'Academy ol Management Reviaw, 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 (he conciusions of earlier reviews based on a
unidimensionaJ 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
negligUale efiect 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-
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
ofparticipation (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
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.
10
generating numerous goal-setting studies of
participation.
It is tempting to employ meta-analysis (Glass,
McGaw, & Smith, 1981; Hunter, Schmidt, &
Jackson, 1982) to analyze the research. However,
with the emergence of the clusters, it is clear that
a meta-analysis across the various dimensions
would not be fruitful. What is necessary are 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
Table 1
Effects of PDM on Performance and Satisfaction

Form of Performance Findings Satisfaction Findings

Participation Positive Negative Neutral Positive Negative Neutral
Pcniicipcrtion 13, 14, 23, 44 35, 43, 44 31, 33, 59, 44 35, 59,
in Work 35, 43, 59, 66 84
DeciBions 60, 65, 66,
83, 84
Summary: 67% Positive 50% Mixed

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

Participation" 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
Regresentative: 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.
° 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 & Hackman, 1969; Neider, 1980; Scheflen,
Lawler, & Hackman, 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
12
differences across conditions within studies exist,
the uniformity of results and the results of the
more carefully controlled studies (e.g., Bragg &
Andrews, 1973; Veen, 1972) suggest that 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. Ouality 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 inconciusive because the methods used
for available studies are poor.
 The limited research done on Scanlon plans
has demonstrated positive results (see Table 1).
The primary 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-
13
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 Hom (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-
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
14
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) andJor 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
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
15
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-
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-
ferenf forms of PDM are associated with mark-
edly differenf 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 musf 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-
16
vity, buf 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 Culfure (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 ifs 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, if 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 sifuational 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
situafional 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 fo a few kinds of work
decisions, typically concerning how the work is
conducted. Ofher 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
fhey 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, fhe 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
musf choose from among many novel forms, mul-
tiple forms, and alternate outcomes. If appears
that performance/productivity effectiveness is as-
sociated with forms fhat are direct, long-term,
and/or of high access. Direct forms of participa-
tion (e.g., informal, work decisions) have demon-
strated greater effecfiveness than indirect forms
(e.g., representative). (Although employee own-
ership is an indirect form of participation, its ef-
fectiveness may depend on financial incenfives.)
Long-term forms of participation appear fo be
more effective than short-term forms. [This con-
clusion differs from that of Schweiger and Leana
(1986). However, their comparison of laborafory
17
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, fheir review does nof take
info accounf 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 participxition may operate.
Currenf theory (e.g., Locke & Schweiger, 1979)
suggests that some combinations of motivational
and cognitive processes are involved. It may be
that differenf forms operate through differenf
mechanisms so thaf 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 wifh different oufcome
variables, separate models or theories for indi-
vidual forms of participation appear more feasi-
ble than fhe 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 hesifafe, 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.
 Appendix
Studies Included in the Review
Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983) Effecte of task and personality 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, I. (1966) Organizational alienation: A
comparative study. American Sociological Review, 31,
497-507. [3]
Alutto, I. A., & Acito, F. (1974) Decisional participation and
sources of job satisfaction: A study of manufacturing
personnel. Academy of Management/ourna], 17, 160-167.
[4]
Alutto, I. A., & Belasco, J. A. (1972) A typology for parUcipa-
tion in organizational decision-making. Administrative Sci-
ence Quarterly, 17, 117-125. [5]
Alutto, I. A., & Vredenburgh, D. I. (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) Parfi'cipa/ion and (he aHiJude 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, /ournai of Abnormai and Social Psycho-
logy, 48, 231-238. [11]
Bertsch, G. K., & Obradovic, I. (1979) Participation and influ-
ence in Yugoslav self-management. Industrial Relations,
18, 322-329. [12]
Bragg, ]. 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, I. R. P. (1948) Overcoming resistance to
