24
Use Participation to Share Information and Distribute Knowledge
JOHN A. WAGNER III
Participation is a process in which decision making, problem solving, action planning, or similar activities are shared and performed jointly by hierarchical superiors and their subordinates. To participate, superiors and subordinates work together to identify alternatives, consider preferences, and finalize judgments. Defined in this manner, participation differs from direction, in which superiors follow autocratic procedures and act alone (Wagner, 1982). Participation also differs from consultation, in which superiors ask subordinates for their inputs and opinions but then weigh alternatives and make a final choice on their own (Vroom and Yetton, 1973). Less obviously, perhaps, participation differs from delegation, in which superiors remove themselves and cede complete authority to their subordinates. Whereas participation requires that outcomes reflect needs and interests shared across hierarchical levels, delegation is more likely to allow subordinates the autonomy to act in accordance with personal desires (Leana, 1987).
Social theorists have long suggested that participation influences human behavior by (1) involving participants directly in ongoing processes, thereby securing their commitment to participatory outcomes through the “sense of ownership” stimulated by their personal involvement, or by (2) providing participants the opportunity to exchange and collect information, and to become more fully informed and knowledgeable about ongoing activities and participatory results (e.g. Pateman, 1970). Organizational researchers have similarly speculated that participation might influence behavior in organizations through two distinct mechanisms, one termed motivational and the other cognitive (Bartlem and Locke, 1981; Locke and Schweiger, 1979; Miller and Monge, 1986; Schweiger and Leana, 1986; Wagner, Leana, Locke, and Schweiger, 1997). Research on the two mechanisms sheds light on each mechanism’s ability to predict and explain likely outcomes of participatory processes, and thus holds important implications for the management of organizational behavior.
The motivational mechanism is thought to affect behavior in organizations through the heightened sense of personal commitment to or acceptance of participatory outcomes that comes from having a say in participatory processes and a part in shaping the outcomes of those processes. According to this explanation, participation stimulates a sense of commitment that motivates participants to support and implement participatory resolutions. Behavior is motivated and satisfaction is experienced as participants strive to see their resolutions through to completion.
Research on the motivational mechanism extends back to a series of studies conducted, during the 1920s and 1930s, at Western Electric’s Hawthorne Plant, located near Chicago, Illinois. In reviewing analyses of the effects of factors such as factory lighting, incentive payment, and supportive supervision on workforce satisfaction and performance, Hawthorne researchers noticed a pattern of results that seemed to indicate that workers were influenced by social conditions - specifically, by desires to satisfy needs for companionship and support at work - and that such conditions might have strong motivational effects. This led them to suggest that participatory involvement, in providing the opportunity to satisfy social needs, might motivate increased task performance and stimulate greater acceptance of organizational policies (Roethlisberger and Dickson, 1939).
Following up on this speculation, Coch and French (1948) performed a study of textile pieceworkers that appeared to indicate that workers would accept changes in job practices more readily if involved in the design and implementation of those practices. The authors identified participatory processes as effective in encouraging acceptance of and commitment to changed standards and procedures. They also characterized participation as a potentially powerful method of reducing personal frustration and aggression attributable to resistance to change.
Subsequent analyses of the motivational effects of participation focused increasing attention on participation defined as a process of influence sharing, and on the heightened personal commitment thought to accompany the redistribution and equalizing of influence and authority in organizations. Theorists identified participatory processes as likely to have strong positive effects on workforce morale and satisfaction, feelings of involvement and commitment, and employee motivation and performance (e.g. Anderson, 1959; Dickson, 1981; McMahon, 1976; Patchen, 1964). Research first seemed to support this assertion (Fox, 1957; McCurdy and Eber, 1953; Pennington, Haravey, and Bass, 1958; Vroom, 1960), but as further evidence amassed, it became apparent that participation’s motivational effects were neither as strong nor as generalizable as originally proposed. Some studies reported zero or near-zero relationships between participation and motivation, commitment, or performance (Alutto and Belasco, 1972; Castore and Murnighan, 1978; Ivancevich, 1977; Jenkins and Lawler, 1981; Rosenbaum and Rosenbaum, 1971), and others reported evidence of negative relationships between participation and the same outcome variables (Gibb, 1951; Green and Taber, 1980; Latham and Saari, 1979).
