The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0951-354X.htm

IJEM
25,5 Does participative decision
making affect lecturer
performance in higher education?
494
D.S. Sukirno and Sununta Siengthai
School of Management, Asian Insititute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand
Received June 2010
Accepted July 2010

Abstract
Purpose – The relationship between participation and job performance has captured the interest of
not only business researchers but also education researchers. However, the topic has not gained
significant attention in the educational management research arena. The purpose of this paper is to
empirically examine the impact of participation in decision making on lecturer performance in higher
education.
Design/methodology/approach – Mail survey was used to collect the data. Open-ended
questionnaires were distributed to the lecturers in Yogyakarta Province in Indonesia. A total of 347
usable questionnaires were obtained which is about 46.3 percent rate of return. Factor analysis was
used to identify the constructs. All Cronbach’s alpha values are more than 0.7 and factor loading is
more than 0.50. Regression analysis was employed to test research hypotheses. In addition, t-test and
ANOVA test were also conducted to investigate the different impact of demographic data on the job
performance of the lecturers.
Findings – This study finds that participative decision making and academic rank have significant
effect on lecturer performance. This finding implies that involving lecturers in educational decision
making would be useful to improve not only lecturer performance but also organizational
performance. In addition, among all demographic variables taken into account, only academic rank
significantly affects lecturer performance.
Research limitations/implications – This study assumes constant the reward system and
performance appraisal factors that might affect the relationship between participation and lecturer
performance. The research findings urge the Indonesian government to immediately set an order of a
participative decision making system to facilitate the realization of a better quality of Indonesian
higher education performance.
Originality/value – Participative decision making is a tool to align an organization’s vision and a
lecturer’s objectives. The higher the level of lecturer’s participation in decision making the higher the
lecturer’s commitment to the organization’s vision and the higher the lecturer’s performance will be.
Keywords Participative decision making, Lecturer performance, Higher education, Indonesia,
Performance levels, Employee participation
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Higher education plays its main role in creating expertise and acts as a center of
excellence for knowledge creation and developing human resources necessary for a
International Journal of Educational country’s development. Higher education is the engine that drives the economy and the
Management vaccination against the worst effects of globalization (Creech, 2000; Brodjonegoro, 2009).
Vol. 25 No. 5, 2011
pp. 494-508 Further, higher education affects every area of national development and deserves
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0951-354X
requisite attention (Chauhan, 2008). Many strategies have been implemented by
DOI 10.1108/09513541111146387 developing countries such as Indonesia to improve their higher education performance.
 Job performance is a significant factor affecting organizational performance. In an Lecturer
educational setting, lecturer performance has a strategic role and is the main factor performance
determining student performance and hence university performance. Kingdon and
Teal (2003) mentioned that teachers are a central actor in the learning process that
takes place in schools. Studying factors affecting lecturer performance in higher
educational institutions from different settings is very useful for not only enriching and
refining theory but also for developing reasonable recommendations to increase 495
quality of higher educational institutions.
Since 1980s, considerable attention was placed on enhancing teacher
professionalism primarily through increasing teacher participation in decision
making regarding issues affecting teachers’ schools and classrooms (Rice and
Schneider, 1994). Employee participation has been primarily initiated from the
industrial and business domains; but only recently it is evident in schools (Conway,
1980, p. 41).
In the USA, teacher participation becomes central to many schools restructuring
projects. The term “restructuring” suggests fundamental educational change in
response to the need to comprehensively redesign schools (Lipman, 1997, pp. 3-4).
Dimensions of managing the teaching-learning process developed by Pozo (2006)
mentioned that there are many principal components determining successfulness of
teaching-learning process, one of them is giving teacher a chance to participate in
decision making.
Participation in decision making is becoming a controversial issue to find a fit
between lecturers and universities’ objectives. Such researches have been conducted in
developed as well as developing countries but still very limited in Indonesia. Moreover,
the previous research shows lack of consistent and conclusive evidence about the
impact of participative decision making on teaching performance in higher education.
The empirical evidence shows that research in this area is still an equivocal topic. The
purpose of this research was to ascertain empirical evidence and gain insights about
the impact of participative decision making on lecturer performance in higher
education in Indonesia.

