Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different OutcomesAuthor(s): John L. Cotton, David A. Vollrath, Kirk L. Froggatt, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall,Kenneth R. JenningsSource: The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1988), pp. 8-22Published by: Academy of ManagementStable 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 unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof 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 Academyof Management Review.

http://www.jstor.org

?Academy of Management Review, 1988, Vol. 13, No. 1, 8-22.

Employee Participation:

Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes

JOHN L. COTTON Marquette University DAVID A. VOLLRATH New York University KIRK L. FROGGATT

Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield MARK L. LENGNICK-HALL

University of Minnesota, Duluth KENNETH R. JENNINGS

Air Force Institute of Technology

Participation in decision making (PDM) takes several distinct forms. A review of empirical studies demonstrates that effects of participation on satisfaction and performance vary according to form. The find- ings 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, PDM has been defined concep- tually and operationally in many different ways (Dachler & Wilpert, 1978). As Schregle (1970) has quite accurately stated, "Workers' participa- tion has become a magic word in many coun- tries. 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 distinctions among 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 productivity and it has mixed effects on job satisfaction (p. 316).

Such conclusions may be misleading if PDM is not a unitary construct. If different forms of partici- pation exist and if they are associated with differ- ent outcomes, aggregating findings across the various forms will yield misleading results. This paper differs from previous efforts; it asks the question, "Are different forms of PDM associated with different outcomes?" In an attempt to an- swer this question, 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 Locke and Schweiger (1979), Dachler and Wilpert (1978), Strauss (1982), and Lowin (1968) were ex-

8

amined. Second, a computer search of Psycho- logical Abstracts was conducted for the years 1967 through 1983. Third, major journals in or- ganizational 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, 1978; Rothschild, 1979), practitioner-oriented and popular press articles (e.g., Bennett, 1979; Dowling, 1975), and reviews and critiques (Bart- lem & Locke, 1981; Carey, 1967; White, 1979). Papers falling in these categories were not in- cluded in this review.

A variety of empirical studies were excluded from the 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 18 and 21 for reviews) also were not included be- cause the operationalization of these behaviors includes more than participative practices by the leader. Finally, the present review excludes stud- ies of participative climate, which may include manipulations of organizational structure, re- wards and punishments, cooperation and com- petition, and other factors (e.g., Litwin & Stringer, 1968).

Participative decision making can be evalu- ated in terms of various outcomes, including workplace democratization, reduction of indus- trial conflict, and employees' involvement in decisions. Again, following Locke and Schweiger (1979), this review focuses on two important outcomes, productivity and 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 produc- tivity at the organizational level. Therefore, in comparing productivity results, it is important to keep in mind possible differences resulting from differences in the level of analysis.

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 lo- cation along a continuum of how much "access" or influence organization members have in mak- ing a decision. Formal participation has a "$sys- tem of rules . . . imposed on or granted to the organization" (e.g., formally established quality circles). Informal participation, in contrast, is a "nonstatutory, consensus emerging among inter- acting members" (e.g., casual superior-subor- dinate exchanges). Direct participation involves "immediate personal involvement of organiza- tion members" while indirect participation in- volves some form of employee representation. Access is the amount of influence organization members can exert when making a given deci- sion. The different levels of access or influence are defined by Dachler and Wilpert along a continuum: (a) No (advance) information is given to employees about a decision, (b) Employees are informed in 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.

Locke and Schweiger (1979) acknowledged the existence of these properties and noted that the outcomes of PDM might vary in terms of content of the decisions involved. They proposed four con- tent categories: (a) Routine personnel functions, such as hiring, training, discipline, performance evaluation; (b) Work itself, including task assign- ments, job design, and speed of work; (c) Work- ing conditions, including rest pauses, hours of work, placement of equipment, lighting; and (d) Company policies, such as layoffs, profit sharing, 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-term experiments involving a

9

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-term PDM may have less commitment than if the PDM contin- ued over weeks or months. Lawler (1986) argued that organizations must take a long-term ap- proach to implementing PDM because outcomes often will be nonexistent or negative in the short run. In addition, short-term PDM may indicate less commitment by the organization or, perhaps, a less positive attitude toward PDM (Sashkin, 1976). Finally, time has been used in other tax- onomies of preparation (e.g., Wandersman, 1981).