In the wake of these conflicting findings, Wagner and Gooding (1987) used a statistical technique called meta-analysis to aggregate the results of 70 published studies of participation, in order to estimate the strength of participation’s general effects. After removing the effects of a troubling research artifact, percept-percept inflation (Crampton and Wagner, 1994), Wagner and Gooding discovered that participation correlated, on average, .11 with performance, .11 with satisfaction, and .10 with acceptance (i.e. commitment). Although a subsequent reanalysis of Wagner and Gooding’s data appeared to contradict their findings (Erez, Bloom, and Wells, 1996), an additional analysis showed the contradictory interpretation to be invalid (Wagner and LePine, 1999). Other studies have produced findings similar to and supportive of Wagner and Gooding’s results (e.g. Locke, Feren, McCaleb, Shaw, and Denny, 1980; Wagner, 1994). After considering the available evidence, Locke, Alavi, and Wagner (1997) concluded that participation’s likely correlations with performance and satisfaction are both on the order of .11. Changing levels of participation (i.e. from direction to participation) therefore explain only about 1% of the concurrent change in performance or satisfaction. This conclusion offers little general support for the use of participation as a motivational technique in the workplace.
Exceptions: when is participation most likely to motivate?
Despite documenting participation’s limitation, in general, as a motivational tool, Wagner and Gooding (1987) also discovered situational conditions under which participation might have more substantial effects. In particular, their analysis suggested that participation is more likely to be related to employee satisfaction when participation takes place in smaller groups - typically, groups of 12 or fewer members. Implied by this finding is the possibility that participants are unable to develop a sense of personal connection to or ownership of participatory outcomes in larger group settings, due perhaps to the fact that many people share in the creation of those outcomes, and thus each participant fails to derive satisfaction from participatory processes or results. In small groups, however, participation and satisfaction are correlated at the level of .25 on average, indicating that about 6% of the change in satisfaction can be attributed to participation’s effects. The size of this relationship suggests that group size is an important situational condition and that participation in small groups has limited, but nonetheless noteworthy, utility as a practical means of stimulating workplace satisfaction.
Wagner and Gooding (1987) also reported that differences in task complexity have effects on the strength of relationships between participation and both satisfaction and acceptance. In each relationship, the effect is stronger when tasks are less complex, meaning more behaviorally routine and less cognitively demanding. Suggested is the possibility that participation can be used to enrich - make more challenging - otherwise oversimplified work. Participation’s relationship with satisfaction is again somewhat modest, with an average correlation of .26 revealed in the presence of simple tasks, but its relationship with acceptance is more substantial, as evidenced by an average correlation of .32 under simple task conditions. Indicated by the latter finding is a fairly strong enrichment effect, in which increasing participation by individuals who otherwise perform simple tasks explains just over 10% of the corresponding increase in acceptance of the results of participatory processes.
In contrast to the motivational mechanism’s definition of participation as a process of influence sharing, within the framework of the cognitive mechanism the focus is on participation defined as a process of information sharing. From this perspective, participation’s effects on organizational behavior are thought to be a function of the increased knowledge and deeper understanding afforded by participatory information sharing. Researchers have proposed that participatory information sharing might influence participant behaviors in several ways, for example: (1) knowing how to do a job increases the opportunity to do the job productively (Lawler and Hackman, 1969; Scheflen, Lawler, and Hackman, 1971); (2) understanding how a job fits into the larger picture of workgroup interdependence and organizational mission enables effective adjustment to changing work conditions (Ledford and Lawler, 1994; Williams, 1982); (3) sharing knowledge and insights encourages common understanding and greater cooperation (Dickson, 1981; Marrow and French, 1946); and (4) being able to access and make use of the collective information of an organization’s membership increases the likelihood of successful organizational innovation and creativity (Stewart, 1997; Tannenbaum, 1968).
Research on the cognitive mechanism has sought to determine whether participation does, in fact, promote information sharing, and whether such sharing can have beneficial consequences for the performance of individuals, groups, or organizations. In one study, Latham, Winters, and Locke (1994) allowed some subjects in a laboratory experiment to share and discuss strategies for attaining assigned goals on a class scheduling task, but prohibited other subjects from participating in similar discussions. Results of the experiment indicated that individuals who participated in strategy discussions formed better task strategies, felt more able to succeed in the task, and performed better on the task than did subjects barred from participation. Moreover, differences in strategy quality were found to explain much of the effect of participation on performance, indicating that participation improved performance by helping participants discover better performance strategies-a cognitive rather than motivational effect.