Literature review
Although job performance is commonly used in business and education fields of
studies, its concept is still poorly defined. Different definitions of the concept might be
given by different scholars in different fields. For instance, in education, technical
engineering and business, we will find different definitions of job performance.
Bernardin et al. (1995) defined job performance as the outcomes of work because they
provide the strongest linkage to the strategic goals of the organization, customer
satisfaction, and economic contributions. Campbell et al. (1970) conceptualized job
performance as behavior and it does not have to be directly observable actions of an
individual. It can consist of mental production such as answers or decisions.
Whatever justification given by the leadership of colleges in Indonesia, with the
university rankings in Indonesia started in the order of 78 in Asia-Pacific according to
Time magazine, it still could be a reflection of underdevelopment of the higher
education quality in Indonesia (Heriyono, 2009). By having such a condition, it would
be still very difficult for Indonesian universities to compete internationally with other
foreign universities. Heriyono exposed that improving lecturer performance might
IJEM become a strategic approach for alleviating the educational problems. Therefore,
identifying and facilitating factors influencing lecturer performance in higher
25,5 education has become a paramount priority for Indonesia government.

Linking participative decision making to lecturer performance

Educators, practitioners, and researchers from various disciplines of knowledge have
496 studied factors affecting performance. One of the prominent factors affecting
performance is participative decision-making (Drummond and Reitsch, 1995; Lipman,
1997; Clinton and Hunton, 2001). Increasing level of teacher participation in making
decisions and extending their involvement in the overall decision making process make
school policy and management more responsive to societal needs (Pashiardis, 1994).
Further, Pashiardis (1994) described that teachers can take a greater role in the overall
success of the school when they are committed to being active participants in the
decision-making process.
Participation has an important role not only in the business or industrial sector but
also in the educational sector. Participation in school decision making can enhance
teachers’ commitment, expertise, and effectiveness (Marks and Karen, 1997, p. 246).
Lipman (1997, p. 11) asserted that teacher participation was to re-energize schools,
unleash teachers’ initiative and creativity, and get them to buy into the restructuring
agenda. Besides, it has become a key component of recent efforts to restructure and
reform schools in Indonesia. Teacher participation in school decision making has been
advanced for many reasons (Smylie, 1996, p. 181) including the belief that it will
enhance communication among teachers and administrators as well as the quality of
educational decision making and quality of teachers’ work life.
Participation may also enhance teacher’s sense of responsibilities, shared culture, and
teacher commitment (Lipman, 1997, p. 4). In addition, Lipman stated that teacher
participation is related to the implementation of programmatic decisions and creates
opportunities for instructional improvement. Smylie (1996) stated that participation
would improve teachers’ opportunities in acquiring new knowledge and insights. These
opportunities can enhance respectively instructional improvement and student outcomes.
Mualuko et al. (2009) investigated the extent to which teachers are involved in
school decision making process in comparison to their desired extent of participation.
They found that teachers desire greater involvement in decision making. They
therefore recommended that by involving lecturers in decision making, the quality of
decisions and their morale in their performance of duty will be higher. According to the
above theoretical background, it is expected that providing lecturers a space for
participating in decision making has positive impact on lecturers’ performance in
teaching, research, publications, public services and managerial involvement activities:
H1. Participative decision making is positively related to lecturer performance or
in other words the more participative decision making, the better lecturer
performance in higher education institutions will be.

Linking demographic characteristics and lecturer performance

Level of education and work experience are among the most commonly studied
characteristics of entrepreneurs and educators. Cursory examination of empirical
studies relating to the impact of education and experience on performance suggests
that there are contradictory findings. Tremblay et al. (2001) confirmed that class-level
variables that positively affect performance are experienced teachers who were Lecturer
comfortable with the curriculum. In their business research, Kennedy and Drennan performance
(1998) asserted that higher education and management experience in large
organizations is associated with higher performance. Their arguments centered on
the fact that experience improves teaching skills while pupils learn better at the hands
of teachers who have taught them continuously over a period of years.
Several studies have been conducted, yet there is not a single conclusion regarding 497
gender equality on the job performance. Ackah and Heaton (2003) explored whether the
acquisition of a human resource professional qualification has the same impact upon
career progression for male and female managers. The findings suggested that the
careers of men and women do differ, with men receiving more internal promotions
while women were more likely to seek career progression in another organization and
to be less successful in terms of earnings. In contrast, Watson (2003) had studied
gender-based differences in the financial performance and business growth of small
and medium-sized Australian enterprises and had found that female lecturers tend to
perform better than male lecturers.
In 2008, Adeyemi’s study revealed that teachers’ teaching experience had a
significant impact on students’ learning outcomes. Schools having more teachers with
teaching experience of five years and above achieved better results than schools having
more teachers with less than five years of teaching experiences. Recently, Kadri et al.
(2009) found that gender and experience of lecturers affected lecturer performance.
In Indonesia, public universities, in general, are regarded as being much more
prestigious and more favored by students than their private counterparts. Therefore,
Indonesian private institutions are also more vulnerable in an increasingly competitive
environment. This argument is supported by research evidence revealed by Chien-ern
et al. (2008) in Taiwan higher education system. Their administrators are more eager
than their public counterparts to try new strategies for getting out of the predicament.
Indonesian government financial and non-financial support is perceived as the most
influential determinant for public universities. Due to the lack of financial support and
potential market demand, it was reported that about 40 percent of private universities
(1,080 universities) in 2008 are going out of business (Sinar Indonesia Baru, 2008). Such
salient different conditions may cause lecturer performance variation between public
and private universities. Based on the literature review, it is then hypothesized as
follows:
H2. Demographic characteristics (i.e. age, gender, experience, educational level,
academic rank, and school background) are related to lecturer performance of
public universities and private universities in Indonesia.