Each of the 91 articles was classified in terms of these five properties (formal-informal, direct- indirect, 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 clas- sified the study by consensus.

In classifying the studies, it became clear that despite the many possible types of PDM, six com- binations 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 deci- sions, (b) Consultative participation, (c) Short- term 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 factors contribute to the clustering. First, better-known forms of PDM, such as Scan- lon plans, quality circles, and employee owner- ship plans, have been implemented more often than others. Second, the practice of program- matic and cumulative research promotes the clustering of investigations. For example, early studies of goal setting (Locke, 1968) stimulated replications and extensions in later research,

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 com- parisons 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 ma- nipulation of participation, outcomes, and mea- sures 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 effec- tive in certain situations. "Meta-analysis may pro- vide 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 out- comes of PDM in light of variations in form, meta- analysis 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

10

Table 1 Effects of PDM on Performance and Satisfaction

Form of Performance Findings Satisfaction Findings Participation Positive Negative Neutral Positive Negative Neutral

Participation 13, 14, 23, 44 35, 43, 44 31, 33, 59, 44 35, 59, In Work 35, 43, 59, 66 84 Decisions 60, 65, 66,

83, 84

Summary: 67% Positive 50% Mixed

Consultative 17, 47, 74, 58 19, 79, 82 91 Participationa 82

Summary: 80% Inconclusive 75% Inconclusive

Short-Term 40 20, 24, 28 81, 87 24, 28, 29, Participation 29, 37, 38, 38, 75

39, 41, 42, 75

Summary: 9% No Effect 29% No Effect

Informal 2, 7, 30, 11 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 4, 30, 55 Participation 55, 85 9, 11, 21, 30,

48, 56, 57, 62, 68, 71, 73, 74

Summary: 80% Positive 85% Positive

Employee 15, 52, 49 49, 50, 52 54 Ownership 70

Summary: 100% Positive 80% Positive

Representative 67 69 69, 89 18, 36, 63, 18, 36 18, 36 Participation 64

Summary 0% No Effect Overall: 50% No Effect Representative: 100% 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, interested readers can contact the first author.

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 cri- teria was the consultative participation cluster, which consisted of few studies with poor methods. The findings from this cluster were labeled "in- conclusive," because the validity of the results is questionable.

As Table 1 indicates, different patterns of re- sults 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 dis- cussed in light of earlier reviews, and theoreti- cal and research implications from the findings are presented.

Participation in Work Decisions

Participation in 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 partici- pants 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. Sev- eral studies examined the effects PDM has on both work and pay issues (Fleishman, 1965; Neider, 1980, work-and-incentive condition), and on pay issues alone (Jenkins & Lawler, 1981; Lawler & Hackrnan, 1969; Neider, 1980; Scheflen, Lawler, & Hackmnan, 1971). The rarity and simi- larity 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 15 studies, 11 found 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

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 perfor- mance/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 atti- tudes toward supervisors and the company. Sev- eral 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 evi- dence 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 differ- ence between consultative participation and par- ticipation 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 sug- gestions. Quality circles, in contrast, focus on small groups, and usually do not return a mone- tary incentive to participants. As mentioned earlier, the results from this cluster have been labeled inconclusive because the methods used for available studies are poor.

12

The limited research done on Scanlon plans has demonstrated positive results (see Table 1). The primary difficulty in studying these plans is developing suitable controls, as the change pro- cess is organization-wide. Despite a lack of em- pirical results, however, there is considerable theory that Scanlon plans should increase pro- ductivity, job involvement, motivation, and identification with the organization (Geare, 1976; Ruh, Johnson, & Scontrino, 1973; Ruh, White, & Wood, 1975).

Cummings and Malloy (1977) reviewed the im- plementation of eight Scanlon plans in organiza- tions ranging in size from 80 to 6,000 employees. Productivity increased in all eight organizations. All eight organizations decreased costs, six in- creased 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 interrupted time-series design, Schuster (1984) found a significant increase in productivity with the introduction of a Scanlon plan in a large manufacturing plant. [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 participation plans. The success of these margin- ally 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 re- tained 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 participative management. It is not possi-

ble to determine whether successful plans pro- duced these differences, or differences among the organizations led to either successful or un- successful plans.