In another study, Scully, Kirkpatrick, and Locke (1995) manipulated the knowledge held by supervisors and subordinates in two-person laboratory groups. In one third of the groups in the study, supervisors had the correct information needed to do their tasks, in one third they had incorrect information, and in one third they had no information whatsoever; subordinates were also split in thirds and assigned the same three levels of information; and half of the groups engaged in participatory information sharing while the other half did not. Results indicated that participation alone had no effect on subjects’ performance, but that participation had beneficial effects on performance if the subordinate had correct information and the supervisor had none. In addition, performance suffered if the supervisor lacked correct information or if either or both members of a pair had incorrect information.
In a third study, Quigley and colleagues (2007) distributed knowledge differentially within dyads of laboratory partners, then examined motivational factors expected to influence the degree of knowledge sharing between partners and the effects of this sharing on partner performance. Among the results of this study is the finding that group-oriented incentives motivated sharing more than did individualized incentives, especially when norms between partners supported knowledge exchange, and that knowledge sharing enhanced partner performance, especially when high self-efficacy and trust in dyad partner led to the development of difficult self-set performance goals. These results suggest that participation might exert an indirect motivational effect by encouraging knowledge sharing within groups or teams. An effect of this sort differs from the direct motivational effects assessed in prior participation research and described above, and appears worthy of further consideration.
In sum, these studies and others like them indicate that participatory processes can be used to share or redistribute information, and that such redistribution can have positive effects on performance when it provides otherwise uninformed individuals with ready access to requisite knowledge and insights (Bartlem and Locke, 1981; Bass, Valenzi, Farrow, and Solomon, 1975; Lowin, 1968; Tsai, 2001). Also highlighted are motivational boundary conditions that influence the strength and utility of these effects. Supported is the principle that participation will be beneficial when some individuals possess or can discover pertinent information and use participatory processes to disseminate it to others (Durham, Knight, and Locke, 1997).
In addition to confirming participation’s effectiveness in distributing information, Scully, Kirkpatrick, and Locke (1995) also provided evidence of an important situational condition - information impactedness, or the degree to which information is differentially distributed among people - that appears able to determine whether participation will improve participant cognition and performance. Participation’s effects appear stronger in instances where information is impacted, that is, in the possession of some but not all individuals, since participatory information exchange allows participants to break down information disparities and increase the extent to which knowledge is shared and generally accessible. Conversely, participation’s effects are weaker when information is already available to all, since additional information sharing is unnecessary and consumes resources more profitably devoted to other activities (Latham and Yukl, 1975; Bass and Valenzi, 1974; Williams, 1982).
Beyond the effects of impactedness, speculation and the results of prior research suggest several additional situational conditions that might also affect the workings of the cognitive mechanism. One of these, interdependence, concerns the degree to which participants must work together to perform and succeed. Under conditions of low interdependence, individuals, groups, or organizations can perform successfully by working alone, while under conditions of high interdependence, individuals, groups, or organizations must work together to succeed. Differences in interdependence exert situational influence on participation’s efficacy by affecting the amount of information required to coordinate ongoing relationships. While individuals performing independent tasks need not exchange much information to do their work, individuals performing interdependent tasks must share a great deal of information, including messages about what has been done, what must be done next, what adjustments need to be made in response to changing conditions, and so forth. To the extent that this information flow must be ongoing, that is, occurring as coordination problems emerge (as opposed to taking place on an occasional basis or through a supervisory intermediary), participatory “mutual adjustment” contributes to successful coordination and enhanced performance (Durham et al., 1997; Lawler, 1982; Sashkin, 1976).
Another situational condition, complexity, also appears likely to exert contingency effects on relationships between participation and performance. Complexity reflects the degree to which a task, objective, or situation is understandable, with low complexity referring to conditions that are simple and readily understood, and high complexity alluding to conditions that are complicated or intricate and therefore difficult to interpret and comprehend. Successful performance in the presence of lower complexity is possible without additional information or insight. However, success under conditions of higher complexity requires access to the additional information needed to render the complex understandable. To the degree that participatory information exchange is able to provide such access, participation may produce little benefit when combined with low complexity but should provide appreciable benefit when paired with high complexity (e.g. Anderson, 1959; Singer, 1974). Note that this pattern is exactly opposite the configuration of effects revealed in research on the motivational mechanism, described earlier, wherein participatory enrichment improved performance on simple tasks.
Finally, the situational condition of change concerns the extent to which tasks, group conditions, and organizational contexts are stable, consistent, and predictable, under conditions of low change, versus dynamic, variable, and unpredictable, in situations of high change. In the presence of low change, success can be achieved by following familiar procedures, without modifying customary ways of doing things. In contrast, high amounts of change require that variability first be sensed, and that modifications then be made to existing plans and processes to match them to the demands of changing conditions. Such sensing and modification normally require information about the nature of change and the state of changed conditions. To the extent that such information is available to some but not necessarily all participants, participation can facilitate information dissemination and lead to successful adaptation and continued productivity (e.g. Abdel-Halim, 1983; Jermier and Berkes, 1979; Koch and Fox, 1978; Schuler, 1976).
