson, 2011). Schools, as organisations, are bureaucracies and their organisational structures are not always flexible such that planned change may be difficult. As Bridges (2007) aptly observed, most schools have experienced high staff-

turnover, low staff morale and professional ennui, poor communication among teachers and between teachers and their school administrators. This, according to Mpofu (2012) may result in low-pass rates in schools and general ineffectiveness. *Corresponding Author: Dr Thembinkosi Tshabalala, Educational Management, Faculty of Arts and Education, Zimbabwe Open University, P.O .Box MP1119 Mount Pleasant Harare Zimbabwe

World Journal of Educational Research Vol. 1(1), pp. 002-007, October, 2014. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2326-7221

Case Study


Tshabalala and Ncube 002 Madziyire (2007) found that in most Zimbabwean schools, (particularly rural schools) heads did not take decisions to the lower levels of teachers, and as a result, teachers were left out in making important decisions and simply coerced to implement decisions made by the top management. This has resulted in the demotivation of teachers in most schools and some talented teachers end up leaving the profession altogether. Organisational development, therefore, becomes the approach to changing schools so that they can develop problem-solving and self-renewal capabilities to cope with the external problems of survival in their environments (Schein, 2010). Planned change is therefore imperative in schools. It enables schools to survive in harsh and turbulent external environments (Madziyire, 2007). The schools should therefore be built around OD efforts to bring about the much cherished organisational renewal or rebirth (Mudawarima, 2004). This study therefore, set out to establish the impact of organisational development on participatory decision-making in Zimbabwean secondary schools. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE According to Chung (2009), managers in all organisations (schools included) are constantly bombarded and overwhelmed with more ideas, new products, new challenges than ever before emanating from new technology, turbulent environments and the impact of globalization. In the face of the accelerating rate of change in technological, socio-cultural, political and economic environments managers and academics alike are increasingly concerned about the adaptive and learning capacity of organisations (Schmuck and Runkel 2012). As Bardwick (2007) argued that organizational change is of paramount importance for a school to survive a turbulent environment. As Christiano (2012) posited that organisation development becomes the approach to changing schools so that they develop problem-solving and self-renewal capabilities to cope with the external problems of survival. OD is increasingly valued because work issues are now much more complex, making it highly unlikely that a single leader would possess all the information needed to make sound decisions. This has led to the realisation that having engaged employees and possessing an enabling culture are crucial factors for a high-performing organisation (Blunt et al., 2006). As Craig (2011) found out, employees increasingly expect more than just a fair wage for their work; they want recognition, a sense of achievement, fulfilling assignments and meaningful relationships with their managers and colleagues. When the foregoing needs are not met, the teachers’ levels of motivation to perform declines. The goal of OD is therefore to help organisations improve, and even transform, such that they can attain sustained organisational effectiveness (Jones, 2012).

Hall (2007) posits that the objective of OD is to improve the organisation’s capacity to handle its internal and external functioning relationships. This includes improved interpersonal and group processes, more effective communication, and enhanced ability to cope with organisational problems of all kinds. It also involves more effective decision-making processes, more appropriate leadership styles, improved skill in dealing with destructive conflict, as well as developing improved levels of trust and cooperation among organisational members. As Jones (2012) postulated that in such instances, trust and support should be given to teachers. This is because an effective and healthy school is characterised by trust, authenticity, openness and a supportive climate. OD also means power equalisation, which means that effective schools should de-emphasise hierarchical authority and control over teachers (Jones, 2012). As Muza (2006) observed that OD also requires that there be constructive confrontation; which means that educational problems identified in the school should not be swept under the carpet. They should be openly confronted in a joint problem-solving approach. OD promotes participation by all organisation members who are affected by the change in decision making to make them more committed to the implementation of change. As Ncube (2013) aptly observed that participative or shared decision-making, if it is built into the school system, will help teachers to release their energy and make them more committed towards achievement of the school goals in a synergistic manner. French and Bell (1999) asserted that OD interventions are deliberately designed to increase involvement and participation by organisation leaders and members. For example, autonomous work groups, quality circles, team building, survey feedback, quality of work life programmes, search conferences and the culture audit are all predicated on the belief that increased participation will lead to better solutions, involve all those who are part of the solution and have decisions made by those who are closest to the problem, direct leaders to push decision-making lower in the organisation, treat those closest to the problem as the relevant experts and give more power to more people (French and Bell, 1999). The whole field of OD is about empowerment and participation by all people in a school organisation. Most initiatives as Ncube (2013) argued that it should be designed to give teachers a significant role in decision-making so as to enhance their contribution to the organisation. Robbins (2010) states that a school which is striving to implement OD effort should use participatory decision making in order to support humanistic and democratic values. In such a set up, the school puts teachers first so that they become motivated. For example, meetings should produce shared decisions and teachers working in teams become the focus in the agenda for change.