Research methods
Sample and data
A number of lecturers working in different public and private universities in
Yogyakarta province participated as respondents in this research. Sampling frame was
determined based on the publication of Indonesian Higher Education Department
(http://evaluasi.or.id/index.php). A total of 750 questionnaires were distributed to the
respondents by using snowball sampling method. After being verified, about 347 of
returned questionnaires are usable which is about 46.3 percent rate of return. Detailed
description of the demographic data is given in the Table I.
IJEM
Gender
25,5 Variable Group description Male Female Total %

University status Public 90 45 134 39

Private 120 92 212 61
Total 210 137 347 100
498 Age #41 years 79 79 158 46
.41 years 131 58 189 54
Total 210 137 347 100
Experience #12 years 89 77 166 48
. 12 years 121 60 181 52
Total 210 137 347 100
Education level Bachelor degree 45 42 87 25
Master degree 150 91 241 70
Doctoral degree 12 2 14 4
Others 3 2 5 1
Total 210 137 347 100
School background Engineering 52 22 74 21
Business and economics 27 34 61 18
Medical sciences 7 28 35 10
Education 80 35 115 33
Others 44 18 62 18
Total 210 137 347 100
Academic rank Associate professor 51 24 75 22
Assistant professor 78 37 115 33
Table I. Instructor 48 53 102 29
Profiles of the sample Others 32 23 55 16
respondents Total 210 137 347 100

In total, there are 347 lecturers from 34 different universities in Yogyakarta Province
who participated in this research. About 60 percent (i.e. 210) of the sample are male and
40 percent (i.e. 137) are female. It is found that 39 percent of the respondents work in the
public universities while 61 percent in the private universities. There are two main age
groups of respondents in which 46 percent are 41 years old or less and 54 percent of
them are more than 42 years old. Data also show that about 48 percent of respondents
have been working as a lecturer for 12 years or less and 52 percent of respondents have
their experience as lecturers for more than 12 years.
Based on the lecturers’ educational attainment level, the majority, i.e. 70 percent of
lecturers hold a master’s degree and many, i.e. about 25 percent have obtained
bachelor’s degree and only about 4 percent of lecturers hold doctoral degree and the
rest about 1 percent of the lecturers hold only diploma degree or lower. The
demographic data indicate that 48 percent of the lecturers have worked for at least 12
years and 52 percent have more than 12 years of work experiences. Research
participants come from many different backgrounds of knowledge. About 21 percent of
respondents are working in engineering, 18 percent in business and economics, 10
percent in medical sciences, 33 percent in education, and 18 percent in other different
faculties.
 In the sample of this study, there are many of the lecturers (i.e. 45 percent) who have Lecturer
no academic rank teaching in the public and private universities. Such lecturers may performance
become a guest or adjunct lecturer in the universities. They might be a practitioner,
financial analyst, technician, business people or others who voluntarily participated in
delivering their practical knowledge to the students. About 33 percent are assistant
professors and 22 percent are associate professors. Since there is a limited number of
professor and it is difficult to request their participation, no single professor has 499
participated in this study.

Variable measurement
A two section questionnaire is used to collect the data. The first section asks the
respondents about their demographic data. In the second section, the respondents are
requested to indicate their own level of participation in decision-making and
performance on various items, using a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. An
instrument of participative decision-making developed by Marks and Karen (1997) is
adopted here. There are four participative decision-making domains used. These are
school operations and management, students’ school experiences, teachers’ work life
and control over classroom instruction. Data for lecturer performance is obtained by an
instrument using six items from Smeenk et al. (2008). It questions the respondents
about their quality of research, teaching, publications, public engagement and
managerial involvement performance.

Results
Exploratory factor analysis and reliability test
Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and reliability test were conducted in the beginning
before regression and ANOVA test were conducted. Based on the EFA, all items have
significant factor loading as expected on the main factor. Table II indicates that all
factor loading values are more than 0.5 as suggested by Hair et al. (2006). Based on the
KMO test, as a measure of sampling adequacy, the results showed that KMO for
overall variables are 0.831 greater than 0.50 (suggested by Hair et al., 2006), so that
exploratory factor analysis could be continued. The probability associated with the
Bartlett test for this research was p , 0.000 less than the level of significance (0.05) as
it was required. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of participative decision-making and
lecturer performance instruments are respectively 0.868 and 0.863. As these are higher
than 0.70, it could be concluded that the instruments are reliable (Nunnally, 1978; Hair
et al., 2006).