In thinking about participation, the first picture to come to mind is often that of a group of participants, seated casually around a table and engaged in spontaneous conversation. In fact, much research on participatory processes uses a physical arrangement that closely resembles this configuration. However, studies on group processes have indicated that grouping people together and asking them to suggest ideas and state opinions in front of others can stifle input into ongoing discussions. In particular, when personal statements are readily attributable to individual participants, ideas and opinions that might be considered even the least bit controversial may remain unstated (e.g. Diehl and Stroebe, 1987).
To deal with this problem, researchers have suggested structuring group discussion sessions so that innovation or judgment is done individually and discussion occurs only to clarify the interpretation of information and brainstorm additional alternatives. Using the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), for instance, a group of individuals convenes around a table with a session coordinator and receives a description of the problem to be dealt with or issue to be addressed. Next, working alone, each participant writes down whatever ideas come to mind. The coordinator then asks each participant to share his or her ideas and writes them on a public display. Subsequently, participants discuss each other’s ideas to clarify and expand on them, and then evaluate them as a group. Finally, participants rank the ideas privately, and the idea that ranks the highest among the participants is chosen as the group’s final recommendation (Moore, 1987).
As an alternative to using discussion structuring such as the NGT, Locke et al. (1997) suggested that emerging information technologies - specifically groupware technologies - might be used to improve the effectiveness of participatory information exchange. For example, an electronic meeting support system can be used in a room of participants to display each individual’s comments - typed in on personal computer terminals - anonymously on a projected screen. This manner of computer-mediated communication reduces the reluctance that participants might have to present unfavorable information or state controversial opinions. As a result, more information and information of higher quality can be exchanged among participants, and participants report more satisfaction with participatory processes and outcomes (Alavi, 1993; Alavi and Palmer, 2000; see also Chapter 32, this volume).
In addition, videoconferencing can be used to bring together participants from several different sites. Although anonymity may be lost, participation is able to nullify some of the negative effects of physical separation and encourage information sharing across great distances. Asynchronous approaches can also be used to structure participatory information exchange without the requirement of simultaneous presence. For instance, website bulletin boards and chat rooms can be set up for groups of participants, allowing them to share information and disseminate knowledge without requiring that everyone be available at the same time. Corporate e-mail systems can also be used to channel and catalog information exchanged among participants separated by both time and distance. Using such procedures, the prototypical face-to-face group is replaced by technological mediation (Locke et al., 1997).
Volvo
To illustrate some of the costs and benefits of encouraging participation in the workplace, consider the differing experiences of Volvo and Toyota. Well known as a Swedish producer of cars, trucks, and marine engines, Volvo’s automotive operations were hailed, during the 1970s and 1980s, as among the foremost examples of progressive industrial participation (e.g. Jenkins, 1976). Assembly employees often worked in groups as direct participants in personnel decision making (what group members to hire, reward, or fire), job design procedures (how to accomplish the group’s work, how to divide and assign this work as individualized tasks, when to rotate among task assignments), and similar activities. Employees also elected worker representatives to serve on management committees charged with such tasks as insuring workplace health and safety, establishing corporate environmental policies, overseeing training programs, and assessing proposed product innovations. In addition, an employee representative sat on Volvo’s corporate board of directors. Finally, newer plants at sites including Kalimar and Skovde were designed and built to support team-based manufacturing and, at the same time, reduce hierarchical distinctions between managers and workers by placing open management offices on the shop floor, providing central cafeterias to be used by all employees, and creating “small workshop” areas wherein individual teams could produce complete subassemblies without substantial outside intervention.
By the middle 1970s, Volvo’s labor costs had grown to become among the highest in the automotive industry (Gyllenhammar, 1977). Although some of this expense could be attributed to the cost of complying with Sweden’s social welfare regulations then in effect, as much as a 15% falloff in productivity appeared due to the redirection of workforce energy away from shop floor production and toward participatory interaction (Swedish Employers’ Confederation, 1975). As long as Volvo was able to command premium prices for its cars, due to the high perceived quality and durability of its products, the company was able to offset production costs and compete in the world marketplace. However, with the introduction of such Japanese lines as Lexus, Infiniti, and Acura, Volvo’s position as a quality leader deteriorated and the company’s ability to offset its high internal costs declined.