Also, there are a few empirical papers on qual- ity 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 im- provements 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. Benja- min (1982) found no relationship between com- mitment and participation in quality circles.

The remainder of published studies about qual- ity circles are case studies; these report a strong bias toward positive results. Although Donovan and Van Horn (1983) report improved productiv- ity for five cases, only one included a test of significance. Without specifying how many vari- ables were examined, Tortorich, Thompson, Orfan, Layfield, Dreyfus, and Kelley (1981) re- ported significant effects for quality circles on eight attitudinal variables, including job satis- faction.

Short-Term Participation

Unlike the long-term interventions that typi- fied consultative participation and participation in work decisions, this cluster of studies is distin- guished by PDM programs of limited duration, ranging from a single laboratory session to train- ing sessions of several days. This form of PDM may be characterized as formal, direct, and con- cerned with work itself; through it, workers have complete influence in the decision-making pro- cess. 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: perfor- mance, satisfaction or other attitudes, motiva-

13

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 perfor- mance from assigned goals that were also speci- fic, difficult, and accepted. No effect for short- term 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 re- ported 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 satis- faction as much as full access did.

Also, there were mixed findings concerning motivation and various goal properties. Motiva- tion 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 accep- tance. Perceived influence or involvement in- creased as a result of increased PDM in each of six studies that tested this relationship.

Informal Participation

Many organizations do not have formally es- tablished participatory systems or groups in- volved in the decision-making process. Yet, PDM may still occur informally through the interper- sonal relationships between managers and sub- ordinates. [These studies may have examined informal PDM within an organization with a for- mal PDM system; however, it is not possible to determine if this was the case. ] Studies classified

as involving informal participation were those in which the dependent variables of interest were correlated with aspects of existing superior- subordinate relationships. Often the content was not specified, and it was not possible to deter- mine 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 satis- faction 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 relation- ship between informal participation and satisfac- tion 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 partici- pation 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 infor- mal 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. Sev- eral factors were found to be consistently and negatively associated with informal participation. These factors included role ambiguity (2 of 3

14

studies), role conflict (3 of 4 studies), and job ten- sion (2 of 2 studies).

Employee Ownership

Employee ownership can be classified as for- mal and indirect PDM. It is formal because the employee has the formal "right" to participate as any stockholder does. It is indirect because al- though most of these organizations are owned by employees, they are operated conventionally (managers make both daily and strategic deci- sions). Employees can influence the decisions made by management through such mecha- nisms as election of the board of directors and stockholder meetings. Some employees in these organizations may participate directly in deci- sion 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 posi- tive 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 invol- untary absenteeism (legitimate excusable absen- teeism) increased. In an extensive analysis, Conte and Tannenbaum (1978) studied 98 em- ployee-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 owner- ship (as measured by the proportion of equity owned by the workers) is directly related to higher profits.

There is substantial evidence that such atti- tudes as general satisfaction, involvement, com- mitment, and motivation are higher in employee- owned firms (see Table 1). A series of studies by Long (1978a, 1978b, 1980) provides strong sup- port. Long also found that job attitudes of em- ployees in companies that were converted to em- ployee ownership improved in proportion to the

average percentage of total company's stock held by nonmanagerial employees.

Research supports the proposition that per- ceived participation is greater in employee- owned firms, although the evidence is not as strong as for other job attitudes. In general, work- ers believe the change in ownership increases their influence, although management still holds greater influence. Surprisingly, three studies measuring desired participation found that em- ployees 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 in- fluence of employees generally is lower. Repre- sentative 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 re- ported 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 satisfac- tion.

Most research on representative participation has focused on effects PDM has on control or perceived influence within the company. Utiliz- ing Tannenbaum's (1968) control graphs, the re- search indicates that with representative partici-

15

pation, central management retains almost com- plete control. Employees perceive they have lit- tle control, whereas actual measures of control show employee influence to be even lower.

Although researchers in this area typically ar- gue that PDM provides greater influence, few studies were conducted with control groups. Bartolke, Eschweiler, Flechsenberger, and Tannenbaum (1982) compared German compa- nies that varied in their degree of participation and found increased control with representative participation. However, even in these compa- nies, perceived control and actual control were not extremely high.