Comparative analysis on demographic data

This section provides information regarding comparison analysis based on the
demographic data on the lecturer participation in decision making and their
performance. Based on t-test results listed in Tables III and IV, it is found that gender
status does not distinguish level of lecturer participation and performance. Both male
and female lecturers perform and participate in decision making. Further, this research
proves that gender discrimination in work is definitely improper policy in an academic
position in the university.
This finding is confirmatory to several previous studies but contradicting with that
of Watson’s (2003) which states that female lecturers perform better than their male
IJEM
Component
25,5 Description 1 2

Participative decision making

1.1 Planning the building and budget 0.533
1.2 Determining the teaching schedule 0.693
500 1.3 Determining specific professional and teaching assignments 0.754
1.4 Establishing the curriculum 0.711
1.5 Hiring new professional personnel 0.677
1.6 Determining the content of practical subject 0.620
1.7 Determining student behavior codes 0.700
1.8 Disciplining students 0.616
1.9 Setting policy on a class size 0.604
1.10 Selecting textbooks and other instructional materials 0.569
1.11 Selecting content, topics and skills to be taught 0.563
1.12 Selecting teaching techniques 0.559
Lecturer performance
2.1 Teaching performance (holding a degree, as a thesis advisor, student
advisor, tutorial/teaching, writing a textbook, module, or practical manual,
developing learning media, etc.) 0.667
2.2 Research performance (individual or group) 0.795
2.3 Publication performance (publishing an article/paper, translating/editing a
book, patenting technological product, etc.) 0.784
2.4 Public engagement performance (conducting society training/illumination,
as a member of governmental board, etc.) 0.689
2.5 Miscellaneous (seminar participant, achievement award, professional
organization member, representativeness of organization in any event, a
member of a governmental/university project, etc.) 0.786
2.5 Overall performance 0.838
Eigenvalues 5.407 3.118
Total variance explain 30.039 17.324
Cummulative variance explained 30.039 47.364
Alpha 0.868 0.853
KMO and Bartlett’s test
Table II. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy 0.842
Exploratory factor Bartlett’s test of sphericity approx. chi-square 2,998.731
analysis and reliability df 153
test Sig. 0.000

Variable Category n Mean SD t df Sig.

Gender Male 210 3.145 0.745 0.710 345 0.478

Female 137 3.085 0.797
University status Public 134 3.088 0.699 2 0.578 344 0.564
Private 212 3.136 0.802
Table III. Experience # 12 years 166 3.078 0.813 2 1.001 345 0.317
T-test of participative . 12 years 181 3.161 0.719
decision making based on Age # 41 years 158 3.115 0.817 2 0.152 345 0.880
demographic data . 41 years 189 3.127 0.721
counterpart. Santos et al. (2006), based on their study confirmed that there were no Lecturer
significant differences on mathematics achievement when considering gender. Based performance
on their research findings, Shaffril et al. (2010) also claim that both male and female
youth have a similar level of acceptance towards contract farming. Omirin (2007)
reveals that there is no significant difference between the academic performance of
male and female students in the Nigerian Universities.
Based on the t-test results (Table III), there is no significant difference on lecturer 501
participation in decision making and lecturer performance between the two different
groups of university status, experience, as well as age. This research result implies that
lecturer’s experience or age could not explain lecturer’s participation level in decision
making and lecturer performance. It is also found that there is no difference between
public and private universities in term of lecturer participation in decision making and
performance. These contradict with the previous research findings obtained by
Adeyemi (2008), Kadri et al. (2009) and Chien-ern et al. (2008).
However, when demographic characteristics are used to explain the difference in the
lecturer performance, it is found that “university status” is significantly related to
lecturer performance, i.e. at the 0.10 level. The mean values indicate that lecturers
working in public universities tend to have a better performance compared to those
who work in the private universities. Several chronic problems faced by private
universities make them more vulnerable in a high education business competition. The
chronic problems are resulted from the lack of funding support, less of qualified staff
members, stress on a bigger class, lack of facilities and training and development
program, insecure job and less rigorous recruitment program.
Another similar evidence is observed; Varghese (2004) found that many private
universities in Africa rely heavily on part-time teachers and operate with a limited
number of facilities and staff members, self-financing, and less chances to have
educational advancement for their staff. Recently, Ashraf et al. (2009) asserted that
almost all private universities in Bangladesh are founded on rented space and
buildings, research facilities are also underdeveloped. Most of the universities did not
have research bureaus, and publication facilities were also limited. Due to the lack of
adequate supporting facilities and human resources, it is impossible for the teachers’
and the students’ performance in the private universities to reach a satisfactory level.
Examining variation or differences among multiple groups of lecturers in
participative decision making reveals that there is no significant difference among
educational levels, academic ranks and school backgrounds (see Table V). It implies

Variable Category n Mean SD t df Sig.