change. Human Relations, 1, 512-532. [14]
18
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) improvingproducUv-
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 Hom, 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, I. 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, /ournai of Applied Psychology, 67,
523-532.[22]
Fleishman, E. A. (1965) Attitude versus skill factors in work
group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 18, 253-266. [23]
French, I. R. P., Israel, I., & 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, I. C, & Stem, R. N. (1981) Absentee-
ism when workers have a voice: The case of employee
ownership, /ournai 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/ournai, 23, 78-100. [27]
Ivancevich, I. M. (1976) Effects of goal setting on performance
and job satisfaction, /ournai of Applied Psychology, 61,
605-612. [28]
Ivancevich, I. M. (1977) Different goal setting treatments and
their effects on performance and job satisfaction. Academy
of Management Journal, 20, 406-419. [29]
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]
lago, 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. Organizationai 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 fleiafions, 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 i?eia(jons, 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. Personnei Psycijoiogy, 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 o/iWanagement/ournai, 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-
sonnei Psyciioiogy, 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]
19
Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1969) Impact of employee
participation in the development of pay incentive plans,
/ournai 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) Qrganizational 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:
Ouality 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.
[581
Morse, N. D., & Reimer, E. (1956) The experimental change
of a major organizational variable. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 52, 120-129. [59]
Neider, L. L. (1980) An experimental field investigation utiliz-
ing an expectancy theory view of participation. Organiza-
fionai Beiiavior 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.
Psyciioiogicai fleporfs, 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, indusfriai i?eiations, 9, 161-169. [64]
Rice, A. K. (1953) Productivity and social organization in an
Indian weaving shed. Human fleiafions, 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, /ournai 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,
indusfriai fleiafions, 9, 148-160. [69]
Russell, R., Hochner, A., & Perry, S. E. (1979) Participation,
influence, and worker ownership, indusfriai fleiafions, 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, /ournai 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,
/ournai of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 23-^8. [74]
Seaborg, 1. 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
20
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., Uoyd, R. F., Ovalle, N. K., & Hendrix, W. H.
(1982) Designing quality circle research. Tiie Ouaiify Cir-
cie/ournai, 5(1), 40-43. [78]
Steele, R. P., Dilla, B. L., Uoyd, R. F., Mento, A. T., & Ovalle,
N. K. (1985) Factors influencing the success and failure of
two quality circles programs, /ournai of A^anagement, 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 Ouaiify Circie/ournai, 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 fleiafions, 30, 201-236. [83]
Veen, P. (1972) Effects of participative decision making in
field hockey training: A field experiment. Organizafionai
Beiiavior 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. R, &Jago, A. G. (1978) On the validity of the Vroom/
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 iWanagemenf/ournai, 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. Organizafionai Beiiavior
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]
 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 Ouarteriy, 23, 1-^9.
Dowling, W. F. (1975) At General Motors: System 4 builds
performance and profits. OrganizafionaJ i3ynamics, 3(3),
23-28.
Emery, F., & Thorsrud, E. (1976) Democracy a/wort. Leiden,
The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff.
Fein, M. (1982, August)/mprovedproduc<ivi(yfhroughworter
invoivemen(. 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)Me(a-ana;ysis
in sociai 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. 407-442).
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-involvemenf managment.-Parfidpa-
(ive strategies for improving organizational performance.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968)MoJiva(ion and organi-
zational climate. Boston: Harvard University, Division of
Research, Graduate School of Business Administration.
21
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) Partcipation in deci-
sion making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), flesearch
inorganiza(ionaii)ehavior(Vol. l,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 coUectivist 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, cmd 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 industrial/
organizational psychology, organizational behavior and
human resources management (pp. 147-166). Lexingjton,
MA: Heath.
Stogdill, R. M. (1981) Stogdill's handbook o/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) Con trol in organizations. New York:
McGraw-HUl.
Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1973) Leadership and decision
mating. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
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./ournai 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 VoUrath (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