World J. Educ. Res. 003

Table 1. Category of respondents (N=220)

Category Frequency Percentage Frequency

Head of schools Teachers

20 200

9 91

Total 220 100

Table 1 shows that the vast majority of respondents (91%) were teachers. This is a true reflection of what obtains in the schools as each school has one head and many teachers.

Table 2. Distribution of respondents by sex (N=220)

Category Frequency Percentage

Male Female

48 172

22 78

Total 220 100

Table 2 reveals that there were more female respondents that male ones. The datum was considered statistically significant t o the extent that it confirms that most urban schools in Zimbabwe had more female educators than male ones.

Table 3. Composition of respondents by professional qualifications (N=220)

Professional Qualifications Frequency Percentage

Certificate in Education Diploma in Education Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree

40 152 22 6

18 69 10 3

Total 220 100

The information in table 3 shows that the majority of the respondents (69%) were holders of the Diploma in Education qualific ation, followed by the Certificate in Education (18%) and the Bachelor’s Degree (10%) respectively. Those who were in possession of

Master’s Degree qualifications constituted 31% of the respondents.

According to Robbins (ibid), there is a high correlation between group decisions and commitment or creativity. In amplification, Robbins (2010) asserts that groups are very effective tools for implementation and groups gain commitment from their members so that group decisions are likely to be willingly and more successfully carried out. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM Most heads in secondary schools in Zimbabwe find it difficult to take decisions to the lower levels of teachers and as a result, teachers are left out in the implementation of OD strategies. In the majority of instances, teachers are simply coerced to implement the decisions made by the administrators. It was in this context that this study sought answers to the following questions: 1. Are teachers willing to participate in school decision-making? 2. Are there avenues for participatory decision-making for teachers in the schools? 3. What are the challenges faced in shared decision-making in schools? METHODOLOGY The study employed the quantitative paradigm and made

use of a survey research design. The questionnaire used comprised ten close-ended questions and two open-ended questions. All respondents were given the questionnaires by the researchers in their schools. The researchers also collected the questionnaires personally in order to increase on the rate of return of the instrument as non-returns introduce a bias (Phillips and Pugh, 2012). The data collected produced descriptive statistics around the variables under study. These statistics were computed and inferential implications then deduced and recorded.

Findings and Discussion In this section, the authors present the findings on the extent to which organisational development can be applied through participatory decision making in secondary schools. The section is presented in two parts, namely; actual findings and discussion. The questionnaire had two open-ended questions. The first question wanted respondents to state the committees that existed in their schools. A number of committees were listed. The most commonly-cited included the following:

Disciplinary committee

Sports committee


Tshabalala and Ncube 004

Table 4. Composition of sample by teaching experience (N=220)

Experience in Years Frequency Percentage Frequency

1 – 2 3 – 5 6 – 10 10 – 15 20 and above

4 9 66 115 26

2 4 30 52 12

Total 220 100

Table 4 above shows that the majority of teachers (64%) had ten years or more of teaching experience. Only 2% of the teachers had

less than 3 years of teaching experience. This trend was to be expected as, in Zimbabwe, the newly qualified teachers are generally posted to rural schools before they later make their way into urban schools.

Table 5: Responses to the statement: “Teachers like to participate in decision-making”.

Category of responses Heads (N=20) Teachers (N=200) Totals (N=220)

nf %f nf %f nf %f Agree Disagree Not sure

18 2 0

89 11 0

170 20 10

85 10 5

188 22 10

85 10 5

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

Table 5 shows that the majority of both heads and teachers (89%; and 85%) respectively, believe that teachers like to participate in decision-making. Only 10% of the respondents indicated that teachers do not like to participate in decision-making. Only 5% of the teachers were not sure about what to say.

Table 6. Responses to the statement: “Heads and teachers hold problem-solving meetings regularly (N=220)”



18 2 0

90 10 0

40 158 2

20 79 1

58 160 2

26 73 1

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

Table 6 reveals that most heads (90%) indicated that they held problem-solving meetings with teachers, and yet 79% of the teachers disagreed with the statement.

