Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes Author(s): John L. Cotton, David A. Vollrath, Kirk L.

Froggatt, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall, Kenneth R. Jennings Source: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1988), pp. 8-22 Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258351 . Accessed: 26/04/2011 05:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aom. . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Academy of Management is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Academy of Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

?Academyof ManagementReview, 1988,Vol. 13, No. 1, 8-22.

Diverse

Employee and Forms

Participation: Outcomes Different

JOHNL. COTTON Marquette University DAVIDA. VOLLRATH New York University L. FROGGATT KIRK Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield MARKL. LENGNICK-HALL University of Minnesota, Duluth R. JENNINGS KENNETH Air Force Instituteof Technology
takes several distinctforms. A Participationin decision making (PDM) review of empirical studies demonstrates that effects of participation on satisfaction and performance vary according to form. The findings cast doubt on the conclusions of earlier reviews based on a unidimensional view of PDM and raise several issues for the study and practice of PDM. Although the term participation in decision making (PDM)often is used as if it referred to a single concept, PDMhas been defined conceptually and operationally in many different ways (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978). As Schregle (1970) has quite accurately stated, "Workers' participation has become a magic word in many countries. Yet almost everyone who employs the terms thinks of something different."This clouds attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of PDM. For example, Locke and Schweiger (1979, pp. 275-277)noted conceptual distinctionsamong forms of PDM, but ignored such differences in their review. They distinguished studies only in terms of "more" or "less" participation, and, consequently, they concluded that PDM has a negligible effect on productivityand it has mixed effects on job satisfaction (p. 316).
8

Such conclusions may be misleading if PDMis not a unitaryconstruct.Ifdifferentformsof participation exist and if they are associated with different outcomes, aggregating findings across the various forms will yield misleading results. This paper differs from previous efforts; it asks the question, "Aredifferent forms of PDMassociated with different outcomes?" In an attempt to answer thisquestion, studies were classified by form of PDM, and the outcomes for each form were analyzed separately.

Procedure
The literature search consisted of three parts. First, relevant articles from previous reviews by Lockeand Schweiger (1979),Dachler and Wilpert (1978),Strauss (1982),and Lowin (1968)were ex-

amined. Second, a computer search of Psychological Abstracts was conducted for the years 1967 through 1983. Third, major journals in organizational behavior were reviewed from 1978 through 1983. From over 400 articles originally located, 91 were retained. The majority of articles located were philosophical and theoretical discussions of participation(e.g., Bachrach, 1967; Cummings, and 1978;Rothschild, 1979),practitioner-oriented popular press articles (e.g., Bennett, 1979; Dowling, 1975),and reviews and critiques (Bartlem & Locke, 1981; Carey, 1967; White, 1979). Papers falling in these categories were not included in this review. A variety of empirical studies were excluded fromthe review because they focused on closely related topics, but not on PDM itself. Like that of Locke and Schweiger (1979, p. 274), this review excludes studies of job enrichment and collective bargaining. Studies of leader authoritarianism and consideration (see Stogdill, 1981, Chapters 18and 21 for reviews) also were not included because the operationalization of these behaviors includes more than participativepractices by the leader. Finally, the present review excludes studies of participative climate, which may include manipulations of organizational structure, rewards and punishments, cooperation and competition,and other factors(e.g., Litwin&Stringer, 1968). Participative decision making can be evaluated in terms of various outcomes, including workplace democratization, reduction of industrial conflict, and employees' involvement in decisions. Again, following Lockeand Schweiger (1979), this review focuses on two important outcomes, productivityand job satisfaction.Some studies of PDM (e.g., Coch & French, 1948; Fleishman, 1965)measured individual or small group performance, whereas others (e.g., those that examined Scanlon Plans) assessed productivity at the organizational level. Therefore, in comparing productivityresults, it is important to keep in mind possible differences resulting from differences in the level of analysis.
9

A classification scheme reflecting conceptual distinctions in the PDM literature (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978; Locke & Schweiger, 1979) was constructed. Dachler and Wilpert (1978, p. 12) characterized PDM in terms of three properties: formal-informal, direct-indirect, and as a location along a continuum of how much "access" or influence organization members have in making a decision. Formal participation has a "$system of rules .
.

. imposed on or granted to the

organization"(e.g., formally established quality circles). Informalparticipation, in contrast, is a "nonstatutory, consensus emerging among interacting members" (e.g., casual superior-subordinate exchanges). Direct participation involves "immediate personal involvement of organization members" while indirect participation involves some form of employee representation. Access is the amount of influence organization members can exert when making a given decision. The different levels of access or influence are defined by Dachler and Wilpert along a continuum:(a) No (advance) informationis given to employees about a decision, (b) Employees are informedin advance, (c)Employees can give their opinion about the decision to be made, (d) Employees' opinions are taken into account, (e) Employees can negatively or positively veto a decision, and (f) The decision is completely in the hands of the employees. Lockeand Schweiger (1979)acknowledged the existence of these properties and noted that the outcomes of PDMmight vary in terms of content of the decisions involved. They proposed fourcontent categories: (a) Routine personnel functions, such as hiring, training, discipline, performance evaluation; (b) Workitself, including task assignments, job design, and speed of work; (c) Working conditions, including rest pauses, hours of work, placement of equipment, lighting; and (d) Company policies, such as layoffs, profitsharing, capital investments, and general companywide
policies.