Gender Male 210 3.645 0.581 0.506 345 0.613

Female 137 3.613 0.572
University status Public 134 3.703 0.530 1.830 344 0.068
Private 212 3.587 0.602
Experience #12 years 166 3.581 0.590 21.588 345 0.113
Table IV.
.12 Years 181 3.680 0.562
T-test of lecturer
Age #41 years 158 3.606 0.577 20.768 345 0.443 performance based on
. 41 years 189 3.654 0.578 demographic data
IJEM that level of education, academic rank as well as school background have no effect on
25,5 the level of participation of the lecturers in decision making process.
Table V also shows that lecturer performance among different educational levels
are found statistically not different. This finding might be interpreted that a higher
degree of education of lecturers could not be used as a guarantee that they would show
a better performance. Unreliable practical performance appraisal system and reward
502 system have motivated many lecturers to find another job beyond the campus for their
better expectation.
On the other hand, the results of the ANOVA test (see Table VI) show that lecturer
performance are significantly different among different groups of academic ranks and
school backgrounds. Table VI suggests that based on the t-test results, instructor’s and
assistant professor’s performance is significantly different from that of associate
professor. Associate professor has a higher performance compared to his/her
counterparts. Nevertheless, there is no difference between the assistant professor’s and
instructor’s performance.
Next, Table V also suggests that school backgrounds distinguish lecturer
performance significantly (F ¼ 6:194; Sig: ¼ 0:000) (Figure 1). Based on post-hoc test,
this study finds that lecturers working in schools (disciplines) such as engineering,
medical sciences, business and economics tend to have a worse performance compared
to those working in school of education or others. Statistically, there is a significant
difference on Indonesian lecturer performance in school of education and school of
engineering, medical sciences, business and economics. In more details, the following
graphical presentation using mean bars shows that lecturers working in school of
education had the highest performance compared to the lecturers working in the other
different schools.

Linking participation and demographic characteristics to lecturer performance

By entering all demographic data and lecturer participation onto the regression model,
this study finds that participative decision making and academic rank have a significant
impact on lecturer performance (see Table VII). It is widely understood that academic

Factor Dependent variable F Sig.

Education level Participative decision making 0.548 0.650

Lecturer performance 0.607 0.611
Academic rank Participative decision making 1.388 0.238
Lecturer performance 2.758 0.028 *
Table V.
ANOVA results based on School background Participative decision making 1.029 0.392
demographic data Lecturer performance 6.194 0.000 *

Academic rank n Mean Mean difference t Sig.

Table VI.
T-test results of lecturer Assistant prof. – Instructor 115 and 152 3.613 - 3.544 0.069 0.976 0.330
performance based on Assistant prof. – Associate prof. 115 and 75 3.613 - 3.813 2 0.200 22.373 0.019
academic rank Instructor – Associate prof. 152 and 75 3.544 - 3.813 2 0.270 23.450 0.001
 Lecturer
performance

503

Figure 1.
Mean bars of lecturer
performance based on
school background

Model a Model b
Base model Model a1 Model a2 Model b1 Model b2
Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

Constant 3.117 3.898 3.452 3.985 3.488

Gender (G) 20.025 2 0.016 20.029 2 0.017
University status (US) 20.049 2 0.069 20.052 2 0.072
Age (A) 20.045 2 0.040 20.125 2 0.096
Marital status (MS) 0.170 * * 0.141 0.174 * * 0.140
Education level (EL) 20.038 2 0.026 20.041 2 0.029
Experience (E) 0.013 0.008 0.025 0.020
Academic rank (AR) 20.090 * * 2 0.078 20.101 * * 2 0.081 * *
Lecturer’s participation (PAR) 0.165 * 0.148 * 0.144 *
R2 0.048 0.045 0.082 0.048 0.083
Adjusted R 2 0.045 0.025 0.061 0.028 0.061
F 17.383 * 2.276 * 3.788 * 2.425 * 3.815 *
Notes: *p , 0.000; * *p , 0.050; Model a ¼ Age and experience variable are classified in six groups;
Model b ¼ Age and experience variable are classified in 2 groups; (1) Perf ¼ 3.117+0.165 Per *; (2)
Perf ¼ 3.898 2 0.025G 2 0.049US 2 0.045A+0.170MS * * 2 0.038EL+0.013E 2 0.090AR * *; (3)
Perf ¼ 3.452 2 0.016G 2 0.069US 2 0.040A+0.141MS 2 0.026EL +0.008E 2 0.078AR+0.148PAR *; Table VII.
(4) Perf ¼ 3.985 2 0.029G 2 0.052US 2 0.125A+0.174MS * * 2 0.041EL+0.025E 2 0.101AR * *; (5) Regression matrix on
Perf ¼ 3.488 2 0.017G 2 0.072US 2 0.096A+0.140MS 2 0.029EL+0.020E 2 0.081AR * *+0.144PAR * lecturer performance