Table 7. Responses to the statement: “Heads and teachers jointly solve educational problems through constructive

confrontation (N=220)



5 15 0

25 75 0

10 187 3

5 93 2

15 202 3

7 92 1

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

The majority of heads and teachers disagreed with the statement that teachers jointly solve educational problems through constructive

confrontation (73%). However, 26% of the respondents agreed with the assertion.

Examinations committee

Staff fund committee

Procurement committee

Finance committee

However, the majority of teachers stated that although these committees exist, most of the time the head forgets

to utilise them and instead, comes up with decisions without involving the committees. The second question sought to find out from teachers the specific areas in decision-making where they would have liked to be involved in decision together with their heads. The most common responses include the following: curriculum issues; pupil discipline; school duty roasters; fund raising activities; running examinations; class



Table 8. Responses to the statement: “The head builds trust in the entire staff and establishes clear communication patterns which are essential to change (N=220)”



19 1 0

95 5 0

10 188 2

5 94 1

29 189 2

4 85 1

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

The information in table 8 reveals that there is a discrepancy in responses from heads and teachers regarding the establishment of trust and clear communication. Whereas the vast majority of heads (95%) stated that they built trust in the entire staff and established

clear communication patterns, 94% of the teachers indicated that heads did not build trust and establish clear communication. A similar number of heads and teachers (5%) respectively disagreed and agreed with the statement.

Table 9. Responses to the statement: “Head creates an open climate using a democratic leadership style to facilitate shared

decision-making (N=220)”



20 0 0

100 0 0

1 196 3

1 98 1

21 196 3

10 89 1

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

Table 9 shows that all the heads (100%) indicated that they created open climates using a democratic leadership style to facilitate shared decision-making. On the other hand 98% of the teachers disagreed with the assertion that heads created an open climate. Only 1% of the teachers were not sure about what to say.

Table 10. Responses to the statement: “The head creates committees in the school to promote participatory decision -making

(N=220)”



20 0 0

100 0 0

15 15 0

93 7 0

205 15 0

93 7 0

Totals 20 100 200 100 220 100

All the heads (100%) indicated that they created committees to promote participatory decision-making in their schools. The majority of teachers (93%) agreed with their heads on this statement.

allocation; school policy; administration issues and strategies for improving pass rates at public examinations. DISCUSSION Information from the study reveals that most heads and teachers hold relevant professional qualifications and have served as educators for a long period of time. The implication is that the heads in the schools work with teachers who are qualified and experienced to be involved in decision-making on issues affecting their professional lives. Among others, this involvement could be in policy issues, curriculum, finance, discipline and instruction. Failure by heads to involve experienced teachers may result in the demotivation of teachers. This finding tallies with observations made by Madziyire (2007) who found that in most Zimbabwean schools, teachers resist most decisions taken without their input.

Data in this study also reveal that both heads and teachers would appreciate the participation of teachers in decision-making. This finding tallies with the argument put forward by Craig (2011) who found that employees (teachers included) increasingly expect more than just fair wage for their work; they want recognition, a sense of achievement, participation in decision-making, fulfilling assignments and meaningful relationships with their managers and colleagues; and when these needs are not met, their motivation to perform declines. It therefore, behooves all heads to create conditions that will enable teachers to partake in decision-making on issues that affect their lives in the schools. The study shows that heads and teachers do not hold problem-solving meetings regularly; neither do they jointly solve educational problems through constructive confrontation in order to share ideas on various issues affecting the heads and teachers. Meeting regularly to discuss ways of solving difficult issues affecting the