A final dimension is the duration of PDM studied. A significant number of studies reported the results of short-termexperiments involving a

few hours, a single meeting, or at most, a few days of PDM.Time may affect organizational and members' commitment to PDM. Organizations and individuals involved in short-termPDMmay have less commitment than if the PDM continued over weeks or months. Lawler (1986)argued that organizations must take a long-term approach to implementing PDMbecause outcomes often will be nonexistent or negative in the short run. In addition, short-term PDM may indicate less commitmentby the organization or, perhaps, a less positive attitude toward PDM (Sashkin, 1976).Finally, time has been used in other taxonomies of preparation (e.g., Wandersman, 1981). Each of the 91 articles was classified in terms of these five properties (formal-informal,directindirect, level of influence, content, short-term versus long-term)by one of the researchers. The study was then discussed and it was classified by the researchers working as a group. Most articles were easily classified. However, when uncertainty existed, another of the researchers read the study again, and the entire group classified the study by consensus. In classifying the studies, it became clear that despite the many possible types of PDM,six combinations or configurations of the dimensions were adequate to describe all of the studies in the sample. Thus, these six form the basis of the discussion forms, [(a) Participation in work decisions, (b) Consultative participation, (c) Shortterm participation, (d) Informal participation, (e) Employee ownership, and (f) Representative participation] rather than the dimensions from the taxonomy. A detailed description of each form appears later. At least two factorscontributeto the clustering. First, better-known forms of PDM, such as Scanlon plans, quality circles, and employee ownership plans, have been implemented more often than others. Second, the practice of programmatic and cumulative research promotes the clustering of investigations. For example, early studies of goal setting (Locke, 1968)stimulated replications and extensions in later research,
10

generating numerous goal-setting studies of participation. It is tempting to employ meta-analysis (Glass, McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter, Schmidt, & Jackson, 1982) to analyze the research. However, with the emergence of the clusters, it is clear that a meta-analysis across the various dimensions would not be fruitful. What is necessary are comparisons among clusters for each dependent variable. The clustering reduces the number of studies within the groups to a level where the value of meta-analysis is negligible. Additionally, although similarities exist within the six clusters, the differences across studies in the clusters are too great for meta-analysis. Although the various studies focus on the same form of PDM, the manipulation of participation, outcomes, and measures may differ. Therefore the authors employed a simple positive, negative, and null "voting" system to cumulate the outcomes for each form of PDM. Guzzo, Jackson, and Katzell (1987) argued that meta-analyses are not necessarily superior to narrative reviews, and they may be less effective in certain situations. "Meta-analysis may provide a more powerful means of testing existing theory than less quantitative forms of literature review ... However, meta-analysis appears to be a comparatively weak method of elaborating existing theory by introducing contingencies in a theory's explanations" (p. 434). Thus, because the purpose of this review is to examine the outcomes of PDM in light of variations in form, metaanalysis is no more effective and, perhaps, less useful than a traditional review.

Results
Table 1 summarizes the results of the review. If overall, two-thirds of the studies in a cluster found positive effects of PDM on a dependent variable, it was concluded that an effect existed. If less than one-third of the findings were positive, it was concluded that the effect did not exist. If more than one-third, but less than two-thirds of the findings were positive, the findings were

Table 1 Effects of PDM on Performance and Satisfaction

Form of Participation Participation In Work Decisions Summary: Consultative Participationa Summary: Short-Term Participation Performance Findings Neutral Negative 44 35, 43, 44 SatisfactionFindings Negative 44

Positive 13, 14, 23, 35, 43, 59, 60, 65, 66, 83, 84 67% 17, 47, 74, 82 80% 40

Positive 31, 33, 59, 66

Neutral 35, 59, 84

Positive 58 Inconclusive 20, 24, 28 29, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42,
75

50% 19, 79, 82 75% 81, 87

Mixed 91 Inconclusive 24, 28, 29, 38, 75

Summary: Informal Participation

9% 2, 7, 30, 55, 85

No Effect 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 21, 30, 48, 56, 57, 62, 68, 71, 73, 74

29%

No Effect 4, 30, 55

Summary: Employee Ownership Summary: Representative Participation Summary

80% 15, 52, 49 100% 67 0% 69

Positive 49, 50, 52 70 Positive 69, 89 No Effect 18, 36, 63, 64 Overall: Representative:

85%

Positive 54

80% 18, 36 50% 100%

Positive 18, 36 No Effect Positive

Note: The numbers listed for the various clusters refer to the numbers following the references in the Appendix. The overall percentage was the number of positive effects minus negative effects divided by the total number of effects. These effects could be greater than the number of studies as several studies reported more than one effect. Note:For more detailed tables describing these and additional findings in the various clusters, interestedreaders can contact the firstauthor. a Despite being positive, these effects are labeled inconclusive because the methodology of the positive studies is poor.

11

judged uncertain. One exception to these criteria was the consultative participation cluster, which consisted of few studies with poor methods. The findings from this cluster were labeled "inconclusive," because the validity of the results is questionable. As Table 1 indicates, different patterns of results are associated with the diverse forms of PDM. A particular form of participation may be effective in terms of performance, or satisfaction, or both, or neither. In the following sections, the findings for each form of participation are reviewed. In addition, the impact that PDM has on other outcomes is discussed briefly. Finally, these results are discussed in light of earlier reviews, and theoretical and research implications from the findings are presented. Participation in Work Decisions Participationin work decisions includes formal PDM schemes in which workers have a great deal of influence in decisions focusing on the work itself. In terms of the classification scheme discussed earlier, this form of PDM is formal, direct, and long-term. The influence of participants is high (workers have a veto or make the final decisions). The participation focuses on the work, typically dealing with how it is organized, what is done, who does what, and so forth. Several studies examined the effects PDM has on both work and pay issues (Fleishman, 1965; Neider, 1980,work-and-incentivecondition),and on pay issues alone (Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Lawler &Hackrnan, 1969;Neider, 1980;Scheflen, Lawler, & Hackmnan, 1971).The rarity and similarity of these studies argues for including them in this cluster. This form of PDM has relatively consistent and positive (see Table 1)effects on productivity. Of 15studies, 11found increases in performance/ productivity, whereas only 1 found a decrease. Moreover, of those studies employing control groups rather than simple before-after designs, six of eight found increases. Although several of the studies have methodological problems, and
12