Studies have compared workers who are in- volved 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 mem- bers of worker councils and a steering commit- tee than among other workers. In a third study, Emery and Thorsrud (1976) found that although Norwegian workers on boards of directors shared in the power of the board, the workers found it very difficult to use that power in ways that were "in accord with the usual board purposes and at the same time make a direct impact on the work- ing life of their constituents" (p. 83).

Discussion

The results discussed above indicate that dif- ferent forms of PDM are associated with mark- edly different outcomes. For example, informal participation and employee ownership are effec- tive in terms of both productivity and satisfaction, whereas short-term participation is ineffective on both criteria.

PDM must be evaluated form by form to as- sess its effectiveness accurately. Thus, the practi- cal question "Is PDM effective?" has no simple answer. Rather, effectiveness varies with both the form of PDM and the criterion for effective- ness. For example, participation in work deci- sions appears to increase productivity, but in- creases satisfaction less consistently. Represen- tative participation does not increase producti-

vity, but does increase satisfaction, at least for the representatives themselves. Moreover, par- ticipation may be characterized by equifinality. Different forms of PDM, such as informal partici- pation and employee ownership, may be equally effective. In practice, forms of participation might be selected to accommodate a particular crite- rion 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 & Schwei- ger, 1979) treated PDM as a unitary concept, eval- uating 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 aggrega- tion 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, possi- ble contextual or contingency variables should be examined. Other authors (e.g., Locke, Schwei- ger, & 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 subor- dinates. 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 repre- sentatives 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 participa- tion. For example, participation in decision mak- ing has been applied to a few kinds of work

16

decisions, typically concerning how the work is conducted. Other organizational issues, such as work rules, 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 labor- management ventures.

Third, the interactions among forms of partici- pation within an organizational setting should be considered. If different forms of PDM are associated with different outcomes, the combina- tion of two or more forms of participation may produce interesting results. For example, infor- mal 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. Par- ticipation has been linked to many outcomes be- sides productivity and satisfaction (e.g., the dis- tribution of power across an organization, level of industrial conflict, or the quality, timeliness, and acceptance of decisions). These other mea- sures 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 PDM within organizations, one must choose from among many novel forms, mul- tiple forms, and alternate outcomes. It appears that performance/productivity effectiveness is as- sociated with forms that are direct, long-term, and/or of high access. Direct forms of participa- tion (e.g., informal, work decisions) have demon- strated greater effectiveness than indirect forms (e.g., representative). (Although employee own- ership is an indirect form of participation, its ef- fectiveness may depend on financial incentives.) Long-term forms of participation appear to be more effective than short-term forms. [This con- clusion differs from that of Schweiger and Leana (1986). However, their comparison of laboratory

and field does not correspond directly to the short- term-long-term distinction presented here. Sev- eral of the short-term studies 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 partici- pation (e.g., work decisions) may be more effec- tive than forms with less influence in terms of productivity. However, moderate-access forms (e.g., consultative, representative) may be effec- tive in terms of satisfaction.

The differences in the effectiveness of various forms of PDM raise questions about the mecha- nism(s) through which participation may 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 owner- ship) may arise from very different processes. If additional research suggests that different forms of PDM are associated with different outcome variables, separate models or theories for indi- vidual forms of participation appear more feasi- ble than the complex, integrative frameworks (e.g., Dachler & Wilpert, 1978; Locke & Schwei- ger, 1979; Wandersman, 1981) that have been used. To understand in depth even one form of participation will require consideration of ante- cedents, 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 contrast the separate emerg- ing models, perhaps in terms of general dimen- sions of form, such as duration, directness, and access, or some common mechanisms or pro- cesses. In this way, some convergence of theory and research on participation may be achieved.

17

Appendix

Studies Included in the Review

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983) Effects of task and persQnality char- acteristics on subordinate responses to participative deci- sion making. Academy of Management Journal, 26, 477-484. [1)

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983) Power equalization, participative decision-making, and individual differences. Human Rela- tions, 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 participation and 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 participa- tion in organizational decision-maldng. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 17, 117-125. [5)

Alutto, J. A., & Vredenburgh, D. J. (1977) Characteristics of decisional participation by nurses. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 20, 341-347. [6)

Argyle, M., Gardner, G., & Cioffi, F. (1958) Supervisory meth- ods related to productivity, absenteeism, and laborer turnover. Human Relations, 11, 23-40. [7)

Bartolke, K., Eschweiler, W., Flechsenberger, D., & Tannen- baum, A. S. (1982) Workers' participation and the distribu- tion of control as perceived by members of ten German companies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 380-397. [8)

Baumgartel, H. (1956) Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research laboratories. Journal of Social Issues, 12, 24-31. [9)

Benjamin, E. R. (1982) Participation and the attitude of organizational commitment: A study of quality circles. Un- published doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. [10)

Berkowitz, L. (1953) Sharing leadership in small decision- making groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycho- logy, 48, 231-238. [11)

Bertsch, G. K., & Obradovic, J. (1979) Participation and influ- ence in Yugoslav self-management. Industrial Relations, 18, 322-329. [12]

Bragg, J. E., & Andrews, I. R. (1973) Participative decision- making: 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]

Conte, M., & Tannenbaum, A. S. (1978) Employee owned companies: Is the difference measurable? Monthly Labor Review, 101(7), 23-28. [15)

Cummings, T. G., & Griggs, W. (1977) Worker reactions to autonomous work groups. Organizations and Administra- tion Sciences, 7, 87-100. [16)

Cummings, T. G., & Malloy, E. S. (1977) Improving productiv- ity and the quality of work life. New York: Praeger. [17]

DIO (Decisions in Organizations). (1979) Participative study. Industrial Relations, 18, 295-309. [18)

Donovan, M., & Van Horn, B. (1980) Quality circle evaluation. In Quality Circle Readings (pp. 104-109). Dayton, OH: Air Force Institute of Technology. [19)

Dossett, D. L., Latham, G. P., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979) Effects of assigned versus participatively set goals, knowledge of results, and individual differences on employee behavior when goal difficulty is held constant. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 291-298. [20)

Driscoll, J. W. (1978) Trust and participation in organizational decision making as predictors of satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 21, 44-56. [21)

Field, R. H. G. (1982) A test of the Vroom-Yetton normative model of leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 523-532. [22)

Fleishman, E. A. (1965) Attitude versus slill factors in work group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 18, 253-266. [23)

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) Absentee- ism 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: Implications for the organizational distribution of power. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 78-100. [27]

Ivancevich, J. M. (1976) Effects of goal setting on performance and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 605-612. [28]

Ivancevich, J. M. (1977) Different goal setting treatments and their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 406-419. [29]

18

Ivancevich, J. M. (1979) An analysis of participation in deci- sion making among project engineers. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 22, 253-269. [30]

Jackson, S. E. (1983) Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job related strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 3-19. [31]

Jago, A. G., & Vroom, V. H. (1980) An evaluation of two alter- natives to the Vroom-Yetton normative model. Academy of Management Journal, 23, 347-355. [32]

Jenkins, G. D., & Lawler, E. E. (1981) Impact of employee participation in pay plan development. Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance, 28, 111-128. [33]

Jochim, T. C. (1979) Employee stock ownership programs: The next economic revolution? Academy of Management Review, 4, 439-442. [34]

Juralewicz, R. S. (1974) An experiment on participation in a Latin American factory. Human Relations, 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) Impor- tance of participative goal setting and anticipated rewards on goal difficulty and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 163-174. [38]

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979) Importance of supportive relationships in goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychol- ogy, 64, 151-156. [39]

Latham, G. P., & Saari, L. M. (1979) Effects of holding goal difficulty constant on assigned and participatively set goals. Academy of Management Journal, 22, 163-168. [40]

Latham, G. P., & Steele, T. P. (1983) The motivational effects 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 difficulty on performance. Per- sonnel Psychology, 35, 677-686. [42]

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975) Assigned versus partici- pative goal setting with educated and uneducated woods workers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 299-302. [43]

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1976) Effects of assigned and participative goal setting on performance and job satisfac- tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 166-171. [44]

Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1969) Impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 467-471. [45]

Lawler, E. E., & Hall, D. (1970) The relationship of job charac- teristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 305-312. [46]

Lee, B. R. (1982) Organizational development and group per- ceptions: A study of quality circles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. [47]

Lischeron, J., & Wall, T. D. (1975) Employee participation: An experimental field study. Human Relations, 28, 863- 884. [48]

Long, R. J. (1978a) Relative effects of share ownership vs. control on job attitudes in an employee-owned company. Human Relations, 31, 753-763. [49]

Long, R. J. (1978b) The effects of employee ownership on or- ganizational identification, employee job attitudes, and organizational performance: A tentative framework and empirical findings. Human Relations, 31, 29-48. [50]

Long, R. J. (1979) Desires for and patterns of worker participa- 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 perfor- mance under employee ownership. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 23, 726-737. [52]

Long, R. J. (1981) The effects of formal employee participation in ownership and decision-making on perceived and de- sired patterns of organizational influence: A longitudinal study. Human Relations, 34, 847-876. [53]

Long, R. J. (1982) Worker ownership and job attitudes: A field study. Industrial Relations, 21, 196-215. [54]

McMahon, J. T. (1976) Participative and power-equalized or- ganizational systems: An empirical investigation and theo- retical integration. Human Relations, 29, 203-214. [55]

Miles, R. E., & Ritchie, J. B. (1971) Participative management: Quality vs. quantity. California Management Review, 13 (4), 48-56. [56]

Mitchell, T. R., Smyser, C. M., & Weed, S. E. (1975) Locus of control: Supervision and work satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 623-631. [57]

Mohrman, S. A., & Novelli, L. (1982) Learning from a 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 utiliz- ing an expectancy theory view of participation. Organiza- tional Behavior and Human Performance, 26, 425-442. [60]

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]

Norton, S. D. (1976) Employee-centered management, partici- pation in decision-making and satisfaction with work itself. Psychological Reports, 38, 391-398. [62]

Nurick, A. J. (1982) Participation in organizational change: A longitudinal field study. Human Relations, 35, 413-430. [63]

Obradovic, J. (1970) Participation and work attitudes in Yugoslavia. Industrial Relations, 9, 161-169. [64]

Rice, A. K. (1953) Productivity and social organization in an Indian weaving shed. Human Relations, 6, 297-329. [65]

Richter, F. D., & Tjosvold, D. (1980) Effects of student partici- pation in classroom decision making on attitudes, peer interaction, motivation, and learning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 74-80. [66]

Rosenberg, R. D., & Rosenstein, E. (1980) Participation and productivity: An empirical study. Industrial and Labor Re- lations Review, 33, 355-368. [67]

Runyon, K. E. (1973) Some interactions between 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]

Russell, R., Hochner, A., & Perry, S. E. (1979) Participation, influence, and worker ownership. Industrial Relations, 18, 330-341. [70]

Sadler, P. J. (1970) Leadership style, confidence in manage- ment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 6, 3-19. [71]

Scheflen, K. C., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1971) Long- term impact of employee participation in the development of pay incentive plans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55, 182-186. [72]

Schuler, R. S. (1980) A role and expectancy perception model of participation in decision making. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 23, 331-340. [73]

Schuster, M. (1984) The Scanlon plan: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 23-38. [74]

Seaborg, I. S. (1978) The influence of employee participation in job redesign. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 14, 87-98. [75]

Searfoss, D. G., & Monczka, R. M. (1973) Perceived participa- tion in the budget process and motivation to achieve the

budget. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 541-554. [76]

Stagner, R. (1969) Corporate decision making: An empirical study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 1-13. [77]

Steele, R. P., Lloyd, R. F., Ovalle, N. K., & Hendrix, W. H. (1982) Designing quality circle research. The Quality Cir- cle 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, 99-119. [79]

Stem, R. N., & Hammer, T. H. (1978) Buying your job: Factors affecting the success or failure of employee acquisition attempts. Human Relations, 31, 1101-1117. [80]

Taylor, R. L., & Zawacki, R. A. (1978) Collaborative goal set- ting in performance appraisal- a field experiment. Public Personnel Management, 7, 162-170. [81]

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. [82]

Trist, E. L., Susman, G. I., & Brown, G. R. (1977) An experi- ment in autonomous working in an American underground 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]

Vroom, V. H. (1959) Some personality determinants of the effects of participation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 322-327. [85]

Vroom, V. H., & Jago, A. G. (1978) On the validity of the Vroorn/ Yetton model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 151-162. [86]

Wexley, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1973) Subrdinate personality as a moderator of the effects of participation in three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 54-59. [87]

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. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [89]

Wood, M. T. (1972) Effects of decision processes and task situ- ations on influence perceptions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 417-427. [90]

Zahra, S. A. (1982) An exploratory empirical assessment of quality circles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity 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.