Tshabalala and Ncube 006 school provides platforms for teachers to complement the head teacher’s ideas on solving school problems. As Muza (2006) observed, organisational development also requires constructive confrontation; this means that educational problems identified in the school should not be swept under the carpet. They should be openly confronted in a joint solving approach. Information from the study reveals that heads do not build trust in the entire staff and do not establish clear communication patterns, both of which are essential to change. Trust between heads and teachers as well as clear communication channels are the necessary ingredients for an effective organisation such as a school. As Hall (2007) postulated, trust includes improved interpersonal and group processes, more effective communication, enhanced ability to cope with organizational problems of all kinds. Hall (2007) and Jones (2012) argued that trust and support should be given to teachers since an effective and healthy school is characterised by trust, authenticity, openness and a supportive climate. This study also reveals that heads do not create an open climate using a democratic leadership style to facilitate shared decision-making. An open climate depicts a situation where teachers work together without bickering and griping. In this regard, Ncube (2013) believed that teachers in an open climate will not be burdened by a lot of routine reports; the head’s policies will facilitate the teachers’ accomplishments of their tasks. Robbins (2010) further stated that a school which is striving to implement organizational development efforts should use participatory decision-making in order to support humanistic and democratic values. In such a set up, the school puts teachers first so that they become motivated. Findings in this study also show that heads put committees in place to promote participatory decision-making in their schools. However, these committees are not made use of by the heads. Such committees only existed on notice boards in the heads’ offices to hoodwink the education officers. Committees play a very critical role in fostering collaboration among teachers. On this issue, Robbins (2010) advised that groups and not individuals are the ideal building blocks for an organisation. Groups are very effective tools for implementation of policies and programmes.

CONCLUSIONS Given the background of the above findings, the researchers make the following conclusions:

Heads and teachers are in possession of relevant

professional qualifications.

Teachers generally appreciated to participate in decision-making.

Heads did not hold problem-solving meetings regularly; and did not jointly solve educational problems through constructive confrontation.

Heads do not build trust in the entire staff and do not establish clear communication patterns which are essential for a healthy organisation.

Heads do not create an open climate using a democratic leadership style to facilitate shared decision-making.

Heads do not make use of committees that they create for making decisions on certain issues within the schools. RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the findings of this study, the researchers would like to make some recommendations as follows:

Head should involve their teachers in decision-making processes since most teachers in schools are experienced and in possession of relevant qualifications.

Head should delegate some of their duties to senior members of staff so that they are allowed to make independent decisions since most teachers, particularly senior teachers like to participate in decision making.

Some means of institutionalizing constructive confrontation should be devised so that teachers can freely debate educational issues identified in the school without sweeping them under the carpet.

Head should work through committees or groups. Committees should not just be there in theory. They ought to work to improve the school.

Head should also build trust in their entire staff and establish clear communication channels. All teachers should feel trusted by the head. Information meant for members of staff should not be communicated to a select few as this breeds unnecessary suspicion and conflict at the expense of cooperation. REFERENCES Bardwick JM (2007). How executives can help plateaued employees: Management Review, 76 (10): 45-61. Blunt P, Jones ML, Michael B (2006). Managing organisations in Africa. New York: Walter de Gauyten. Bridges, E. (2007). A model of shared decision-making. Minnesota: University of Minnnesota. Christiano LL (2012). Understanding organisation development and its role: A think piece on organisation development. Singapore: Civil Service College. Chung F (2009). Basic principles of administration. Harare: College Press.



Craig A (2011). How much curriculum autonomy do Australian teachers have? The Leader, 30 (2): 38-46. French W, Bell C (1999). Organisation development: Behavioural science interventions for organisation improvement. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Hall R (2007). Organisations: Structure and process. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Jones BB (2012). The NTL handbook of organisation development and change. San Fransisco: Pfeiffer. Madziyire NC (2007). Supervision of educational personnel. Harare: Zimbabwe Open University. Mpofu P (2012). Cultural capital and the sustainability of NGOs’ Development Programmes in Zimbabwe: An integrative approach. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5 (10): 89-98. Mudawarima C (2004). Organisational development applied through participatory decision-making. Harare: Zimbabwe Open University. Muza ES (2006). Management 1: Harare: Denmark Training Services. Ncube P (2013). School organisation in Zimbabwe. Harare: Zimbabwe Publishing House. Phillips G, Pugh C (2012). Research methods. London: Routledge. Robbins SP (2010). Organisational behavior. Upper Saddle River; New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Schein EH (2010). Organisational culture and leadership. San Fransisco: Jesssey-Bass Publishers. Schmuck RA, Runkel PJ (2012). The handbook of organizational development in schools and colleges. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press Inc. Wilkinson A (2011). Empowerment theory and practice. Personnel Review, 27(1): 40-56. Accepted 29 September, 2014. Citation: Tshabalala T, Ncube AC (2014). Teacher participation in organisational development efforts: the case of secondary schools in Bulawayo province of Zimbabwe. World Journal of Educational Research 1(1): 002-007.

Copyright: © 2014 Tshabalala and Ncube. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are cited.