differences across conditions within studies exist, the uniformity of results and the results of the more carefully controlled studies (e.g., Bragg & Andrews, 1973; Veen, 1972) suggest that performance/productivity probably is enhanced with this type of PDM. The effects participation in work decisions has on job attitudes are inconsistent. Although four of six studies found improvements in satisfaction, this improvement was statistically significant in only two. One study (Latham & Yukl, 1976) found a decrease in job satisfaction. Another study (Morse & Reimer, 1956) found more positive attitudes toward supervisors and the company. Several studies also investigated how participation in work decisions affects other behavioral and attitudinal variables. The two studies that investigated the effects of participation in decisions about both the work itself and pay yielded increases in performance. However, the studies examining participation in pay decisions have produced only limited evidence of lasting positive effects. On the basis of these investigations, there appears to be only weak evidence of positive effects where workers participate in determining pay practices.

Consultative Participation
Consultative participation refers to situations where employees engage in long-term, formal, and direct participation, and the content of the PDM is focused on job issues. The only difference between consultative participation and participation in work decisions is that the former involves a lesser level of employee influence. Employees give their opinions, but typically they do not have a veto or complete decision-making power. Scanlon plans and quality circles comprise this cluster. Scanlon plans are based on monetary bonuses given for productivity-enhancing suggestions. Quality circles, in contrast, focus on small groups, and usually do not return a monetary incentive to participants. As mentioned earlier, the results from this cluster have been labeled inconclusive because the methods used for available studies are poor.

The limited research done on Scanlon plans has demonstrated positive results (see Table 1). The primary difficultyin studying these plans is developing suitable controls, as the change process is organization-wide. Despite a lack of empirical results, however, there is considerable theory that Scanlon plans should increase productivity, job involvement, motivation, and identificationwith the organization (Geare, 1976; Ruh, Johnson, & Scontrino, 1973;Ruh, White, & Wood, 1975). Cummings and Malloy (1977)reviewed the implementation of eight Scanlon plans in organizations ranging in size from 80 to 6,000 employees. Productivityincreased in all eight organizations. All eight organizations decreased costs, six increased quality, one decreased quality, and one did not report quality. Frost, Wakeley, and Ruh (1974) reviewed a number of studies in which Scanlon plans increased productivity;they also reviewed several unsuccessful installations. In an interruptedtime-series design, Schuster (1984) found a significant increase in productivitywith the introduction of a Scanlon plan in a large manufacturingplant. [A number of other authors (Fein, 1982; Jenkins & Gupta, 1982) also have described productivity enhancement through gain sharing plans (e.g., Improshare) in which rewards are tied to suggestions without formal participationplans. The success of these marginally participative plans suggests that financial rewards, not PDM, may be crucial.] Little research has been done on the impact Scanlon plans have on job satisfaction and other attitudes. Researchers typically have correlated various attitudes with participation, perceptions of the plan, or continuation of the plan. Frost, Wakeley, and Ruh (1974)found that managers in organizations in which Scanlon plans were retained rated their subordinates significantly higher than managers in organizations in which the plans had been dropped. White (1979)found that continuing Scanlon plans was significantly related to managerial attitudes toward PDM; it also was related to the chief executive's attitude toward participativemanagement. Itis not possi13

ble to determine whether successful plans produced these differences, or differences among the organizations led to either successful or unsuccessful plans. Also, there are a few empirical papers on quality circles. Mohrman and Novelli (1983) and Steele, Lloyd, Ovalle, and Hendrix (1982) found few effects when quality circles were introduced. Lee (1982) found membership in quality circles to be positively associated with job satisfaction and other positive attitudes. Steele, Dilla, Lloyd, Mento, and Ovalle (1985) found significant improvements on 7 of 32 attitudinal variables. Zahra (1982) found a weak association between quality circles and enriched job characteristics, although no effect for job satisfaction was found. Benjamin (1982) found no relationship between commitment and participation in quality circles. The remainder of published studies about quality circles are case studies; these report a strong bias toward positive results. Although Donovan and Van Horn (1983) report improved productivity for five cases, only one included a test of significance. Without specifying how many variables were examined, Tortorich, Thompson, Orfan, Layfield, Dreyfus, and Kelley (1981) reported significant effects for quality circles on eight attitudinal variables, including job satisfaction.

Short-TermParticipation
Unlike the long-term interventions that typified consultative participation and participation in work decisions, this cluster of studies is distinguished by PDM programs of limited duration, ranging from a single laboratory session to training sessions of several days. This form of PDM may be characterized as formal, direct, and concerned with work itself; through it, workers have complete influence in the decision-making process. This classification corresponds closely to that of the participation in work decisions set, except for the differences in temporal duration. Effects of short-term participation have focused primarily on four dependent variables: performance, satisfaction or other attitudes, motiva-

tion or goal properties, and perceived influence. Few effects have been found for performance (see Table 1). Most goal-setting studies by Latham and his colleagues showed participatively set goals to be no different in their effects on performance from assigned goals that were also specific, difficult, and accepted. No effect for shortterm participation on performance was found by French, Israel, and As (1960). Mixed effects of PDM on performance were reported in three other studies. There are conflicting reports concerning the effects of short-term participation on satisfaction and other attitudes. In Taylor and Zawacki's (1978) study, increased PDM resulted in more positive attitudes toward various elements of the work situation. However, five other studies reported either no significant effects or mixed results. Wexley, Singh, & Yukl (1973) created three levels of access in decision making; they observed that moderate access increased satisfaction as much as full access did. Also, there were mixed findings concerning motivation and various goal properties. Motivation to improve performance has been reported to increase with increasing levels of access in PDM (Wexley et al., 1973). Actual goal difficulty was observed to increase with participation in one study (Latham, Mitchell, & Dossett, 1978), but not in another (Latham & Marshall, 1982). Short-term participation has not been observed to affect perceived goal difficulty or goal acceptance. Perceived influence or involvement increased as a result of increased PDM in each of six studies that tested this relationship.

Informal Participation
Many organizations do not have formally established participatory systems or groups involved in the decision-making process. Yet, PDM may still occur informally through the interpersonal relationships between managers and subordinates. [These studies may have examined informal PDM within an organization with a formal PDM system; however, it is not possible to determine if this was the case. ] Studies classified 14

as involving informal participation were those in which the dependent variables of interest were correlated with aspects of existing superiorsubordinate relationships. Often the content was not specified, and it was not possible to determine the objective level of the influence. Of the five studies of informal participation which assessed performance/productivity, four found a positive relationship, whereas one found no relationship. The most commonly assessed dependent variable was job satisfaction. As shown in Table 1, six of seven studies found a positive relationship between overall job satisfaction and informal participation. More interesting were the findings for various individual facets of job satisfaction. In every study that examined satisfaction with supervisors (10 out of 10 studies) and/or satisfaction with work itself (5 out of 5 studies), positive associations were found with informal participation. Contrary to these results, only one study reported a relationship between informal participation and satisfaction with pay or co-workers. Similarly, only one of three studies reported a positive relationship on satisfaction with promotion. [Theoretically, this makes very good sense because informal participation occurs on an ad hoc basis and, therefore, probably is limited to issues directly concerning the subordinate's work.] Although the above discussion might imply that informal participation leads to improved job attitudes and productivity, it is equally possible that the reverse is true. Employees with more positive attitudes and higher performance may be more likely to be given greater PDM. The impact informal PDM has on a variety of other variables has been studied. One of four studies found motivation to be related to informal participation, and two of four studies found commitment to be positively related. Three of three studies found positive support for Vroom and Yetton's (1973) model of leadership which specifies the optimum conditions for PDM. Several factors were found to be consistently and negatively associated with informal participation. These factors included role ambiguity (2 of 3

studies), role conflict (3 of 4 studies), and job tension (2 of 2 studies).

Employee Ownership
Employee ownership can be classified as formal and indirect PDM. It is formal because the employee has the formal "right" to participate as any stockholder does. It is indirect because although most of these organizations are owned by employees, they are operated conventionally (managers make both daily and strategic decisions). Employees can influence the decisions made by management through such mechanisms as election of the board of directors and stockholder meetings. Some employees in these organizations may participate directly in decision making, but the typical employee does not. The content of the PDM can cover any area and its level of influence is high. However, it is not always clear that employees exercise this control. Employee ownership has demonstrated positive relationships with measures of organizational performance (see Table 1). Long's (1978a) study of a trucking firm found declines in turnover and freight damage claims, and an increase in work quality. Hammer, Landau, and Stem (1981) found that voluntary absenteeism (absenteeism without legitimate excuse) declined while involuntary absenteeism (legitimate excusable absenteeism) increased. In an extensive analysis, Conte and Tannenbaum (1978) studied 98 employee-owned firms. They found that profits (as a percentage of sales) were 50 percent higher in these firms than for comparable firms in the same industries. It appears that the degree of ownership (as measured by the proportion of equity owned by the workers) is directly related to higher profits. There is substantial evidence that such attitudes as general satisfaction, involvement, commitment, and motivation are higher in employeeowned firms (see Table 1). A series of studies by Long (1978a, 1978b, 1980) provides strong support. Long also found that job attitudes of employees in companies that were converted to employee ownership improved in proportion to the 15

average percentage of total company's stock held by nonmanagerial employees. Research supports the proposition that perceived participation is greater in employeeowned firms, although the evidence is not as strong as for other job attitudes. In general, workers believe the change in ownership increases their influence, although management still holds greater influence. Surprisingly, three studies measuring desired participation found that employees either desired no change in PDM, or as in one case, they desired less participation.

Representative Participation
Representative participation is classified as formal, indirect, and of medium to low influence. Employees do not participate directly, but through representatives elected to a governing council or, perhaps, through representatives on the board of directors. Representative participation is similar to employee ownership, except the influence of employees generally is lower. Representative participation covers all areas of content because worker councils or a board of directors can focus on any issue. Although the access of most employees is not high, the power of the representatives can vary from having a vote on the board of directors to a purely advisory voice on a workers' council. There is little research concerning the impact of representative participation on performance or satisfaction. Of four studies on organizational efficiency, one found improved efficiency with PDM, one found decreased efficiency, and two yielded no effects (see Table 1). One paper reported research concerning job satisfaction and PDM. DIO (1979)discussed seven studies in which two found nonsignificant correlations, four found significant positive correlations, and one found a significant negative correlation with job satisfaction. Most research on representative participation has focused on effects PDM has on control or perceived influence within the company. Utilizing Tannenbaum's (1968) control graphs, the research indicates that with representative partici-

pation, central management retains almost complete control. Employees perceive they have little control, whereas actual measures of control show employee influence to be even lower. Although researchers in this area typically argue that PDM provides greater influence, few studies were conducted with control groups. Bartolke, Eschweiler, Flechsenberger, and Tannenbaum (1982)compared German companies that varied in their degree of participation and found increased control with representative participation. However, even in these companies, perceived control and actual control were not extremely high. Studies have compared workers who are involved directly with PDM to workers who are indirectly involved (i.e., representatives versus those represented). Obradovic (1970)and Nurick (1982)found more positive attitudes among members of worker councils and a steering committee than among other workers. In a third study, Emery and Thorsrud(1976)found that although Norwegian workerson boards of directorsshared in the power of the board, the workers found it very difficultto use that power in ways that were "inaccord with the usual board purposes and at the same time make a direct impact on the working life of their constituents"(p. 83).

Discussion
The results discussed above indicate that different forms of PDM are associated with markedly different outcomes. For example, informal participationand employee ownership are effective in terms of both productivityand satisfaction, whereas short-termparticipationis ineffective on both criteria. PDM must be evaluated form by form to assess its effectiveness accurately. Thus, the practical question "Is PDM effective?" has no simple answer. Rather, effectiveness varies with both the form of PDM and the criterion for effectiveness. For example, participation in work decisions appears to increase productivity, but increases satisfaction less consistently. Representative participation does not increase producti16

vity, but does increase satisfaction, at least for the representatives themselves. Moreover, participation may be characterized by equifinality. Different forms of PDM, such as informal participation and employee ownership, may be equally effective. In practice, forms of participation might be selected to accommodate a particular criterion of effectiveness, an existing organizational technology or culture (Sashkin, 1976), and/or given cost-benefit constraints. The results of the review support the idea that participation is a multidimensional or multiform concept. Earlier reviews (e.g., Locke & Schweiger, 1979)treated PDM as a unitary concept, evaluating its effectiveness without regard for form. From that perspective, PDM appears to have modest positive relationships with performance and satisfaction. Yet when PDM is viewed as a multifaceted construct, it can be seen that these overall modest results are due to the aggregation of some forms of participation that are very effective with other forms that are relatively ineffective. Future conceptual and empirical work on PDM should develop and extend this view. First, possible contextual or contingency variables should be examined. Other authors (e.g., Locke, Schweiger, & Latham, 1986; Sashkin, 1976; Stumpf, Zand, & Freeman, 1979; Vroom & Yetton, 1973) have suggested that the effectiveness of PDM may depend on situational factors, such as the nature of the decision or characteristics of subordinates. The results of the review support this idea. Informal participation is more effective in increasing satisfaction with supervision and the work itself than with other facets. Representative participation increases the satisfaction of representatives more than it does that of other workers. Contextual factors in other clusters also are evident. In short, the form of PDM accounts for only a portion of the variance in outcomes; other situational factors are involved as well. Second, novel forms of participation should be explored. Existing research has addressed only a few of many possible forms of participation. For example, participation in decision making has been applied to a few kinds of work

decisions, typically concerning how the work is conducted. Other organizational issues, such as workrules, evaluation procedures (e.g., Latham, Mitchell,&Dossett, 1978),safety (e.g., Ivancevich, 1977),pay, and personnel policies have not been studied within the PDM literature, even though they are common practices in cooperative labormanagement ventures. Third, the interactions among forms of participation within an organizational setting should be considered. If different forms of PDM are associated with differentoutcomes, the combination of two or more forms of participation may produce interesting results. For example, informal participation may be more effective in an organization in which other formal participation schemes exist. Employee ownership may be more effective following programs that involve participation in work decisions. Fourth, the effects various forms of PDM have on other outcomes should be investigated. Participation has been linked to many outcomes besides productivityand satisfaction (e.g., the distributionof power across an organization, level of industrial conflict, or the quality, timeliness, and acceptance of decisions). These other measures of effectiveness may vary with the form of PDM. Some forms that are ineffective in terms of productivity (i.e., representative participation) may be effective in terms of other criteria (i.e., reducing conflict). When applying PDMwithin organizations, one must choose fromamong many novel forms,multiple forms, and alternate outcomes. It appears that performance/productivity effectiveness is associated with forms that are direct, long-term, and/or of high access. Direct forms of participation (e.g., informal, work decisions) have demonstrated greater effectiveness than indirect forms (e.g., representative). (Although employee ownership is an indirect form of participation, its effectiveness may depend on financial incentives.) Long-term forms of participation appear to be more effective than short-termforms. [This conclusion differsfrom that of Schweiger and Leana (1986).However, their comparison of laboratory
17

and field does not correspond directlyto the shortterm-long-term distinction presented here. Several of the short-termstudies were conducted in the field. Moreover, their review does not take into account the form of the PDM, which this review has shown to be important. Finally, Schweiger and Leana's review (following Locke and Schweiger, 1979)has a somewhat different sample of studies.] High-access forms of participation (e.g., work decisions) may be more effective than forms with less influence in terms of productivity. However, moderate-access forms (e.g., consultative, representative) may be effective in terms of satisfaction. The differences in the effectiveness of various forms of PDM raise questions about the mechanism(s)throughwhich participationmay operate. Current theory (e.g., Locke & Schweiger, 1979) suggests that some combinations of motivational and cognitive processes are involved. It may be that different forms operate through different mechanisms so that similar outcomes (e.g., those of informal participation and employee ownership) may arise from very different processes. If additional research suggests that differentforms of PDM are associated with different outcome variables, separate models or theories for individual forms of participation appear more feasible than the complex, integrative frameworks (e.g., Dachler & Wilpert, 1978;Locke & Schweiger, 1979;Wandersman, 1981) that have been used. To understand in depth even one form of participation will require consideration of antecedents, consequences, mediating processes, and contextual contingencies. The present authors hesitate, however, to call for multiple models of PDM. The participation literature is already so diverse and fragmented that the search for convergence or integration ought not be abandoned. Instead, researchers might compare and contrastthe separate emerging models, perhaps in terms of general dimensions of form, such as duration, directness, and access, or some common mechanisms or processes. In this way, some convergence of theory and research on participationmay be achieved.

Appendix Studies Included in the Review

charEffectsof taskand persQnality Abdel-Halim,A. A. (1983) acteristics on subordinate responses to participativedecision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 477-484. [1) Abdel-Halim,A. A. (1983)Power equalization, participative decision-making,and individualdifferences.HumanRelations, 36, 683-704. [2) Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966) Organizational alienation: A comparative study. American Sociological Review, 31, 497-507. [3) Alutto, J. A., & Acito, F. (1974)Decisional participationand sources of job satisfaction: A study of manufacturing personnel. Academy of Management Journal, 17, 160-167. [4) Alutto,J. A., & Belasco, J. A. (1972)A typology for participaScition in organizationaldecision-maldng.Administrative ence Quarterly, 17, 117-125. [5) Alutto, J. A., & Vredenburgh, D. J. (1977)Characteristicsof decisional participationby nurses. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 341-347. [6) SupervisorymethArgyle, M., Gardner, G., &Cioffi,F. (1958) ods related to productivity, absenteeism, and laborer turnover. Human Relations, 11, 23-40. [7) Bartolke,K., Eschweiler, W., Flechsenberger, D., &Tannenparticipationand the distribubaum, A. S. (1982)Workers' tion of control as perceived by members of ten German Science Quarterly,27, 380-397. companies. Administrative [8) Baumgartel,H. (1956)Leadership, motivations,and attitudes in research laboratories.Journalof Social Issues, 12,24-31.
[9)

Conte, M., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1978)Employee owned companies: Is the difference measurable? MonthlyLabor Review, 101(7),23-28. [15) Cummings, T. G., & Griggs, W. (1977)Workerreactions to autonomous workgroups. Organizationsand Administration Sciences, 7, 87-100. [16) productivImproving Cummings,T. G., &Malloy,E. S. (1977) ity and the quality of work life. New York:Praeger. [17] DIO(Decisions in Organizations).(1979)Participativestudy. IndustrialRelations, 18, 295-309. [18) Qualitycircleevaluation. Donovan, M., &Van Horn,B. (1980) In Quality Circle Readings (pp. 104-109).Dayton, OH:Air Force Instituteof Technology. [19) Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell,T. R. (1979)Effects of assigned versus participativelyset goals, knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficultyis held constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 291-298. [20) Trustand participationin organizational Driscoll,J. W. (1978) decision making as predictorsof satisfaction.Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44-56. [21) normative Field, R. H. G. (1982)A test of the Vroom-Yetton model of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 523-532. [22) Fleishman, E. A. (1965)Attitudeversus slill factors in work Personnel Psychology, 18,253-266.[23) group productivity. French, J. R. P., Israel, J., & As, D. (1960)An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 13, 3-19. [24) Frost,C. F., Wakeley, J. H., & Ruh, R. A. (1974)The Scanlon plan for organization development: Identity,participation and equity. East Lansing: MI:Michigan State University Press. [25) Hammer,T. H., Lanau, J. C., &Stern, R. N. (1981)Absenteeism when workers have a voice: The case of employee ownership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 561-573. [26) Hammer, T. H., & Stem, R. N. (1980)Employee ownership: Implicationsfor the organizational distributionof power. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 78-100. [27] Ivancevich, J. M. (1976)Effectsof goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 605-612. [28] Ivancevich, J. M. (1977)Differentgoal setting treatmentsand theireffectson performanceand job satisfaction.Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419. [29]

Benjamin, E. R. (1982) Participation and the attitude of organizationalcommitment:A study of quality circles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
[10)

Berkowitz,L. (1953) Sharing leadership in small decisionmaking groups. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 48, 231-238. [11) Bertsch,G. K., &Obradovic, J. (1979)Participationand influence in Yugoslav self-management. IndustrialRelations, 18, 322-329. [12] Bragg, J. E., & Andrews, I. R. (1973)Participative decisionmaking: An experimental study in a hospital. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 9, 727-735. [13] Coch, L., & French, J. R. P. (1948)Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532. [14]

18

Ivancevich, J. M. (1979)An analysis of participationin decision making among project engineers. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 253-269. [30] Jackson, S. E. (1983)Participationin decision making as a strategy forreducing job related strain. Journalof Applied Psychology, 68, 3-19. [31] Jago, A. G., &Vroom,V. H. (1980) An evaluation of two alternatives to the Vroom-Yetton normative model. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 347-355. [32] Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1981)Impact of employee participationin pay plan development. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 28, 111-128.[33] Jochim,T. C. (1979) Employee stockownership programs:The next economic revolution? Academy of Management Review, 4, 439-442. [34] Juralewicz,R. S. (1974)An experiment on participationin a LatinAmerican factory.HumanRelations, 27, 627-637.[35] Koopman, P. L., Drenth, P. J. D., Bus, F. B. M., Kruyswijk, A. J., & Weirdsma, A. F. M. (1981)Content, process, and effects of participative decision making on the shop floor: Three cases in the Netherlands. Human Relations, 34, 657-676. [36] Latham,G. P., &Marshall, H. A. (1982) The effects of self-set, participatively set and assigned goals on the performance of government employees. Personnel Psychology, 35, 399-404. [37] Latham, G. P., Mitchell,T. R., & Dossett, D. L. (1978)Importance of participativegoal setting and anticipatedrewards on goal difficultyand job performance.Journalof Applied Psychology, 63, 163-174. [38] Latham,G. P., &Saari, L. M. (1979) Importanceof supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 151-156. [39] Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979)Effectsof holding goal difficulty constanton assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163-168.[40] Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983)The motivationaleffects of participation versus goal setting on performance. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 406-417. [41] Latham, G. P., Steele, T. P., & Saari, L. M. (1982)The effects of participation and goal difficultyon performance. Personnel Psychology, 35, 677-686. [42] Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975)Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302. [43] Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976)Effectsof assigned and participativegoal setting on performanceand job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166-171. [44]

Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1969)Impact of employee participationin the development of pay incentive plans. Journalof Applied Psychology, 53, 467-471. [45] Lawler,E. E., &Hall, D. (1970) The relationshipof job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312. [46] Lee, B. R. (1982)Organizationaldevelopment and group perceptions: A study of quality circles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Minnesota. [47] Lischeron, J., & Wall, T. D. (1975)Employee participation: An experimental field study. Human Relations, 28, 863884. [48] Long, R. J. (1978a) Relative effects of share ownership vs. controlon job attitudes in an employee-owned company. Human Relations, 31, 753-763. [49] Long, R. J. (1978b)The effects of employee ownership on organizational identification, employee job attitudes, and organizational performance: A tentative frameworkand empirical findings. Human Relations, 31, 29-48. [50] Desires forand patternsof workerparticipaLong, R. J. (1979) tion in decision making after conversion to employee ownership.Academy of Management journal, 22, 611-617. [51] Long, R. J. (1980)Job attitudes and organizational performance under employee ownership. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 726-737. [52] Long, R. J.(1981) The effects of formalemployee participation in ownership and decision-making on perceived and desired patterns of organizational influence: A longitudinal study. Human Relations, 34, 847-876. [53] Long, R. J.(1982)Workerownership and job attitudes:A field study. IndustrialRelations, 21, 196-215.[54] McMahon,J. T. (1976)Participativeand power-equalized organizational systems:An empiricalinvestigationand theoretical integration. Human Relations, 29, 203-214. [55] Miles,R. E., &Ritchie,J. B. (1971) Participativemanagement: Quality vs. quantity. California Management Review, 13 (4), 48-56. [56] Mitchell,T. R., Smyser, C. M., &Weed, S. E. (1975)Locusof control: Supervision and work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 623-631. [57] Mohrman,S. A., &Novelli, L. (1982)Learningfroma quality circle program. Unpublished manuscript, University of Southern California, Center for Effective Organizations. [58] Morse, N. D., & Reimer, E. (1956)The experimental change of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 120-129. [59]

19

Neider, L. L. (1980)An experimental field investigation utilizing an expectancy theory view of participation.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 425-442. [60]

budget. Academy of Management

Journal, 16, 541-554.

[76] Stagner, R. (1969)Corporatedecision making: An empirical

study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-13. [77]

Norris, J. H., Steers, R. M., & Koch, J. L. (1979)Influence of organization structure on role conflict and ambiguity for
three occupational groupings. Academy of Management

Journal, 22, 58-71. [61] Employee-centeredmanagement, particiNorton,S. D. (1976) pation in decision-makingand satisfactionwith workitself.
Psychological Reports, 38, 391-398. [62]

Steele, R. P., Lloyd, R. F., Ovalle, N. K., & Hendrix, W. H. (1982)Designing quality circle research. The Quality Circle Journal, 5(1), 40-43. [78]

Steele, R. P., Dilla, B. L., Lloyd,R. F., Mento,A. T., &Ovalle, N. K. (1985)Factors influencing the success and failure of
two quality circles programs. Journal of Management, 11,

Nurick,A. J. (1982)Participationin organizationalchange: A longitudinalfield study. Human Relations, 35, 413-430.[63] Obradovic, J. (1970) Participation and work attitudes in
Yugoslavia. Industrial Relations, 9, 161-169. [64]

99-119. [79] Stem, R. N., &Hammer,T. H. (1978)Buyingyour job:Factors affecting the success or failure of employee acquisition attempts. Human Relations, 31, 1101-1117.[80] Taylor,R. L., &Zawacki, R. A. (1978)Collaborativegoal setting in performanceappraisal- a field experiment.Public
Personnel Management, 7, 162-170. [81]

Rice, A. K. (1953)Productivityand social organization in an Indian weaving shed. Human Relations, 6, 297-329. [65] Richter,F. D., & Tjosvold,D. (1980)Effectsof student participation in classroom decision making on attitudes, peer interaction, motivation, and learning. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 74-80. [66]

Tortorich, R., Thompson,P., Orfan, C., Layfield,D., Dreyfus, C., & Kelley, M. (1981)Measuring organizational impact
of quality circles. The Quality Circle Journal, 4(4), 121-130.

Rosenberg, R. D., & Rosenstein, E. (1980)Participationand

productivity: An empirical study. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 33, 355-368. [67]

[82] Trist,E. L., Susman, G. I., & Brown, G. R. (1977)An experiment in autonomousworkingin an Americanunderground coal mine. Human Relations, 30, 201-236. [83] Veen, P. (1972)Effects of participative decision making in field hockey training: A field experiment. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 288-307. [84]

Runyon, K. E. (1973)Some interactionsbetween personality variables and management styles. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 57, 288-294. [68]

Rus, V. (1970)Influence structure in Yugoslav enterprise.

Industrial Relations, 9, 148-160. [69]

Vroom, V. H. (1959) Some personality determinants of the

effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 322-327. [85]

Russell, R., Hochner, A., & Perry, S. E. (1979)Participation, influence, and workerownership. IndustrialRelations, 18, 330-341. [70] Sadler, P. J. (1970)Leadership style, confidence in management, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Behavioral

On the validityof the Vroorn/ Vroom,V. H., &Jago,A. G. (1978)

Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 151-162.