rank will be directly related to lecturer performance. To be promoted to the higher rank,
lecturers need more teaching credits, research projects, publications, public services and
other managerial activities. It means that they have performed better for their jobs.
This finding supports the previous results of studies done by several researchers
(Drummond and Reitsch, 1995; Lipman, 1997; Clinton and Hunton, 2001). It suggests that
providing lecturers a space to participate in decision-making process will definitely
improve not only lecturer commitment, expertise, and effectiveness, responsibilities and
shared culture but also lecturer performance (Marks and Karen, 1997; Lipman, 1997;
Drummond and Reitsch, 1995; Lipman, 1997; Clinton and Hunton, 2001).
IJEM A three-model of regression analysis is conducted to examine the impact of
25,5 participative decision making and demographic characteristics on lecturer
performance. In the first step (base model), it is found that participative decision
making affect significantly on lecturer performance (b ¼ 0:219; p , 0.000). Gender
and experience are classified in six dummy variables (model a1) or two groups (model
b1), both models show that marital status and academic rank are significantly related
504 to the lecturer performance. Marital status shows a positive and significant impact on
the lecturer performance ( p , 0.050) while organization rank is negatively related to
lecturer performance ( p , 0.050). Model a2 and b2 are simultaneous regressions of
demographic characteristics and participative decision making on lecturer
performance. Regression results based on the model a2 show that none of the
variables except participative decision making has a positive and significant impact on
lecturer performance (b ¼ 0:197; p , 0.000).
Academic rank and participative decision making have a significant impact on
lecturer performance in model b2. However, surprisingly, academic rank shows a
negative impact on the lecturer performance. It is most likely, based on casual
observations, that ineffective reward system and performance appraisal system are the
explanation. As it was predicted by Bennell (2004) that regardless of development
status, the teaching force in most countries has never enjoyed full professional status.
It is widely noted that incentives to enhance schools and teacher performance are
frequently weak due to ineffective incentives design and interventions. This is
particularly the case when teachers cannot be effectively disciplined for unacceptable
behavior (absenteeism, lateness, poor teaching, abusive behavior towards pupils) by
school management because it is very difficult to dismiss them. In addition, pay and
promotion are largely unrelated to actual performance. In short, Bennell (2004) declared
that where teacher’s pay is very low, there is normally de facto recognition that the
“labour process” in school has to be organized in such a way that enables teachers their
autonomy to generate additional income.
In line with the earlier findings, regression coefficients and their significance
presented in Table VII (model a2 and b2) displays that gender status, university status,
age, experience, marital status and education level do not have significant effect on
lecturer performance. These findings support a relevant study conducted by Gunbayi
(2007) from a sample of 204 teachers from nine urban high schools in the center of Afyon
and Usak cities in the west of Turkey. He found that there was no significant difference
in the organizational clarity and standards, commitment, autonomy, intimacy and
support, member conflict and rewards according to the gender, marital status,
educational levels and seniority levels of the teachers. Later on, Akiri and Ugborugbo
(2008) also proved that there was no significant difference in the productivity of male and
female teachers in secondary school teachers in Delta State, Nigeria, although the male
teachers were generally more productive than their female counterparts and that female
teachers were more influenced by location than the male teachers.
In term of teaching experience, Alexander (2004) in his study of teacher performance
in Texas separated years of experience into four ranges of experience. These
categorical ranges are: 0-5 years, 6-10 years, 11-20 years, and greater than 20 years. He
found all the ranges of experience produced a negative coefficient, but none were
significantly distinguishing teacher performance in Texas. What was revealed by
Alexander is definitely similar to this present study.
Conclusion and recommendations Lecturer
This study empirically examines the impact of lecturer participation on lecturer performance
performance in higher education institutions in Indonesia. There are several
conclusions based on the research findings described in the previous section. First,
this research finds that academic rank positively affects lecturer performance. Surely,
in Indonesia, engaging more in research, teaching, publications, public service and
other managerial activities becomes an academic requirement and prerequisite for the 505
lecturers to get a higher academic rank.
Secondly, gender status, university status, age, experience, marital status and
education do not have significant effect on lecturer performance. These findings
suggest that it is of high priority that the Indonesian government immediately set a
better performance appraisal system and reward system to obtain a better lecturer
performance.
Thirdly, this research finds that participative decision making has a significant
impact on lecturer performance in higher education institutions in Indonesia. This
finding strongly recommends educational leaders to encourage a higher level of their
lecturer involvement (engagement) both emotionally and physically in making
decisions related to school operations and management, students’ school experiences,
teachers’ work life and control over classroom instruction. By doing so, this policy is
expected to increase lecturer and university performance.
Fourthly, this research has partially failed to support research hypotheses related to
the effect of several demographic characteristics. It is contradictory to the findings of
Eyupoglu and Saner (2009), Kennedy and Drennan (1998), Adeyemi (2008), and Kadri
et al. (2009) and Chien-ern et al. (2008). Since not only local but also central government
have allocated a numerous facilities to the public universities, it is recommended to
expeditiously administer a profound examination on factors affecting the research
anomalies regarding university status, academic rank, educational level and teaching
experiences.
Finally, to capture a deeper explanation of factors affecting lecturer performance in
higher educational institution in Indonesia, it is suggested for future research to take
into account other personal and organizational factors such as motivation, recruitment
system, performance appraisal system and reward system into their research model.