Bennett, L. (1979) When employees run the company. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 75-90.

Carey, A. (1967) The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 32, 403-416.

Cummings, T. G. (1978) Self-regulating work groups: A socio- technical synthesis. Academy of Management Review, 3, 625-634.

Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. (1978) Conceptual dimensions and boundaries of participation in organizations: A criti- cal evaluation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 1-39.

Dowling, W. F. (1975) At General Motors: System 4 builds performance and profits. Organizational Dynamics, 3(3), 23-28.

Emery, F., & Thorsrud, E. (1976) Democracy at work. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.

Fein, M. (1982, August) Improved productivity through worker involvement. Paper presented at the meeting of the Acad- emy of Management, New York.

Geare, A. J. (1976) Productivity from Scanlon-type plans. Academy of Managment Review, 1, 99-108.

Glass, G. V., McGaw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981) Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Guzzo, R. A., Jackson, S. E., & Katzell, R. A. (1987) Meta- analysis analysis. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 9, pp. 407442). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1982) Meta- analysis: Cumulating research findings across studies. Bev- erly Hills, CA: Sage.

Jenkins, G. D., & Gupta, N. (1982) Financial incentives and productivity improvement. Journal of Contemporary Busi- ness, 11(2), 43-56.

Lawler, E. E. (1986) High-involvement managment: Participa- tive strategies for improving organizational performance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968) Motivation and organi- zational climate. Boston: Harvard University, Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.

Locke, E. A. (1968) Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Perfor- mance, 3, 157-189.

Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979) Participation in deci- sion making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizationalbehavior(Vol. 1, pp. 265-340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Locke, E. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Latham, G. P. (1986) Partici- pation in decision making: When should it be used? Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 65-79.

Obradovic, J. (1975) Workers' participation: Who participates. Industrial Relations, 14, 32-44.

Rothschild, J. (1979) The collectivist organization: An altema- tive to rational-bureaucratic models. American Sociologi- cal Review, 44, 509-527.

Ruh, R. A., Johnson, R. H., & Scontrino, M. P. (1973) The Scanlon plan, participation in decision making, and job attitudes. Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psy- chology, 1, 36-45.

Ruh, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R. (1975) Job involvement, values, personal background, participation in decision making, and job attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 18, 300-312.

Sashkin, M. (1976) Changing toward participative manage- ment approaches: A model and methods. Academy of Management Review, 1, 75-86.

Schregle, J. (1970) Forms of participation in management. Industrial Relations, 9, 117-122.

Schweiger, D. M., & Leana, C. R. (1986) Participation in deci- sion making. In E. A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from labo- ratory to field settings: Findings from research 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.

Stumpf, S. A., Zand, D. E., & Freeman,R. D. (1979) Designing groups for judgemental decisions. Academy of Manage- ment Review, 4, 589-600.

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968) Control in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973) Leadership and decision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

21

Wandersman, A. (1981) A framework of participation in com- munity 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. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 2, 389-399.

John Cotton (Ph.D., University of Iowa) is Assistant Professor of Management at Marquette University. Please address correspondence to him at: Department of Management, College of Business Administration, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI 53233.

David Vollrath (Ph.D., University of Illinois) is Assis- tant Professor of Organizational Behavior in the Man- agement Department, New York University.

Kirk Froggatt (M.S. in Organizational Behavior, Pur- due University) is Director of Performance Manage- ment at Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield in New York.

Mark Lengnick-Hall (Ph.D., Purdue University) is Assistant Professor of Human Resource Management in the Management Studies Department, University of Minnesota, Duluth.

Kenneth Jennings (Ph.D., Purdue University) is Assis- tant Professor of Organizational Behavior in the De- partment of Communication and Organizational Sciences, Air Force Institute of Technology.

The authors thank Mary Correa and Cynthia Lengnick- Hall for their assistance on earlier drafts of this paper.

22