Initially, Volvo attempted to meet market challenges by implementing cost control measures that included shutting down most major operations at Kalimar, Skovde, and other newer plants, and cutting back on participatory programming in its older locations. By 1994, however, rumors within the automotive industry suggested that Volvo was seeking a friendly merger to stave off bankruptcy or dissolution (Taylor, 1994). After considering several possible partners, in early 1999 Volvo sold its automotive business to the Ford Motor Company. In 2008, after several failed attempts to cut costs and create profitable operations, Ford put Volvo up for sale with the hope of recouping enough money to offset the costs of a decade of inefficiency.
Toyota
As Volvo’s market position declined during the late 1970s and 1980s, the position of Toyota, another automotive manufacturer, improved dramatically. Toyota typifies the approach used in Japanese-based companies of that era to organize shop floor operations and structure managerial affairs. Its production facilities were set up as traditional assembly line operations, and written, standardized instructions regulated most production processes (Shingo, 1981). Centralized, directive, and sometimes secretive management practices controlled company operations (Sethi, Namiki, and Swanson, 1984). In contrast to Volvo’s attempts to involve workers in all phases of corporate management, Toyota’s higher-level managers reserved the prerogative to lead the company without significant input from below.
Within this general structure, however, such practices as Quality Circles and ringi decision making introduced a degree of participation into the shop floor and lower managerial ranks. Quality Circles consist of groups of operative employees that meet with their immediate supervisors on a regular basis, typically every week or two, for an hour or two at a time to discuss problems with production scheduling, product quality, shop floor safety, and so forth. Circle participants work together to suggest solutions and improvements, which are then sent up the management hierarchy for further study and possible adoption (Ferris and Wagner, 1985). Ringi decision making is a system in which proposed decisions are circulated among management subordinates and their hierarchical superiors for deliberation and approval. Often, proposals are originated by senior managers and sent through the subordinate ranks for further refinement, although on occasion junior managers initiate the process with proposals of their own that are sent upward for approval (Cole, 1971).
In contrast to Volvo’s experience, Toyota was able to control production costs and, at the same time, produce cars perceived by consumers to be of high quality and reasonable price. In an age of oil embargoes and environmental concerns, the company produced small, fuel efficient cars that came to dominate the North American market. In the 1980s, Toyota introduced larger cars and later, the Lexus line of luxury automobiles. The company also expanded its production facilities worldwide and branched into the Scion line of affordable small cars. All the while, efforts to control costs and improve quality allowed Toyota to gain increasing market share at home and abroad. During the first quarter of 2008, Toyota’s sales figures surpassed those of General Motors, up to that time the largest automotive company in the world. Toyota’s management worried about becoming too successful and growing complacent in the highly competitive auto industry of the 21st century.
In comparing Volvo’s situation with Toyota’s, there are obvious differences in the scope of participation implemented in the two companies, since at Volvo participatory processes were central to corporate governance while at Toyota they played an ancillary role. This difference alone seems to explain Toyota’s greater relative efficiency as a producer of automobiles, since the same kinds of resources that were consumed in participation at Volvo were expended in production at Toyota. Yet, beneath this conspicuous difference lies a deeper explanation, originating in differences in the primary reasons why participation was enacted within the two firms to begin with.
At Volvo, participation was seen mainly as a way of restoring the ability of otherwise routinized manufacturing tasks to satisfy human needs, encourage commitment to the company and its products, and motivate attendance and successful performance (Aguren, Bredbacka, Hansson, Ihregren, and Karllson, 1985; Nicol, 1975). The fact that participation could encourage information exchange was acknowledged by Volvo’s management, but this exchange was thought to be valuable more for the commitment and motivation that would be aroused for the increased understanding or cognitive gain that might also occur (Gyllenhammar, 1977). Volvo’s approach was clearly designed to activate participation’s motivational mechanism.
At Toyota, in contrast, participation was used to redistribute information that would otherwise remain buried on the shop floor or hidden among lower-level managers (Dore, 1973). Motivation at Toyota, as in other large firms in Japan, was presumed by management to come from a combination of deference to authority and cultural collectivism that tied each employee’s welfare to the well-being of the employer. Such “Japanese management” practices as lifetime employment and seniority-based pay were used to remind employees of the permanence of their relationship with their employer and of the importance of working hard to bring honor to their company and its management (Wagner, 1982). The primary aim of participation was consistent - and at Toyota remains consistent to the present day - with the cognitive mechanism’s focus on information sharing and improved understanding.
As suggested by Toyota’s experiences, participation can serve as an effective method of managing information and distributing knowledge. Although all of Toyota’s achievements in the world marketplace cannot be attributed to the effects of participation alone, in facilitating the redistribution of information and sharing of knowledge among employees participation has contributed significantly to the company’s continuing success.
CONCLUSION
Individual studies of participation’s motivational effects have sometimes reported evidence of positive effects, leading researchers and practitioners alike to advocate the use of participation as a source of workplace motivation and employee satisfaction (e.g. Cotton, 1993; Gyllenhammar, 1977; Petersen and Hillkirk, 1991). However, more generalizable evidence suggests that participation’s usefulness as a motivational tool is often quite limited. Only in small groups or in combination with simple tasks is participation likely to have appreciable effects, and even then only on the outcomes of satisfaction or acceptance. Managers facing problems with workforce motivation are better advised to look for solutions in such practices as goal setting, job redesign, and incentive payment.
Although the collection of studies performed specifically to assess the cognitive mechanism is considerably smaller than the stream of research conducted on the motivational mechanism, a stronger case can be made for using participation to influence performance through its effects on the distribution of information among subordinates and their hierarchical superiors. Especially when information is unevenly distributed and the work being performed incorporates significant interdependence, complexity, or change, participation should yield substantial increases in participant knowledge and insight which, in turn, should enhance performance and effectiveness in the workplace. Structuring participatory sessions specifically to encourage the exchange of information should have additional positive effects. Managers seeking ways to improve the distribution of information and knowledge are well advised to consider participatory processes
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and personality characteristics on subordinate responses to participative decision making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 477-484.
Aguren, S., Bredbacka, C., Hansson, R., Ihregren, K., and Karlsson, K. G. (1985). Volvo Kalimar Revisited: Ten Years of Experience. Stockholm: Efficiency and Participation Development Council.
Alavi, M. (1993). An assessment of electronic meeting systems in a corporation setting. Information and Management, 25, 175-182.
Alavi, M., and Palmer, J. (2000). Use information technology as a catalyst for organizational change. In E. A. Locke (ed.), The Blackwell Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior (pp. 404-417). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Alutto, J. A., and Belasco, J. (1972). A typology for participation in organizational decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 117-125.
Anderson, R. C. (1959). Learning in discussions: a resume of authoritarian-democratic studies. Harvard Education Review, 29, 210-215.
Bartlem, C. S., and Locke, E. A. (1981). The Coch and French study: A critique and reinterpretation. Human Relations, 34, 555-566.
Bass, B. M., and Valenzi, E. R. (1974). Contingent aspects of effective management styles. In J. G. Hunt and L. L. Larson (eds), Contingency Approaches to Leadership (pp. 75-123). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bass, B. M., Valenzi, E. R., Farrow, D. L., and Solomon, R. J. (1975). Managerial styles associated with organizational, task, personal, and interpersonal contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66, 720-729.
Castore, C. H., and Murnighan, J. K. (1978). Determinants of support for group decision. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 22, 75-92.
Coch, L., and French, J. R. P., Jr. (1948). Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532.
Cole, R. E. (1971). Japanese Blue Collar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Cotton, J. L. (1993). Employee Involvement: Methods for Improving Performance and Work Attitudes. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crampton, S. M., and Wagner, J. A., III (1994). Percept-percept inflation in microorganizational research: An investigation of prevalence and effect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 67-76.
Dickson, J. W. (1981). Participation as a means of organizational control. Journal of Management Studies, 18, 159-176.
Diehl, M., and Stroebe, W. (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 497-509.
Dore, R. (1973). British Factory, Japanese Factory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Durham, C. C., Knight, D., and Locke, E. A. (1997). Effects of leader role, team-set goal difficulty, efficacy, and tactics on team effectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 203-231.
Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., and Wells, M. T. (1996). Random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49, 275-306.
Ferris, G. R., and Wagner, J. A., III (1985). Quality circles in the United States: A conceptual reevaluation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 155-167.
Fox, W. M. (1957). Group reaction to two types of conference leadership. Human Relations, 10, 279-289.
Gibb, C. A. (1951). An experimental approach to the study of leadership. Occupational Psychology, 25, 233-248.
Green, S. G., and Taber, T. D. (1980). The effects of three social decision schemes on decision group processes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 97-106.
Gyllenhammar, P. G. (1977). People at Work. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1977). Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419.
Jenkins, D. (1976). Job Power. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Jenkins, G. D., and Lawler, E. E., III (1981). Impact of employee participation on pay plan development. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 28, 111-128.
Jermier, J. M., and Berkes, L. J. (1979). Leader behavior in a police command bureaucracy: A closer look at the quasi-military model. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 1-23.
Koch, J. L., and Fox, C. L. (1978). The industrial relations setting, organizational forces, and the form and content of worker participation. Academy of Management Review, 3, 572-583.
Latham, G. P., and Saari, L. M. (1979). Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 151-156.
Latham, G. P., and Yukl, G. A. (1975). Assigned versus participative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302.
Latham, G. P., Winters, D., and Locke, E. A. (1994). Cognitive and motivational effects of participation: A mediator study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15, 49-63.
Lawler, E. E., III (1982). Increasing worker involvement to enhance organizational effectiveness. In P. S. Goodman (ed.), Change in Organizations: New Perspectives on Theory, Research, and Practice ( pp. 33-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lawler, E. E., III, and Hackman, J. R. (1969). Impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 467-471.
Leana, C. P. (1987). Power relinquishment versus power sharing: Theoretical clarification and empirical comparison of delegation and participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 228-233.
Ledford, G. E., Jr., and Lawler, E. E., III (1994). Research on employee participation: Beating a dead horse. Academy of Management Review, 19, 633-636.
Locke, E. A., Alavi, M., and Wagner, J. A. III (1997). Participation in decision making: An information exchange perspective. In G. R. Ferris (ed.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 15, 293-331. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Locke, E. A., Feren, D. B., McCaleb , V. M., Shaw, K. N., and Denny, A. T. (1980). The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K. D. Duncan, M. M. Gruneberg, and D. Wallis (eds), Changes in Working Life (pp. 363-388). London, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
Locke, E. A., and Schweiger, D. M. (1979). Participation in decision making: one more look. In B. M. Staw (ed.), New Directions in Organizational Behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-339). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision making: A model, literature critique, and prescription for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 68-106.
Marrow, A. J., and French, J. R. P., Jr. (1946). A case of employee participation in a non-union shop. Journal of Social Issues, 2, 29-34.
McCurdy, H. G., and Eber, H. W. (1953). Democratic vs. authoritarian: A further investigation of group problem-solving. Journal of Personality, 22, 258-269.
McMahon, J. T. (1976). Participative and power-equalized organizational systems: An empirical investigation and theoretical integration. Human Relations, 29, 203-214. Miller, K. I. and Monge, P. R. (1986). Participation, satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 29, 727-753.
Moore, C. M. (1987). Group Techniques for Idea Building. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Nicol, G. (1975). Volvo. London, UK: William Luscombe Publisher Limited.
Patchen, M. (1964). Participation in decision making and motivation: What is the relation? Personnel Administrator, 27, 24-31.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory. London, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Pennington, D. F., Haravey, F., and Bass, B. M. (1958). Some effects of decision and discussion on coalescence, change, and effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42, 404-408.
Petersen, D. E., and Hillkirk, J. (1991). A Better Idea: Redefining the Way Americans Work. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Quigley, N. R., Tesluk, P. E., Locke, E. A., and Bartol, K. M. (2007). A multilevel investigation of the motivational mechanisms underlying knowledge sharing and performance. Organization Science, 18, 71-88.
Roethlisberger, F. J., and Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and Morale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosenbaum, L. L., and Rosenbaum, W. (1971). Morale and productivity consequences of group leadership style, stress, and type of task . Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 343-348.
Sashkin, M. (1976). Changing toward participative management approaches: A model and methods. Academy of Management Review, 1, 75-86.
Scheflen, K. C., Lawler, E. E., III and Hackman, J. R. (1971). Long-term impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans: A field experiment revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 182-186.
Schuler, R. S. (1976). Participation with supervisor and subordinate authoritarianism: A path-goal theory reconciliation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 320-325.
Schweiger, D. M., and Leana, C. R. (1986). Participation in decision making. In E. A. Locke (ed.), Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings (pp. 147-166). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Scully, J. A., Kirkpatrick, S. A., and Locke, E. A. (1995). Locus of knowledge as a determinant of the effects of participation on performance, affect, and perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 61, 276-288.
Sethi, S. P., Namiki, N., and Swanson, C. L. (1984). The False Promise of the Japanese Miracle. Marshfield, MA: Pitman.
Shingo, S. (1981). Study of “Toyota” Production System from Industrial Engineering Viewpoint. Tokyo: Japan Management Association.
Singer, J. N. (1974). Participative decision making about work: An overdue look at variables which mediate its effects. Sociology of Work and Occupations, 1, 347-371.
Stewart, T. A. (1997). Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Swedish Employers’ Confederation (1975). Job Reform in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Employers’ Confederation.
Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968). Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw Hill.
Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 996-1004.
Taylor, A., III (1994). New ideas from Europe’s automakers: managing the crisis at Volvo. Fortune, December 12, 168.
Vroom, V. H. (1960). Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Vroom, V. H., and Yetton, P. W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wagner, J. A., III (1982). Individualism, collectivism, and the control of organization. Unpublished dissertation, University of Illinois, Department of Business Administration, Urbana-Champaign IL.
Wagner, J. A., III (1994). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research evidence. Academy of Management Review, 19, 312-330.
Wagner, J. A., III and Gooding, R. Z. (1987). Shared influence and organizational behavior: A meta-analysis of situational variables expected to moderate participation-outcome relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 524-541.
Wagner, J. A., III, Leana, C. R., Locke, E. A., and Schweiger, D. A. (1997). Cognitive and motivational frameworks in research on participation: A meta-analysis of effects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 49-65.
Wagner, J. A., III and LePine, J. A. (1999). Participation’s effects on performance and satisfaction: Additional evidence from U.S. research. Psychological Reports, 84, 719-725.
Williams, T. A. (1982). A participative design for dispersed employees in turbulent environments. Human Relations, 35, 1043-1058.
Demonstrating the effectiveness of participation as a method of sharing information
Materials: Index cards and pen or pencil.
Preparation: Form teams of six members and select one member to serve as leader. For each team, prepare a deck of eight cards as follows:
Facts [each one on a card with the card number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8) on the back]:1. Provider B offers low prices with proven technology but never finishes a job on time or without bugs.
2. Provider C does very good work with proven technology but is typically quite expensive.
3. Provider D is going to offer new yet inexpensive technology in its bid. Only two other companies have used it but have no complaints. The system worked and was on time.
4. Provider E has never been late on a project and its prices are reasonable but almost always its systems take two weeks to work seamlessly.
5. Company A headquarters is adamant about the project being completed on time and that it work perfectly within two days.
6. The company (A) has been barely profitable in the last two years and headquarters is very cost conscious.
7. Blank.
8. Blank.
Procedure: The team of one leader plus five members work for company A. Company A headquarters wants to install a new telephone system and has delegated the project to the team. The team is looking at bids from competing companies (B, C, D, and E) for the telephone system. Each team member and the leader have spent several months doing research related to the decision (different people have worked on different things). The project leader makes the final decision. Complete each of the following three trials.
Trial 1. The leader gets cards 1, 2, and 5. Team members get 3, 4, and 6-8. The leader makes the decision without talking to the members. The decision is recorded without further discussion.
Trial 2. Distribute the cards as in Trial 1. The leader can talk to one member about what is on the member’s card. A blank card allows another choice. The leader then makes the decision. The decision is recorded without further discussion.
Trial 3 (Suggested time for this part: about 10 minutes). Cards 1 to 6 are randomly distributed, one per person (cards 7 and 8 are not used in this trial). There is full discussion, allowing all members (including the leader) to report the contents of their cards and fully argue their views. Then the leader makes the final decision. The decision is recorded.
Questions for discussion:1. Which trial yielded the best decision? Why?
2. What happens when leaders do not seek information from followers, as in Trial 1? Knowing this, why do you think that leaders do not often seek information from their followers?
3. Why do subordinates sometimes choose not to speak up even when they have relevant information?
4. In light of what you have learned in this exercise, what can be done in organizations to ensure the distribution of knowledge and information?
[Teaching note: The best choice is Provider D. B is too unreliable. C is too expensive. E is almost never on time. By design, Trial 3 is supposed to yield the correct decision without fail.]
Choosing the most appropriate process
Form groups of 4-6 members and talk about the following in small-group discussions, then report the results of these discussions back to the entire class in a large-group discussion:1. Thinking about where you work, describe an instance in which top-down processes were used to make a major decision. How quickly was the decision made? Was it the right decision? How well was the decision accepted by those individuals it affected?
2. Next, describe an instance in which participatory processes were used to make a major decision. How quickly was the decision made? Was it the right decision? How well was the decision accepted by those individuals it affected?
3. Finally, describe an instance where delegation was used to make a major decision. How quickly was the decision made? Was it the right decision? How well was the decision accepted by those individuals it affected?
4. Based on your answers to Questions 1-3, when are each of the three decision-making processes - top-down, participatory, delegation - likely to be most effective? When will each be least effective? What do your answers have to say about the strengths and limitations of participation as a decision-making process?