References
Ackah, C. and Heaton, N. (2003), “Human resource management careers: different paths for men
and women?”, Career Development International, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 134-42.
Adeyemi, T.O. (2008), “Teachers’ teaching experience and students’ learning outcomes in
secondary schools in Ondo State”, Nigeria Educational Research and Review, Vol. 3 No. 6,
pp. 204-12.
Akiri, A.A. and Ugborugbo, N.M. (2008), “An examination of gender’s influence on teachers’
productivity in secondary schools”, Journal of Social Science, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 185-91.
Alexander, C. (2004), “Does teacher certification matter? Teacher certification and middle school
mathematics achievement in Texas”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association San Diego, CA, April 12, available at: www.
sedl.org/pubs/policyresearch/resources/AERA-2004.pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).
IJEM Ashraf, M.A., Ibrahim, Y. and Joarder, M.H.R. (2009), “Quality education management at private
universities in Bangladesh: an exploratory study”, Jurnal Pendidik dan Pendidikan, Vol. 24,
25,5 pp. 17-32.
Bennell, P. (2004), “Teacher motivation and incentive in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia”, Brighton,
UK, Knowledge and Skills for Development, available at: www.eldis.org/fulltext/dfidtea.
pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).
506 Bernardin, H.J., Kane, J.S., Ross, S., Spina, J.D. and Johnson, D.L. (1995), “Performance appraisal
design, development, and implementation”, in Ferris, G.R., Rosen, S.D. and Barnum, D.T.
(Eds), Handbook of Human Resource Management, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, pp. 462-93.
Brodjonegoro, S.S. (2009), “Higher education reform in Indonesia”, available at: www.tfhe.net/
resources/satryo_soemantri_brodjonegoro2.htm (accessed 27 February 2009).
Campbell, J.P., Dunnette, M.D., Lawler, E.E. and Weick, K.E. Jr (1970), Managerial Behavior,
Performance, and Effectiveness, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Chauhan, C.P.S. (2008), “Higher education: current status and future possibilities in Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka”, Analytical Reports
in International Education, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 29-48.
Chien-ern, H., Young, Y. and Chien-fu, H. (2008), “Differences between public and private
institutions of Taiwan’s HTVE system in determinants of competitiveness”, US-China
Education Review, Vol. 5 No. 7, pp. 1-12.
Clinton, B.D. and Hunton, J.E. (2001), “Linking participative budgeting congruence to
organization performance”, Behavioral Research in Accounting, Vol. 13, pp. 127-41.
Conway, J.A. (1980), “Power and participatory decision making in selected English schools”,
Approach to School Management, Harper & Row, London.
Creech, J.D. (2000), Linking Higher Education Performance Indicators to Goals, Southern Regional
Education Board, Atlanta, GA.
Drummond, M.E. and Reitsch, A. (1995), “The relationship between shared governance models
and faculty and administration attitudes”, Journal for Higher Education Management,
Vol. 111, pp. 49-58.
Eyupoglu, S.Z. and Saner, T. (2009), “Job satisfaction: does rank make a difference?”, African
Journal of Business Management, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 609-15.
Gunbayi, I. (2007), “School climate and teachers, perceptions on climate factors: research into
nine urban schools”, The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, Vol. 6 No. 3,
pp. 70-8.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data
Analysis, Pearson Prentice-Hall, Singapore.
Heriyono (2009), “Riset di perguruan tinggi masih lemah, ‘Universities’ research performances
are still low’”, Harian Pikiran Rakyat, 21 April, available at: www.ahmadheryawan.com/
. . ./3125-riset-di-perguruan-tinggi-masih-lemah.html (accessed 3 August 2010).
Kadri, M.H., Alwi, F. and Hashim, M. (2009), “The effect of lecturer gender, teaching experience,
and student gender on student achievement”, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/
papers.cfm?abstract_id¼1458434 (accessed 20 August 2009).
Kennedy, J. and Drennan, J. (1998), “The impact of education and experience on performance of
new ventures”, available at: www.sbaer.uca.edu/Research/1998/ICSB/f005.htm (accessed
24 January 2003).
Kingdon, G. and Teal, F. (2003), “Does performance related pay for teachers improve student
performance? Some evidence from India”, available at: www.williams.edu/Economics/