[86] Wexley, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1973)Subrdinate personalityas a moderatorof the effects of participationin three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 58, 54-59. [87]

Science, 6, 3-19. [71] LongScheflen, K. C., Lawler, E. E., &Hackman, J. R. (1971) termimpact of employee participationin the development
of pay incentive plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55,

182-186.[72] A role and expectancy perceptionmodel Schuler, R. S. (1980) of participationin decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 331-340. [73]

White, J. K. (1979)The Scanlon plan: Causes and correlates of success. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 292-312. [88]
Witte, J. F. (1980) Democracy, authority, and alienation in work: Worker's participation in an American corporation.

The Scanlon plan: A longitudinalanalysis. Schuster,M. (1984)

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 23-38. [74]

Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. [89] Wood, M. T. (1972) Effectsof decision processes and tasksituations on influence perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 417-427. [90] Zahra, S. A. (1982) An exploratory empirical assessment of

Seaborg, I. S. (1978)The influence of employee participation

in job redesign. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

14, 87-98. [75] Perceived participaSearfoss, D. G., &Monczka,R. M. (1973) tion in the budget process and motivation to achieve the

quality circles. Unpublished doctoraldissertation,University of Mississippi. [91]

20

References
Bachrach, P. (1967)The theory of democratic elitism. Boston: Little,Brown. Bartlem, C. S., & Locke, E. A. (1981)The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation.Human Relations, 34, 555-566. When employees runthe company. Harvard Bennett,L. (1979) Business Review, 57(2),75-90. Carey, A. (1967)The Hawthornestudies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32, 403-416. Cummings,T. G. (1978)Self-regulatingworkgroups:A sociotechnical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625-634. Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978)Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participationin organizations: A critiScience Quarterly,23, 1-39. cal evaluation. Administrative Dowling, W. F. (1975)At General Motors:System 4 builds
performance and profits. Organizational Dynamics, 3(3),

Locke, E. A. (1968)Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157-189. Participationin deciLocke,E. A., &Schweiger, D. M. (1979) sion making:One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.),Research in organizationalbehavior(Vol. 1,pp. 265-340).Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. ParticiLocke,E. A., Schweiger, D. M., &Latham,G. P. (1986) pation in decision making: When should it be used? OrganizationalDynamics, 14(3),65-79. Workers' Who participates. Obradovic,J. (1975) participation: IndustrialRelations, 14, 32-44. The collectivistorganization:An altemaRothschild,J.(1979) models. American Sociologitive to rational-bureaucratic cal Review, 44, 509-527. Ruh, R. A., Johnson, R. H., & Scontrino, M. P. (1973)The Scanlon plan, participationin decision making, and job attitudes. Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 36-45. Jobinvolvement, Ruh,R. A., White,J. K., &Wood, R. R. (1975) values, personal background, participation in decision making, and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 300-312. Sashkin, M. (1976)Changing toward participative management approaches: A model and methods. Academy of Management Review, 1, 75-86. Schregle, J. (1970)Forms of participation in management. IndustrialRelations, 9, 117-122. in deciParticipation Schweiger, D. M., &Leana, C. R. (1986) sion making. In E. A. Locke(Ed.),Generalizing fromlaboratoryto field settings:Findings fromresearch in industriall organizational psychology, organizational behavior and human resources management (pp. 147-166).Lexington, MA:Heath. Stogdill, R. M. (1981)Stogdill's handbook of leadership (rev. ed.). New York:Free Press. Designing Stumpf,S. A., Zand, D. E., &Freeman,R. D. (1979) groups for judgemental decisions. Academy of Management Review, 4, 589-600. Tannenbaum,A. S. (1968) Control in organizations.New York: McGraw-Hill. Vroom,V. H., &Yetton,P. W. (1973) Leadershipand decision making. Pittsburgh:Universityof PittsburghPress.

23-28. Democracy at work. Leiden, Emery, F., &Thorsrud,E. (1976) The Netherlands:MartinusNijhoff. throughworker Fein, M. (1982,August)Improvedproductivity involvement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, New York. Geare, A. J. (1976) Productivity from Scanlon-type plans. Academy of Managment Review, 1, 99-108. Meta-analysis Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., &Smith,M. L. (1981) in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Guzzo, R. A., Jackson, S. E., & Katzell, R. A. (1987)Metaanalysis analysis. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizationalbehavior (Vol. 9, pp. 407442). Greenwich, CT:JAIPress. Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982)Metaanalysis:Cumulatingresearch findings across studies. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Jenkins,G. D., & Gupta, N. (1982)Financial incentives and productivityimprovement.Journalof ContemporaryBusiness, 11(2),43-56. managment: ParticipaHigh-involvement Lawler,E. E. (1986) tive strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco:Jossey-Bass. Motivationand organiLitwin,G. H., &Stringer,R. A. (1968) zational climate. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.

21

Wandersman, A. (1981)A frameworkof participationin community organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 17, 27-58. White, J. K. (1979)Generalizability of individual difference moderators of the participation in decision making-em-

ployee response relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 36-43. Wood, M. T. (1972)Participation,influence, and satisfaction in group decision making. Journalof VocationalBehavior, 2, 389-399.

John Cotton (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is Assistant Professor of Management at Marquette University. Please address correspondenceto him at: Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Marquette University,Milwaukee, WI53233. David Vollrath(Ph.D., Universityof Illinois)is Assistant Professorof OrganizationalBehavior in the Management Department, New YorkUniversity. KirkFroggatt (M.S. in Organizational Behavior, Purdue University)is Directorof Performance Management at Empire Blue Cross/BlueShield in New York. Mark Lengnick-Hall (Ph.D., Purdue University) is Assistant Professorof Human Resource Management in the Management Studies Department,Universityof Minnesota, Duluth. is AssisKennethJennings (Ph.D., Purdue University) tant Professor of Organizational Behavior in the Department of Communication and Organizational Sciences, Air Force Instituteof Technology. The authorsthankMaryCorreaand CynthiaLengnickHall for theirassistance on earlier draftsof thispaper.

22