neudc/papers/performancepay18oct02.pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).
Lipman, P. (1997), “Restructuring in context: a case study of teacher participation and the Lecturer
dynamics of ideology, race and power”, American Education Research Journal, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 3-37. performance
Marks, H.M. and Karen, S.L. (1997), “Does empowerment affect the classroom? The implication of
teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance”,
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 245-75.
Mualuko, N.J., Mukasa, S.A. and Judy, A.S.K. (2009), “Improving decision making in schools 507
through teacher participation”, Educational Research and Review, Vol. 4 No. 8, pp. 391-7.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
Omirin, M.S. (2007), “Gender issue in the performance of students admitted through UME and
pre-degree into the Nigerian Universities”, Educational Research and Review, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 46-8.
Pashiardis, P. (1994), “Teacher participation in decision making”, International Journal of
Educational Management, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 14-17.
Pozo, L.M. (2006), “An instrument for evaluating classroom management”, Electronic Journal of
Research in Educational Psychology and Psychopedagogy, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 67-94.
Rice, E.M. and Schneider, G.T. (1994), “A decade of teacher empowerment: an empirical analysis
of teacher involvement in decision making, 1980-1991”, Journal of Educational
Administration, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 43-59.
Santos, D., Ursini, S., Ramirez, R.P. and Sanchez, G. (2006), “Mathematics achievement: sex
differences vs. gender differences”, Vol. 5, Proceedings 30th Conference of the International
Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mexico, pp. 41-8.
Shaffril, H.A.M., D’Silva, J.L., Uli, J. and Samah, B.A. (2010), “Gender issue in contract farming:
the case of Malaysian students”, American Journal of Agricultural and Biological Sciences,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 204-9.
Sinar Indonesia Baru (2008), “Ribuan perguruan tinggi swasta terancam ditutup” (“a thousand
universities in Indonesia are being collapsed”), available at: http://hariansib.com/
?p¼29457 (accessed 7 April 2010).
Smeenk, S., Teelken, C., Eisinga, R. and Doorewaard, H. (2008), “An international comparison of
the effects of HRM practices and organizational commitment on quality of job
performances among European University employees”, Higher Education Policy, Vol. 21,
pp. 323-44.
Smylie, M.A. (1996), “Instructional outcomes of school based participative decision making”,
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 181-98.
Tremblay, S., Ross, N. and Berthelot, J-M. (2001), “Factors affecting grade 3 student performance
in Ontario: a multilevel analysis”, Education Quarterly Review, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 25-36.
Varghese, N.V. (2004), “Private higher education in Africa”, International Institute for
Educational Planning, Unesco, available at: www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/pubs/PrivatHEAfr.
pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).
Watson, J. (2003), “SME performance: does gender matter?”, paper presented at 16th Annual
Conference of Small Enterprise Association of Australia and New Zealand, Ballarat,
28 September-1 October, available at: www.cric.com.au/seaanz/resources/32WatsonDoes
gendermatter.pdf (accessed 3 August 2010).

About the authors

D.A. Sukirno is a Lecturer in the Accounting Department at Yogyakarta State University and a
PhD candidate at School of Management Asian Insititute of Technology Thailand. His research
IJEM interest areas are in human resources management, educational measurement, financial
management and managerial accounting. D.A. Sukirno is the corresponding author and can be
25,5 contacted at: [email protected]
Sununta Siengthai is an Associate Professor in Human Resource Management at the School
of Management Asian Institute of Technology. She received her MA and PhD degrees from the
University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign; both are in the area of labor and industrial relations.
Her research interests are in human resources management, industrial relations, performance
508 management and measurement and international human resources management.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints