Ilmiiiiiiiiiim

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

A SCEIAL EXCHANCE APPROACH TO
VDRKER PARTICIPATION

presented by

AIMIRAASIUDILID GILLES

has been accepted towards fulfillinent
of the requirements for

PH.D. SmIAL SCIENCE

degree in

K V MajorI professor /

 

 

 
  

 

Date JULY 26, 1995

 

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-1 2771

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
I Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove this Mom from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or baton dd. duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU It An Affirmative ActioNEqual Opportunity Institution
Wan-9.1

~———-— __——, _

 

A SOCIAL EXCHANGE APPROACH TO WORKER PARTICIPATION

By
Almira Astudillo Gilles

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

College of Social Science

1995

ABSTRACT
A SOCIAL EXCHANGE APPROACH TO WORKER PARTICIPATION
BY
Almira Astudillo Gilles

Organizational theorists have developed numerous and
sometimes divergent views concerning the dimensions of
worker participation. This study analyzes participation
using the framework of social exchange theory and contrasts
this perspective with existing cognitive, affective, and
contingency models of the participation process. The social
exchange model presented here defines worker participation
as a series of exchange transactions between management and
employees. Three hypotheses are tested: (I) An individual's
contribution to a participative exchange is the result of
his or her utility calculation; (II) Interactions are
perceived to be successful if resources or the control over
resources are mutually exchanged. These resources are
categorized as pecuniary, career or advancement, and
socialization items; and (III) Successful interactions will
be beneficial to the parties involved, participants will
have high levels of involvement and will be allowed more
access to decisions, and a wide range of issues are
addressed.

Data from focus group discussions and interviews with
company officials were used to construct the survey form.

The survey was then administered to supervisory/managerial

and nonsupervisory personnel at two sites. Scales were
constructed to represent the different perspectives in
Hypothesis I and the item categories in Hypothesis II.
Reliability coefficients were computed for all scales, and
regression analyses conducted for the three hypotheses. For
Hypothesis I the dependent variable is expressed involvement
and the predictors are position and department of
respondent, along with cognitive, affective and social
exchange variables. For Hypothesis II the dependent
variable is success and the independent variables are the
"currency" items mutually exchanged. For Hypothesis III the
dependent variable is success and the predictors are actual
involvement, access to decisions, range of issues addressed,
and success of coworker relations. Trust in supervisor,
good coworker relations, and influence are significant
social exchange factors. Respect is an important affective
factor, and job satisfaction and increased job knowledge and
skill the most important cognitive factors. The most
valuable items exchanged are information, the opportunity to
improve job performance, the opportunity to help others, and
commitment to the exchange partner. Success is tied to high
access to the decision making process.

Worker participation is a complex phenomenon and
research would benefit from a pluralistic approach that
spans multiple levels and perspectives. Social exchange

theory has much to offer and should be pursued at a deeper

and broader level.

Copyright by
ALMIRA ASTUDILLO GILLES

1995

For Mama and Papa, with gratitude and love

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am profoundly indebted to the following:

Professors Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld and Richard Block
for their guidance from conception to completion of
this dissertation;

Professors Michael Moore and Christopher Vanderpool for
their timely assistance;

Annette Bacon for making my graduation administratively
possible from a distance;

Robert Crandall and the late J.R. Meyers for believing
in this study, and the management and workforce of
American Airlines;

The management and workforce of Company B;

The management and workforce of the two other
organizations who were involved in the early part of
this study;

My friends in East Lansing who witnessed my
transformation from confident graduate student to
harried wife and mother;

My friends in Tulsa who sustained me through a
difficult pregnancy and the frenzied last stages of
dissertation-writing;

Blaine, my husband, and Matthew and Isabel, my
children, who made this all worthwhile; and

God who made this all possible.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................... . .................... X

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................... xiv
Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ....................... 1

What the Proposed Model Offers ................ 3

Why Use Social Exchange Theory ................ 4

Implications of the Study ..................... 6

Relevance of Research in this Area ............ 8

Research Strategy ............................. 8

Limitations of the Study ...................... 9

External Validity .......................... 11

Construct Validity .......................... 11

Reliability ................................ 11

Level of Analysis .......................... 12

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ 14

Construct of Participation .................... 14

Dimensions of Participation ................ 14

Process of Participation ................... 15

Effects of Participation ................... 17

Social Exchange and Allied Theories ........... 19

vii

Industrial Relations .... ...................... 23

Measurement and Methodological Issues ......... 25
Participation .............................. 25
Social Exchange Theory ..................... 28
3. RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES .................... 34
Definition of Terms ........................... 34
Process of Exchange ........................... 36
Rational Action ............................ 37
Dyadic Organizing .......................... 38
Assumptions ................................... 45
Hypotheses .................................... 48
Hypothesis I: Utility ...................... 48
Hypothesis II: Currency .................... 48
Hypothesis III: Success .................... 49
4. METHODOLOGY ....................................... 52
Sample ........................................ 52

Profile of American Airlines and its
QWL Program ................................. 54
Profile of Company B and its TCS Program ...... 56
Data Collection ............................... 58
Analysis of Qualitative Data .................. 61
Analysis of Quantitative Data ................. 62
Level of Analysis ............................. 72
5. RESULTS .......................................... 74
Hypothesis I: Why Workers Participate ......... 74

Hypothesis II: Process of Exchange
and Success ................................. 90

viii

Hypothesis III: Structure, Behavior, and

Success .................................... 95
Comparison Between the Two Sites .............. 99
DISCUSSION ....................................... 127
Hypothesis I: Why Workers Participate ......... 128
Hypothesis II: Reciprocity and the
Currency of Exchange ........................ 132
Hypothesis III: Successful Exchanges .......... 139
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION .................. . 156
APPENDICES ...................... . ................ 166
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................... 198

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1

10

PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART I OF
QUESTIONAIRE,(HYPOTHESIS I), AMERICAN
AIRLINES.. ............. . ....................... . 104

PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART I OF
QUESTIONAIRE,(HYPOTHESIS I), COMPANY B ......... 105

MULTI*STAGE REGRESSION ANALYSIS, (HYPOTHESIS I),
AMERICAN AIRLINES .............................. 106

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF
INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARTICIPATION PROGRAM,
(HYPOTHESIS I), AMERICAN AIRLINES .............. 109

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF AFFECTIVE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
IN THE PARTICIPATION PROGRAM, AMERICAN
AIRLINES ....................................... 110

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
IN THE PARTICIPATION PROGRAM, AMERICAN
AIRLINES ....................................... 111

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF SOCIAL EXCHANGE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF
INVOLVEMENT IN THE PARTICIPATION PROGRAM,
COMPANY B ....................... . .............. 112

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF AFFECTIVE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
IN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM, COMPANY B .... ........ 113

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF COGNITIVE FACTORS AND LEVEL OF INVOLVEMENT
IN PARTICIPATION PROGRAM, COMPANY B ............ 114

TABLE OF PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART II OF
QUESTIONNAIRE, (HYPOTHESIS II), AMERICAN

X

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

AIRLINES

TABLE OF PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART II OF

QUESTIONNAIRE (HYPOTHESIS II), COMPANY B .......

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF PECUNIARY FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF
PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

AMERICAN AIRLINES ........ . ............ . ........

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF CAREER FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF
PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

AMERICAN AIRLINES ..............................

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF SOCIALIZATION FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS
OF PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

AMERICAN AIRLINES ..............................

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF PECUNIARY FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF
PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

COMPANY B ..................... . ................

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF CAREER FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF
PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

COMPANY B ......................................

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
OF SOCIALIZATION FACTORS AND PERCEIVED SUCCESS
OF PARTICIPATIVE EXCHANGES (HYPOTHESIS II),

COMPANY B ......................................

TABLE OF PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART III OF
QUESTIONNAIRE (HYPOTHESIS III), AMERICAN

AIRLINES .......................................

TABLE OF PERCENTAGES FOR ITEMS IN PART III OF

QUESTIONNAIRE (HYPOTHESIS III), COMPANY B ......

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM AND SOCIO-STRUCTURAL FACTORS

(HYPOTHESIS III), AMERICAN AIRLINES ............

REGRESSION ANALYSIS EVALUATING THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN PERCEIVED SUCCESS OF PARTICIPATION
PROGRAM AND SOCIO-STRUCTURAL FACTORS

(HYPOTHESIS III), COMPANY B ....................

xi

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

116

125

D-1
D-2

D-3

E-l

E-3

E-6

F-3

SOCIAL EXCHANGE SCALE FOR HYPOTHESIS I ...........
AFFECTIVE SCALE FOR HYPOTHESIS I .................

COGNITIVE SCALE FOR HYPOTHESIS I .................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF PECUNIARY ITEMS SCALE (AMERICAN
AIRLINES .......... . ............................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCALE
(AMERICAN AIRLINES) . ...........................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF SOCIALIZATION SCALE
(AMERICAN AIRLINES) ............................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF PECUNIARY ITEMS SCALE
(COMPANY B) .....................................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF CAREER ADVANCEMENT SCALE
(COMPANY B) ....................................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
EXCHANGE OF SOCIALIZATION SCALE
(COMPANY B) ....................................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
SOCIAL EXCHANGE SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)
AMERICAN AIRLINES ..............................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
AFFECTIVE FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

AMERICAN AIRLINES ..............................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
CONTINGENCY FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

xii

182

F-5

AMERICAN AIRLINES .................. ' ............

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
COGNITIVE FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

AMERICAN AIRLINES ........ . .....................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
SOCIAL EXCHANGE SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)
AMERICAN AIRLINES ......... . ....................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
AFFECTIVE FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

COMPANY B ......................... . ............

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
COGNITIVE FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

COMPANY B ......................................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
CONTINVENCY FACTORS SCALE (HYPOTHESIS I)

COMPANY B ......................................

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
HYPOTHESIS III, AMERICAN AIRLINES ..............

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, RELIABILITY AND
INTERCORRELATIONS FOR ALL VARIABLES IN
HYPOTHESIS III, COMPANY B ......................

COMMENTS FROM AMERICAN AIRLINES
QUESTIONNAIRES .................................

xiii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. PROPOSED MODEL OF THE
PROCESS OF EXCHANGE

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

xiv

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This study investigates the process of increasing
worker participation in a firm's decision making process by
modelling worker participation programs as a series of
exchange transactions between employees and management. The
proposed model assumes rational behavior from these parties.
Rationality in social exchange theory requires only that (1)
actors have a set of values, goals and purposes and that (2)
their behavior be consistent with these (Harsanyi, 1977).
This paper suggests that a party's decision to contribute to
an exchange is the result of a benefit-cost assessment of
motivational, contingency, and social exchange factors.
These factors come from models of the participative process
which concentrate mainly on the link between participation
and worker satisfaction and productivity. Cognitive models
suggest that participative management is viable because it
enhances the flow and utilization of important information
in the organization. Affective models propose that
participation will lead to greater attainment of higher
order ego needs such as self-expression, and these in turn
lead to increased morale and satisfaction. Contingency
scholars suggest that it is not possible to develop models

1

2
of participation that will hold across all individuals and
situations, and offer theories which center on the decision
situation, relationships and values, among others.

Worker participation is referred to here as the
employee's formal or informal, direct or indirect
contribution to a participative relation between the
employee and management. This conceptualization of worker
participation is based on the tenets of social exchange
theory which, in its classical formulation, focuses on
dyadic interactions motivated by the pursuit of self—
interest (Homans, 1961). Such a relation is initially
asymmetrical and consists of an independent series of
transactions between the two parties that involves the
actual or potential exchange of organizational resources or
control over resources.

This dyadic relationship between management and the
workforce is conceived of as being defined and maintained by
value calculations, interpersonal comparisons, and normative
judgments. Based on the premise of social exchange theory
that individuals seek valued outcomes, it is proposed that
participation programs are successful to the extent that
transactions are perceived by parties to be beneficial
enough to sustain the exchange.

Specifically, the hypotheses to be tested are (I) An
individual's contribution to a participative exchange is the

result of his or her assessment of various factors that

3
constitute a utility or value calculation (using
contingency, affective/motivational, cognitive, and social
exchange considerations); (II) Successful participative
interactions involve a two—way exchange of resources or
control over these resources. These resources generally
fall into the following categories: pecuniary items, career
or professional advancement items, and socialization or
humanistic items; and (3) Interactions perceived to be
successful will be judged to be beneficial to the actors
involved, will feature higher levels of involvement, will
involve more access to decisions, and will cover a wider

range of issues in the exchange interaction.

What the Proposed Model Offers

The construct of participation refers to a wide variety
of human behaviors. Several studies have considered
participation objectives and effects. Models of the
participation process have focused on affective, cognitive,
and contingency factors which mediate the participation—
outcome relationship. This paper will primarily address the
process of participation and investigate the value that
these perspectives, along with social exchange theory, hold
for the concept of worker participation.

The proposed model is different from past approaches to
work participation in that it conceives of worker
tparticipation programs in terms of dynamic, emergent

interactions between people, rather than focusing on formal

4
or prescribed structure. This is rooted in the relational
tradition of communication where the role of human action in
forging and maintaining communication linkages in enacting
structure is emphasized (Monge and Eisenberg, 1987).
Specifically, the proposed model (1) takes the relationship
between actors as the basic unit of the participation
activity; (2) introduces or makes explicit the rational
character of actors in making decisions regarding
participation; (3) describes the currency and terms of the
exchange (quid pro quo exchange of extracontractual
resources); and (4) analyzes successful participatory
activities in terms of the dyadic exchange relation
processes rather than focusing on formal characteristics of

the participation activity itself.

Why Use Social Exchange Theory?

Social exchange is a formal theory which may be applied
to many social research areas. It "attempts to account for
the emergence, persistence and demise of sustained social
relations (Emerson, 1987)." The most fundamental element of
the social exchange model is the exchange relation, which
implies not isolated events but a continuing series of
opportunities, initiations, and transactions. In Emerson's
words (1972a:46) the concept of an exchange relation "links
each transaction to a history and a future for specified
actors, emphasizing a more or less durable social relation

between actors with behaviors significantly modifiable

5
across time." Blau (1987) observes that such concepts as
marginal utility (from economics) can be adapted to explain
noneconomic observations and serve as building stones for
constructing rigorous, hypothetico—deductive theory.

This perspective is well suited to a study of
participative processes because it focuses on the social
relations of actors involved in sequential transactions. It
also utilizes interfactional mechanisms that operate in
workplace relations such as norms, value or utility and
uncertainty. Social exchange theory allows a researcher to
dissect the dynamics of a participative work relation by
looking at a critical element-—each party's contribution to
the relation.

How participation is conceptualized by a researcher is
very much influenced by his or her value orientation and by
what he or she considers to be appropriate outcomes. The
proposed model provides a way by which the preferred
outcomes and values of the parties involved (management and
the workforce) are accommodated. The process of exchange
proposed here follows an actor's behavior through a
participative transaction, thus possibly providing a means
of explaining and predicting "successful" outcomes. While
this proposed approach is limited in its usefulness for
drawing causal inference, it provides a starting point for
investigating participation as a dyadic transaction or

exchange of organizational resources.

6
Implications of the Study

The results of this study could have significant
implications for both theoretical and applied work on
participation. First, the proposed framework for the
process of exchange builds from theories of behavior and
cognition in the work setting, economics, organizational
sociology and communication, and conflict bargaining and
negotiation. It offers various extensions for small group
and organizational communication theory, organizational
justice research, and individual action models (e.g.,
uncertainty reduction) as applied to work organizations.
This approach is different from existing models of the
participation process because it addresses the complex and
multidimensional nature of worker participation by turning
to tested frameworks in other fields of study. Second, a
major finding in this paper is that employees are less
interested in obtaining tangible rewards such as extra time
and are more concerned about adherence to normative values
and smooth interpersonal relationships. This is evidence
that the interactions which occur within a worker
participation framework resemble social rather than economic
exchanges. While both exchanges generate an expectation of
some future return on contributions the exact nature of that
return is unspecified in social exchanges. Furthermore,
social exchanges do not appear to occur on a quid pro quo or

calculated basis but are based on an individual's belief

7
that other parties to the exchange will discharge their
obligations in the long run. This finding has research
implications for participation and other areas in
organizational sociology. The distinction between social
and economic exchange parallels Rousseau's and Park's (1993)
conceptualization of transactional and relational contracts.
The former are short-term agreements specifying the limited
involvement of each party and the latter are open—ended and
long term. The data in this study point to the prevalence
of relational contracts in participative relations which,
because of its socioemotional content, diminishes the role
that instrumental rationality plays in the participation
process.

These results have implications for the applied setting
as well. An understanding and acceptance of the contractual
relationship might help managers in planning the reward
structure of their participation programs and in evaluating
its outcomes. The framework this model provides should
heighten their awareness of their relationships with
employees and their role in the exchange, and direct
attention to workplace norms and individual values and
preferences. No matter what the impetus for installing
participation programs (material or idealist) this approach
helps managers to realize that the attainment of "desirable"
outcomes is decisively linked to the quality of the exchange

relationship, perhaps even more than to the desirability of

the outcome.

Relevance of Research in this Area

Participatory practices continue to be implemented in
the U.S. and abroad, which suggest a strong belief that
participation is desirable. Empirical links have been made
between participation and outcomes such as job satisfaction,
work motivation, increased productivity, and increased
communication. Researchers and practitioners will no doubt
benefit from an increased understanding of the relationships
which comprise the inner mechanics of the participation
process. The proposed model also builds on industrial
relations systems research, such as how stable participation
activities meet the interests and expectations of parties in
the system (Cutcher-Gershenfeld, 1991). The model attempts
to describe how these interests (values) are translated into
action, by using the principle of rational behavior and
observing the social context in which exchanges are
embedded.

Finally, this study heeds the call for research that
uses communication theory to study participative process.

(Monge and Miller, 1988).

Research Strategy
In order to test the proposed model of participative
exchange, data was collected from organizations with formal

participation programs (with officially recognized

9
structures and procedures), although informal structures and
processes were studied as well. Qualitative data
(information used for the construction of the survey
instrument) was collected from three sites, the maintenance
and engineering divisions of an airline company, an
engineering firm, and a hospital. Quantitative data (survey
data) were collected from two sites, the airline company and
a tools manufacturer. Quantitative data consisted of
individual responses in a survey. Qualitative data
consisted of interviews with key personnel, focus group

discussions, and archival data.

Limitations of Study
External Validity

Cook and Campbell (1979) carefully distinguish between
generalizing to populations and generalizing across
populations, although both are germane to external validity.
The former is crucial for ascertaining whether any research
goal that specified populations have been met, and the
latter is crucial for ascertaining which different
populations (or subpopulations) have been affected by a
treatment (i.e., assessing how far one can generalize).

This can be restated as dealing with the problem of
knowing whether findings of a study are generalizable beyond
the immediate sample of the study. The main concern is that
the narrow and unique character of actors and their

environment significantly limits the generalizability of

10
research findings. This concern relates to the general
controversy over the extent to which limitations in the
representativeness of sampling restricts generalizability.
In this case, the concern would be whether the findings can
be generalized to other organizations, workers, settings,
since the firms would be selected primarily on the basis of
convenience (with a few requirements). Bass and Firestone
(1980) have argued that limitations in the sample do not
restrict the generalizability of the findings unless there
is some theoretical or empirical basis for expected certain
relationships. "Ultimately, generalizability is an issue
for future investigators to demonstrate, either by showing
ethat patterns of relationships remain invariant across
research settings or respondent characteristics, or by
providing a sound theoretical rationale for inferring
similarity of relationships (p. 464)". Likewise, Tunnel
(1977) has argued that external validity cannot be achieved
in a single study.

Similarly, Calder et al.(1982) assert that while
background factors should be contained in testing practical
interventions, they have no place in theory testing.
Berkowitz and Donnerstein (1982) similarly claim that
theoretically oriented studies need not be as concerned
about the representativeness of the sample used as they
should be about the internal or construct validity of their

operationalizations. Cook and Campbell (1979) and Calder et

11
a1. (1982) argue that external validity is not necessary for
achieving a rigorous theory test and may be sacrificed in

favor of the other types of validity.

Construct Validity

A possible problem arises when a researcher fails to
develop a sufficiently Operational set of measures and when
"subjective" judgments are used to collect the data. This
study might suffer from this primarily because part of the
study is phenomenological, allowing respondents to define
important variables in the participative exchange. Thus,
where possible, multiple sources of evidence were used when
collecting information for questionnaire construction.
Also, potential factors were identified a priori and
included in the quantitative phase, which should provide a
more systematic measurement of possible relationships

between variables.

Reliability

To satisfy the objective of reliability the researcher
must demonstrate that the operations of a study could be
repeated, with the same results. Since data will be
collected at one point in time, observations made at that
time may differ from data collected at another time (during
replication) due to the effects of maturation (employee
perceptions change as programs develop in time) or history

(an organizational event, such as unionization, could alter

12
employee perceptions). This threat was diminished by
operationalizing as much as possible and by reviewing
archives and other documents to get a sense of changes that
have occurred in the past and linking these to possible
changes in behavior. Key personnel have been interviewed to
collect more insights on employee behavior during critical

events and over the course of time.

Level of Analysis

One last issue in this study concerns the unit of
analysis: the dyad. While it is the belief of the
researcher that this substantive model can best be tested by
focusing first and foremost on the basic unit of social
exchange interaction——the dyad--there is a question of
generalizability to other levels of analysis. Dyads are
embedded in networks, so participative dyads are embedded in
participative networks, which are in turn further embedded
in organizational structure. Kenny (1988) states that human
behavior simultaneously operates at multiple levels, and
that in two—person (social) interactions, the two persons'
behaviors are a function of two levels: the individual and
the dyad. Therefore, one cannot use an "either or" approach
(behavior is either at the individual or at the group level)
but must simultaneously study variables at multiple levels.
This study will attempt to uncover the processes and
structures of dyadic interaction (and individual action

embedded in it), and then call for extensions of the model

13

to network interaction in work participation exchanges.

CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

The Construct of Participation

The organizational studies literature shows that worker
participation is not a unitary construct but is associated
with different forms and outcomes. This raises the
possibility that aggregating finding 3 across studies will
yield misleading results unless the elements of
participation are specified. Therefore, this study will
present conceptual distinctions among perSpectives on

participation before proceeding to the proposed model.

Dimensions of Participation
Research on participation can be classified into three
groups: (1) those who focus primarily on the participatory
process; (2) those who analyze participation effects; and
(3) those who study participation objectives. In general,
these efforts have considered the various dimensions of
participation, as follows:

1. Values, assumptions, and goals of implementors:
social theories consisting of democratic
theory,socialist theories, human growth and development
theory, and productivity and efficiency orientation
(sometimes called the 'management' school);

2. Properties of participation: Formal-informal;
direct-indirect; access to decision; decision
content, importance, and complexity; and social range
(range of people involved and the extent of their
participation);

14

15

3. Contextual boundaries: Characteristics of society;

focus organization and other relevant organizations;

and groups and individuals within organizations;

4. Outcomes: Individual, group, organization, and

society.

Mason (1982) also talks of other dimensions: (1) scope
of participation (number and type of issues available for
the workers to determine, which vary among different
organizational levels); (2) intensity of participation
(psychological involvement of individuals in the act of
participation); and (3) quality of participation (whether

the activity on the part of the workers actually has an

impact upon decisions made within the workplace).

Process of Participation

Theoretical models used to explain the process of
participation include cognitive, affective, and contingency
frameworks. Cognitive models suggest that participation is
viable because it enhances the flow and utilization of
important information. Theorists supporting this model
(e.g., Anthony, 1978; Frost et a1., 1974) propose that
workers typically have more complete knowledge of their work
than management does, so if they participate in decision
making decisions will be made with a better pool of
information. In addition, the model suggests that if
employees participate, they will have better knowledge for
implementing work procedures after decisions have been made
(Maier, 1963; Melcher, 1976). The validity of these

premises depend upon whether greater understanding is

16
actually achieved by participation and the degree to which
full understanding is crucial to job performance. Affective
models link participation to organizational outcomes through
affective mechanisms, commonly used by human relations
theorists (Likert, 1976; McGregor, 1960). They propose that
participation will lead to the attainment of higher order
ego needs such as self-expression, respect, independence.
In turn, the attainment of these needs will lead to
increased morale and job satisfaction. Affective models
also propose that participation will lead to higher levels
of productivity through intervening motivational processes.
Motivational factors such as increased trust and sense of
control may lead to less resistance to change and,
ultimately, to more productive and efficient outcomes.
Other motivational factors which lead to greater acceptance
of organizational decisions and changes are group pressure
and support and increased identification with the
organization. Scholars who use the contingency models of
participation argue that it is not possible to develop
models which hold across all individuals and situations, and
organizations whose internal features match the demands of
their context will achieve the best adaptation. These
theories center on personality (Vroom, 1960), decision
situations (Vroom and Yetton, 1973), values of workers
(Hulin, 1971). Vroom (1960) has found mixed support for the

mediating effects of personality on productivity and

l7
satisfaction. Some theorists suggest that the type of
problems dealt with at various levels of an organization
makes participation appropriate or inappropriate (Vroom and
Deci, 1960). They suggest that participation may be less
applicable at lower levels of the organization where
functions are routinized, rather than at higher levels where
problems are complex. Several scholars (Hulin, 1974)
suggest that values mediate the participation-outcome
relationship; for example, participation is more effective
for certain types of organizations (such as research or
service organizations) and positions of employees (middle

and upper level positions).

Effects of Participation

Participation effects (which may also be called
outcomes or objectives) are explained by the following
models: (a) attitudinal (such as resistance to change, job
satisfaction, job involvement, organizational commitment);
(b) cognitive (increased utilization of information from
lower levels of hierarchy, and downward dissemination of
information); (c) behavioral (generally leads to higher
levels of productivity).

Dachler and Wilpert (1978) developed a system of
classifying participation activities according to function
and ultimate outcomes. They classified participation
schemes into four categories, according to purpose: human

growth and development, productivity and efficiency,

18
workplace democracy, and socialist ideology. Human growth
and development theories assume a basic hierarchy of needs
which culminates in a need for self—actualization or growth.
These theories have discussed participation as one among
several means of overcoming debilitating effects of
traditionally designed organizations on their members. The
productivity and efficiency rationale for participation
seeks an instrumental understanding of individuals and
believes that people are capable of maximum output through
social technologies. Participation is assumed to address
the problems of alienation, dissatisfaction, and lack of
commitment and the resulting cost of reduced efficiency and
lower quality and quantity of production. Participatory
democracy has focused on self—governance as a social value,
although this school is characterized by conflict over the
viability of social systems in different contexts.
Generally, the societal outcome anticipated is self-
determination in all aspects of collective life, based on
the belief that the vast potential of individuals represents
a good basis for wise and effective social decision making.
Socialism gives work and the production process a central
role in explaining human personality and social processes.
The common arguments common to various forms of socialism
refer to the alienation of producers from themselves as a
result of the dialectical relationship between capital and

labor. A central assumption in the socialist literature is

19
the potential of people to become economically liberated by
participating actively in the production process, ultimately

controlling it.

Social Exchange and Allied Theories

The basic tenet of social exchange theory is that the
interest of parties lead them to carry out exchanges that
redistribute resources contained in a system. A system is
usually defined as consisting of actors, resources or
events, and an initial distribution of control of resources
among actors. In a simple system of action containing only
an exchange process, four concepts are linked: interest and
control, both of which specify the relation between an actor
vand a resource; and power and value, which characterize
actors and resources in relation to the system of action as
a whole. Thus, the function of an exchange in a dyadic
interaction would be determined by the power—dependence
relations of actors, possibly along with balance, cohesion,
and equality—equity objectives.

In various forms of the social exchange framework, the
longitudinal exchange between two specific actors is the
central concept around which theory is organized. With
interpersonal process as its substantive focus, the research
questions that have commanded greatest attention have been
equity (Adams, 1963; Walster, 1975; Cook and Parcel, 1977),
distributive justice (Homans, 1961), and power and

exploitation (Blau, 1964; Emerson, 1962, 1972).

20

This implies that the process of exchange involves an
interpersonal comparison of benefits expected from the
interaction. Such a comparison requires a concept of
subjective value or utility. Emerson (1987) begins to
sketch a theory of subjective value or cardinal utility that
consists of a set of actions, valued outcomes, opportunities
and probabilities. He also distinguishes (1969, 1972) two
different kinds of exchange situations: (1) distributive,
where a single type of resource is exchanged among all
actors in the system and where each actor places equal value
in a unit; and (2) productive, where each actor contributes
a resource unit which has no inherent value unless combined
with other resources to create a joint product.

Other substantive issues addressed by social exchange
research are the construct of value (Emerson, 1987), free
riders, interactor-dependence, power structure, and power
use, network exchange, legitimacy, justice, and productive
exchange.

Rational choice theory presents another framework which
utilizes the principle of utility maximization. It emerged
in American sociology in the late 19408 and early 19503 in
response to Talcott Parson's social theory (e.g., Homans,
1950; Collins, 1988). In American political science, public
choice theory emerged a generation earlier in response to
the then dominant institutional approach.

Rational choice theory is the formal elaboration of the

21
theoretical structure of decision— and game-theoretic
constraints on utility maximizing actions (Bohman, 1992).
The theory specifies that in acting rationally, an actor is
engaging in some kind of optimization expressed either as
maximizing utility or minimizing cost. What gives rational
choice theory its power is that it compares actions
according to their expected outcomes for the actor and
postulates that the actor will choose the action with the
best outcome. At its most explicit, it requires that costs
and benefits of all courses of action be specified, then
postulating that the actor takes the "optimal" action, that
which maximizes the differences between costs and benefits
(Coleman and Fararo, 1992).

The difference between the older social exchange theory
and present-day rational choice theory is that the classic
social exchange formulations of Blau and Homan focused on
the transition from the actor in a situation to the coupling
of such actors to constitute a social network of
interactions, leading them to deal with the social
interaction in detail. Present—day rational choice
sociologists present a somewhat different view of micro-to—
macro transition, with a principal interest in systemic
outcomes. They focus on sociological analyses directed to
accounting for historical phenomena often large in scale.
For such work, micro—to—macro transition mechanisms are

required that can treat interdependence without attention to

22

moment—to—moment flow of interaction among actors. _Social
exchange theory tradition has evolved into a exchange
network paradigm (Cook and Emerson, 1978; Markovsky, Willer
and Patton, 1988) which focuses on differential power as a
function of network position and its impact on exchanges.

There is an ongoing debate about whether rational
choice explanations are psychological explanations (see Satz
and Ferejohn, 1994, and Hausman, 1994). The central thesis
of Satz's and Ferejohn's externalist position is that
rational choice explanations are often best understood as
not relying on any claims about individual psychology. The
central argument for externalism rests on the possibility
'that, in certain environments, different sets of
preferences, beliefs, and acting on these preferences and
beliefs will result in the same outcome. Hausman's
internalist position claims that rational choice
explanations are psychological because an individual's
choice is determined by his or her rational preferences
among feasible actions, considering physical, biological,

social, and psychological factors.

Industrial Relations
Research in industrial relations further illuminates
the process of participative exchange presented here.
Implicit in the proposed model is the assumption that each
actor/party brings to the relation his or her own set of

interests and values, which are not necessarily in line with

23
the interests of the other party in the dyad. This is
consistent with the mixed-motive assumption in industrial
relations research on interactions (Cutcher-Gershenfeld,
1991) where stakeholders in an employment relationship are
observed to not have just conflicting but consensus motives
as well. He observes that cooperative features of
participation confront the conflictual features of the
employment relation. A participative structure imposed on a
superior—subordinate interaction requires the cooperation of
both parties, but it does not ensure it. The proposed model
argues that each party assesses costs and benefits, tests
these against the formal structure and process provided,
then adjusts behavior. Where motives or goals of parties
are similar or do not conflict, and assuming that the
participation program is structured to realize these
motives, it is likely that the program will be judged to be
successful by the participants. In the case where interests
are contradictory or the program cannot accommodate these
goals, the situation would be what industrial relations
literature would describe as descending towards 'conflict
resolution,‘ probably involving negotiation and mediation
behavior. Walton and McKersie (1991) conceive of labor
negotiations as social negotiations where there is
deliberate interaction between social units attempting to
define their interdependence. Their delineation of this

complex interaction is an appropriate description of the

24
proposed model as well. They believe that (l) the agenda
contains both conflictual and collaborative items; (2)
negotiations involve not just substantive items but
attitudes, feelings, and the tone of relations. Similarly,
the model incorporates substantive, behavioral, cognitive,
attitudinal, contingency, and normative factors into the
process; and (3) constituent members have some influence
over the negotiators. The primary negotiators of the
participation relation would be the employee and his or her
supervisor/manager, and constituent members would refer to
management.

The influence of industrial relations research on the
proposed model can best be ascribed to the fact that the
process of participative exchange is really one of
"constructive" negotiation. The term "constructive" is used
because the participation program is usually installed by
management in order to increase employee involvement in the
decision making process and is intended to be a cooperative
venture. It is a process of negotiation because each party
(either overtly or covertly) behaves in such a way so as to
maximize utility from what is essentially a quid pro quo
interaction. Social exchange theory posits that
relationships are asymmetrical in power distribution, and
the resulting exchange is a process of attempting
redistribution of power (or resources, or control over such

resources).

25
Measurement and Methodological Issues
Participation

Measurement and methodological issues revolving around
participation vividly reflect various attempts at
definition, description, and classification of the
construct. Dimensions discussed in the literature are: (l)
direct-indirect (experienced by individual workers through
personal and small group opportunities); (2) formal-informal
(base of legitimization is an explicit system of rules or
consensus emerging upon interacting members; formal bases
can be legal, contractual, or management policy); (3)
reference unit (individual, group, organization,
institution, society, multi—reference); (4) voluntary-de
facto (policy formulated to address recognized needs by
actors or participation by virtue of role in group or
organization or by association/membership); (5) context
(work organization, social or civic organization, societal
institutions); (6) content of decision (e.g., routine
personnel functions, work itself, working conditions,
company policies, and (7) outcomes or effects.

One ongoing debate in the literature concerns the link
between participation programs and increased productivity
and job satisfaction. Researchers have raised questions
about the ability of participation programs to affect
performance and satisfaction (Ferris and Wagner, 1985; Locke

and Schweiger, 1979). This is an important methodological

26
and conceptual issue because inward performance and
satisfaction is used as the rationale for the implementation
of various forms of participation programs. However,
inconsistencies in the literature on these outcomes have led
theorists to question whether research has shown evidence of
substantial relations between participation and performance
or satisfaction (Chalos and Hakka, 1991; Yammarino and
Naughton, 1992 are two examples.) Wagner (1994) has
demonstrated that the average effects of participation are
so small (although statistically significant) as to raise
questions about practical significance). He offers the
explanation that differences in the way participation is
defined can lead to different results. The use of broader
definitions of participation (such as those that include
consultation and delegation) leads to more support for the
participation-job satisfaction and performance relationship
(Leana, 1986, 1987; Vroom and Jago, 1988).

The data collection method generally used is the
questionnaire, which is subject to attribution, salience,
and priming. Jago and Vroom (1975) report a response
tendency to view one's own behavior as more participative
than others view that behavior. This would lead to inflated
self—reports of actual (sometimes referred to as
'objective') participation. French et a1., (1966) even
argue that objective participation operates via

psychological (perceived) participation. If this were true

27
(although evidence is mixed) then the question of how to
disengage objective from psychological would require other
methods (possibly qualitative ones, such as systematic
observation, research interviews).

There is the issue of interaction between different
levels of analysis in the measurement of the construct.
Although individuals in dyadic relationships are the
reference unit of concern in this question, some studies
(e.g., Lawler, Ledford, and Mohrman, 1989) define individual
participation in terms of corporate participation programs,
which lead to several problems. The first concerns the
individual participant. A bias present in perceptual
measures of influence is the performance cue effect. When a
theory of behavior is close to common sense or cultural
dictates, survey researchers may find it hard to distinguish
between actual events and the lay psychology of behavior
(Staw, 1986). Staw (1975) conducted an experiment to test
this and found that subjects in successful groups rated
their groups more positively on all dimensions commonly
believed to foster effectiveness. Second, participation
measured as a subjective employee perception may also be
confounded with other job attitudes, especially work
satisfaction. Also, measured as an 'objective' company
characteristic (e.e., on the basis of managerial responses),
participation may not correspond to employee experiences.

This indicates a level of analysis issue: that at each level

28
of analysis at which important and interesting research can
be conducted, the next larger unit in which the behavior is
embedded will also have an impact. Another problem lies in
the concept of "nonparticipation." Leitko, et a1., (1985)
note that nonparticipation is the modal response of workers
to participation schemes. For workers who never had any
experience with substantial participation, questions as to
desire for participation are essentially hypothetical. By
contrast, the attitudes of workers in other countries such
as Germany or Yugoslavia who already are exposed to forms of
participation, may be shaped by their particular experience
and not indicate desire for participation in the abstract.
-It is also very difficult to define and measure
nonparticipation. What constitutes it? Is an individual
who says he or she is not participating actually
participating less? Measuring the absence of something
often brings its absence to the attention of the individuals
involved, confounding the measurement itself. Further, it
seems likely that some social desirability effects may be
linked to participation, and individuals may be reluctant to
admit that they are unwilling to participate (McCarthy,
1989).

Social Exchange Theory
Emerson (1987) claims that the starting point for
interpersonal comparison of utilities is the measurement of

the optimal level of valued outcomes across domains. This

29
raises two issues. The first is best addressed by Emerson's
own statement that the only way to observe optimum levels
would in the absence of environmental constraints, with
simultaneous opportunities in all domains and over a period
of time. This means that the possibility of measuring this
baseline independently of the action it informs is of
paramount importance--possible only in the laboratory. If
such measurement were possible, then it would be feasible to
make a priori judgments about an actor's probable course of
action. However, the best approach to studying
participation within a framework of social exchange requires
a focus on dyadic relationships in the workplace. A second
related issue is that in an exchange relation, knowledge of
actors' utilities is required for interaction. However,
interpersonal comparisons of utility would require a
nonarbitrary origin, and Emerson notes that whether or not
actors do value the same domains remains an empirical
question. The latter brings us back to the previous
difficult issue of baseline measurement.

Emerson's (1987) theory of value does not clearly
specify the determinants of value. That value may be
composed of need, objective probability, and uncertainty is
not controversial. However, it may be useful to know if
there are commonalities of needs that may be identified in
advance, or ways of judging probabilities and uncertainties.

Also, there is the problem of how to link given needs,

30
probabilities and uncertainties with specific values.

A similar problem arises when considering the major
reward—cost formulations of distributive justice (Homans,
1961) and equity (Adams, 1965). In their theories, Person P
and Other 0 compare their respective "profit" to
"investment" ("outcome" to "input") ratios. When the
comparison discloses profit proportional to investment, P
and O are predicted to judge the circumstances as just or
equitable. But when the comparison discloses either under
or overreward relative to investments, P and O are predicted
to view the exchange as inequitable.

The major criticism directed at the preceding reward-
cost formulations and other similar exchange propositions is
that they limit focus to a local interpersonal comparison
undertaken by P and 0. As discussed earlier, status value
theorists (Berger, Zelditch, Anderson, and Cohn, 1972) argue
that such a comparison cannot result in stable unambiguous
meaning. Rather, a comparison made in isolation from a
wider normative context surrounding the P-O relationship is
"anomic" and meaningless. Justice evaluations can be
meaningfully made only in terms of a commonly understood and
accepted structure of social knowledge. Such a structure is
composed of known kinds of persons similar to P and 0, who
possess general status characteristics, and who obtain
general levels of status rewards.

The core issue, as Stolte (1987) puts it, is that

31
justice evaluations are closely bound to legitimacy.
Generalized norms, explicit and formal or implicit and
informal, are required. Stolte (1987) develops this aspect
more fully by specifying the formation, acquisition and
activation of different justice norms, including equality
and equity.

There is still some controversy over the methodological
issue of linking microsociological and macrosociological
theories. Most theorists argue that there is a large gap
between explanations of micro- and macroevents. Blau (1987)
believes that the two involve incommensurate conceptual
schemes. He suggests that basic concepts of microanalyses,
such as reciprocity, obligations, or network density do not
dissect social interaction and role relations between
individuals and are therefore not relevant for
macroanalyses. At the same time, basic concepts of
macroanalysis, such as heterogeneity and inequality are
emergent properties of collectives that cannot relate to
individuals. Similarly, Gillmore (1987) says that
macrosociological theories do well at explaining how
structure constrains choices while microsociological
theories inform us about individual decision making.
However, Blau (1987) believes that macrosociological
analyses cannot be built on microsociological analyses
because the sociological processes with which microsociology

is concerned are not the foundation of the conditions that

32
produce the social structures analyzed in macrosociological
studies. Gillmore (1987) believes that with the concept of
"exchange network" it is possible to explicitly link
interpersonal events to group level phenomena, while at the
same time examining the effects of social structure on
individual decisions.

A major characteristic of research conducted on social
exchange theory is that the majority of these studies are
conducted in the laboratory, as is the practice with most
social psychology experiments. The principal controversy
surrounding the use of laboratory experiments revolves
around a lack of external validity. As Campbell and
Stanley, (1966) originally used the term, external validity
refers to the potential for generalizability. Specifically,
the question of external validity refers to the degree to
which the effects demonstrated in any study may be
generalized to other populations, settings, treatment
variables, and measurement variables.

Controversies have arisen with respect to two different
aspects of external validity. One refers to the
artificiality of the laboratory setting, where the
experimenter is unable to create conditions within the
laboratory that resemble those found outside the
experimental setting. This issue becomes salient especially
in value and justice issues; the previous discussion on

these concepts reveal that actors operate according to a

 

33

complex configuration of norms and values which would be
difficult to approximate outside a particular field setting.

Rebuttals to the problem of artificiality include the
observation that it is irrelevant when it comes to the major
purpose of laboratory experimentation-—theory testing.
Carlsmith, Ellsworth, and Aronson (1976) distinguish between
experimental realism and mundane realism, and state that the
major purpose of testing theory is to faithfully
operationalize relevant variables (experimental realism)
regardless of whether or not it duplicates characteristics
of certain laboratory settings (mundane realism). The
current status of the controversy is that it is generally
accepted practice to use both sites since each has valuable
lessons to contribute to knowledge accumulation.

Other issues of external validity were discussed in

Chapter 1 under "Limitations of the Study."

CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH MODEL AND HYPOTHESES
Definition of Terms

Worker participation will be defined here as the
employee's direct or indirect, formal or informal
contribution to a shared decision making process between
employee and management. This definition of worker
participation includes interactions between management and
employees that occur outside of a formal program but are
participative in nature (i.e., informal channels which allow
employees input into decision making). Individual input is
iterative and may be increased, decreased, maintained and
withdrawn.

A relation is an exchange opportunity between a pair of
individuals or corporate decision making parties. A
participative exchange relation is an independent series of
transactions in a decision making structure, which involves
the actual or potential exchange of organizational resources
or control over these. This dyadic relation consists of
actors (employees and management), resources/events, and the
initial distribution of control over resources (Coleman,
1990). It is this relation which serves as this study's

conceptual and empirical unit. It is distinct from other

34

35

organizational relations in one aspect: it is a relation of
mutual, although initially asymmetrical, dependence. Unlike
relations based on authority or expertise systems, the
participative exchange requires that each party recognize
and accept the importance of the other's contribution so
that the relation may continue. The exchange relation is
bounded not only by formal and legal procedures but also by
social parameters such as norms of equity, equality, and
reciprocity. Without this recognition and acceptance of
mutual dependence, the participative relation becomes merely
one of many social relations that occur at the workplace.

The power of each actor in a participative exchange
dyad resides in his or her control of valuable events and
resources, and the value of an event or resource lies in the
interests that powerful actors have in that event or
resource. The exchange relation is initially asymmetrical
since management defines these four elements.

Participation in an exchange requires different
contributions from actors. The exchange may dispense rewards
systematically and be bound by formal procedure or may be
more informal and not have a reward structure.

A worker participation program is a series of
opportunities between management and the rest of the
workforce (or a part of it) for employee input into
decisions that affect their jobs. It consists of relations

between management and employees (or their respective

36
representatives), officially recognized by both, with
potential for the exchange of resources. As mentioned
earlier, an exchange relation is governed by structures and
processes of a formal participation program but is
influenced by an informal set of values, needs, and

relationships.

Process of Exchange

This study focuses on process aspects of participation.
It investigates how social exchange, cognitive, contingency
and affective processes operate within the context of a
formal participation program. The social exchange aspect of
worker participation proposed here is based on a theory of
individual rational action and dyadic organizing. (Please
see Figure 1, Diagram of the Process of Exchange, at the end
of this chapter.)

The first set of variables consist of involvement of a
worker in participation programs as the dependent variable
and social exchange, cognitive, affective, and contingency
factors, as independent variables. Position of respondent
and department (function) are treated as control variables.
The second set consists of the dependent variable, perceived
success of worker participation programs and the following
independent variables: the exchange of specified items
(pecuniary, career advancement and socialization), cost—
benefit assessment, scope of decisions (range of issues),

access to decisions, and actual involvement in the program.

37
Rational Action

The proposed model of participation could be described
as a behavioral theory of choice that takes as a starting
point the general principle of rational behavior. The
current literature shows that, depending upon the
participation model one chooses, the mechanisms that operate
to bring about outcomes may be cognitive, contingency, or
affective. This study proposes that underlying
participative behaviors is a general principle of utility—
maximization, which involves a choice of the best means
available for achieving a given end. The proposed model
firmly plants the principle of rational action in a
framework of participative behavior. This implies a
normative or prescriptive concept of rational behavior
(goal-directed action). Actors could be described as having
a single rational principle of action, that of acting so as
to ultimately maximize the realization of their interests in
a consistent manner. Actors are connected to resources (and
thus indirectly to one another) through only two relations:
their control over resources and their interest in
resources.

The concept of rationality in the social exchange
perspective does not imply constant deliberation or
conscious decision making (Emerson, 1987). The values
involved in choices are products of long-term conditioning.

However, conscious, calculated decisions are also made, and

38
these decisions are usually made within a value domain
(which is a list of things that an individual values.) Two
things are in the same value domain if acquisition of one
reduces the unit value of the other (Emerson, 1987).
Therefore, the actor is not "rational" in a narrow sense.
It is recognized that while there may be no conscious
attempt to maximize utility, an individual is still capable
of effectively calculating appropriate line of action and
engaging in problem-solving behavior.

The system of action this paper chooses to address is a
pairwise exchange of resources. In the social exchange of
resources other than economic goods, the resources exchanged
may not have all the properties of private goods, but
comparisons are nevertheless made. The interests of actors
lead them to carry out exchanges that redistribute the
resources contained in the system. Management may
redistribute time and capital in the pursuit of
productivity. Workers may redistribute time and effort in

the pursuit of personal financial gain.

Dyadic Organizing
The model proposed here utilizes Graen and Scandura's
(1987) description of dyadic organizing (role taking, role
making, and role routinization). The first stage is the
role—taking or sampling phase. In the initial exchange the
supervisor attempts to discover relevant talents and

motivations (or resources and desires, in the proposed model

39

of participative exchanges) through iterative testing
sequences. Since it is management who decides to install a
formal participation program, the initiative to communicate
the features of the program comes from them. The features
of the program may be generally described as representing
their expectations from employees. The employees also form
their own expectations (implicitly or explicitly expressed)
based on an assessment of the costs and benefits of the
proposed exchange. It is at this stage where the behavior
of utility maximization first comes into play. As mentioned
earlier, this model of action requires a cardinal concept of
utility or subjective value. In keeping with Emerson (1972),
each actor is given a variety of opportunities which are
connected to a set of possible exchange relations (i.e.,
opportunities to obtain valued resources from various
sources). Alternatives are relations within the same
exchange domain (offering "substitutable" resources).
Domains are "points of articulation" (Emerson, 1972) between
an actor's needs or values and sectors of the environment.

This cost-benefit calculation includes a consideration
of individual and macrostructural factors. The set of
internal considerations which drive the individual to action
are: cognitive (Can I get useful information?), affective-
motivational (Will it address my need for active
involvement?), and contingency factors that focus on

individual situations (How does my personality fit in?).

 

40
The second set of factors involves a macrostructure which
imposes rules by which interactions proceed, and is
inevitably shaped by past interactions. These external or
macrostructural factors include organizational contingency
factors (e.g., supervisory style), and possibly norms of
equality—equity and reciprocity. (Since these norms are
usually activated during role making, discussion will be
postponed for that section.)

The last step in the sampling phase may include
communication of eXpectations to the exchange partner. This
communication may be formal or informal, reciprocal or one—
sided.

The second phase is the role-making or development
stage. During this phase, the partners evolve how each will
behave in various situations and begin to define the nature
of their relationship. Consequently, sets of interlocked
behavior cycles that are mutually reinforcing emerge. This
is typically the phase which requires the most active
processing of information. Both actors decide on an action
and implement it, and the rest of the phase is an evaluation
of the consequences of this action, along with the
corresponding modifications. Here, the costs and benefits
are reality tested, along with preconceived norms and other
variables expected to affect the process of exchange
(affective, cognitive, contingency). The effects of the

participative action chosen (behavioral, affective,

41
cognitive) become manifest and are considered in the cost
benefit assessment.

One important factor to consider here is whether the
actor is motivated primarily by self-interest and utility
maximization behavior or is influenced by norms. The concept
of a norm contributes to the principle of action. Social
norms specify what actions are regarded by a set of persons
as proper or improper. It is through the existence of norms
that the role of the larger social network comes into play.
Coleman (1990) says that a norm concerning a specific action
exists when the socially defined right to control the action
is held not by the actor but by others. This implies that
there is a consensus in the social system or subsystem that
the right to control the action is held by others. This is
not a legally but a socially or informally defined right.

Norms that are expected to apply to the context of work
participation are equality, equity, and reciprocity. For
example, a profit-sharing plan may reinforce the expectation
that all employees will have an equal share of company
profits regardless of individual contribution, which would
create a norm of equality. Or a Scanlon plan might allow
management to allocate rewards according to group input or
performance, reinforcing an equity norm, or expectations
that rewards be distributed according to individual or unit
effort or output. A norm of reciprocity has interesting

implications for exchange behavior. There is marked

42
agreement among exchange theorists that the receipt of a
benefit obligates the recipient to the benefactor. .As Blau.
(1964:93) stated, "Social exchange involves diffuse favors
that create diffuse future obligations." The obligation to
reciprocate is clearly a major theme in the social exchange
theories of Blau (1964), Levi—Strauss (1969), and Homans
(1974). Blau (1964) and Mauss (1966) suggest that
unreciprocated benefits create dependency on the part of the
recipient and eventually power imbalance.

There are two types of exchange conditions. In a
generalized exchange condition, the structure of the
exchange relation mitigates against the direct reciprocation
of resources. The debt can only be discharged through
cooperation in a coalition endeavor that the benefactor is
attempting to organize. Moreover, cooperation with a
coalition-building attempt may also help insure the flow of
future benefits. In the restricted exchange condition,
however, one may immediately discharge one's obligation to
reciprocate a benefit received because the exchange is
bilateral and direct. There is no enhancement of
cooperation in a collective effort because there is no
future indebtedness.

If a norm of reciprocity is found to operate within a
system (thereby affecting exchanges), analysis of exchange
structures would be enhanced by focusing on dependence

relations as affected by generalized or restricted

_fi- ....._,

43
conditions. An individual's decision to contribute might be
examined in the light of his or her perceived obligation to
reciprocate because of structural conditions.

Gould (1993) makes a connection between norms and
efficacy orientation in free-rider behavior. To summarize,
he observes that fairness norms play an important part in
collective action and that free-riding is less common among
norm-oriented individuals. Whether individuals in
participative exchanges resort to normative or self-
maximizing behavior (or other motivating factors) is an
empirical question to be answered in this proposal.

Aside from the norms mentioned previously, other
macrostructural factors can contribute to cementing the
relationship between the parties. One is commitment, which
is defined psychologically as interpersonal trust and
adherence to future obligations, or behaviorally as a
tendency for an actor to continue to engage in exchange even
in the presence of alternative exchange relations (Cook and
Emerson, 1984). Commitment formation has important
consequences for power processes in exchange structures.
Power-dependence notions (Emerson, 1962, 1972) imply that
the maintenance of access to alternative sources of valued
resources enhances the actor's relative power. Differential
availability of resources results in power imbalances within
a network of connected exchange relations.

Another macrostructural factor is trust between

44
parties. Pennings and Woiceshyn (1987) argue that trust in
organizations is a mode of control that is inherent in the
relationship between interdependent individuals. They
classify trust as: (a) institutional (which entails
expectations about the behavior of role incumbents); and (b)
informal or interpersonal (which involves Specific rules and
is unique to small networks of relationships, like dyads or
face-to-face groups. Interpersonal trust enables individuals
to define expectations of behaviors significant to others.)
In institutional or formal trust, control is achieved
through the repetition of particular behaviors, especially
in a well-developed internal labor market or strong
organizational culture. In informal or interpersonal trust,
control is achieved through loosely coupled networks who
develop specific interpersonal expectations that are
idiosyncratic to that relationship.

The role routinization phase occurs after basic
coupling is completed. This phase is characterized by
functional interdependence, where mutual expectations become
crystallized and coordinated effective behaviors are
strengthened. This last phase may not occur, depending upon
the stability of organizational conditions. Stability of
conditions is affected by trust or commitment formation
(aside from other organizational events) which makes the
active processing of information that is characteristic of

the preceding phase unnecessary. The effects of

45

participation are expected to persist given the course of
action taken by the actors and the ultimate configuration of
the relation. The role of cognitive, affective and
contingency factors in the participation-outcome
relationship becomes less salient since participative action

is maintained by routine.

Assumptions

The proposed exchange theoretic approach to work
participation is a model of individual action that focuses
on an employee's behavior when presented with an opportunity
to influence organizational decisions. In order to
incorporate participative activity into the social exchange
framework, the following assumptions will be made. First,
it will be assumed that the individual is rational and seeks
to maximize benefits and minimize costs. However. it will
not be assumed that utility maximization is the only
determinant of work behavior. This study proposes that
although utility maximization is the underlying principle,
other factors serve to mediate outcome and influence
behavior. The literature on the process of participation
presented in chapter 2 provides evidence for intervening
cognitive, affective, and contingency mechanisms. The
potency of these variables and the manner in which they
interact with each other to activate behavior is an
empirical question to be addressed in this paper. Second,

it will be assumed that an employee's response to the

46
program is voluntary. The participation programs studied
here are the result of managerial initiative, where the
structure and procedures of the program are formally
dictated by management. However, employees still retain the
choice of withholding some resources, and there is generally
no accurate method of judging employee contribution. For
example, if an employee is required to participate in a
quality circle system with standardized procedures he or she
may physically comply with the requirements (attending
meetings, filling up forms) but may decide not to volunteer
all the information he or she has. There would be no way of
ascertaining that the worker has indeed "fully" cooperated,
'i.e., given the maximum output he or she is capable of
giving.

Therefore, when considering the voluntary-involuntary
dimension of participation programs it is the belief here
that there are no truly involuntary programs. An employee
may be placed in such a situation but the individual
contribution ("participation) is ultimately an individual
decision. This issue eventually relates to the perception
that the participative exchange is one of unequal
dependence, where A's dependence on B varies with the value
of the benefit B can provide and with the availability of
the benefit to A from alternative sources. The base of
power (the power of actors being equal to the value of the

resources they control) of management lies in their ability

 

47
to provide extra resources to the employee (e.g., share of
profit or productivity gains, more discretion in tasks than
allowed in job specifications), while the base of power of
the employee lies in their ability to withhold additional
resources (e.g., useful suggestions that come out of
spending extra time meeting with other peOple).

Second, the survey data consists primarily of
respondent perceptions, which is assumed to approximate
actual conditions. Unless the discrepancy between
respondent perceptions and actual conditions (as reported by
human resources personnel in interviews, and through the use
of archival data) is large, it is beyond the scope of this
study to investigate why such discrepancies exist between
perception and reality.

It is important to recognize that values differ, and
that action depends on his/her perception of events. This
leads to another important variable, which is how informed
or naive an actor is about the effect of his or her
contribution to the exchange. Unless this contribution is
made formal and explicit (written), actor perception of the
dynamics of the exchange is what determines his or her
behavior. The important element in value calculations and
interpersonal comparisons is each actor's perception of the
relation and its component, whatever actual conditions might
be. Actors make judgments based on these perceptions,

accurate or not, and the objective of this study is not to

 

48
explore the accuracy of perceptions but to understand
motivations that drive the process of individual action and
dyadic interaction.
Third, the decisions that are considered in the
participative context refer only to work-related issues, and

do not include activities that are not job-related.

Hypotheses
The thesis of this proposal is that an individual's
contribution to a participation program is defined by his or
her assessment of the costs and benefits associated with
participation or nonparticipation. Specific hypotheses to

be tested follow.

Hypothesis I: Utility
This hypothesis states that an individual's decision to
contribute to a participative exchange is the result of his
or her assessment of various factors that constitute a
utility or value calculation. The following variables are
expected to be considered in the cost—benefit evaluation:
1. Social exchange considerations:

Subordinate's,

a. Assessment that benefits of participating are
greater than costs of participating;

b. Assessment that benefits of not participating
are greater than costs of not participating;

c. Perception that returns are equitable (to each
according to contribution);

d. Perception that returns are equal (same for
everybody);

e. Commitment to coworkers;

f. Commitment to supervisor/manager;

g. Perception that program increases his/her

49

influence in work-related decisions;

h. Perception of his/her dependence on others to
get work done;

1. History of favorable interaction with
supervisor/manager;

j. Obligation to reciprocate;

k. Trust in exchange partner.

2. Contingency factors:
a. History of favorable interaction with
coworkers;
b. Supervisor is supportive (external to
individual);
c. High decision quality (important decisions)
covered by exchange (external to individual);
d. High need for independence or control over
one's work (internal).

3. Affective Factors: Exchange has produced
a. More respect for subordinate;
b. More opportunities for self expression;
c. Increased job satisfaction;
d. Increased morale;
4. Cognitive Factors: Exchange has produced
a. Increased understanding of organizational
activities;
b. Increased information and skill required for
job;
0. Decreased resistance to change.
Hypothesis 11: Currency
An individual perceives success in interactions where
resources are mutually exchanged. The general categories of
resources exchange are (1) pecuniary items (information,
monetary incentives, mental and physical effort, time spent
on participative activities alone); (2) career or
professional advancement items (opportunities to improve job
performance, influence decisions, professional growth,

development of professional contacts); and (3) social or

humanistic items (helping others, personal growth or

 

 

50
friendship, commitment to exchange partner, trust in
exchange partner).

The motivation for acting on this last set of items may
have intrinsic components as well. The calculus of
reciprocity is difficult to understand in items where the
value is intrinsic to the individual and where deliberation
may be subconscious. Therefore, while this set of factors is
conceptualized as an exchange item, it should be recognized
that utility calculations may play a less visible role here

than with the other currencies.

Hypothesis III: Successful Exchanges
Dyadic interactions perceived to be successful by the

parties involved are characterized by: (l) extensive
involvement by exchange partners in the exchange
relationship (intensity of interaction); (2) high level of
access to decision making process allowed to subordinate
(quality); (3) wide range of issues covered by the exchange
relationship (scope); (4) exchange relation is perceived to
be mostly beneficial to parties involved; and (5) relations

with coworkers are perceived to be successful.

ZOPéESOm AEmELOAng ”.305 £26ng

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50m DEEQAOM Oéhxmqom
8333 ‘I; 8:35.50 All. «88383 All. ems—Lox... . 305383
mo cows—cacao .«o 80533 583.38 9 ”8.55:8 533.68 983233
A n. J \IILIIIJ \ w 2 i W i J
cowantag 8:52:38
3:55.58 .3 Soho . 523.com omgnxo 38v.
.5 mate: .«0 onto—.523 «039 Savage“.
853818 .3 33>on 362302 95388 3.50%
was mung: 80:51:88 .3360 5:39 958 Saw—woo
f ”Bouoav

 

h sac filling r “a .Eé .m .
4 4 4 4 4

ewes—LB co nausea—So 805mg owns—ox» 2 A .853
833580 ‘I. .3 «agave Alf £059.38 ‘lJv mosh—5:8 . “mu—.09.? 8.593

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eflmpa no
828v Eon—own

 

.mocmnoxm mo mmoooum may mo Hopoz pomomoum

H ounoflm

 

 

CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
Sample
This study involves samples from two populations: the

maintenance and engineering facility of American Airlines,
and Company B,a Europe-based manufacturer of construction
tools. It is a multi-case embedded design (with two levels
of analysis: the individual, and the dyadic interaction
between supervisor and subordinate). The respondent

organizations have work participation programs in place

-(some have more than one program); each program is at a

different phase of development and implementation.

The size of the sample taken from each population was
determined by convenience, i.e., the number of respondents
provided by the organization. In American Airlines the
sampling frame consisted of a section of the maintenance and
engineering facilities. Employees from six divisions were
requested to join the survey, including six managers, twelve
supervisors and nonsupervisory personnel. A total sample
size of 241 was obtained, and the response rate on the
survey questionnaires was 67%. The sample was predominantly
male, which reflected majority gender in the workforce of

this facility. Most of the workers in the population sample

52

 

 

53
have certificates or associate degrees in their specialized
area of expertise. There were no engineers surveyed.

Survey forms were given to supervisors who volunteered
to participate in the study, who in turn distributed the
forms to their employees. Respondents were requested to
complete the questionnaire during their free time,and most
of the forms were returned the day after they were
distributed.

The sampling frame in Company B consisted of all
sections in manufacturing and engineering. The number of
supervisory and nonsupervisory personnel who were given
questionnaires is hard to specify because of the manner in
which the forms were distributed. The questionnaires were
given to employees as they left their shift by a human
resources manager who explained to each employee what the
survey was about. The manager did not keep track of the
number of forms distributed. Also, the work system allowed
employees to report to different managers and supervisors so
it was difficult to keep track of individual superior-
subordinate dyads. A total sample size of 43 was obtained.
The response rate on the questionnaires was 22%. The
workforce is approximately 40% female. .As is the case with
American Airlines, most of the workforce have certificates
of associate degrees in manufacturing technology, except for
the engineering department where the majority held more

advanced degrees in engineering. This department also had

 

 

54
more employees of European nationalities than the other

departments.

Profile of American Airlines and its QWL Program

American Airlines is one of the leading providers of
air transport in the United States. In 1985, it surpassed
United Airlines in passenger traffic and regained the number
one title after twenty years. Last year, it posted sales of
approximately 14.7 MMM. The major hubs are at Dallas/Fort
Worth and at Chicago. It contracts smaller regional
carriers (American Eagle partners) to feed traffic into the
system.

The Sabre system of American Airlines is a computer
reservation system which is regarded as the best in the
industry. It allows agents to assign seats, book Broadway
plays and lodging, send flowers to passengers. It is
extremely successful in filling in American Airlines space
efficiently and at low cost.

The Tulsa facility consists of a maintenance and
engineering division, as well as administrative offices.
Although there are many maintenance cities in the United
States, Mexico, Europe, and Latin America, actual
maintenance personnel in these cities may include as few as
30 mechanics. The Tulsa workforce is huge, consisting of
5,300 employees.

The Tulsa facility has many "participative management"

programs in place, one of which is called "QWL," the object

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

55
of this study. QWL is approximately fifteen years old, and
consists primarily of a central QWL team with
representatives from the union and support staff, and QWL
groups for each unit composed entirely of rank and file
employees. The QWL program was initiated by top management
without prior negotiation with the workforce; however,
information about the pending program was disseminated
company-wide. The QWL process consists mostly of monthly
meetings where ideas are verbalized; only those with
potential for acceptance are formalized in a request.
Management approval is required for ideas which would
involve expenditures. Access to the program is generalized
(where participants may consider any issue) and direct
(where participants are personally involved in discussions.)
Although many issues are open for consideration the most
common area is working conditions. Communication is usually
bottom up where information is volunteered by the rank and
file and directed towards management.

As mentioned earlier, QWL is one of five
”participative" programs. The others are (1) IDEAAS IN
ACTION, which is a suggestion system that rewards employees
with successful ideas a financial remuneration amounting to
10% of first year savings, with a maximum of $50,000; (2)
LEAAP, which also distributes individual financial
incentives if the workgroup attains an increase in cost

savings; (3) CDR, a career develOpment program which

56
identifies skills needed for jobs and allows employees
access to these jobs;(4) the Golden Wrench Award, which is a
peer-nominated award system which recognizes superior
employee performance, and (5) CTL, or "Commitment to
Leadership," whose mission is to evolve a more participative
style of leadership by promoting upward feedback.

At the time the survey was administered American
Airlines had already undergone what the media had called a
major layoff, and the company was anticipating another batch
due to a poor business climate. The employees seemed aware
of the intention of management and tension was predictably
high on the shopfloor, as was apparent in the focus group
discussions conducted for the study. The CTL program is
nine years old and its mission is to evolve a more
participative style of leadership. It targets supervisory
and managerial personnel, and involves pilot groups charged
with the primary responsibility of promoting upward

feedback.

Profile of Company B and its TCS Program
Company B is a tools manufacturer with headquarters in
Liechtenschtein, with facilities in the United States, Latin
American, Canada, Austria, Great Britain and Switzerland.
It manufactures anchors, pneumatic fastening systems,
drilling and anchoring systems, powder—activated tool
systems, electric screwdrivers, and diamond core drilling

systems. Last year it posted sales of approximately

57
$976,727,800 and was ranked sixth out of 25 top private
companies in Tulsa, based on sales revenue in the Tulsa
Annual Report for 1994. The Tulsa facility has
approximately 650 employees. There are 200 distribution
centers in the United States employing a total of 600 sales
personnel.

The participation program of the tools manufacturer is
called "Total Customer Satisfaction (TCS)" and covers all
rank and file and supervisory-managerial positions and
covers all departments. Its primary objective is
productivity gain and its mission is to provide a supportive
environment for its employees, facilitate teamwork, break
down departmental barriers, and enable them to share in the
leadership of the company. The program consists of permanent
workcells or teams (composed of nonsupervisory employees),
steering or guidance teams (composed of managers), and ad
hoc (matrix) teams. The agenda focuses on job content and
work conditions issues, and access to the decisionmaking
process consists the solicitation of team members' opinions.
The program is at an early stage of development, where
employees are getting more acquainted with the program and
undergoing the final stages of training for it.

At the time of survey administration Company B was in
the process of developing an incentive compensation plan
where an individual would be rewarded if his or her idea

resulted in cost savings. This was to cover only hourly

58
employees. Employees were aware of this plan and were

initially skeptical until payoffs were made at mid-year.

Data Collection

In searching for companies to join the study, a list of
companies in the Tulsa area was obtained from the Tulsa
Chamber of Commerce. The chairman of the psychology
department and several faculty members from the business
school at the University of Tulsa were consulted about which
companies had worker participation programs. Approximately
25 companies were contacted by telephone, which resulted in
meetings with vice presidents and managers of six
organizations. Three companies initially agreed to join the
study, but two of these had to withdraw due to
organizational changes. Company B joined the study at a
later stage.

Data collection consisted of two phases: qualitative
and quantitative. The objective of the qualitative phase
was to collect information on the features of the
participation programs. (Please see Appendix A, Perceived
Elements of Exchange Relation.) This information was
collected from three firms (American Airlines, a small
technology firm, and a large hospital), although the last
two organizations withdrew from the study. Since the tool
manufacturer joined the project at a late stage, they agreed
to forego the qualitative stage and rely on information

collected from the three firms, with an extensive review and

 

59
pilot testing of the questionnaire prior to survey
administration. Key company personnel in the human resources
departments and in other units involved in participation
activities were interviewed about the participation
activities in their organization as well as related
information. The information here was used for compiling
information on and creating a profile for each population.
Also, two focus group discussions (one composed of
managerial/supervisory and the other, rank and file
employees) were held separately, in order to gather
information on their perceptions of the participation
activities. The nonsupervisory focus groups consisted of
between ten to twelve employees who volunteered after memos
were circulated within the organizations. The supervisory
focus groups consisted of supervisors and managers who were
usually requested by the contact person in the organization
to join the discussion. The group discussions began with an
introduction to the study and then proceeded with a
brainstorming session on issues presented by the researcher.
The contact persons were never part of either the
nonsupervisory or supervisory group discussion, and group
members were assured that the results would not be
disseminated to anybody in the organization. This seemed to
increase the participants' willingness to be frank about
their opinions. The data collected here was used for the

construction of survey forms in phase two. Archival records

6O
(organizational charts, job descriptions and specifications
of benchmark jobs, and materials on participation programs)
were also be examined.

The qualitative data collection phase was followed by
the collection of survey data. The objective of the
quantitative phase was to collect more measurable
information to test the hypotheses. Before the survey was
administered the questionnaire was presented to the human
resources department for pretesting and discussion. Both
organizations felt that because of the sensitive nature of
the questionnaire content anonymity and confidentiality had
to be guaranteed by the researcher. A color coding scheme
was devised which would enable pairing subordinates with
their supervisors. The company representatives also felt
that answering the form should be voluntary and only the
most pertinent information should be solicited so as not to
displease the respondents, especially considering the
volatile condition of their employee relations. They
preferred not to include personal information that might
reveal the respondent's identity. After final approval was
obtained for the forms the survey was administered.

The questionnaires were administered to samples in each
organization in the manner described above. Generally, they
were asked opinion questions concerning their involvement in
the participation activates and their exchange interactions

with their supervisor or manager, as the case may be. There

61
were two versions of the survey instrument, one for
managerial/supervisory personnel and one for nonsupervisory
personnel (Please refer to Appendix B, Survey Form for
Managerial and Supervisory Personnel and Appendix C, Survey

Form for Nonsupervisory Personnel.)

Analysis of Qualitative Data

The items that surfaced here were used for the
construction of the standardized questionnaire to be
administered in phase two. In gathering information for
hypothesis I, respondents were asked if they made cost-
benefit calculations and interpersonal comparisons. They
were also asked to enumerate transaction costs and benefits,
Lif any existed. Second, sinCe other models of participation
will also be tested in this paper, respondents were also
asked questions on motivational and situational factors that
affect their decision to participate in an exchange
relationship. The general consensus was that costs and
benefits were important and assessed. The concept of
exchange in the participative relationship between superior
and subordinate was more easily understood and supported by
supervisors and managers than nonsupervisory employees. In
all sites, nonsupervisory employees were less supportive of
the program and described a more asymmetrical exchange
relationship ("More interdependence but no responsibility").

For hypothesis 1, respondents gave information on what

they perceive are exchanged during their transactions. Most

62
of respondents agreed on the following "currencies":
information/ideas, financial incentives, opportunities for
control over resources, time, and abstract values (such as
commitment, loyalty, satisfaction, etc). A common variable
was control over their workplace ("You can make changes in
your work environment," "Freedom to learn and express").
About half of the respondents expressed a desire for more
tangible rewards while the other half was content to be
"considered as an individual", to "gain the chance to
express your own opinion."

For hypothesis III, reSpondents provided information on
what they perceived to be levels of involvement in the
exchange, considering two factors: frequency of interaction
and quality of interaction. They were asked to define and
describe "quality of interaction" on their own. Many answers
revolved around the opportunity to get involved in the
decision making process in matters relating to the quality
and quantity of their own work ("pride in job performance,"
you can critique work rules and habits", "open
communication") It was generally acknowledged that the
employee's access was confined to giving input and that "You

don't always get your own way."

Analysis of Quantitative Data
Hypothesis I
For the first hypothesis, a list of items hypothesized

to be considered in the cost—benefit calculation was

63

presented in the questionnaire (Part I). The respondent was
requested to choose a response, for each item, from a scale
which describes the effect that item might have on his or
her involvement (from "increases involvement" to "no impact
on involvement" to "decrease involvement.") Although this
seven-point scale could be considered as a ratio scale
(because numbers 7 and 1 actually refer to "considerable
impact", although in opposite directions, 6 and 2 refer to
"some impact", 5 and 3 refer to "little impact', and 4 means
"no impact"), data will be treated as nominal and analyzed
as such. It is believed that valuable information will be
lost if only magnitude of response is considered and
direction ignored. Four scales were constructed, one each
for social exchange factors, affective factors, contingency
items, and cognitive factors. (Please refer to Appendix D
for the scales for hypothesis I.) The control variables
tested (in the form of dummy variables) were position of the
respondent (supervisory/managerial or nonsupervisory) and
department (which numbered eight for American Airlines).

Multiple regression analyses was used for analysis of
the data. Since the sites differed considerably in their
sample sizes, different approaches of regression analyses
was used. For the bigger sample, American Airlines, several
multiple regression analyses were performed. First, each
scale was tested separately, using the regression equations

(1) to (4) below. Second, scales were entered at different

64
stages, using regression equations (1), and (5) through (7).
(1) Partm1 = a + bP1 + bD1 + bD2 + bD3 + bD, + st
+ bD6-rkflL + e.
(2) Partmex = a + bIl + b12 + bI3 + bI4 + b15 + bI6 + bI7
+ bIB + b19 + bIlO + bIll + bIl3 + e.

(3) Partaff = a + bIl9 + bIl6 + bIl7 + bI18 + e;

(4) Partcog a + b118 + b120 + bI21 + bI22 + e;
(5) Partcs = a + bP + bD1 + bD, + bD3 + bD4 + st + bD6
4-lflL + bIll + bIlB + bI4 + bIB + bIlO + bI9
+ bI6 + bI5 + bIll + bI7 + b12 + bI3 +e;
(6) Partcsa = a + bP + bD1 + bD, + bD3 + 16D4 + bD5 + bD6
+ bD,+—tfl1 + bIlB + bI4 + bI8 + bIlO + big
+ bI6 + bI5 + bIll + bI7 + bI2 + e; and
(7) Partall = a + bP + bDII-kflx + bD3-+1flm + bD+ bD7 + bIl
+ bIl3 + bI4 + bIlO + bI9 + bI6 + bI5 + bIll
+ bI7 + b12 + b13 + b118 + bIl7 + bIl6 + bIl9
+ bIZO + bIZl + b122 + e;
where,
PartCm = participation of respondent, based on control
factors Position (P) and Department (DL.J);
Partsocex = participation of respondent, based on social
exchange factors;
Partaff = participation of respondent, based on
affective factors;

Partcog = participation of respondent, based on

cognitive factors;

65

Part“ = participation of respondent, based on control
and social exchange factors;

Partmm = participation of respondent, based on control,
social exchange, and affective factors;

Partall = participation of respondent, based on control,
social exchange, affective, and cognitive variables;

£5 = position of respondent, where P1== 1 if respondent
is a nonsupervisory employee;

In = department of respondent, where D1== 1 if
respondent is from the Product Support and Supply
department;

D2: department of respondent, where D2== 1 if
respondent is from the Component Avionics and Widebody
Maintenance department;

D3= department of respondent, where D3== 1 if
respondent is from the Aircraft Overhaul department;

D4= department of respondent, where D4== 1 if
respondent is from the CAM/APU department;

D5: department of respondent, where D5== 1 if
respondent if from the Components Maintenance department;

1% = department of respondent, where D6== 1 if
respondent is from the Avionics department;

D,= department of respondent, where D7== 1 if
respondent is from the Composite Shop department;

11 = Benefits of participating exceeds costs of

participating;

66
12 = Equity;
13 = Equality;
I4 = Commitment to coworkers;
15 = Commitment to supervisor;
I6 = More influence in decisionmaking;
I7 = Dependence on others;
18 = Good relations with coworkers;

19 = Good relations with supervisors;

110 = Trust supervisor/subordinate;
111 = Reciprocity in exchange with supervisor or
subordinate;

113 = Costs of not participating exceeds benefits of
not participating;

116 = Employee gains respect from participating in
decision making;

117 = Participation program offers opportunities for

self—expression;

118 = Satisfaction due to involvement in decision
making;

I19 = Increased morale;

120 = Employee learns more about company;

121 = Increase in job knowledge or skill;

122 = Acceptance of changes in organization.

An analysis of residuals was performed to test for
violations of assumptions. Data was tested for violation of

linearity by plotting residuals of the independent variables

67
against the dependent variable (involvement of respondent in
program). The distribution of residuals was examined for
normality. To detect multicollinearity, a correlation matrix
of all variables was constructed, and tolerance factors
computed for each independent variable. .Although the
correlation matrix does not provide evidence of a strong
relationship between these variables and the dependent
variable they are nevertheless included because these are
the concrete features of the program that partners must face
and incorporate into their relationships.

Cronbach's alpha was computed for the social exchange,
affective, cognitive, and contingency scales used in part I
of the questionnaire. (Please refer to Appendix F for the
results of reliability analyses.) Since all but the
contingency scale displayed acceptable alpha levels, the
contingency scale was not used in the regression analysis.
The standardized item alpha for Company B was 0.8985, while
for American Airlines this coefficient was 0.7911. Both
coefficients indicated acceptable levels of internal

consistency.

Hypothesis II
For the second hypothesis, respondents were asked
about their perceptions on what items were exchanged during
their transactions. Items were grouped in the following
manner: information/ideas, financial incentives,

opportunities for control over resources, time, and abstract

68

values (such as commitment, loyalty, satisfaction, etc).
The questionnaire asked the respondents to describe they
exchanged these items by requesting them to choose a
response from a scale for each currency item (Part II in the
questionnaire). This is a nominal scale, since the numbers
are merely representations of different actions. It is
believed that such a scale provided more specific
information about the process and content of exchanges.
Frequencies were computed for each response per item for all
nonsupervisory questionnaires, then re—computed according to
supervisor.

Hypothesis II was tested with the following regression
equations:

= a + bIll + b112 + b113 + bII4 + bIIS + bIl6

>E'C

(5) SuccessI
+ bIl7 + e;
(6) Successwr== a + b118 + bIl9 + b1111 + b1112 + b1113 +e
and,
(7) Successmm = a + bIIIO + b1114 + bIIlS + b1116 + e;
where,
Successpec = Success of relationship with supervisor or

subordinate, based on exchange of pecuniary items;

111 = Information about job responsibilities;
112 = Information about department;

113 = Information about company;

114 = Monetary incentives;

115 Increased mental effort;

69

116 = Increased physical effort;
117 = Extra time spent on participation program
activities;

Successm,== Success of relationship with supervisor or

subordinate based on career advancement items;

118 = Opportunity to influence decisions;

119 = Opportunity to improve job performance;

1111 = Opportunity for professional growth;

1112 = Recognition;

1113 = Opportunity to develop professional contacts;

Successflm = Success of relationship with supervisor or

subordinate based on socialization items;

1110 = Opportunity to help others;

1114 = Opportunity for personal growth or friendship;
1115 = Commitment or loyalty to supervisor;

1116 = Trust in supervisor;

An analysis of residuals was performed to test for
violations of assumptions. Data was tested for violation of
linearity by plotting residuals of the independent variables
against the dependent variable (perceived success of
interactions with partner). The distribution of residuals
was examined for normality, a correlation matrix of all
variables was constructed, and tolerance factors computed
for each independent variable.

The Cronbach's alpha coefficients for these scales were

higher for Company B than for American Airlines.

.9

,. Ill?

"1

kC)

(I)

‘1’

L).

 

7O
Hypothesis 111

Hypothesis 111 focuses on specific behavioral and
structural parameters of the formal participation program.
The literature on participation provides evidence for the
importance of several structural dimensions, namely: (a)
scope (number and type of issues available); (b) intensity
of participation (actual involvement); and (c) quality of
participation (access to the decisionmaking process). For
hypothesis 111, respondents were asked to characterize
successful participative interactions or exchanges. Part III
in the questionnaire is broken down into two types of
questions: (1) the success of their interactions,
*represented by a 5-point scale (extremely successful to
complete failures); and (2) the nature of their involvement
in the program (all four questions in Part 111C of the
questionnaire).

Frequencies were also computed for nonsupervisory
responses, both pooled (entire nonsupervisory sample) and
grouped by supervisor. The grouped responses were compared
to the corresponding supervisory response for one site only
since comparison was not possible in the other site.

Two other independent variables are included in the
regression analysis for Hypothesis 111 which are not
structural but nevertheless focus on subordinate behavior
and are hypothesized to affect the supervisor-subordinate

dyadic relationship. The first is the respondent's

71
assessment of costs and benefits (single to multiple
assessments). This is central to the thesis of this paper,
that utility calculations performed by actors affect their
behavior (frequency and quality of participation). The
second predictor is a social exchange consideration, namely
the success of the respondents' interactions with coworkers.
This is also considered to be important because since the
individual behaves in a normative context, the strength of
these values and norms generated and sustained by coworkers
directly affects supervisor—subordinate relationships. The
variable "success of interactions with coworkers" indicates
how much the respondent adheres to normative pressure. The
importance of this variable is further signified by its
relatively high correlation with the independent variable,
"success of interactions with supervisor." This covariation
may serve to indicate, at least at this point of the
discussion, that the norms prevalent in the work setting are
receptive to the nurturing of both supervisor‘subordinate
and coworker relationships.

Analysis of residuals was performed to test for
violations of assumptions. Data was tested for violation of
linearity by plotting residuals of independent variables
(success with coworker, level of involvement, access level,
range of issues, cost-benefit assessment) against the
dependent variable (success with supervisor). The

distribution of residuals was examined for normality. To

72

detect multicollinearity, a correlation matrix of all
variables was constructed, and tolerance factors computed
for each independent variable. The correlation matrix does
not provide evidence of a strong relationship between these
variables and the dependent variable.

Hypothesis 111 was tested using the following
regression equation:
Successsub = a + b1111 + b1112 + b1113 + 1114 + 1115 + e,
where,

Successsub = success of relationship with supervisor or
subordinate, based on subordinate behavior and properties of

the program;

1111 = success or relations with coworkers;
1112 = respondent's participation in the program;
1113 = subordinate's access to decisions (or superior's

perception of this);

1114 = range of issues covered by participation
program; and

1115 = subordinate's assessment of costs and benefits

associated with participating in program.

Level of Analysis
The smallest unit to be analyzed in this paper is the
individual, specifically individual perceptions of the
process of participative exchange. The level of analysis,
however, must go beyond the individual. For the model to be

adequately tested, individual behavior and cognition that

73
results from a social interaction has to be investigated as
it is embedded in a wider social context of organizational
structure and process. Concretely, this would involve not
just a testing of hypotheses concerning individual responses
but analyzing how these figures describe participative
exchanges and how individual action is affected by
organizational context (program and organizational context
information to be collected from archives, interviews, etc.)
Therefore, it is best to describe this design as primarily
multi-level (dyadic relationships embedded in the
organization, as perceived by the individual). However, it
must be noted that all quantitative data to be analyzed were
collected from single individuals, and the rest of the
analysis (such as comparing grouped nonsupervisory data with
corresponding supervisory data) is qualitative and
descriptive. Therefore, while the phenomenon to be studied
is the participative dyadic relationship, the quantitative
method for analyzing it will consist of individual-based

data.

CHAPTER 5

RESULTS

This study provides evidence for the complexity and
multidimensionality of worker participation. While there is
some support for the applicability of social exchange theory
to worker participation the importance of affective and

cognitive mechanism cannot be ignored.

Hypothesis 1: Why Workers Participate

An individual's decision to contribute to a
participative exchange is (1) influenced by utility
calculations; and (2) this assessment includes social
exchange, contingency, affective, and cognitive
considerations.

Findings for both sites will be presented despite the
low statistical power of Company B's results (due to small
sample size.) It is interesting that although the two sites
differ greatly in organizational and participation program
characteristics many of their results converge.

Hypotheses are tested by frequencies analysis and
multiple regression analysis. Following is a detailed

presentation of the findings from this study.

74

75
Frequencies: American Airlines

Part 1 of the questionnaire listed items which
completed the statement, "I participate in the QWL program
because..." Frequencies and percentages were computed for
all nonsupervisory responses. Cases with missing data were
deleted. The number of valid cases for the frequencies
computation ranged from 215 to 218. (Please refer to Table
1, Percentages of Responses on Hypothesis 1 Items [Part 1 of
the questionnaire], American Airlines, at the end of this
chapter.)

Two items in the list offered in Part I asked the
respondents about the benefits and costs of participating
and the benefits and costs of not participating. Forty
percent of all nonsupervisory respondents agreed that they
participate in the program because the benefits of
participating outweigh the costs of participating. Thirty
percent neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement.
Forty percent neither agreed nor disagreed that their
involvement is affected if the costs of not participating
are more than the benefits of participating; twenty-seven
percent indicated that their participation is affected by
this statement. There appears to be a clustering of
responses around 25% to 40% for this issue, regardless of
the question asked. This means that respondents are
generally undecided about cost and benefit assessment. These

figures do not provide strong support for the practice of

76
utility or value calculations when these employees decide to
get involved in participation programs. However, this does
not mean that they do not make utility calculations; it can
only be inferred that costs and benefits do not have great
utility in their calculations.

Items on the list which were considered to be important
in deciding involvement (that is, marked "agree" or
"strongly agree") follow:

"I participate in the QWL program because:"

1. "1 can contribute to decisions that are important to
me"—-60% agree, 15.2% strongly agree;

This is a contingency factor that addresses the quality of
the decisions covered by the exchange.

2. "My supervisor is generally open to or supportive of
my ideas"--58.5% agree, 9.2% strongly agree;

This is also a contingency factor indicating a perceived
leadership style that is supportive, or a program that
enables the supervisor to adopt this attitude.

3. "I enjoy good relations with my coworkers"--57.3%
agree, 29.8% strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating a history of
favorable interactions with coworkers.

4. "I enjoy good relations with my supervisor"-—55.5%
agree, 19.7% strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating a history of
favorable interactions with the supervisor.

5. "1 am committed to my coworkers"—-53.2% agree; 17%
strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating a set of

77
expectations among fellow employees.

6. "I have a high need to control my own work"——52.5%
agree, 15.2% strongly agree;

This is a contingency factor which indicates a high need for
independence.

When "agree" and "strongly agree" responses are
combined the cumulative effect is often large, indicating
that for these items respondents appear to have more
definite ideas about why they participate in their company's
programs.

These frequency results yield several definite
patterns. First, there is clearly more support for what
this paper classifies as contingency variables as a whole
than other factors ("agree" or "strongly agree" responses in
this category showed higher percentage values than in
others). Conceptually, this paper classifies the former as
those factors (both internal/personal and
external/situational to the individual) that mediate the
effects of participation and are not primarily
affective/motivational, cognitive (use of information), or
social exchange (focuses on the dyadic supervisor-
subordinate relationship and its patterns of behavior).
However, when the contingency scale was tested for
reliability (using Cronbach's alpha) the alpha coefficient
was found to be low.

Therefore, while it is possible to conclude that the

items enumerated under the contingency label (supportive

78
supervisor, contributes to important decisions, high need to
control own work, and dependence on others) are deemed to be
important to the respondents, it cannot be said that the
contingency perspective was tested adequately. In order to
do this, the variables must clearly belong to one construct
or framework which in this case is the contingency model. It
is possible that some variables labelled as "contingency"
factors could belong to other frameworks as well. A case in
point is the factor, "high need to control own work, " which
is classified here (based on the literature) as a
contingency variable. However, this variable could also
behave as an affective factor when it is viewed as a higher
order ego need.

Second, most of the social exchange factors presented
affect involvement. A look at the frequencies reveals that
eight out of the eleven social exchange considerations
showed their highest percentages in the "agree" category.
The only items which did not receive an "agree" (but a
"neither agree nor disagree" response instead) were (1)
benefits of not participating outweigh costs of not
participating; (2) returns or rewards from getting involved
are equitable, or distributed according to input from
individual (or in the case of group effort according to
group input); and (3) obligation to reciprocate. This
indicates that utility calculations, equity and reciprocity

are grey areas when it comes to involvement in participation

79

programs.

The other items that received "neither" responses were
(1) increased information and skill for job (a cognitive
factor); and (2) decreased resistance to change (also
cognitive). It is unfortunate that these two items did not
elicit definite reactions from the respondent. Cognitive
models use the underlying principle of efficient utilization
of information to justify participation. Decreased
resistance to change is also considered in the literature as
an important intervening mechanism which leads to desired
organizational outcomes such as productivity and efficiency.
There is the possibility that either the program does not
result in an increase in job information and skill or this
factor just does not enter into the respondent's decision to
participate or not to participate. The same can be said
about the second factor, "decreased resistance to change."

Third, all affective factors also showed "agree" as the
most frequently chosen response, although these percentage
values were lower than the social exchange or contingency
ones. This indicates that although most respondents find
these affective factors to be important there are almost as
many respondents who either do not value it or have no
opinion on the matter.

These results highlight certain issues. One is that no
conclusion can be made about whether employees make utility

calculations when deciding involvement in a program. There

80

were no "strongly agree" and only one "disagree" response,
indicating that the factors presented did not elicit strong
reactions from the respondents. However, the item "benefits
of participating outweigh costs" did receive a relatively
high "agree" response (40%), which indicates that some
thought was given to costs of benefits. The same cannot be
said about the issue of nonparticipation. The item "costs
of not participating outweigh benefits of not participating"
received its highest percentage in the "neither agree nor
disagree" category, indicating that this is not a salient
issue when considering involvement. Second, there is a clear

bias in favor of factors that describe social relationships.

These factors, namely "committed to coworker," "committed to
supervisor," "good coworker relations," "good supervisor
relations," "trust in partner" all received very high

"agree" percentages. The frequencies do not provide clear
evidence of utility Calculations; employees seem to be
motivated not by explicit utility maximization but by
adherence to social norms. These social norms specify what
actions are regarded by a set of persons as proper or
improper and require that harmonious relations be
maintained. Whatever personal cost—benefit analyses might
be performed by the individual is not as important in
deciding involvement in programs as keeping the social fiber
intact through good social relations. This is apparent in

the ranks of three variables pertaining to this: out of 22

81
items, the third highest rank went to "good coworker
relations," the fourth went to "good supervisory relations,"
and the fifth went to "commitment to coworker."

The finding that commitment to both coworker and
supervisor are considered important supports Cook and
Emerson's (1984) proposition that in a network of connected
exchange relations, commitment formation between factors of
one relation foster commitment formation in others. The
concept of commitment is especially interesting because it
implies adherence to the present exchange relationship and
to future obligations, despite alternative exchange
relations.

The top two variables pertain to the dyadic
participative relationship between supervisor and
subordinate: the top rank went to 'high decision quality'
(contributes to important decisions) and the second went to
'supportive supervisor.‘ This indicates that the employee
prefers to get involved in decisions that have some value to
him or her (value attainment as objective) and his or her
objective is affected by the behavior of the other party.
Therefore, while the respondent might not recognize utility
maximization (in terms of costs and benefits) as an overt
consideration for participation the employees nevertheless
recognize that the relationship requires some reallocations
of resources (support from supervisor and the opportunity to

influence important decisions constitute a redistribution of

82
power). An alternative explanation might be that the program
is past the role making or development stage (when the most
active processing of information takes place). This is
certainly feasible, since the program has been in operation
for approximately seven years now. The possibility that
they are now in the role routinization phase (where trust or
commitment formation makes conditions more stable) is
certainly supported by the value the respondents have placed

on commitment and smooth relationships.

Frequencies: Company B
Frequencies and percentages were computed for all
(nonsupervisory responses (Please refer to Table 2
Percentages of Responses on Items in Hypothesis 1 [Part 1 of
the Questionnaire], Company B, on page 121.) Cases with
missing data were deleted. The number of valid cases for the
frequencies computation ranged from 39 to 41. Two items on
the list offered in Part 1 refers to the benefits and costs
of participating and the benefits and costs of not
participating. 51.3% of all nonsupervisory respondents
agreed that they participate in the program because the
benefits of participating outweigh the costs of
participating, and 15.4% strongly agreed with this response.
20.5% neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement.
Forty percent neither agreed nor disagreed that their
involvement is affected if the costs of not participating

are more than the benefits of participating; 57.5%

83
indicated that their participation is affected by this
statement (52.5% agreed and 5.0% strongly agreed). These
figures provide strong support for the practice of cost-
benefit assessments when these employees decide to get
involved in participation programs. Costs and benefits
appear to contain great utility in their calculations. As
for nonparticipation, most respondents agreed that they are
more likely to get involved in a program if the costs of not
participating outweigh the benefits of not participating.
However, a large percentage (40%) were undecided on this
matter; this indicates that assessing the utility of not
participating is less common behavior than assessing the
utility of participating.

While none of the most popular items (items which
showed a clear majority for a single response) were rated
"strongly agree," the responses showed agreement for:

"I participate in the QWL program because:"

1. "I enjoy good relations with my coworkers"--51%
agree, 46.3% strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating a history of
favorable interactions with coworkers.

2. "I am committed to my coworkers"——46.3% agree, 29.3%
strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor pertaining to
expectations and other normative values.

3. "My supervisor is generally open to or supportive of
my ideas"--52.5% agree, 10% strongly agree;

This is also a contingency factor indicating a leadership

84
style that is supportive, or a program that enables the
supervisor to adopt this attitude. This is a social exchange
factor indicating a set of expectations among fellow
employees.

4. "I can contribute to decisions that are important to
me-—52.5% agree, 20.5% strongly agree%;

This is a contingency factor that addresses the quality of
the decisions covered by the exchange.

5. "I enjoy good relations with my supervisor"—-43.9%
agree, 31.7% strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating a history of
favorable interactions with the supervisor.

6. "I have a high need to control my own work"--43.9%
agree, 22% strongly agree;

This is a contingency factor which indicates a high need for
independence.

7. "Getting involved in the program boosts morale--
47.4% agree, 13.2% strongly agree;

This is an affective factor describing an outcome of

participation.
8. "I feel more satisfied with my job because the
program allows me to get more involved in decisions--
42.5% agree, 15% strongly agree;

This is also an affective factor describing an outcome for

the individual.

9. "I trust my supervisor in work-related matters--39%
agree, 17.1% strongly agree;

This is a social exchange factor indicating trust in the
exchange partner.

10. "My job skill and knowledge increases because of

85

participation--37.5% agree, 15% strongly agree;

This is a cognitive factor describing an outcome that
results from greater understanding or more information.

Most of the social exchange factors were again
considered to affect involvement. Seven out of the eleven
social exchange considerations had their highest percentages
in the "agree" category. The only social exchange items
which did not receive an "agree" (but a "neither agree nor
disagree" response instead) were (1) returns or rewards from
getting involved are equal, or distributed equally
regardless of effort; (2) returns or rewards from getting
involved are equitable, or distributed according to input
from individual (or in the case of group effort according to
group input); and (3) obligation to reciprocate. This
parallels the finding in American Airlines that reciprocity,
equality, and equity are not important concerns of the
respondents.

Other factors that received mostly "neither agree nor
disagree" or "disagree" responses were: (1) dependence on
others to get work done (contingency); (2) respect gained
from participating in decisionmaking (affective); and (3)
accepting company changes is made easier through
participation (cognitive). Apparently, these items are not
very important to respondents.

Third, all but one of the affective factors showed

"agree" to be the most frequently chosen response, although

86
these percentage values were lower than the social exchange
or contingency ones.

Once again, no conclusion can be made about whether
employees make explicit utility calculations when deciding
involvement in a program although there are some indications
that they do. The item "benefits of participating outweigh
costs" did receive a relatively high affirmative response
(51% agree and 15% strongly agree), which indicated that
some thought was given to costs and benefits. The same
cannot be said about the issue of nonparticipation since the
figures indicating agreement and neither agreement nor
disagreement are too close to conclude with certainty.

Like American Airlines, social relationships are
important. These factors, namely "committed to coworker,"
"committed to supervisor," "good coworker relations," "good
supervisor relations," "trust in partner" all received very

high "agree" percentages.

Reliability Analysis for Both Sites

When the internal consistencies of the scales were
tested using Cronbach's Alpha, both sites showed reliability
coefficients of 0.5 or greater for all scales except for the
contingency scales.

As stated earlier, the contingency scale will not be
used in the regression analysis. In general, Company B's
coefficients were higher than those of American Airlines,

and both sites showed the highest alpha values for the

87
social exchange scale. This is probably somewhat affected by
the length of the scale; the social exchange scale is much
longer than the others.

A look at individual scales for Part 1 revealed that
the two sites showed similarities in their perception of
which items had the most and least effect on the scales.
(This is based on the magnitude of alpha if item is deleted,
as presented in Appendix F-l to F-8, Reliability Analysis
Tables for Hypothesis 1 Scales). For the social exchange
scale, the items with the largest effect on reliability were
"commitment to supervisor," "good relations with
supervisor," and "trust in supervisor." Factors which focus
on the exchange partner (the supervisor) are crucial to the
formulation of the social exchange scale. The least
important variable is "reciprocity." This is apparent in
the lack of agreement or disagreement by respondents in the
frequencies analysis on the value of reciprocity.

For the affective factors scale both sites showed low
alpha values if "respect" is omitted, indicating that
respect is an important affective factor. For the cognitive
scale, the important variables were "satisfaction" and

"learns more about the company."

Multi-stage Regression Analysis for American Airlines
This procedure consists of entering sets of variables
into the equation at different stages of the regression.

This was performed only for American Airlines because the

88
sample size of the other company did not permit it. When
the control variables (position and department of
respondent) were entered first, the RF‘was 0.21. (Please
refer to Table 3, Multi-stage Regression Analysis for
Hypothesis 1, American Airlines, at the end of this
chapter.) This clearly shows a moderate effect on the
dependent variable by the control variables. The social
exchange variables were entered at the second stage, which
resulted in an R2<1f 0.30. The succeeding stages consisted
of affective variables (R2== 0.35) and cognitive variables
08 = 0.36). The addition of control variables clearly
enhanced the regression analysis concerning why workers
participate. Cognitive variables had the least effect on R2.
An analysis of R? changes reveals that the social exchange
variables most effective in explaining variation in the
dependent variable (involvement in the participation
program) were "participation benefits were greater than
costs," and "good coworker relations." The increase in R2
with the addition of the affective factor, "satisfaction,"
is larger than any succeeding affective and cognitive
factors. (Please refer to Table 3, R?, at the end of this
chapter.) This shows that the social exchange factors
presented were generally more useful in explaining why
workers participate than affective or cognitive variables.
The variables which were found to be significant were "good

relations with coworkers (a social exchange factor," and

89
"satisfaction (an affective factor.)" Significant t values
for 5 out of 8 departments indicates that there were
significant differences in responses among departments.
Several variables had negative beta coefficients, namely,
"commitment to coworkers," "trust in supervisor,"
"reciprocity," "increase in morale," "increase in job
knowledge or skill," and "employees learn more about the
company." (For comparison, please refer to Table 4 to Table
6, Regression Analysis Tables for Hypothesis 1, American

Airlines, at the end of this chapter.)

Regression Results: Company B

The regression results for the social exchange scale
for Company B shows an Rzof .30. The biggest R2 change is
"trust in supervisor," where R? increased by .13. The next
biggest chhanges were for "more influence" and "equity of
rewards," both of which increased Rzlnr.07 The biggest R2
change for the affective scale was "respect," which
increased R? by .04. As for the cognitive factors,
"increased job knowledge and skill" changed.R?1by .05, the
biggest change among the four cognitive variables. Although
the small sample size of Company B does not really permit a
regression analysis of more than three variables the
regression results will nevertheless be presented for
comparison purposes with American Airlines.

A comparison and contrast of results between sites is

useful for illustrating developmental stages of the

90

participation process. However, it is recognized that
Company B results have very low statistical power and
results have to be interpreted with extreme caution.

There were no significant variables for any scale.
Like American Airlines, negative coefficients were found
for "reciprocity," "increased morale," "increased job
knowledge or skill," and "learn more about the company."
(Please refer to Tables 7, 8, and 9, Regression Analysis for

Hypothesis 1, Company B, at the end of this chapter.)

Hypothesis 11: The Process of Exchange and Success

The second hypothesis proposes that exchanges are
regulated by (1) currencies; and (2) reciprocity. It
suggests that successful participative interactions consist
of two-way exchanges between superior and subordinate. Part
II of the questionnaire provides information on specific
items and how these items are exchanged (mutual, one—way, or

not exchanged).

Frequencies: American Airlines
Among the nonsupervisory responses, the highest
percentage values per item clustered around two-way ratings.
(For a complete listing of the percentages per item, please
refer to Table 10, Percentage of Responses on Items in
Hypothesis 1 [Part 11 of the Questionnaire], American
Airlines on page 131.) To summarize, the items with a

relatively clear consensus (where the highest percentage per

91
item is above 50%) follows:

1. Trust-~72.7% answered that this was mutually
exchanged;

2. Opportunity to help others--64.6% also answered two-
way exchange;

3. Opportunity to improve job performance--59.95
answered two-way;

4. Information about job—-59.5% answered two-way;

5. Opportunity for personal growth or friendship--56.7%
answered two-way;

6. Opportunity to influence decisions-~55% answered
two-way;

7. Opportunity for professional contacts-~52.4%
answered that this was not exchanged;

The above frequencies show that the most popular items
for mutual exchange are "trust," "opportunity to help
others," "opportunity to improve job performance,"
"opportunity for personal growth and friendship," and
"opportunity to influence decisions." "Trust" had the
highest percentage of "agree" or "strongly agree"
responses.

Aside from computing frequencies for the entire
nonsupervisory sample, the responses of subordinates were
compared with their corresponding supervisor. This was done
to test congruence of perceptions about the participative
process, specifically the items exchanged. Although sixteen
supervisors were surveyed, two supervisors did not return
their forms, and the total number of groups was reduced to

fourteen.

92

The predominant answer for how an item was exchanged
was "two-way", and this was particularly true for groups
that had a high number of similar ratings. An interesting
observation is that the group that had no similar rating
showed that the most frequent supervisor responses were
"two-way" and "one-way, give" while the most frequent
subordinate responses were "one-way, give" and "not
exchanged," indicating that the supervisor usually had a
more optimistic view of the exchanges than his subordinates.

Missing data ranged from 1.8% to 6.4% with a mode of
3.2%, and valid cases numbered from 205 to 212. Cases with
missing information were deleted from computation.

As for the specific items exchanged, those that
frequently elicited the same responses from supervisor and
subordinates are as follows:

1. Opportunity to improve job performance-~13 groups
agreed that this was mutually exchanged;

2. Opportunity to help others--l3 groups agreed on two-
way exchange;

3. Opportunity to influence decisions-—12 groups agreed
on two-way exchange;

4. Opportunity for personal growth or friendship—-10
groups agreed on two-way exchange;

5. Trust--1O groups agreed on two—way exchange.

The popular items are similar to the popular ones
culled from the entire nonsupervisory sample in the
preceding section. The fact that supervisory responses are

very similar to nonsupervisory ones (and considering that

93
this questionnaire asked questions about participation never
asked before) is more evidence that the program (and its
attendant patterns of behavior) is in a role routinization
stage. Their similar perception of the complex dynamics of
the exchange indicates that they have settled into a routine

with crystallized expectations and coordinated behaviors.

Frequencies: Company B
Among the nonsupervisory responses, the highest
percentage values per item clustered around two-way ratings.
(Please refer to Table 11, Percentages of Responses on Items
for hypothesis 11, Company B, at the end of this chapter.)
Items with a relatively clear consensus (where the highest
percentage per item is above 50%) follow:

1. Opportunity to help others--56.1% answered two-way
exchange;

2. Opportunity for personal growth or friendship--55%
answered two-way;

3. Trust--53.7% answered that this was mutually
exchanged;

4. Opportunity to improve job performance--53.7%
answered two-way;

These items are very similar to those of American
Airlines. However, the order of variables according to
importance is different. "Trust" was at the top of the
American Airlines list while "opportunity to help others"
was at the top of the Company B list.

Missing data ranged from 2.4% (one case) to 9.8% (four

cases), clustering around two and three missing cases. The

94
number of valid cases ranged from 37 to 41. Cases with

missing information were deleted from computation.

Regression Results: American Airlines

The results of the regression analysis evaluating
pecuniary factors reveal that the exchange of information
about job responsibilities affects the success of relations
with the exchange partner (as revealed by an R? change that
was the largest among the social exchange factors.) Among
the career advancement factors, "recognition" was found to
have the greatest effect on success of interaction.
Significant variables were "recognition," "improve job
performance," and "develop professional contacts." Only the
variable "influence decisions" had a negative value,
although this value is small. Among the socialization
factors, "commitment to supervisor" and "trust in
supervisor" were the most influential. Both socialization
factors were significant. All socialization factors had a
positive effect on perceived success of participative
relationships. (Please refer to Tables 12, 13, and 14,
Regression analysis for hypothesis 11, American Airlines, at

the end of this chapter.)

Regression Results: Company B
Company B's regression results will be presented
inspite of its small sample size because of reasons stated

earlier.

95

The regression analysis for Company B showed results
similar to American Airlines. Information about job
responsibilities had the most influence on success of
exchange among the pecuniary factors. The opportunity to
influence decisions was the most influential among the
career factors. Among the socialization factors, two items
were equally important: the opportunity for personal growth
and friendship, and commitment to supervisor. Two pecuniary
factors were significant: "information about department" and
"increased mental effort." Negative beta coefficients were
found for "information about the company," "extra time spent
on participation," and "influence decisions." (Please refer
'to Tables 15, 16 and 17, Regression analysis for the results
of the regression analysis for hypothesis 11, Company B, at

the end of this chapter.)

Hypothesis 111: Structure, Behavior and Success

This hypothesis deals with perceptions of success in
participative exchange interactions. It is proposed that the
perceived success of dyadic exchanges is linked to
structural and behavioral factors of the participative
exchange relationship. These factors are: (1) subordinate's
access to decisionmaking process; (2) range of issues
presented to subordinate; (3) subordinate's cost-benefit
assessment of the relationship; (4) subordinate's actual
participation in the program; and (5) subordinate's

perceived success of his/her relationship with coworkers.

96
Analysis of the data consists of an examination of response
frequencies (of the entire nonsupervisory pool and by dyadic

linkages) and a multiple regression model.

Frequencies: American Airlines
1n the pooled nonsupervisory sample, none of the
highest frequency values per item exceeded fifty percent of
total responses per item. This indicates that there is no
clear consensus on the items in Part 111.

Following is a list of each item and the response with
the highest frequency value. (See Table 18 Percentages of
Responses for Items in Hypothesis 111 [Part III of the
questionnaire], at the end of this chapter.)

1. Success of interactions with supervisor-—37.5%
answered "moderately successful;"

2. Success of interactions with coworkers--48.5%
answered "moderately successful;"

3. Actual level of participation--37.3% answered
"often, when asked;"

4. Access to decisionmaking process--53.3% answered
that the supervisor was open to comments from
subordinates;

5. Scope of decisions—-30.6% answered that the types of
decisions covered multiple levels;

6. Cost-benefit assessment--40.5% indicated a single
reason for participating, namely that the benefits of
participating outweigh the costs of participating.
Judging from the above items, superior-subordinate
relations in the participative context can be characterized

as being moderately successful, where subordinates

participate often when asked, where superiors are open to

97
comments, where decisions open for participation cover
multiple organizational levels, and where benefits are often
weighed against costs. Coworker relations were also
reported to be moderately successful.

Missing data per item ranged from 0.5% to 4.4%, and the
number of valid cases per item ranged from 195 to 203.

When the nonsupervisory data was matched to the
corresponding supervisory data fourteen groups emerged. The
number of items that individual groups agreed on ranged from
one to five (out of the possible six items above), with a
mode of three (six groups agreed on three items). The items
that elicited the most number of similar responses were (1)
Assessment of costs and benefits (eleven groups had similar
responses on this item, and the most frequent response was
that the benefits of participating outweigh the costs); and
(2) success of interactions with coworkers (seven of the
groups had similar responses, the most frequent one being
"moderately successful"). The item that pertained to the
respondent's actual level of participation (item number

three above) was not compared.

Frequencies: Company B
In the pooled nonsupervisory sample, none of the
highest frequency values per item exceeded fifty percent of
total responses per item. (Please refer to Table 19,
Percentages of responses on items for hypothesis 111 [Part

111 of the questionnaire], Company B, at the end of this

98
chapter.)
Following is a list of each item and the response with
the highest frequency value.
1. Success of interactions with supervisor-~26.8% each
answered "adequate","moderately successful", or

"extremely successful";

2. Success of interactions with coworkers--46.3%
answered "moderately successful";

3. Actual level of participation-—40% answered "often,
own initiative;"

4. Access to decisionmaking process--50% answered that
the supervisor was open to comments from subordinates;

5. Scope of decisions--29.4% answered that the types of
decisions covered multiple levels;

6. Cost-benefit assessment—-45.5% indicated no
assessment, followed by 39.4% who indicated a single
reason for participating, namely that the benefits of
participating outweigh the costs of participating.

A profile of superior-subordinate participative
relations in Company B would include the following
characteristics: (1) interactions between superior and
subordinate are mostly successful; (2) most subordinates
participate on their own initiative; (3) the superior is
open to comments; (4) decisions open to participation cover
multiple levels of the organization; and (5) workers either
make no assessments of costs and benefits or believe that
benefits outweigh the costs.

Missing data per item ranged from 2.4% (one case) to

22% (nine cases), and the number of valid cases per item

ranged from 32 to 41.

99
Regression Analysis: American Airlines and Company B
For American Airlines the variable that affects

perceived success of participative exchanges the most is
"success of coworker relations." The following variables
were found to be significant:"cost-benefit assessment" and
"success of coworker relations." All beta weights were
positive, indicating a positive relationship between socio-
structural factors and perceived success of participative
interactions. Company B shows that "success of coworker
relations" is the most influential, followed by "access to
decisionmaking." Both variables were significant at .01 and
.001 levels, respectively. All factors displayed a positive
relationship to the dependent variable, perceived success of
exchange interactions. (Please refer to Tables 20 and 21,
Regression analysis for hypothesis 111, both sites, at the

end of this chapter.)

Missing Data in the Regression Procedure
There appears to be a problem with missing data.
Although missing data appears to be random the magnitude is
substantial. The strategy chosen to deal with missing data
is listwise missing-value treatment, where a case is
eliminated if it has a missing value on any variable in the
list. This resulted in 29 cases chosen for analysis out of

an original 41 (or 70% of total cases were used).

100
Comparison Between the Two Sites
Similarities in findings between sites will be

presented despite the low statistical power of Company B
results. This is done to address the issue of
generalizability of results across research settings.
However, comparison will be limited to frequencies analysis
because the regression results of Company B cannot

contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way.

Hypothesis 1

The frequencies analysis shows that both sites
considered good relations with coworkers to be the most
important factor for determining employee involvement in
participation programs. Both companies also indicated that
other important factors are: (1) good relations with
supervisor; (2) the opportunity to contribute to decisions
that are important to them; and (3) commitment to coworkers.

The predictors in scales found to have acceptable
reliability were regressed against level of participation.
In assessing which social exchange factors were most helpful
in explaining variation in the actual level of participation
of the respondent (by looking at changes in R? with the
addition of an item) the two sites showed few similarities.
Both agreed that more influence was important. However,
Company B results showed that trust in supervisor was the
most influential factor, and that equity of rewards was

important as well. American Airlines found good coworker

101
relations, dependence on others, and participation benefits
exceeding costs to be important, although there were small
differences in the R? changes.

As for affective factors, both found respect to be
influential. American Airlines' biggest R? change was
satisfaction, and Company B considered morale to be
important as well.

The cognitive factors scale produced different patterns
between the sites. American.Airlines found satisfaction to
be most influential, while Company B found increased job

knowledge/skill to be the top predictor.

Hypothesis 11

The frequencies show that there was a clear consensus
for the mutual exchange of the following items (represented
by fifty percent or more for the frequency of the "two—way
exchange" response: (1) trust in exchange partner (higher
for American Airlines); (2) opportunity to help others
(higher for American Airlines); (3) opportunity for personal
growth or friendship (higher for American Airlines); (4)
opportunity to improve job performance (higher for American
Airlines).

When the internal consistencies of the scales were
tested using Cronbach's Alpha, both sites showed reliability
coefficients of 0.5 or greater for all scales. Again,
Company B's coefficients were higher than those of American

Airlines. Both sites showed the highest alpha values for the

102
socialization scale. A look at individual scales for Part 11
revealed that the two sites diverged in their perception of
which items had the most and least important effects on the
scales.

In assessing which pecuniary factors were most helpful
in explaining variation in the perceived success of
participative exchanges (by looking at changes in R?*with
the addition of an item) the two sites showed some
similarities. Both agreed that information about the
department and information about job responsibilities
(considerably higher for Company B) were important.

As for career advancement factors, both found the
opportunity to improve job performance to be influential
(considerably higher in Company B), and to a lesser extent,
professional recognition. Company B also considered the
opportunity to develop professional contacts to be
moderately influential, while American showed a slight R2
change for it as well.

The socialization factors scale produced similar
patterns between the sites. Both found the highest R2
changes for the opportunity to help others, and also agreed
that commitment/loyalty to supervisor was important as well.
American Airlines found trust in supervisor to be very
influential in the success of exchanges, while Company B
found the opportunity for personal growth/friendship to also

have a significant effect.

103
Hypothesis 111

Both sites showed majority responses for the following
variables: (1) "adequate" success of interactions with
supervisor; (2) "moderately successful" interactions with
coworkers"; (3) access to decision making process
characterized by supervisor being open to comments from
subordinates; and (4) scope of decisions characterized by
multiple levels, mostly confined to immediate workplace or
departmental decisions.

It is interesting to note that despite differences in
structure, procedure and history of participation programs
both sites show similar characteristics. This is probably a
typical profile for participation programs in Tulsa;
interviews with company officials and focus group
discussions in other organizations (during the qualitative
data collection phase) yielded the same access and scope

dimensions, and success rate.

104

 

 

 

m.m m.NH m.mv H.mm o.m mwz¢mo OB moz¢HmHmmm ammfimmuma mam NNH

m.b o.mm m.vm m.mm m.m AAme sz
mooquozx mow Qmm¢mmqu mam HNH
o.m v.ha m.om m.mm >.m wz¢mzoo 990mm mmoz zmqu mam omH
m.m m.NH w.mm m.mv o.n mq¢moz memoom mHN mHH
H.v m.mH «.mm m.Hv m.HH onBu¢MmHH4m mow mam mHH
H.v m.m o.mm m.mv H.0H onmmmmmxmimqmm mam SHH
H.v v.ma b.vv m.mm m.v Bummmmm ham oHH
m.o H.m m.mm m.mm N.mH mmog aomezou OH ommz mem ham mHH

H.v v.> «.mfi m.oo m.mH monmHumn
Bz<emom2H 09 masmHmBzoo ham «HH

amdm Hoz mamoov
m.v m.mH H.ov N.>N N.m Hmdm Roz mHHmmzmm ham mHH
h.m N.m m.m m.mm N.m mOmH>mmmDm m>Hemommbm ham NHH
m.HH m.>m v.om H.mm m.m medoommHomm 0B Mesa ham HHH
¢.h H.0H h.om m.nv m.mH momH>mmmDm ambme ham OHH
H.v m.v H.mH m.mm >.mH mona<Amm mOmH>mmmDm 000w mam mH
m.o m.m N.m m.nm m.mm monedqmm mummozou 000w mam mH
p.vH v.vm m.om o.mm m.w mammeo zo BZWQZMme ham RH
«.ma m.HH H.NN m.va o.mH muzmsqmzH mmoz ham mH
m.m m.m m.mm m.mv m.m memH>mmmDm OH QmBHHonu ram mH
m.o m.m «.mm N.mm o.>a mmmmozoo 09 QmBBszoo mam VH
b.m «.mm m.NN m.mm m.w mom¢3mm adoom mam mH
m.mH m.mm m.nm o.>a v.w mom¢3mm mqmdeHDom mam NH
wb.m wm.m wv.om wH.ov wm.h memoo emdmAmHHmmzmm emmm ham HH
monommfla mommMmHQ mmHOMmHQ .mouod. moumfi coaudfluomoo c Euom
wamcouum uoc oouo< zaocouum ca
Honuwoz Honssz
EmuH

oomucooumm pwam>

 

.mocflaufl<_cmofluoam
.AH mammnu0d>mv.mufimccoflumoso mo H puma cH mEmDH now mommucmonmm

H magma

 

105

 

o.m o.mH o.mm m.mm m.ma mwz¢mu OB mUZGHmHmmm ammdmmoma ow NNH

o.oa o.om m.SH m.>m o.mH AAHMm 92m
mwomqsozm mow Qmm¢mmqu ov HNH
o.m m.NH o.mm m.>m o.oa »z«szu Boom¢.mmoz zmqu ov omH
m.n N.MH v.ma v.bv N.MH qumoz mhmoom mm mHH
m.> o.oa o.mm m.mv o.mH onBommmHedm mow ov mHH
o.m m.mH n.>m m.hv m.n onmmmmmxmnmqmm ov EHH
m.N m.mH m.>m o.mm m.mfi Bummmmm ow mHH
o m.m v.¢w m.mv o.mm mmoz qomezoo OB ommz mem He mHH
o.m m.> o.mH m.mm 0.0m monmHumo .
HZdBmOmEH OB MBDmHmBZOU ov vHH

BMdm HOZ memoov
o m.N o.ov m.Nm o.m Hmdm BOZ mHHmmzmm ov MHH
m.> o.oH o.om m.Nm o.oH mOmH>mmmDm m>HBmommDm ov NHH
m.mm m.nH m.NH o.ov m.n meduommHumm OB wean ov HHH
H.5H m.v o.mm o.mm H.>H mOmH>mmmDm Hmome av OHH
v.N m.m N.NH m.mv >.Hm mZOHedqmm mOmH>mmmDm 0000 av mH
v.m o o N.Hm m.mv monedqmm mammozou ooow av mH
m.wN m.mm o.NN m.ma m.v mmmmho ZO Bzmozmmma av 5H
m.NH m.> m.mm o.ov m.nH muzmoqmzH mmoz ov mH
m.m m.r v.vm o.om o.mm mOmH>mmmDm OB QmeBHZZOU av mH
m.N o.m o.ma m.pv 0.0m mmmmosoo OH QMBBHZZOU ow «H
¢.mH m.om m.mN m.>H m.oa mommzmm Adbom mm MH
o.mm o.oa m.Nm m.mm 0.0a mmmdzmm mammeHDOm ov NH
wm.m wm.OH mmwom mm.am wv.mH memou Bm4mAmeHmmzmm Bm<m mm HH
mouOMmHQ nonmemflo omummmfla moumfi gonad aoflumfiuomoo a Enom
waocouum no: ooumd >Hmcouum ca
uozufloz Hohfidz
EmuH

 

ommucoouom mmfim>

 

.m mamQEou .AH mflmozuomwmv mnflmccoflumoso mo H puma Ga mEouH wow moomDCmonom

N manme

pmuoucm moHQMHum> Hams

pmuoucm moHQMHum> o>HuoouHm ocm .oocmnoxm HMHUOm .Houuaoou
pmumuqo moHanum> mocmnoxo HMHUOm can Houucoon

1pououco moaanum> Houuaoo.

 

106

 

 

0m.0 0NH
mm.o NNH
mm.0 HNH
mm.0 mm.0 mHH
mm.0 mm.0 wHH
vm.0 vm.0 hHH
0m.o vm.0 oHH
Nm.o Nm.o om.0 MH
Hm.0 Hm.0 om.0 NH
Hm.0 Hm.0 0m.o PH
Hm.0 Hm.0 om.o HHH
Hm.o Hm.o 0N.0 mH
Hm.o Hm.0 0N.0 0H
0m.o 0m.0 0N.0 0H
mN.o 0N.0 0N.0 0HH
mN.0 mN.o oN.0 0H
0N.o 0N.o 0N.o 0H
0N.0 0N.0 mN.o mHH
0N.o 0N.o mN.0 HH
NN.o NN.0 HN.0 HN.o Zn
0H.o mH.0 0H.o vH.0 Hm
0H.o mH.0 0H.0 MH.0 m0
mH.o VH.0 vH.0 MH.0 Hm
VH.0 mH.o mH.0 NH.0 mm
no.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 30
m0.0 No.0 No.0 No.0 mm
No.0 No.0 H0.0 Ho.o m4
HVNuc mNNuc vauc HvNuc opou
gov 0.0m HEN o.mH
ommum

 

.mocHHqu. amoHuofim .AH mHmonuogmv .mm .mHmHHmGa. conmoHoom momumuHanz

m mHQme

107

NH.Hu:m

NH.Hu:m

Z .Husm 3 .Tsm

.Hoo.va mouoaop r: pom .Ho.va monocop tumo.VQ monocop.t "mHonfixm ou New.

 

 

«*«vm.m umooumucH
Gm. ONH
0N.H NNH
HH.- HNH

«««mH.0 unmououcH

HH.: mo.i mHH
mv.H mm.H 0HH
NH. 0N. oHH
amN.N *MN.N mHH
«.1Nm.0 unmoumncH

0H.H VH.H 0H.H NH
00. 0N. no. NH
No. mo.| 0N.n pH
om.| 00.: vm.i HHH
on. we. H0.u mH
0n.H 00.H N0.H 0H
00. wo.H om.H 0H
HN.H| NH.Hi 00.: oHH
*mH.N *NN.N *mm.H wH
m0.Hi om.Hn Ho.Ho «H
oo. 00. N0. MHH
N0.H mv.H smo.N HH
tissm.HH udmoumucH

«hN.NI *Nm.Nl skmm.Nl *aamm.vt ZQ
VN.H| ov.Hu HN.H: 0H.HI Hm
mm.| mv.s SN.v: 0H. m0
No. mm. 00. 00. H0
**«mm.m1 **%NP.MI *«*hm.MI *«roo.mn mm
«inb.Nl **hm.Nl aswh.Nl **HN.MI Dm
imm.Ni *Hv.NI **S0.Nn 40m.Ni mm
4+mH.MI «++Nm.m1 *+mm.ml kimm.Nl mg
v m N H opou

mmmum

 

oHanumumuu

.le.ncoov m mHan

108

 

 

 

00.: 0NH
00. NNH
00.: HNH
0H.m pomououcH
00.: 00.: 0HH
0H. 0H. 0HH
00. H0. 0HH
0H. 0H. 0HH
00.m udmououcH
no. 00. 00. mH
N0. H0. 00. NH
00. H0.: H0.: 0H
00.: 00.: m0.: HHH
00. mo. 00. 0H
NH. HH. NH. 0H
00. no. 0H. 0H
00.: 00.: mo.: 0HH
0H. 0H. «H. 0H
NH.: HH.: 00.: 0H
00. 00. 00. mHH
mo. 0H. 0H. HH
em.e unmoumch
0H.: 0H.: 0N.: 0N.: 20
00.: 0H.: 00.: 00.: H0
No.: 00.: m0.: H0. mo
m0. mo. 00. 00. H0
0N.: 0N.: 0N.: 0N.: mm
HN.: NN.: HN.: 0N.: :0
0H.: 0H.: NN.: 0H.: mm
0N.: 0N.: 0N.: NN.: 0H
0 m N H mpou

oomum

mumm

.Hp.ucoov m oHQme

109

.ooNHUHMUamum mum
muouoHpoum umnuo con: mucmHoHuwmoo QOmeouoou HMHuqu no .muanoz muopumummu
.H00.VQ monocop .: pcm .H0.VQ monocop :Hmo.v0 mmuocop . umHonEHm on meu

 

 

NHNWCQ

OM . Hflamm
.:Nm.m 0H.N udmoumucH
RN. Ho.- mo. HH. Imnumzmu Ho NuHHmzsmo MH
.mm.H mH. mo. HH. Imnomzmu no >6H2600 NH
.mm.H: mH.- mo. mH. Imumcuo co mocmncmmmao EH
RN. Ho.: e0. HH. AanHoounHommoHHH
mp.: 00.: so. HH. AHOmH>umdsm on ucmsuHsEooo mH
.mv.m EH. mo. HH. AmocmsHmcH muozo 0H
.00.H 0H. 00. 00. HmQOHuMHoH nomw>uoasm poowv 0H
Hm. No. mo. so. AnomH>umasm cH umsHBVOHH
mv.H HH. mo. so. AmcoHuMHou umxuozoo nooov 0H
MH.: Ho.: mo. 00. Humxuozoo op ucmEuHEEouv 0H
04. mo. No. mo. Hmuflumcmnxmumoo .uumq ozomHH
mmuh], OH. NO. No. HmumouxmuHmemn uummo HH
on amuom -m poumsmpd mm muouoHpoum

 

.mmcHHHHN cmoHuoEd..HnH mHmmzu0Q>mv
mamuooud coHumoHoHuumd map 0H pcoEo>Ho>cH Ho Ho>oH 0cm muouomm
mocmnoxo HmHoom Ho dHcmcoHumHou can ocHumsHm>o mHmHHmcm conmouoom

a mHnma

110

.ooNHpumpcmum mum
muouoHpoua HHm cons mucoHoHHHooo COHmmoumoH HMHuqu .muanmz muonumuomu
.H00.VQ monocop .: cam .H0.vo monocop tumo.vm monocop . “mHonfihm ou Homo

 

 

VHNNGQ

84".?
mo.N .4.Hm.MH unmoumucH
No. mm. no. so. Ameuosv mHH
0H. mH.H So. no. loomammnv 0HH
so. mo.H mo. mo. IaonmmumxmuuHmmv HHH
pH. Hm.m mo. no. HcoHoomHmHummv 0HH
umuom up um poumsmpd (km mqucmpoum

 

n.H 38:30? 36332 083686 .Emnooum coHquHoHuumm 93 CH ucwEo>Ho>cH Ho Hm>oH
paw muouomH o>HuooHHm Ho dHcmcoHumHou can ocHumsHm>o mHmmHmcm conmouoom

m mHQme

111

.UwNHUHMUCMUm ”Hm

muouoHpoud HHm conz mucoHonHooo COHmmmumou HMHuqu no .muBOHoz muonnmuomu
.Hoo.va mmuocmu :. new .Ho.va monocmn :kmo.va mmuoamn . "mHonsxm on Ame.

 

 

mHNHCn
NM . Hummm
N0.N .zNH.mH unmououcH
00.: 00.H: 00. 0o. Amcmofioo usonm ouoE mcumoHo 0NH
vH. .N0.N 00. 00. Hmcmgfioo aH moocmno Ho mocmuaooomo NNH
N0. 0N. mo. 00. AHHme\omponocx n00 pommmuocHo HNH
HN. .00.N mo. m0. ACOHuomHmHDMmo 0HH
nmuon up mm pennanpd Vm muouoHpoum

 

.nH mHmmnuomHm HmmcHHnflm cmoHuoemv Lemuooud COHudeoHuumd map CH unoSo>Ho>aH Ho Hm>oH
cam mnouomm o>HpHcooo Ho QHnmcoHumHmn man ocHumsHm>m mHmHHmcm conmouomm

0 oHQmB

.poNHpHmpcmum
mum muouoHpoHQ Honuo cons mucmHoHHwooo COHmmonoH HmHuHMQ Ho .muanox muon:mummm
.Hoo.vm monocop .: pcm .H0.vQ monocop :N00.vu mmuocop . "mHonfihm Op 000%

 

112

 

 

PMHCQ

E, . Hts.
mm.N 00.H ugmoumucH
mo.: 0m. 00.- om. lmvumzmu Ho NuHHmsumo mH
NN. HH.H oo. om. Imnumzmu Ho NuHssmo NH
00. No.: 00.- NN. Amumnoo co muamncwmmao 0H
0H.: mm.: No.- NN. ANuHoouaHommo HHH
00.: 0H.: 00. NN. HHOmH>HoQSm ou ucmEuHEEooo 0H
mm.: mo.H: mo. NN. AmocozHHcH ouozo 0H
00.: 00.: H0.: 0H. HmGOHDMHou HomH>uoasm poowv 0H
Hm. 00.H Ho. 0H. HHOmH>HmQSm SH unsueo 0HH
0H. 40. 00.- No. HmaoHuMHmu umxuozoo noooo 0H
«0. 0H. 00.: 00. Huoxuozoo on ucoEpHEEooo 0H
HN. mm. «0.: oo. AmoHHmcmnAmumoo .uqu 020 mHH
NN.- mo.H- No.- so. ImumouxmuHqumn,uumN0 HH
bmuom up .m.mmumswp¢ mm muouoHpoum
.m >00Q§00

.HnH mHmonuoo>mo memuooud QOHquHoHuHmQ map 0H ucoEo>Ho>cH Ho Ho>mH 0cm
muouomw mocmnoxo HmHoom Ho demcoHumHmH may ocHumsHm>o mHmHHmcm conmouoom

0 0H900

.1 l (GACmWNW

m wNflmB

113

.pmNHpHmpcmum
mum muouoHpmum Honuo can: mucoHoHHHooo COHmmoumoH HMHuHmQ Ho .muano3 mumnumuomu
.Hoo.va monocmn .: new .Ho.vm monocmn :Hmo.vo mmuocmp . "mHonENm on 0mm.

 

 

 

mmnen

Hm . HNOWQ
00.0 0H.0 unmououcH
0H.: 00.: 40.: 0o. AmHmuoeo NHH
0N. mm.H No.- mo. Anomammuv 0HH
mo. mo. 40.: Ho. AconmmHExmiHHmmc 0HH
Ho. 0H. H0.: H0. AcoHnomHmHommo 0HH
smuom up Hm poumdmpd Hm muouoHpoum

.m mammaou

.AQH mHmmnHOQHmo «Emuooud COHquHoHuHmQ man cH ucoao>Ho>cH Ho Hm>oH cam
muouomw o>HuomHHm Ho dHcmcoHumHoH on» ochmsHm>m mHmmHmcm conmoHomm

0 mHQme

m OHQQE

114

.poNHpumpcmum mum
muouoHpoHQ Honuo 00:3 mucmHoHHHooo COHmmouomH HMHuqu Ho .muanoz muonumuomu
.H00.VQ monocop .: pom .H0.va monocop 2H00.v0 monocop . "mHonfiam ou moxu

 

 

 

OWNER
vm . Hflomm
00.N .:0N.v umoououcH
0H.: 00.: 00.: 00. Hmcmdfioo USOQM muoE mammoHo 0NH
00. mm.H H0.: 00. Hammafioo CH 000cmso muaooomo NNH
0N.: HH.: 00. 00. HHHme\m0pmHzocx n00 commoHocH0 HNH
HN. 00. H0.: H0. HGOHuommmmwmmv 0HH
.bmumm Du Hm powwowp< mm muouoHpon
.m 0c00500

.HnH mHmonuomamo «Smuooum coHquHoHuHmo can cH ucmso>Ho>cH Ho Hm>oH
pom mHouomH o>HuHcooo mo ngmcoHumHoH map ocHumsHm>o mHmmHmcm conmmwoom

m mHQme

70.1.0
Q

0 WC

C

I)

‘4‘(

QM 00.0000

115

 

 

 

H.0H 0.0 0.0 0.N0 0000B 0HN 0HHH

0.0N 0.0H N.0 0.00 000H>00000
00 MBH<MOH\92020H22OU 0NN 0HHH

0.0N H.0 H.0 0.00 0H00020H00\00300w
Adzommmm 000 wHHZDBOOmmo 0NN 0HHH

0.N0 0.0 0.0H 0.N0 meudezoo H420H0000000
000 MHHZD000000 0HN 0HHH
0.00 0.N 0.NH 0.00 onBszoum0 0HN NHHH

0.00 H.0 0.HH 0.N0 003000 H<onmmmmo0m
000 NBHZDH00000 0NN HHHH
0.NH 0.0H 0.0 0.00 000000 mHmm OB 00H20000000 HHN 0HHH

0.HH H.0H 0.0H 0.00 00202000000 moo
m>o002H 00 00H20000000 0NN 0HH

0.0N 0.0 N.0H 0.00 monmHomo
mozmoqmzH OB 00H20000000 NHN 0HH

0.00 0.0 0.0H 0.N0 mmHBH>HBU¢ ZOHBNmHUHBm¢0
000 02H0 <00x0 0NN 0HH
H.0N H.0N 0.0H 0.0N 000000 Hdonwmm 0002 0NN 0HH
0.0N N.0H N.0H 0.00 000000 H<Bzm2 0002 0HN 0HH
0.00 0.0 0.0N 0.NN mm>HezmozH wm<00202 0HN 0HH
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.Hv 0200200 00000 onB<20omzH ovN 0HH
0.0 0.N 0.00 0.00 0202004000 00000 on9<20002H ovN NHH
v.0 0.H 0.00 0.00 000 0000¢ ZOHH<20002H NHN HHH
pmoCmnoxm o>H0 o>Hooou >03:N COHumHuommo C EH00
uOC .003:H .0m3:H CH
HoQECz
EmUH

oomquoHom pHHm>

 

.AHH mHmmnnOQHmo

moCHHHHd CmoHHme<
0HH0CC0HumoCO 00 HH unmm CH mEoHH How mwomquonm Ho oHQmB

0H

mHnme

116

 

 

 

 

0.00 0.0 «.0 0.00 00000 H0 0000

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0000>00000
00 0040000\02020H2200 ow 0000

o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000020000\003000
00200000 000 00020000000 ov VHHH

0.00 0.N 0.00 0.00 00000200 002000000000
000 00020000000 ov 0000
0.00 0.N 0.00 0.00 20H00200000 00 0000

0.00 0.NH 0.NH 0.00 003000 002000000000
000 00020000000 ov HHHH
«.00 0.00 o 0.00 000000 0000 00 00020000000 00 OHHH

0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 00202000000 000
0>00020 00 00H20000000 ov 000

0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 020000000
002000020 00 00020000000 00 0HH

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00H00>H000 2000000000000
000 02H0 00000 00 00H
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 00000000 0002 00 000
0.00 0.00 0.NH 0.00 000000 000202 0002 00 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00>0020020 00000202 00 000
0.0 0.0 0.0V 0.00 0200200 00000 20000200020 ov 00H
o.00 0.N 0.00 0.00 0202000000 00000 20000200020 00 NHH
0.NH 0.0. 0.00 0.00 000 00000 20000200020 ov HHH
000000000 m>00 m>0momu 0m3IN 000000uomw0 : 8900
no: 00310 0m310 00
r umnssz
8000

0000000000 UHHM>

.0 0000800

.000 mammguo0000

0000000000000 00 HH 0000

00 08000 000 00000000000 00 @0000

00 00000

117

.Umuflnumncmum
mum muouoflnmum Ham awn: mucmfloflwumoo COHmmmuomu HMHHHMQ .mucmflmz mumnumummo
.Hoo.va mmuocmn .: vow .Ho.vm mmuocmn ..umo.vm mmuocmn . "maonexm ou wmxu

 

 

bmaucn

Q0 . Hmem
bo.m .:mo.mm ummoumucH
mo. up. ma. ma. Auuomum Havamxsm Ummmmuocflv wHH
va. mm.H ma. ma. Amm>fiucmocfi xumumcoev «HH
po.l mm.| ma. ma. AGOflquflofluuma co uchm msflu muuxmv FHH
ma. .oo.m VH. ma. Auuouwm Hmucme nmmmmuocflv mHH
ma. mm.H OH. NH. Ammfluflaflnflmcommmu no“ usonm aoflumeuowcflv HHH
mo.| mm.n mo. no. Amcmafioo udonm coaumEHOHCHV MHH
mH. .om.m mo. so. AnamEUHMan usonm coaumEuowcHV NHH
mumm Du hm umpmsmn4 um muopoflnoum

 

.mmcflauflfi amOHumE¢ .ADHH mHmmauoaxmv ammmcmnoxm m>flummflofluumm mo mmmoosm Um>flmouma
Udm muouomm >umflcsomm mo Qflnmqoflumamu map ocflpmsam>m mflm>amcm coflmmmuomm

NH manme

118

.UQNHUHMUCmum

mum muouoflnmum Ham cons ucmfloflmumoo coflmmmumwu Hmfluumm no .munmflmz mumnumummu
.Hoo.vm mmuocmv .: can .Ho.vQ mmuocmn tumo.va mmuocmn . "maonfixm ou >wxu

 

 

OMNHGn

No 4qu
Ha.m .:mm.mm unmoumucH
ma. .mo.N ma. om. Amuomuaoo Hmcoflmmmmoua moao>mov mHHH
mo. we. wH. mfl. Amazouo Hmcoflmmmmouav HHHH
om. .mm.~ 0H. pH. Acofluflamoomuv NHHH
Ho.- NN.- HH. HH. AchHmflomn wocmsawaflv wHH
rfl. poonm OH. HH. Amocmauowuom mom m>ouasHV mHH
umumm up um wmumsnnd. hm muoukuwum

 

.mmcflauflm cmoflumem .rHHmzdm££X§avammmcmcoxm m>HquHoHuqu mo mmm005m Um>flmouma
cam muouomm umwumo mo Qfizmcoflumamu map oaHuMSHm>w mfim>amcm coflmmmwmmm

mH magma

119

.Uwuflvumvamum
mum muouoHUmuQ Ham awn: mucmfloflwwmoo scammmummu Hafipuma no .munmflmz mumnumummu
.Hoo.vm mmuocmb .: new .Ho.va mmuocmu :“mo.vm mmuocmn . "maonfixm ou xmxo

 

 

mmawcn

mm." Wm
mm.m mm.mH uamoumuaH
hm. .:HH.m mm. mm. Anomfl>umm5m a“ unsuuv mHHH
ma. :HN.N ma. om. Auomfl>uma3m 0» >uam>oa\uco5ufl2500v 0HHH
mo. ON.H ma. vfi. Aaflnmncofluu\guzouo accomummv vHHH
mo. mp. HH. HH. Amumauo aHmpv 0HHH
umumm up mm Umumsmué “m muouomeum

 

mmcflauflfl cmofluma< .AnHH mflmmauom>mv ammocmauxm m>HquHoHuan mo mmmUUSm Um>flmonma
cam muouomw aoflumNHHMHoom mo aflnmcoflumamu mnu @cfluMSHm>m mflm>amcm coflmmmnvmm

«H magma

120

.Umnwnumvcmum mum muouoflvmum Ham awn; mucmfloflwwwoo coflmmmuomu HMfluumm uo .munoflmz mums "mummu
.Hoo.vm mmuocmu .: Ucm .Ho.va mmuocmv :umo.vm mmuocmn . "mfionfizm on wax»

 

 

FMNCD

mm . "oma
mm.m .:mn.HH unmoumucH
om. mm. mm. mv. Auuommm Hmoflmxnm vommmuoch oHH
NN. oq. mm. mv. Auuowmm Hmucms nmmmmuoch mHH
ma. or. om. mm. Amm>flucmocfl >umumcozv «HH
NH.: mm.n mm. hm. ACOflquHoHuuma co unwam weflu muuxmv wHH
qm. pm.m om. om. Ammfluflflflnflmcoammu new usonm aofluQEuowcflHv HHH
mo.a mo.| Ho. mo. AxchEoo usonm coaumEuowch MHH
no. pm. No. mo. nucmEuumme usonm comumfiuomch NHH
\bmumm up hm vmumswma mm muouumumum

 

.m >QMQEOU ~AnHH mflmmnuom>mv mmmocmnoxm m>wummflofluuma mo mmmOUSm
Um>flmoumm Ucm muouomw >umflcsomm we Qflnmcoflumamu mzu ocflumsam>m mammamcm coflmmmuowm

ma wanme

121

.UmNflUumncmum
mum muouoflvmua Ham cmnz ucmfloflwmmou coflmmmummu Hafiuuma no .munoflmx muonumuomu
.Hoo.vm mmuocmn .: cam .Ho.va mwuocmn :“mo.vm mwuocmn . undonemm ou ammo

 

 

 

FMNCD
#0 ."0ma
m>.N .zan.HH ummoumucH
pm. mv.H Hm. av. Amuomucoo amaOHmmmuoum moam>mav MHHH
vo. «m. mm. hm. Aguzoum HchHmmmmoumv HHHH
HN. mm. am. pm. Aaofluflcooommv NHHH
00.- vm.- mm. mm. Amcoflmflomv wocmsawch mHH
vm. «0.N VN. om. Amuamsuomuma mom m>ouQeHv mHH
bmumm up um nmumzmnfi mm muouowvmum
.m mamaaou

.SHH mflmmnuoammvmmmocmnoxm m>fiummflofluumm mo mmwousm Um>amouma
0cm muouomm ummumo mo Qanmcoflumamu map ocflumsHm>m mammamam deflmmwuomm

ma magma

122

.Umufloumncmum
mum muouoflnmum Ham cmnz uanUmemoo scammmummu Hafiuumm uo .munmflmz mumnumummn
.Hoo.va mmuocmv .: 0cm .Ho.va mmuocmn :“mo.vm mmuocmn . umHOQE>m op xmxu

 

 

mmHCn

mm ."omm
mm.m .:mv.Ha unmoumucH
mm. om.H mv. av. AuOMH>umasm cfl umsuev mHHH
ho. Hm. NV. 5v. Au0mfi>uwasm op >uam>oa\ucmsuHEEoov 0HHH
mm. «H.H mm. mm. AaflgmocmfluM\suzoum Hmcomumm. «HHH
mo. av. mm. pm. Amumguo gammy 0HHH
nmuwm up mm mmum5mvé Nu muouoflnmnm

 

.m >cmaaou .AQHH mflmmsuomxmv ”mmocmnoxm m>HquHoHuHmQ mo mmmUUSm Umpflmoumm
cam muouomm coflumNflHmflQOm we mflnmcoflumamu map mcflumdam>m mflmxamcm coammmuomm

PH manme

Table 18

Table of Percentages for Items in Part III of Questionnaire

(Hypothesis III), American Airlines

 

IIIA SUCCESS WITH SUPERVISOR INTERACTIONS
Complete failures
Mostly unsuccessful
Adequate
Moderately successful
Extremely successful

IIIB SUCCESS WITH COWORKER INTERACTIONS
Mostly unsuccessful
Adequate
Moderately successful
Extremely successful

IIICl ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM
Rarely, when asked
Rarely, on own initiative
Often, when asked
Often, on own initiative

IIICZ ACCESS TO DECISIONS
No advance information given
Advance information given
Open to comments
Comments solicited
Can vote

IIIC3 TYPES OF DECISIONS
Work station
Department of division
Company
Work station and department
All levels

IIIC4 COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENT

Benefits of participating
>costs of participating

Costs of participating
>benefits of participating

Benefits of not participating
>costs of not participating

Costs of not participating
>benefits of not participating

Reasons 1 & 4

Reasons 2 & 3

No assessment

n=200
1.0%
9.0
31.5
37.5
21.0

n=203
3.4%
20.2
48.8
27.6

n=204
1.0%
22.1
37.3
28.9

n=197
18.8%

53.3
16.8
3.6
n=196
12.2%
29.6

23.5
30.6

n=195

40.5%

 

124

Table 19

Table of Percentages for Items in Part III of Questionnaire
(Hypothesis III), Company B.

 

IIIA SUCCESS WITH SUPERVISOR INTERACTIONS n=4l
Complete failures 2.4%
Mostly unsuccessful 17.1
Adequate 26.8
Moderately successful 26.8
Extremely successful 26.8
IIIB SUCCESS WITH COWORKER INTERACTIONS n=41
Mostly unsuccessful 0.0%
Adequate 24.4
Moderately successful 46.3
Extremely successful 29.3
IIICl ACTUAL PARTICIPATION IN PROGRAM n=41
Never participated 15.0%
Rarely, when asked 15.0
Rarely, on own initiative 12.5
Often, when asked 17.5
Often, on own initiative 40.0
IIICZ ACCESS TO DECISIONS n=32
No advance information given 28.1%
Advance information given 3.1
Open to comments 50.0
Comments solicited 18.8
Can vote 0.0
IIIC3 TYPES OF DECISIONS n=34
Work station 5.9%
Department of division 2.9
Company 23.5
Work station and department 14.7
All levels 29.4
IIIC4 COST BENEFIT ASSESSMENT n=33
Benefits of participating
> costs of participating 39.4%
Costs of participating
> benefits of participating 3.0
Benefits of not participating
> costs of not participating 0.0
Costs of not participating
> benefits of not participating 6.1
Reasons 1 & 4 6.1
Reasons 2 a 3 0.0
No assessment 45.5

 

 

 

7i .pmwapumpcmum mum
1i muouoflomum nonuo coda mucmfioflwmmoo coflmmmuomu Hmfluumm Ho .munmfloz muwnumummu
.Hoo.va mmuocwp .: one .Ho.VQ monocmo :umo.VQ mmuocmo . "maonfimm op homo
oomncn
gin.
mm.H .:vm.v ugmoumucH
mm. .zom.v VH. ma. “macaumamu meuosoo uo mmmUOva mHHH
3n. ..mo.N 00. mo. Aucmfimnmmmm ufluwcmnIUmouv vUHHH
mo. ms. mo. so. AmmSmmH we manage muHHH
OH. NV.H mo. mo. Ascflxmacoflmflomn on ammoomv NuHHH
HH. om.H mo. mo. AEmumoud cw unmEm>Ho>cfi Hmsuomv HOHHH
.mumm up mm voumsmnm Hm muouownmum

 

.mmcfiauflm cmofiumem
AQHHH mfimwnu0Q>mv .muouomm amusuoduumnOAUOm ocm Emumoum coflumdfloflpumd
mo mmmUUSm ow>flmouod ammzumb QHQmQOHumHmu map mcflumsam>w mammamcm cofimmmnmmm

om manna

126

GHQ

.pmmflpumpcmum

muouoflpmua Ham cons mucmfloflwwmoo deflmmmumwu Hoauuma no .munmflmz mumnnmummu
.Hoo.vm monocop .: pcm .Ho.vm mouocmp tumo.vm mmuocmp . "mHOAEmm ou xmmu

 

 

mmwcn

GP." Ma
om.m| mm.ml udmouwucH
«m. :mo.v mm. mm. AmGOAumamu umxuozoo no mmmoozmv mHHH
Ha. mp. mm. mm. Aucmemmmmmm uflmmamnuumoov quHH
mo. mm. Hm. mm. Ammsmmn no mocmuc moHHH
em. .:mH.v mm. em. Amcflxmecoflmflomn on mmmoomv NUHHH
mm. vo.m NH. ma. AEmumoud ca ucmEm>Ho>cm.Hw:uomv HUHHH
ucumm up Wm pmumsnpd mm muouUMUmum

 

.m >cmmaoo .?LHH mflmmcuOmeV.EmumouQ coaumaflofluumm mo mmmoosm Um>flooumm paw
muouomm amusuosuumuofloom cmeuob mflcmcoflumamu map mcflumsHm>m mflmxamcm coflmmmuoom

Hm canoe

CHAPTER 6

DISCUSSION

This paper seeks to provide evidence for the utility of
social exchange theory in constructing the conceptual
framework of worker participation and to compare that
utility with those of affective, cognitive and contingency
theories. To summarize, social exchange theory assumes that:

1. Social behavior can be explained in terms of

rewards, where rewards are goods and services, tangible

or intangible, that satisfy a person's needs or goals.

2. Individuals attempt to maximize rewards and minimize
losses or punishments.

3. Social interaction results from the fact that others
control valuables or necessities and can therefore
reward a person. In order to induce another to reward

him or her, a person has to provide rewards to the
other in return.

4. Social interaction is thus viewed as an exchange of
mutually rewarding activities in which the receipt of a
needed valuable (good or service) is contingent on the
supply of a favor in return (usually immediate).

In applying social exchange postulates to worker
participation, this paper offered the following hypotheses:-
(1) An individual's decision to contribute to a
participative exchange (as represented by dyadic supervisor—
subordinate interactions which occur in the context of a
formal participation program) is the result of his or her

assessment of various factors that constitute a utility or

127

128
value calculation. Variables pertaining to social exchange
theory and contingency, affective, and cognitive models of
participation were hypothesized to be considered in the
value calculation; (2) An individual perceives that
resources are mutually exchanged in successful participative
transactions; and (3) supervisor-subordinate interactions
perceived to be successful by the partners are also
characterized by the following structural and behavioral
characteristics; (a) mutual exchange between supervisor and
subordinate; (b) high level of access to the decision making
process allowed to subordinate; (c) wide range of issues
covered by the participative relationship; and (d)
involvement in the exchange relationship is perceived to be

more beneficial than costly.

Hypothesis 1: Why Workers Participate

The first issue this hypothesis addresses is whether or
not workers make cost-benefit assessments when faced with
the decision to contribute to a participative exchange. The
frequencies results of American Airlines for Part I of the
questionnaire shows that while 47.6% either agrees or
strongly agrees with this statement, the majority of
responses either disagrees or are undecided or indifferent.
This bifurcation of results suggests that explicit utility
calculations are not common among American Airlines
employees. This is further supported by the regression

results for American Airlines for hypothesis I. The factor,

129
"cost-benefit assessment" is not a significant variable,
although it raised R?Iby a comparatively large .04%. This
finding is consistent with criticism directed at rational
choice theory (or the cost-benefit and utility maximization
principles of social exchange theory.) Houghton (1995)
believes that one weakness of rational choice theorists is
that all parties tend to speak as if rational action had to
be preceded by deliberation and calculation. He argues that
not all voluntary action can be deliberate, since
deliberation is itself a sequence of voluntary actions, the
consideration of alternatives. Furthermore, the formulation
of alternative courses of action cannot be reduced to rules
or the operation of any calculus. He sees the difficulty of
treating every situation as calling for a calculated
response or being a subject for deliberation.

This finding also adds to the large accumulation of
empirical evidence that contends that certain aspects of the
maximization model of microeconomic theory (Morgan and
Duncan, 1982) do not describe the ordinary decision process
of individuals (Arkes and Blumer, 1985; Tversky and
Kahneman, 1986).

Another dimension that is relevant to this finding is
the type of resource that is exchanged. As will be
demonstrated later, few interactions involve the exchange of
only economic or only interpersonal resources. In fact,

many of the resources exchanged involve both economic and

130
interpersonal benefits (Foa, 1993). The difficulty of
quantifying benefits (and costs) when it is not a pure
economic resource may have led respondents in this study to
believe that their decisions are not economic ones that
could be presented in terms of utility measurements. They
perceive that the resources they exchange are more
interpersonal than economic.

The second issue deals with investigating which among
the three models of participation presented (social
exchange, affective, and cognitive) contributes most to our
understanding of why workers participate. Most of the
social exchange factors were considered to affect
involvement. A look at the frequencies reveals that nine out
of the eleven social exchange considerations presented
accumulated their highest percentages in the "agree"
category.

All affective factors also showed "agree" as the most
frequently chosen response, although these percentage values
were lower than the social exchange or contingency ones.

The only cognitive item that was popularly received was
”learn more about the company."

The frequencies findings for part I of the survey
(Hypothesis 1: Why Workers Participate) show that both sites
considered good relations with coworkers (a social exchange
factor) to be the most important factor for determining

employee involvement in participation programs. Both

131
companies also indicated that other important factors are:
(1) good relations with supervisor; (2) the opportunity to
contribute to decisions that are important to them; and (3)
commitment to coworkers.

Regression analysis shows that the factors which have
the greatest effect on the level of participation reported
by respondents from both sites were: (1) influence in the
decision making process (social exchange); and (2) respect
(affective). Other factors that American Airlines workers
value are good coworker relations, job satisfaction,
dependence on others, and benefits of participation outweigh
costs. Trust in supervisor, morale, and increased job
knowledge/skill are valued by Company B employees.

These results show support for elements from all
theoretical perspectives presented in this paper to explain
participation outcomes. Factors from all three theoretical
perspectives, combined with control variables (position and
department of respondent) account for 36% of the variation
in the dependent variable, "employee involvement in the
participation program" for American Airlines. (This is
presented in the final R? in stage 4, Table 3 at the end of
chapter 5.) The R?‘without control variables is .25, which
indicates moderate explanatory power of variables from the
three participation models. The position
(supervisory/managerial or nonsupervisory) and department of

the respondent account for 21% of the variation in the

132
dependent variable.

Although there were more social exchange factors
supported by evidence than any other model this is mainly
due to the fact that there were more variables in the social
exchange scale than others. Therefore, while it appears
that social exchange theory contributes much to the model of
the participation process in comparison to others, the other
variables also play a vital role in explaining this
phenomenon.

The importance of affective, cognitive, and social
exchange factors (specifically the concept of norms)
indicates that aside from feeling and perceiving, an
individual also reacts morally to what ought to be or ought
not to be with reference to structures of exchange. Because
moral judgment rests on some sense of what is legitimate or
illegitimate (Stole, 1990) it necessarily entails either the
formation or the use of social norms. These findings
emphasize the subjective meanings, feelings, and judgments
individuals experience in reaction to the objective
structures of dependence and exchange in a participative

relationship.

Hypothesis II: Reciprocity and the Currency of Exchange
The second hypothesis suggests that successful
superior—subordinate participative interactions are

characterized by two—way exchanges of resources or control

over these. This gives rise to two issues: (1) what

133
currencies are being exchanged; and (2) which currencies,
mutually exchanged, contribute to successful interactions.

The currency of exchange is an important construct
because it is these items, exchanged mutually, which provide
for the continuation of exchange behavior. The frequencies
show a clear consensus for the mutual exchange of the
following items (represented by fifty percent or more for
the frequency of the "two-way exchange" response: (1) trust
in exchange partner (higher for American Airlines); (2)
opportunity to help others (higher for American Airlines);
(3) opportunity for personal growth or friendship (higher
for American Airlines); (4) opportunity to improve job
performance (higher for American Airlines)

The data in part II provide more support for the
findings in part I about the importance of good relations
and value attainment. There is a clear consensus that trust
in the exchange partner is a predominant item exchanged.
This ties in with previous findings on commitment formation
and the interpersonal expectations that are components of
the exchange relationships surveyed.

The following items were also exchanged: (1)
opportunity to influence decisions; (2) job information; and
(3) opportunity to develop professional contacts. There are
clearly more socialization and career items exchanged than
pecuniary ones. This indicates that the participative

interactions present in American Airlines allow two-way

134
exchanges of these factors. The high frequency of two—way
responses reveals that the participation program does
function as a series of social exchanges of mutually
desirable goods or services. The potential for exchange
(represented by "opportunities" in the survey form) may also
be considered as actual exchanges because they both serve to
sustain the dyadic relationship. The evidence points to the
constructive nature of expectations which are moderated by
trust and commitment to the exchange partner.

When supervisory responses were compared to the
responses of their subordinates agreement was found for the
mutual exchange of the following items: "opportunity to
improve job performance," "opportunity to help others,"
"opportunity to influence decisions," "opportunity for
personal growth and friendship," and "trust in exchange
partner." This validates the nonsupervisory reports of
currencies exchanged since the two lists contain the same
items. The fact that these lists are similar is helpful in
explaining why superior-subordinate interactions are
generally reported to be successful. This is illuminated by
industrial relations research on mixed-motives in
interactions. Implicit in this industrial relations model
is the assumption that each actor/party brings to the
relation his or her own set of interests and values, which
are not necessarily in line with the interests of the other

party in the dyad. Where motives or goals of parties (and in

135
this case, the control of resources is the objective of the
individual) are similar or do not conflict, and assuming
that the participation program is structured to realize
these motives, it is likely that the program will be judged
to be successful by the participants. Aside from similarity
of perceptions, the mere presence of opportunities for
exchange may contribute to success. Walton and McKersie
(1991) conceive of labor negotiations as social negotiations
where there is deliberate interaction between social units
attempting to define their interdependence.

The social aspect of the interaction, or the process by
which negotiations (between supervisor-subordinate) occur
and interpersonal relations (among coworkers) are maintained
are of primary utility as well. This also helps to explain
the finding that opportunities for exchange, not only actual
exchange behavior, are important for successful
interactions.

The second issue in hypothesis II concerns employee
perceptions of successful interactions in terms of
currencies exchanged. The regression analysis shows that
the perceived success of participative exchanges were most
affected by the mutual exchange of the following currency
items: (1) information about the department and job
responsibilities (pecuniary); (2) the opportunity to
increase job performance (career); (3) professional

recognition (career); (4) professional contacts (career);

136
(5) opportunity to help others (socialization); and (6)
commitment/loyalty to supervisor (socialization). Another
significant currency item mentioned by American Airlines was
trust in supervisor (socialization), while Company B found
increased mental effort (pecuniary) and personal
growth/friendship (socialization) to be important as well.
Career and socialization items are perceived to be more
important for success than pecuniary ones.

This is interesting because most of the career and
socialization items chosen refer to opportunities rather
than actual exchanges and are therefore less quantifiable.
To illustrate, direct observation and measurement of the
”opportunity to help others" is less possible than the
measurement of "extra time spent on participation
activities." Foa (1993) suggests that resources can be
classified on the basis of two coordinates: concrete—
symbolic and particularistic—universal. On the first
coordinate, concreteness, services and goods involve the
exchange of some overtly tangible activity or product and
are classified as concrete. Status and information are
typically conveyed by verbal or paralinguistic behaviors and
are symbolic. Love and money are engaged in both concrete
and symbolic forms and thus occupy intermediate positions.
For the respondents, the participative relationship seems to
serve as more as a means of symbolic interaction rather than

a vehicle for the acquisition of material or tangible goods.

137

The very nature of employee access to decisions (where
employees' opinions are solicited) suggests that partners
both receive and give information as a result of that
involvement. This is apparent in the regression result that
a successful participation interaction involves an exchange
of information about department and job responsibilities.
Collecting, analyzing and discussing data relevant to work
problems can provide insights into the job that were not
previously present. Other resources exchanged arise out of
the social process or interaction itself, both through
monthly QWL meetings and daily interactions with
supervisors. Other resources are also exchanged through the
CTL (leadership) program in American Airlines, namely
opportunities to develop one's career (professional
recognition, contacts, improvement of job performance) and
opportunities to interact with others and develop social
bonds.

These findings have two implications for how success
is perceived by the respondents. The first is that
participative interactions succeed because they enhance the
flow and use of information in the system. This is
consistent with the results of the Miller and Monge analysis
(1986). The second is that participative interactions work
because they lead to greater attainment of higher-order
needs. The types of resources that fall under career and

socialization are likely to satisfy higher-order needs of

138

status and self-worth. These two observations come to even
sharper focus in the light of empirical evidence in the
participation literature that worker participation programs
generally have statistically significant but small effects
on performance and satisfaction (Wagner, 1994). This
indicates that workers get involved in such programs or
interactions for reasons other than the productivity
objectives initiated by management. Although questions
could be raised about the practical significance of programs
where performance objectives are not realized, these
programs are still useful for two reasons. First, Abelson
(1985) observed that even very small episodic effects can
sometimes have strong cumulative consequences if allowed to
amass over time. Second, other more individual—oriented
objectives are being met, which leads to employees forming
favorable impressions of corporate managerial practices.

Another dimension is the symbolic nature of the items
exchanged. The fact that successful exchanges involve items
that are difficult to measure has ramifications for the role
of cost-benefit assessment in the proposed model. The
situation of having intangible currencies drives partners
in exchange relations to be less concerned with explicit or
extrinsic measures of utility or value. This is again an
indication of a more intuitive and subjective manner of
measuring value. As stated earlier, the literature on

social exchange theory presented in chapter 2 supports this

139
type of assessment behavior. Decision making is not always
a rational, conscious, deliberate effort but usually
involves subconscious processes. This is probably why
respondents do not report engaging in utility maximizing or
cost-benefit assessment behavior; it is usually not a
conscious effort. This is consistent with Walton and
McKersie's belief that negotiations involve not just
substantive items but attitudes, feelings, and the tone of

relations as well.

Hypothesis III

This hypothesis attributes the success of participative
interactions to certain structural and behavioral aspects of
the formal program. This paper suggests that interactions
are more successful if subordinates are more actively
involved in the program, if they are given more access to
the decision making process, if the range of issues
addressed by the program covers many decision areas and
levels, and if subordinates perceive benefits of getting
involved to outweigh costs. Coworker relations were
reported to contribute to successful interactions as well.

The information that we get from the frequencies data
of both sites refers to properties of the participation
program and the respondent's behavior. It tells us that not
very respondents are active in the program and reminds us
that the information we get from them is based on this

limited experience. The extent of their potential or actual

140
involvement (access to decisions, scope of decisions) does
not indicate a program with a very symmetrical distribution
of control over resources. However, the finding that both
supervisors and subordinates enjoy moderately successful
relations indicates that these relationships do survive and
that there is probably more value attached to smooth social
relations than to a reallocation of power. Both sites
attach value to the role of coworker relations, access to
decision making, and cost-benefit assessments in determining
the success of interactions with supervisors.

The results of the regression analysis further
reinforce the importance of access to decision making to
perceptions of success. Access to decisions is an important
dimension to participation because it defines the quality of
interaction and extent of involvement of the respondent.
Most of the respondents reveal that they are allowed to make
suggestions on their own initiative, and this is clearly
important to the success of their interactions. In this
situation, the fair process effect serves to mediate
success. The social influence explanation of the fair
process effect suggests that ability to voice an opinion can
produce greater acceptance of outcomes (Cohen, 1985). The
fair process effect implies that procedures are seen as
legitimate and just. Such a belief can only enhance a
relationship and contribute to its success.

Participation in the decision making process,

141
especially when there is a mutual exchange of resources,
creates loyalty, commitment, and possibly trust in the
exchange partner. This is observed in hypothesis I where
the results show "trust in supervisor (the exchange
partner)" to be a valued construct. The importance of being
able to contribute to a decision area (instead of merely
being informed about it) is further supported by qualitative
evidence; many of the group members attached feelings of
pride and self—worth to this opportunity to contribute. An
alternative explanation to the fair process effect lies in
the effect of affective factors on employee involvement.
The feeling of self worth satisfies higher—order ego needs,
such as respect, which leads to job satisfaction, worker
motivation, and productivity.

The importance of coworker relations that other parts
of the survey reveal is again apparent in the results for
hypothesis III. The finding that success of interactions
with supervisors is influenced by success of coworker
relations reveal the power that workplace norms exert in
relationships. It also indicates that superior-subordinate
relationships are embedded in a network of other

relationships in the organization.

Demographic Information
As discussed earlier, the two organizations did not
permit the collection of information on individual

characteristics because they were cautious about losing

142
their workers' trust during a time organizational
uncertainty. However, several pieces of information might
have enhanced the findings of this study. One useful
concept is that of the individual's choice of comparative
referent. This concept is a valuable tool in further
illuminating our understanding of interpersonal comparisons
because it provides the individual with a standard by which
he or she assess his or her value domains. Within
organizational research, comparison theories (for example,
social comparison theory, equity theory, and some
formulations of social exchange theory) have been used to
explain individual reactions to a wide variety of outcomes,
including pay (Dittrich and Carnell, 1979), job complexity
(Oldham, et a1., 1986), and workplace status (Greenberg,
1988). Prediction of an individual's response (positive,
negative, or neutral) depends on the referent used by the
individual.

Several personal factors influence access to
information about referents and their perceived relevance.
One personal factor is gender. There is evidence that most
men and women prefer same—sex comparisons (Major and Testa,
1989). This could be a function of perceived relevance of
similar (same-sex) comparisons. Further, Major and Forcey
(1985) point out that pronounced sex segregation may limit
the information women would need to make cross-sex

comparisons. The American Airlines workforce is

143
predominantly male, and it would have been interesting to
observe if female respondents do make cross-sex comparisons
because they are in a male-dominated field and are more
accessible to information for comparison with males.

Another social indicator that might have been useful is
race. There is some indirect evidence in the relative
deprivation literature suggesting that people prefer to use
same-race comparisons (Stouffer, et a1., 1949). Education
research has found that same-race comparisons decrease as
members gain more information about cross-race referents
(Drury, 1980; St. John, 1975). The workers in the hangar
and shop sections of American Airlines (which essentially
was the sampling frame) work under desegregated conditions,
which would lead us to expect cross-race comparisons not
unlike that of gender.

Tenure is also a potential social indicator.
Individuals with longer tenure are more likely to have
acquired more information about employees other than those
from their own unit or organization, and internal referents
may be less appropriate (Ashford, 1988). It is expected
that workers with longer tenure will make more external
comparisons than those with less tenure. Differences might
be found in responses between tenure groups, especially if
the referent choice of longer—tenure employees belong to
organizations markedly different from American Airlines.

And finally, although education and professionalism are

144
predicted to result in greater reliance on external
referents (Goodman, 1974), there is no wide variability in
level of education among employees in the sampling frames.
Therefore, education would not be a useful social indicator

in this study.

Departmental Information
The multi-stage regression analysis performed on American
Airlines data reveals that the inclusion of control
variables (position and department) contributed greatly to
the understanding the first hypothesis: why workers get
involved in participation programs. Similar results were
found for the other two hypotheses, which focus on the
success of participative interactions. In both cases, the
IV of the control variables alone (during the first entry
stage) was a substantial portion of the final R? (when all
the independent variables had been entered). This tells us
that other dimensions of employee involvement (such as
different participation practices among organizational
units, or value orientation, culture or climate prevalent
among sectors of the workforce) might have been in
operation. The qUalitative data presented earlier provides
evidence that the cultures or climates of departments (even
with similar functions) vary. Appendix H ("Comments from
American Airlines Questionnaires") tabulates additional
comments written by respondents and categorizes these

according to department. (Company B questionnaires did not

145
have additional comments that are useful to the analysis.)
In a post-survey interview with the director of maintenance
and engineering he suggested that variability between
departments could be a function of the physical working
conditions of the respondents. He described hangar units as
being in a less hospitable work environment than shop units
which worked in an "office" environment. An examination of
Appendix H reveals that comments within shop departments are
more consistent than within hangar and off-base departments.
The shOp questionnaires contained comments which were more
favorable towards the QWL program than off-base or hangar
units. Off—base units and the only hangar unit included in
the survey displayed mixed attitudes towards the QWL program
or relationships with supervisors. This is somewhat
supportive of the director's opinion that shop employees in
more comfortable physical environments have more positive
attitudes towards the program.

An alternative or supplemental explanation is that
supervisory styles vary greatly across departments. The
relationship between leadership style and upward influence
has long been noted (Cobb, 1986). One component of formal
supervision is closeness of supervision. .A lack of close
supervision can facilitate greater subordinate discretion
and influence, while close supervision can suppress such
discretion.

While the additional comments presented are useful in

146
explaining the statistical significance of the departmental
variable, a more systematic approach is required to test for
differences. Semantic network analysis could be used to
examine core values, beliefs, and subcultures of attitudinal
groups, both within and across departments. This could also
further illuminate why half of the departments surveyed
(hangar and off-base units) are inconsistent in their

perceptions of and attitude towards the QWL program.

Discussion of Comparative Results

A comparison of frequencies obtained from both sites
is useful for illustrating relevant paradigms. Also, sample
size is not as crucial in frequencies analysis than in other
methods of data analyses. Therefore, frequencies results
between the two samples will be compared and contrasted,
although with a certain amount of caution.

One reason why similar results between sites were
obtained despite differences in size and developmental age
of the program is that the exchange patterns in both sites
are similar. Individuals in a relationship are guided in
their actions toward each other by their orientations.
Ridley and Avery (1979) present a typology of exchange
patterns in relationships. Judging from the findings, the
interactions in both sites may be typified as a combination
of mutual benevolence and considerate-benevolent. The mutual
benevolence components of the relationships are apparent in

several ways.

147

First, their behavior is based on both partners having
mostly "positive-other" orientation. This is indicated by
'adequate' or 'moderately successful' judgments of
interactions with supervisors.

Second, dyad members seem more concerned with being
sensitive to their partner's needs than concerned with
whether behaviors are reciprocated or rewarded. This is
indicated by (a) low response for reciprocity item; (b)
ambiguous cost-benefit assessment behavior; and (c) high
emphasis on the importance of supervisor relations and trust
in exchange partner.

Third, the participative interactions, which are
interlocking exchanges in a complex matrix of relationship
behaviors, appear to derive from committed social
relationship. Although this is more true for American
Airlines; both indicated the value of commitment to exchange
partner.

As for the considerate-benevolent component of the
relationships, the primary characteristic which applies to
the findings is that both partners possess different but
valuable goods and services, and that interactions are
asymmetrical. One partner has more control over resources
than the other. Balance is achieved when both partners have
the ability to withdraw valued resources. This condition is
apparent in the fact that the majority of responses in both

sites for the manner in which items are exchanged was "two-

148
way", indicating mutual exchanges.

Results from both sites from parts I, II, and III of
the survey (why respondents participate, reciprocity and
currency, and exchange success) reveal that relations in the
workplace (and attendant factor such as commitment and
trust) have a high value for the respondents, sometimes even
higher than factors which refer to the substantive content
of the participation exchanges. These findings, especially
the finding that coworker relations are important, reveal
the role of network norms, or the social network influence
on dyadic relationships. As noted earlier in this paper, the
findings underlie the importance of social networks within
which dyadic partnerships are initiated, maintained, or
terminated. This is especially salient in exchanges that
occur in the participative context; although these exchanges
are bound by formal structures and procedures employee
involvement is to a large extent voluntary and informal.

A social network is used in reference to those persons
with whom one or both of the dyad members is in actual
contact. Bossevain (1979) observed that

A person's network forms a social environment from and

through which pressure is exerted to influence his

behavior; but it is also an environment through which
he can exert pressure to affect the behavior of others.

It is the reservoir of social relations from and

through which he recruits support to counter his rivals

and mobilizes support to attain his goals.

The absence of a rigid set of rules and procedures in

the programs of both sites probably contributed to the

149
permeability of the dyadic relationship to external
influences, notably those pertaining to other linkages in
the network.

The disparate findings between sites is obviously a
result of differences in organizational and program
characteristics. Another useful tool for explaining
differences is by analyzing program development, using the
dyadic organizing model of Graen and Scandura (1987),
reviewed earlier in this paper. Their model consists of
three stages of organizing, mainly role taking or sampling,
role making or development, and role routinization. The
participation program of Company B is at an incipient stage
(approximately a year old), contrary to that of American
Airlines, which is seven years old. Company B can therefore
be classified as being at the role taking or sampling stage,
while American Airlines would be either late role
development or early role routinization. The behaviors of
Company B respondents are consistent with those theorized to
be dominant at this stage: (1) They have either made no
utility assessments since there is no history by which to
judge present or future behaviors, or they have made
assessments where their participation is justified by
benefits outweighing costs; (2) They characterize their
actual participation as being more frequent than that of
American Airlines (where participation is more routine and

requires less active processing); (3) Success of their

150

dyadic interactions is more closely linked to tangible
factors, such as job information, access, influence, scope;
in fact, hypothesis three shows the largest intercorrelation
to be between success of interaction and access to
decisionmaking process; and (4) Fewer currencies have been
exchanged, possibly due to the early stage of interaction.
The American Airlines sample, on the other hand, reveals
behaviors more consistent with later phases: (1) Trust is a
vital factor in the dyadic relationship; (2) More currencies
have been exchanged; (3) Most of the respondents have made
utility assessments, where involvement was determined by
benefits of participating outweighing costs; and (4) A value
placed on socialization, as indicated by the largest
intercorrelation in hypothesis three between success of
interaction and coworker relations. Also, the fact that
supervisory responses are very similar to nonsupervisory
_ones for popular exchange items is evidence that the program
(and the patterns of behavior associated with it) is in a
role routinization stage. Their similar perception of the
dynamics of the exchange indicates that they have settled
into a routine with crystallized expectations and
coordinated behaviors.

Ridley and Avery's (1979) typology of exchange patterns
also explain other differences in findings between sites.
Early interaction may be characterized by the counting of

specific goods/services that are given and received. This is

151
apparent in the items found to be important by Company B in
the regression analyses: increased job knowledge/skill,
equity of rewards, increased mental effort, opportunity to
develop professional contacts. (Company B respondents also
indicated fewer items exchanged, which is possibly an
indication of how undeveloped the relationships are). The
focus of Company B respondents on tangible rewards indicate
that nonsupervisory respondents value the primary utility of
the content of the exchange package rather than on secondary
utility. This emphasis on utility indicates the presence of
cost-benefit assessment behavior; Company B data shows a
large correlation between cost—benefit assessment and actual
participation by respondents. At this stage, they are a
little more concerned with personal gain than developing
relationships per se. In fact, an indication that
respondents engage in competition is the presence of
negative values between the factor coworker relations and
other variables in hypothesis three (access, scope of
decisions, actual involvement, cost-benefit assessment.

An interesting observation is that American Airlines
had more 'two-way' items exchanged even though its program
is more developed than Company B's. This is explained by
history of interaction (Ridley and Avery, 1979); if one or
both dyad members become dissatisfied they may well attend
more closely to the specific goods/services exchanged and

return to early patterns where they are again more cognizant

152
of specific items exchanged. This is not entirely
inconsistent with earlier explanations of how trust allows
partners in "developed" relationships to continue exchanges.
Trust probably allows partners to know that certain valued
goods/Services will be delivered, in a more generalized
manner. Nonsupervisory employees are cognizant of which
items are exchanged, and trust leads to reliability of
delivery. Institutional and interpersonal control (as
discussed in Chapter II) have been routinized through the
repetition of both formal and informal behaviors, and
eXpectations are well defined. Trust, developed by a long
history of interaction, permits the routine exchange of
resources.

A fundamental assumption in organizational psychology
is that is impossible to understand behavior in
organizations without understanding the interactions between
features of the organizational context and characteristics
of individuals operating within the system (Pfeffer and
Salancik, 1978; Schneider, 1983). Organizational climate
represents a shared perception that people attach to
particular features of the work setting (Schneider and
Reichers, 1983), and is the appropriate unit of analysis for
environmental factors.

Ostroff (1993) presents three facets for classifying
climate orientations: (1) affective-~people involvement,

interpersonal or social relations; (2) cognitive--

153
psychological involvement, self-knowledge and development;
and (3) instrumental--task involvement, work processes.
Organizational context, as represented by climate, is best
treated here as a variable which worked in conjunction with
lower level characteristics, thereby strengthening the
relationship between individual and dyadic characteristics
(cognition, affect, social exchange and contingency factors)
and the success of a worker participation program. American
Airlines, with its numerous programs designed to increase
worker influence and assist in personal development attempts
to cover all three facets mentioned above. By installing
these programs it has created a participative environment,
-characterized by cooperation-(CTL) and social rewards
(Golden Wrench Award), both of which are affective facets.
It covers the cognitive facet by providing opportunities for
career advancement (CDP), intrinsic rewards (Golden Wrench
Award), innovation (IDEAAS) and autonomy (QWL).
Instrumentality was provided in the form of extrinsic
rewards (IDEAAS and LEAAP) and a structure which increased
access by providing many channels of participation. The
magnitude of their participative efforts probably
contributed to the longevity of the QWL program because the
different programs complemented, rather than competed with
each other. These climate factors are congruent with the
individual-based findings of the study: reciprocity in

exchange (hypothesis II), trust in exchange partner,

154
commitment and loyalty to exchange partner, and favorable
relations with exchange partner and coworkers. The
participative organizational climate served to reinforce and
strengthen the relationship between individual and dyadic
characteristics and favorable participation outcomes.

The variety of exchange structures also helps explain
why nontangible rewards were preferred over pecuniary ones
in the QWL program. The QWL program does not provide
financial incentives unlike the IDEAAS and LEAAP programs.
The QWL program is probably seen by employees as primarily a
vehicle for the exchange of resources that are social or
humanistic in nature and symbolic in form.

One interesting finding is that despite a climate
favorable to participation American Airlines respondents
rated the success of their participative interactions as
either moderately successful or adequate. An organizational
event, recent and pending layoff of personnel in the
facility, may have served to moderate the relationship
between employee attitudes and perceived success of
superior-subordinate exchanges. Uncertainty in the
environment (specifically, job security) may have affected
employee trust in management in general, and this may have
trickled down and translated into a lower success rating of
their relationship with representatives of management, their
supervisors.

However interesting the link between organizational

155
context and individual-dyadic factors might be, there is
still a need to adequately measure organizational climate
before its influence on other variables can be determined
with some confidence. A joint investigation of climate,
personal orientations, and their interaction would be an
appropriate place to start.

This recommendation reveals the complexity of a
research agenda that requires the researcher to address
cross levels of analyses. However, complexity should not
impede either theoretical progress or practical application
since the control of action is not dependent on a complete
knowledge of everything that influences behavior. Both
worker participation and social exchange are
multidimensional constructs which involve the analysis of,
but are not limited to, dyadic interchange. In fact, this
study finds that dyadic relations are embedded in a network
of other individual, dyadic, and organizational behaviors.
A contribution this study makes is that it translates
fundamental tenets of social exchange theory into testable
propositions by transposing these tenets on the construct of
worker participation. In doing so, a fresh description of
the worker participation process is arrived at and the
applicability of social exchange theory to work behavior is

explored.

CHAPTER 7

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The purpose of this paper was to construct a model for
the process of work participation based on psychological and
sociological theories (affective, cognitive, contingency,
and social exchange, respectively). Employees were asked to
link their participation or involvement to values and
outcomes representing the above models. Partial support was
found for the social exchange model, as well as the other
models presented in chapter 2. This is evident in the
‘following results of this study: (1) many social exchange
variables were related to employee involvement in hypothesis
1; (2) a high frequency of two—way transactions were
reported in hypothesis II; (3) many social exchange factors
were exchanged in hypothesis II; and (4) there was moderate
support for cost-benefit assessment behavior in hypotheses I
and III. It is apparent that social exchange theory has much
to offer to the current literature on worker participation.
Its primary contribution is the proposition that employees
involved in a participation program make exchanges of goods
and services and that this series of transactions evolve
over time. The fact that cost-benefit assessment behavior
and reciprocity (which lie at the heart of social exchange
theory) received mixed results indicates that work

156

157
participation is a complex phenomenon and that each
framework contributes to different dimensions of the
concept. However, the social exchange perspective has much
potential in explaining the process of participative
interactions because it focuses on the management-workforce
relationship as represented by the dyadic superior-
subordinate relationship.

Although this paper originally chose to focus on the
superior—subordinate relationship the findings of the study
bear out the importance of understanding the social
environment that the dyadic relationships are embedded in.
Further research is recommended on interactional and
structural criteria not just between dyadic partners but
between them and other individuals and dyads. Concepts to
investigate in participation linkages and network might
include metric characteristics (size, centrality, density,
reachability), exchange content, and properties of the
linkages, such as reciprocity, strength or intensity (amount
of resources that flow through the network), symmetry, and
multiplexity or diversity (degree to which same people are
involved in different networks). Commitment formation
within the organization may be especially helpful in
illustrating the success of participation exchanges.
Commitment formation in participation activities increases
mutual dependence among actors and therefore enhances the

equality of power. Furthermore, Cook and Emerson (1984)

158
have found that within a network of connected exchange
relations (e.g., a department in a corporation) commitment
formation between members of one relation fosters commitment
formation in other relations, and the balance of power
therefore shifts toward equality throughout the entire
network.

This leads to another aspect of the exchange relation:
the role (and function) that individual or collective dyads
play in the organization. The diversity of linkages is
represented by the role of relationships between dyad
members and others within the dyadic network. 'Role' is
used in reference to the norms and expectations that apply
to a particular position. Each dyad plays a number of
different roles, and roles may be single-stranded or multi-
stranded (Gluckman, 1955 and Wheeldon, 1969). The role
relations of individuals, dyads, and groups involved in
decision making must be defined in the context of the
organization in order to understand motivational behavior.
This leads to several research implications. One is that
role relations in a participative exchange context (in a
worker participation program) might be compared to other
organizational contexts (other participation schemes,
nonparticipative relationships). Another issue addresses the
finding in this paper that coworker relations were valued
highly when respondents were asked to assess their

participative interactions with their immediate supervisor.

159
This means that the success of a supervisor-subordinate
relationship is very much affected by a subordinate's
relationship with his or her peers. The norms and
expectations that develop from peer relationships (which are
informal parts of the structure) might serve as the contact
point between linkages and could help define the formal role
or function of the supervisor-subordinate dyad and determine
its success.

Another area which might be investigated is exchange
content, which refers to the elements of the transaction.
Although this paper addressed this issue it was limited to
items exchanged in the dyadic relationship. An examination
of resources available outside of the dyad (and the
opportunities for exchange) would enhance our understanding
of behaviors that occur in a dyad since external
availability and alternative resources also enter into the
utility calculations of dyadic partners. The quality of
exchanges might be examined from the perspective of leader-
member exchange theory. This approach employs a
transactional approach where supervisors treat individual
subordinates differently (Duchon, Gree, and Taber, 1986).
Consequently, relatively stable dyads develop and range from
lower to higher quality exchanges. In the former, formal
organizational authority is exercised; supervisors obtain
routine subordinate performance and subordinates receive

standard organizational benefits (Graen and Cushman, 1975).

160

Higher quality exchanges are typified by support and mutual
trust (Liden and Graen, 1980), interpersonal attraction
(Danserau, Graen, and Haga, 1975), loyalty and bidirectional
influence (Dienesch and Liden, 1986). Both supervisors and
subordinates enjoy advantageous rewards.

Although reciprocity as a questionnaire item in part I
("I have a duty to give something to my supervisor when I
receive something from him/her") did not elicit very much
response, there are other indications that reciprocal
behavior does occur. The high frequency of two-way or
mutual responses for exchange items in part II of the
questionnaires indicated that exchanges flowed both ways.
The construct of reciprocity is very valuable in the
framework of participation and must be investigated in
detail. Theoretically, it lies at the heart of most
formulations of social exchange theories. Degree of
reciprocity, which is also described as directional flow or
directedness by some researchers (Kapferer, 1969), serves as
a general indicator of the individuals' levels of investment
in the social relation. One issue for further
investigation is a closer look at variations in reciprocal
behavior. Reciprocity does not imply consistent exchanges,
just constant ones. Conditions must be studied in which
reciprocity is equal or not, positive or not (which is
possible in antagonistic exchanges but not "participative"

ones). Considering that these interactions may also be

161
characterized as generalized rather than restricted
exchanges (where exchange is indirect rather than direct)
one may further understanding of reciprocity by analyzing
the role that partner expectations play in the maintenance
of reciprocal relationships. How powerful is commitment to
the exchange partner in a situation of mostly unfulfilled
eXpectations? What are acceptable compensating factors for
these unfulfilled expectations? Does organizational
commitment correlate with individual commitment? If, as
Blau and other social exchange theorists claim, exchange is
the basis of the formation and maintenance of any social
relationship, do unfulfilled expectations cause the
relationship to disintegrate or is there an intrinsic value
to relationships as well? In other words, is the promise of
Opportunities for exchange (where, for example, supervisors
are usually open to subordinates' comments, as is the case
in this study) a sustaining factor?

Reciprocity also functions in relationships of unequal
power, which is the kind analyzed in this paper. Thibaut
and Kelley and Hollander's transactional leadership suggest
that reciprocity is the defining criterion of the social
relation itself and is never totally destroyed even in
relationships of unequal power. This brings us to another
issue which is need of further study: power. Do
relationships in the work participation context differ very

much with regard to power symmetry from other relationships

162
in the workplace? The structure of participative exchanges
and its corresponding power implications were not addressed
in this paper, which chose to focus on exchange processes
dynamics instead. While the literature on power is vast, a
narrower study of power in the context of participative
exchanges in the workplace might focus on the type of power
that is yielded. To what extent does it constitute a
condition for determining the rate and nature of exchange,
especially in a voluntary program that is first and foremost
implemented by management?

A final recommendation would be to analyze the role
that unions play in determining extent of involvement. It
would be interesting to investigate if employees decide to
become less involved in worker participation programs in the
presence of alternate forms of employee involvement, and how
the proposed model fits into the union context. Do
affective, cognitive, and social exchange mechanisms behave
differently in a union partnership? What are the currencies
of a union transaction? The results show that the superior-
subordinate dyadic relationship is open to other linkages in
the organization. A salient issue might be how the exchange
of resources or control is modified by a third party with
possibly conflicting but nevertheless different objectives.

The premise that social interaction consists of
exchange behavior is a very useful framework for work

participation in that it provides both depth and breadth to

163

the study of participation. This paper incorporates
psychological and sociological theories and the resulting
model views the participative process as fundamentally a
dyad-based interaction which influences and is influenced by
network norms, values, structure and behavior, and where
actors (consciously or unconsciously) make utility
assessments. At the same time, the proposed framework does
not necessarily exclude other conceptual frameworks of
participation, such as those espoused by democratic, human
relations, or productivity and efficiency orientations. The
values, assumptions and goals of these perspectives may
still serve as the rationale for the installation and
continued existence of participation programs, along with
social exchange concepts which amplify interactional
criteria. This paper also provides some evidence for how
behaviors evolve throughout the life of a participation
program. Finally, this paper recognizes the need for
continuing the investigation of the participation process as
social exchange by analyzing structural components as well.

This paper provides support for the conceptualization
of the process of work participation as a series of exchange
transactions between employees and management. In using the
social exchange approach the reciprocal nature of workplace
relations between supervisor and subordinate is emphasized.
While partial evidence is obtained for the proposition that

cost-benefit assessment is a fundamental element of these

164
dyadic exchanges the concept of interpersonal trust as the
key to fairness underlying exchanges appears to be a
critical factor in determining success of interactions,
level of involvement, and participation outcomes. Indeed,
interviews with both managerial/supervisory and
nonsupervisory employees in both sites reveal that the
expectancy that promises or statements can be relied on is
pivotal for the functioning of participative relationships.

A final recommendation of this paper is that the
dynamics of supervisor trust—building behavior be
investigated in the context of participative exchanges.
More research might investigate which behaviors establish
and sustain subordinate trust in their supervisor and how
these expectations affect desired participation outcomes.
For example, how critical is trust in supervisor if
organizational rewards/benefits are formally specified and
contractual, such as in a profit—sharing program?

In conclusion, the social exchange framework has
contributed to the understanding of the process of work
participation by amplifying dyadic interactions between
superior and subordinate-~the fundamental unit of work
participation systems. In doing so, the theory highlights
certain issues. First, the study shows that the social
network is influential on dyadic relations; this is apparent
in the finding that coworker relations and commitment to

coworkers affect involvement in participation programs.

165

Second, reciprocity is essential to the success of the
exchange (as indicated by the high frequency of mutual
exchanges), and this reciprocity is moderated by trust in
the exchange partner and their orientations (mutual
benevolence-considerate benevolence). Third, simply
participating in the process of exchange is just as
important to employees (if not more so) as the benefits
derived from it. This is consistent with the social justice
framework, and is another avenue that participation research
might pursue.

Researchers on worker participation must be clear about
the levels and perspectives that characterize their work.
At the same time, researchers should be pluralistic in their
approach because the construct calls for work that spans
multiple levels and perspectives. Research on worker
participation now needs to progress cumulatively across
disciplines, rather than being confined to current
motivational, behavioral and attitudinal frameworks. The
integration of other perspectives with existing ones should
provide a more complete picture of the process and structure
of worker participation and, ultimately, assist management

in making organizations a better place to work in.

APPENDICES

166

APPENDIX A

PERCEIVED ELEMENTS OF EXCHANGE RELATION
(For focus group discussions)

I would like to ask you some questions about your relationship
with your subordinates and coworkers in the participation
program. Please feel free to give comments on anything
related to the program or your involvement in it.

1. With whom do you frequently interact with because of the
program? (Primary supervisor, coworkers)

2. Describe your interaction with them. (Activities, formal
and informal procedures, etc.)

3. How would you describe your involvement in the program?
(Active or passive, level of access to decisions, extent of
contribution, nonparticipation)

4. Would you consider the activities in the program as
involving some kind of an exchange? If yes, what are
exchanged? By whom?

5. How do you go about deciding whether or not to participate
in the program? (motivation, costs and benefits, job
situation) What are the things you consider when deciding
about how much to get involved?

6. Do you formally or informally (officially or personally)
evaluate tflue results (ME your contribution/involvement? Is
there an incentive for you to change your behavior if
necessary?

7. Do you now have more or less power or influence in your
work or the organization because of the program? Do you think
other people (coworkers, supervisors, upper management) have
more or less power or influence because of the program?

8. How would you describe the stage this program is at the
moment? (testing/sampling, development, routinization)

9. Have you behaved differently during other phases of the
program? (If applicable).

10. What are your criteria for a successful relationship with
your primary supervisor in the program?

11. Would you consider your relationship with your primary
supervisor as successful or unsuccessful? Why?

167

APPENDIX B

SURVEY FORM FOR SUPERVISORY AND MANAGERIAL PERSONNEL

FORM 3 (Supervisory/Managerial)
AN EVALUATION OF THE WORK PARTICIPATION PROCESS

I. I would like to get information from you on what affects your
involvement in the TCS program. Each item completes the phrase, "I
participate in the TCS program because ...". If you are not
currently involved in the TCS program please respond according to
your perception of the program. Please indicate your agreement or
disagreement with the items by choosing a number from the scale
described below. Encircle the appropriate number, ranging from 1
(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) for each item.

Scale: Strongly agree (SA)

Agree (A)

Neither agree nor disagree (NA/D)
Disagree (D)

Strongly disagree (SD)

Uil-‘bUNH

"I participate in the TCS program because..."

Item BfifiEQflfifi
SA A NA/D D SD

 

1.Benefits of participating are
more than costs of participating .......... 1 2 3 4 S

2. Each person gets a reward based on
his/her contribution ....................... 1 2 3 4

3.Everybody gets the same reward,
regardless of effort ....................... 1 2 3 4

4.1 am committed to my fellow .
supervisors and managers .................... 1 2 3 4

5.1 am committed to Hilti ................... 1 2 3 4

6.I am committed to the people I manage
or supervise ............................... 1 2 3 4 S

7.The program gives employees more
influence in work-related decisions ......... l 2 3 4

8.I am dependent on other people to help
me with my work ............................ 1 2 3 4

9.1 enjoy good relations with the people
I supervise ................................. 1 2 3 4

10.I trust the people I supervise or
manage in work-related matters..., .......... 1 2 3 4

168

APPENDIX B (cont'd).

Scale: Strongly agree (SA)

Agree (A)

Neither agree nor disagree (SA/D)
Disagree (D)

Strongly disagree (SD)

LII-DUMP

"I participate in the TCS program because..."

Item BEEDQDES
SA A NA/D D

 

11.I have a duty to give something to
the people I supervise or manage
when I receive something from them .......... 1 2 3 4

12. The program enables me to be more
responsive to the ideas of the people
I manage or supervise ....................... 1 2 3 4

13.Not participating would involve more
costs than benefits ......................... 1 2 3 4

14. The TCS program allows the people
I manage or supervise to contribute to
decisions tha are important to them .......... 1 2 3 4

15.Employees have a great need to control
their own work ......... . ..................... 1 2 3 4

16.Employees earn respect when they
participate in decision making ............... 1 2 3 4

17.The TCS program offers
opportunities for self-expression ............ 1 2 3 4

18.The TCS program creates more job
satisfaction ................................. 1 2 3 4

19.Getting involved in the TCS program
boosts morale ................................ 1 2 3 4

20. The employees learn more about the
' company through the TCS program ............. 1 2 3 4

21.Job skill and knowledge increases
because of participation ..................... 1 2 3 4

22.?articipation makes it easier for
employees to accept changes in the
company ...................................... 1 2 3 4

169

APPENDIX B (cont'd).

II. The workplace is full of relationships involving exchanges
between people who work together. We are interested in the
exchanges that take place within the confines of the TCS program.
Please indicate how you make exchanges with the people you manage
or supervise by choosing the appropriate number from the following
scale for items 1 through 16.

Scale: 1 TWO-WAY EXCHANGE: Both the people I manage or
supervise and I have the opportunity to give and
receive this item

2 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, RECEIVING: I have the
opportunity to only reeeiye this item

3 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, GIVING: I have the opportunity
to only give this item

4 NOT EXCHANGED: This item is not exchanged

Item Response
2way Get Give No

 

1. Information about job duties and

responsibilities ............................. 1 2 3 '4
2. Information about my department ........... 1 2 3 4
3. Information about Hilti ................... 1 2 3 4
4. Monetary incentives ...................... 1 2 3 4
5. Increased mental effort ................... 1 2 3 4
6. Increased physical effort ................ 1 2 3 4
7. Extra time spent for TCS

activities ................................... l 2 3 4

8. Opportunity to influence decisions ........ l 2 3 4

9. Opportunity to improve job performance....1 2 3 4
10. Opportunity to help other people .......... 1 2 3 4
11. Opportunity for professional growth ....... 1 2 3 4
12. Recognition ............................. 1 2 3 4

13. Opportunity to develop professional
contacts ........................... . ......... l 2 3 4

14. Opportunity for personal growth
or friendship ............................... 1 2 3 4

170

APPENDIX B (cont'd).

Scale: 1 Two-WAY EXCHANGE: Both the people I manage or
supervise and I have the opportunity to give and
receive this item

2 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, RECEIVING: I have the
opportunity to only zeeeixe this item

3 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, GIVING: I have the opportunity
to only giye this item

4 NOT EXCHANGED: This item is not exchanged

Item Response
2way Get Give No

 

15. Commitment or loyalty to the people
I supervise or manage ........... . ............ 1 2 3 4

16. Trust in the people I manage or
supervise .................. . ................. 1 2 3 4

17.Please list other things which you give up or gain, and indicate
how you exchange this by encircling the appropriate number

 

 

 

l 2 3 4
1 2 3 4
l 2 3 4
III. The following questions refer to the success of your

interactions with the people you supervise or manage.

A. How would you describe most of your interactions with the
people you manage or supervise? Please encircle one number.

Extremely successful

Moderately successful

Adequate

Mostly unsuccessful

Complete failures

HNw-bUl

B. Please characterize most of your interactions with your
coworkers (other supervisors and managers) by encircling
one of the following:

Extremely successful

Moderately successful

Adequate

Mostly unsuccessful

Complete failures

HNH-bu.

C. For items 1-3,

171

APPENDIX B (cont'd).

please encircle the number beside the

statement which best describes your involvement in the TCS
program so far. Choose one number only. In cases where
more than one answer applies, choose the answer which occurs
most frequently.

1. Your
1.
2.
3.
4.
S.

participation in the program so far:
Never participated. (PLEASE STOP HERE.)
Participate rarely, and only when asked
Participate rarely, but on own initiative
Participate often, but only when asked
Participate often on own initiative

2. How are the people you supervise or manage involved in
decision making?

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

No advance information is given to them regarding
decisions to be made

They are informed in advance about decisions to
be made

They are allowed to make suggestions or comments
on their own initiative

Their suggestions or comments are solicited
before the decision is made

They have a vote or the decision is completely in
your hands

3. Types of decisions that are covered by the
participation program:

1.

Issues that are the employees’ primary

responsibility or affect them directly

2.
3.
4.
5.

4 . Your

Issues in your department or division
Issues that concern the company in general
1 and 2 above

all of the above

assessment of costs and benefits of participating

or not participating in the program so far has been:

1.

Benefits of participation outweigh costs of
participation

Costs of participation outweigh benefits of
participation

Benefits of nonparticipation outweigh costs of
nonparticipation

Costs of nonparticipation outweigh benefits of
nonparticipation

1 and 4 above

2 and 3 above

No assessment made

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE REFER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OR THIS
PROJECT TO THE OFFICE OF MR.

172

APPENDIX C

SURVEY FORM FOR NONSUPERVISORY PERSONNEL

FORM 3 (Nonsupervisory)
AN EVALUATION OF THE WORK PARTICIPATION PROCESS

I. I would like to get information from you on what would affect
your involvement in the TCS program. Each item completes the
phrase, "I participate in the TCS program because ...". If you are
not currently involved in the TCS program please respond according
to your perception of the program. Please indicate your agreement
or disagreement by choosing a number from the scale described
below. Encircle the appropriate number, ranging from 1 (strongly
agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) for each item.

Scale: Strongly agree (SA)

Agree (A)

Neither agree nor disagree (NA/D)
Disagree (D)

Strongly disagree (SD)

U‘éUNH

"I participate in the TCS program because..."

Tum Emmamm
SA A NA/D D 51)

 

1. Benefits of participating are more
than costs of participating ................ 1 2 3 4 5

2. Each person gets a reward based on
his/her contribution ...... ...... ........... 1 2 3 4 5

3.Everybody gets the same reward,

regardless of effort ....................... 1 2 3 4 5
4.1 am committed to my coworkers ........... 1 2 3 4 5
5.1 am committed to my supervisor ........... 1 2 3 4 5

6.The program gives me more influence
in work-related decisions .................. 1 2 3 4 5

7.1 am dependent on other people to help
me with my work ........ . ................... 1 2 3 4 5

8.1 enjoy good relations with my
coworkers .................................. 1 2 3 4 5

9.1 enjoy good relations with my
supervisor .................................. l 2 3 4 5

10.1 trust my supervisor in work-related
matters ..................................... l 2 3 4 5

173

APPENDIX C (cont'd).

Strongly agree (SA)
Agree (A)

Scale:

Disagree (D)
Strongly disagree (SD)

U‘bUNP

Neither agree nor disagree (SA/D)

"I participate in the TCS program because..."

 

lifin
SA A NA/D D SD

11.1 have a duty to give something to
my supervisor when I receive
something from him/her ..................... 1 2 3 4
12.My supervisor is generally open to
or supportive of my ideas ................... 1 2 3 4
13.Not participating would involve more
costs than benefits ........................ 1 2 3 4 5
14.1 can contribute to decisions
that are important to me ..... .............. 1 2 3 4
15.1 have a high need to control
my own work .................. . ............. 1 2 3 4
16.1 gain respect from participating in
decision making ............................. 1 2 3 4
17.The program offers opportunities .
for self-expression ......................... 1 2 3 4
18.1 feel more satisfied with my job
because the program allows me to get
involved in decisions ...................... 1 2 3 4
19.Getting involved in the program
boosts morale ............................... 1 2 3 4
20.1 learn more about the company
through the program ..... . .................. 1 2 3 4
21.My job skill and knowledge increases
because of participation .................... 1 2 3 4
22.Participation makes it easier for
me to accept changes in the company ......... 1 2 3 4

174

APPENDIX C (cont'd).

II. The workplace is full of relationships involving exchanges
between people who work together. We are interested in the
exchanges that take place within the confines of the TCS program.
Please indicate how you make exchanges with your supervisor by
choosing the appropriate number from the following scale for items
1 through 16.

Scale: 1 TWO-WAY EXCHANGE: Both my supervisor and I have
the opportunity to give and receive this item
2 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, RECEIVING: I have the
opportunity to only reeeixe this item
3 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, GIVING: I have the opportunity
to only gige this item
4 NOT EXCHANGED: This item is not exchanged

Item Response
2way Get Give No

 

1. Information about my job

responsibilities ........................... 1 2 3 4
2. Information about my department ............ 1 2 3 4
3. Information about Hilti .................... 1 2 3 4
4. Monetary incentives.. ..................... 1 2 3 4
5. Increased mental effort .................... l 2 3 4
6. Increased physical effort .................. 1 2 3 4
7. Extra time spent for TCS

activities.... ..... ... ...... .... ........... l ‘2 3 4
8. Opportunity to influence decisions.... ...... 1 2 3 4
9. Opportunity to improve job performance ...... 1 2 3 4
10. Opportunity to help other people ........... 1 2 3 4
11 Opportunity for professional growth ......... 1 2 3 4
12. Recognition ......... . ..................... 1 2 3 4

13. Opportunity to develop professional
contacts ................................... l 2 3 4

14. Opportunity for personal growth
or friendship ............................. 1 2 3 4

175

APPENDIX C (cont'd).

Scale: 1 TWO-WAY EXCHANGE: Both my supervisor and I have
the opportunity to give and receive this item
2 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, RECEIVING: I have the
opportunity to only reeeiye this item
3 ONE-WAY EXCHANGE, GIVING: I have the opportunity
to only giye this item
4 NOT EXCHANGED: This item is not exchanged

Item Response
2way Get Give No

 

15. Commitment or loyalty to
my supervisor.. ............................... 1 2 3 4

16. Trust in my supervisor........... ......... 1 2 3 4

l7.Please list other things which you give up or gain, and indicate
how you exchange this by encircling the appropriate number

 

 

 

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 4

l 2 3 4
III. The following questions refer to the success of your

interactions with your supervisors.

A. How would you describe most of your interactions with your
supervisor? Please encircle one number.

Extremely successful

Moderately successful

Adequate

Mostly unsuccessful

Complete failures

HMU-bUI

B. Please characterize most of your interactions with your
coworkers by encircling one of the following:

Extremely successful

Moderately successful

Adequate

Mostly unsuccessful

Complete failures

HNH-bu!

176

APPENDIX C (cont'd).

C. For items 1-3, please encircle the number beside the
statement which best describes your involvement in the TCS
so far. Choose one number only. In cases where more than one
answer applies, choose the answer which occurs most
frequently.

1. Your participation in the program so far:
1. Never participated. (PLEASE STOP HERE.)
2. Participate rarely, and only when asked
3. Participate rarely, but on own initiative
4. Participate often, but only when asked
5. Participate often on own initiative

2. Your involvement in decision making:

1. No advance information is given to you regarding
decisions to be made

2. You are informed in advance about decisions to be
made

3. You are allowed to make suggestions or comments
on your own initiative

4. Your suggestions.or comments are solicited before
the decision is made

5. You have a vote or the decision is completely in
your hands

3. Types of decisions that are covered by the
participation program:
1. Issues that are your responsibility or affect you
directly
2. Issues in your department or division
3. Issues that concern the company in general
4. 1 and 2 above
5. all of the above

4. Your assessment.of costs and benefits of participating
or not participating in the program so far has been:
1. Benefits of participation outweigh costs of
participation
2. Costs of participation outweigh benefits of
participation
3. Benefits of nonparticipation outweigh costs of
nonparticipation
4. Costs of nonparticipation outweigh benefits of
nonparticipation
5. 1 and 4 above
6. 2 and 3 above
7. No assessment made

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE REFER ANY
QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY OR THIS
PROJECT TO THE OFFICE OF HR.

177

APPENDIX D

Table D—l

Social Exchange Scale for Hypothesis I.

 

 

Questionnaire Social Exchange
Item Number Factor
11 Benefits of participating exceed costs of
participating
12 Equity: reward based on individual contribution
I3 Equality: equal rewards for everybody
I4 Commitment to coworkers
15 Commitment to supervisor
I6 Employee given opportunity to exert more
influence in work-related decisions
I7 Dependence on others
I8 Good relations with coworkers
19 Good relations with supervisor/s
IlO Trust supervisor in work-related decisions
Ill Reciprocity in exchange with supervisor/s
113 Costs of not participating exceed benefits of

not participating

 

Table D-2

Affective Scale for Hypothesis I.

 

Questionnaire Affective Factor
Item Number

 

116 Employee gains respect from participating in
decisionmaking

117 Participation program offers opportunities for
self-expression

l8 Satisfaction due to involvement in decisionmaking

I19 Involvement in decisionmaking improves morale

 

178

APPENDIX D (cont'd).

Table D-3

Contingency Scale for Hypothesis 1.

 

Questionnaire Contingency Factor
Item Number

 

 

112 Supervisor is open to/supportive of contributions
I14 Employee can contribute to decisions important to
him/her
115 Employee has high need to control own work
I7 Dependence on others
Table D-4

Cognitive Scale for Hypothesis I.

 

 

Questionnaire
Item Number Cognitive Factor
118 Satisfaction due to involvement in decisionmaking
120 Employee learns more about company
121 Increase in job knowledge or skill
122 Involvement in program facilitates acceptance of

company changes

 

179

mHNuG

.anmHmn mH amHH HH.

 

 

.ssmm. u ande Emma omNHonmncmum .vqmm. n mnde.
oo.H om. so. mm. mH. 6H. Ho. we. ev.H mo.m sHH
oo.H mm. mo. 0H. NH. mH. me. mv.H sv.H GHH
oo.H sH. no. Ho.- mH. m4. me.H om.m mHH
oo.H mo. em. 00. as. mH.H mo.~ VHH
oo.H no. mo. om. ms.H mm.H mHH
oo.H mo. Hm. om.H mm.m NHH
oo.H Hm. mm.H mm.H HHH
sHH 0HH mHH HHH mHH NHH HHH .mnaam am 2 mHanHm>

 

Hmocflauflfl cmonmE¢e .mHmom mEmDH xuchooom mo mmcmcoxm CH moapmflum>
HHm uOm mcoHumHmHHoonucH com .>uHaHbmHHon .mcoeumfl>om Unmodmum .mcmmz

m XHQmemd

H mHan

180

mHmua
.oouoaoo we Emma “Ha
.mmmo. u mgaHm EmuH vaHnumnamum .vmvm. u maaHm.

 

 

oo.H as. me. HH. 0H. mm. we. Hm. mHHH
oo.H we. mo. 6H. mm. as. as. NHHH
oo.H mH. RH. om. me. H4. HHHH
oo.H me. me. ma.H mm.H mHH
oo.H mm. mH.H oo.m mHH
mHHH NHHH HHHH mHH mHH seesaw am 2 anmHum>

 

Hmmcflaufld omonmE¢e .mamom mEmuH ucmEmocm>o¢ Hmoumo mo mocmnoxm
GA mlomHHm> Ham How mcoflumaowuoonoucfi com .>DHHHbmeHmH .mcoflumfl>oa oumocmum .mcmmz

N canoe

m XHQmem¢

181

ommuc
.smuonn mH smuH HH.

 

 

.Hmms. n mgaHm smuH omNHonocmum .moms. u maaHa.
oo.H me. om. om. so. me. «a. 0HHH
oo.H as. am. so. on. we. mHHH
oo.H Ha. as. as. mm. «HHH
oowH we. be. we. 0HHH
GHHH mHHH VHHH 0HHH .meaHm am 2 mHSMHHm>

 

Hmocflaudm cmoflnoeme .mamom mEobH coHumNHHmHoom wo monocoxm CH moHQMHHm>

Ham How mcpomHmHHooumucH ocm

m XHQmem¢

.HHHHHanHmH

.mcoflomfl>oo oumocmum

.mcmoz

m magma

182

CV":
.UOMOHOU mm.” EOUH “Ha
.nmmw. n madam Home ommflpwmpomum .mmMP. n mamas.

 

 

oo.H om. mo. mH. mm. mm. HN. me. me. am. sHH
oo.H we. Hm. mm. sH. 4H. on. me. am. oHH
oo.H mH. om. HN. mm. 0». se. mm. mHH
oo.H em. HH. om. ms. He. HN. eHH
oo.H Hm. mm. we. me. am. mHH
oo.H H4. we. om. Hm. NHH
oo.H Hen om. m4. HHH
sHH 0HH mHH VHH MHH NHH HHH .mndH< am 2 mHSMHHm>

 

m >com§ou .AHH membprdamv .mamom meuH xwmflcoomm mo omcmcoxm CH
mmHQmHHm> Ham mom mcoHomHoHHooHoucH pom .>DHHHQMAHoH .mcofiumfl>mm oomocmum .mcmmz

v magma

m XHQmemé

183

mmuc
.ooumaop mH Emufl “Ha
.Hmom. u ocean Emma cmmflcumpcmum .mmmm.nmnmam.

 

 

oo.H m0. mm. mm. b@. vw. hv. Nm. MHHH
oo.H mm. 0v. mp. Hm. om. mv. NHHH
oo.H Nv. we. vm. mv. hm. HHHH
oo.H mm. mm. on. Hm. mHH
oo.H Om. om. Hm. mHH
mHHH NHHH HHHH mHH mHH nmcaad Gm Z manmfium>

 

.m >CmQEoo .HHH mfimocDOmev.onom ucmEoocm>o< Hmmnmu cH mmabmflnm>
Ham How wooeumHowwooHobcH ocm .>DHHHQmHHmH .mcoflumfl>mo oumocmum .mcmmz

m wanme

m XHQmem¢

184

OVHC
.poumamp mw Ewufl an
.ommm. n mcaam Emufl oowfloumocmum .Hmmm. u madam.

 

 

oo.H mm. mm. Hm. mm. om. mm. GHHH
oo.H mm. mm. as. on. om. mHHH
oo.H me. am. om. mm. «HHH
oo.H mm. om. em. 0HHH
GHHH mHHH sHHH 0HHH nmgaHm am 2 mHnmwum>

 

.m momdaou .AHH mammcu0d>mv .mHmom mEobH coHumNHamHoom Mo mmcmcoxm CH
moabmflwm> Ham How mcoflumamuwoowmucfl ocm .quHHQmHHoH .mcoflumfl>mm oompcmum .mcmmz

o manme

m XH02mmm¢

185

NHN":

.omuoamp ma Eon: “Ha

 

 

.ommo. n mnaHm smHH nmNHonncmHm .oomo. u «HHHH.
oo.H mo. mo. oo. oo. oN. oN. mo. oo. so. NH. 44. so. so.H oo.H NHH
oo.H no. mo. No. oo.- Ho.- mo. mo. NH. 4o. oo. so. HN.H oo.H HHH
oo.H mo. mN. HH. NN. mo. HN. so. oH. oo. Ho. om.H HN.N oHH
oo.H NH. oH. NH. o4. oN. so. No. so. Ho. Hm.H so.N NH
oo.H oo. oo. NN. o4. Ho. NH. oo. No. oH.H om.N NH
oo.H HH. mo. oo. mo. No.- NH. mo. HN.H No.H sH
oo.H mo. sH. oo. 4o. NN. No. om.H oH.N oH
oo.H HH. HH. oH. HH. Ho. NH.H oo.H mH
oo.H oo. HH. HH. No. N4.H om.N HH
oo.H oo. NN. mo. oN.H oo.H NH
oo.H no. mo. 4N.H oo.H NH
oo.H mo. Hm.H HH.N, HH
NHH HHH oHH oH NH sH oH mH HH NH NH HH .mnoHa om z mHomHHm>

 

mocHHHHd cmoHHme¢ .HH mHmoQHOmev

HHm How mcoHumHoHHooHouoH one

u

xHQmem¢

.HHHHHQNHHmH

.onom monocoxm HmHoom CH mmHQmHHm>

.mcoHomH>oQ onocmum .mcmoz

H mHan

186

vamuc
.pouoamp ma Emma uHa
.mmmo. u madam Eoufl pomspmmocmum .mNNm. u ended.

 

 

oo.H so. om. HN. mo. oo.H oo.H NHH
oo.H Hm. NN. om. oo.H vo.N NHH
oo.H HN. so. oo.H HH.N sHH
oo.H No. H4.H om.H oHH
NHH NHH sHH oHH .NBQHN am 2 anmHHm>

 

mmcflawfla cmoHHwE¢ .HH mHmwcuom>mv .mamom mHouomm m>Huooww¢.cH moanmflwm>
Ham How mcpomHmHHoonucH pom .HDHHHQNHHmH .mcoHumH>wQ oumocmum .mcmoz

N oHan

m xHQmemd

187

NHNHC
omHmHmo mH smHH HH.

nmmm. u madam Sous ooNHonocoum.mmHm. u ocean.

 

 

oo.H mo. Ho. mm. mm. mN.H mm.H NH
oo.H ma. Ho.l mm. vv.a om.N 0HH
oo.a 0N. NH. mH.H vw.N VHH
oo.H ma. OMMH Hm.N NHH
nH mHH VHH NHH nmcadm am 2 mammoum>

 

mmcHHHflm cmoHHmE¢ .HH mHmomHOerv
HHN How mcoHumHmHHoonucH pom

m XHOmem¢

.onom mHODomm >ocomcHucoo CH mmemHHm>
.>HHHHbmHHmH .mcoHumH>oo onocmum .mcmoz

m mHan

188

NHN"a
omHmHmo mH amHH HH.

 

 

wove . H mflmam Emufl UONHUHMUCmum afiovm . H MCQHANH
oo.H sN. NN. sN. om. oo.H Hm.H NNH
oo.H Hm. NN. on. oo.H oo.H HNH
oo.H om. sm. HH.H oo.H oNH
oo.H oo. HH.N. Ho.N NHH
NNH HNH oNH NHH ransom om z mHanHm>

 

mmcHHHHd cmoHHmem .HH mHmmcuommmv

HHm How mcpomHmHHooHobcH com

m XHQmem<

.NHHHHHNHHNH

.mcpomH>mQ pumpcmbm

.mamom mucuomm o>HuHooou do mmHQmHHm>

.mcmoz

v magma

mmuc
.anmHmu mH smHH HH.
.ooss. u anaHm amHH nmNHUHmnamHm .oHos. n mHaHm.

 

189

oo.H mm. mo. vm. mo.| mo. mv. MN. OH. ma. ma. me. we. hm.H me.H MHH
oo.H mm. Nm. ma. mN. «m. cm. am. am. va. no. mo. ON.H mo.N HHH
oo.H mm. PH. Hm. mN. 00. NN. mm. ma. ON. we. Nv.H mH.N 0HH

oo.a 0N. mm. vm. Nm. OH. mN. mN. om. vb. NN.H mm.N mH

oo.H Ho.) HH. mo. sN. NN.I mo. ma. mg. mp. hm.m NH

oo.H NH. hm. NH. OH. ma.l mo. or. bH.H bw.H nH

oo.H Nv. mo. ma. DN. No. mp. mv.H «N.N wH

oo.H Hm. wN. «N. ON. Nb. Hm.H «N.N mH

oo.H NN.: $0.: me. on. hm.H on.N «H

oo.H om. OH. on. Hm.H vm.H MH

oo.H 00. ms. ov.H mv.H NH

oo.H hr. vm.H mv.N HH

 

NHH HHH oHH NH oH sH oH NH 4H NH NH HH nmcaH«_ am 2 mHanHm>

 

.m Nomdaoo .HHHH mHmeHOQNm. .oamom omcmnoxm HmHoom who oH
mmHQmHHm> Ham How mcoHumHmHHoonucH pom .NHHHHQmHHwH .mcoHomH>mQ onocmum .mcmoz

m manme

m XHQZMQQN

190

mmua
.anmHmn mH smHH HH.
.Hoss. u meon smHH nmNHnHmnamHm .moss. u mgaHm.

 

 

oo.H oo. so. me. Hs. oo.H NN.N NHH
oo.H HA. so. so. oo.H NH.N oHH
oo.H NN. ss. oo.H mo.N sHH
oo.H Hs. oo.H ms.H oHH

NHH oHH sHH oHH .NBQHN om z mHHMHHm>

 

.m >chEoo .HH mHmocHOQva monom mHouomm o>Huoomm¢.cH moHQmHHm>
Ham How mcoHomHoHHoonbcH pom .NHHHHQmHHoH .mcoHHmH>oo onocmum .mcmmz

w magma

m XHQZQQQN

191

o4":
.omHmHmo mH smHH HH.
.ooms. n mnon smHH nmNHuHmncmHm .vmms. u maaHm.

 

 

oo.H so. oN. oo. mo. Hm.H No.H NNH
oo.H Ho. ov. oo. NN.H NN.N HNH
oo.H NN. ms. oo.H oo.H oNH
oo.H mo. mv.H mH.N NHH

NNH HNH oNH NHH .mnde am 2 oHanHm>

 

.m momQEou .HH mHmmcHOQNmo .mHmom mHoHomm o>HHHcoou CH mmabmHHm>
Ham How mcoHHmaoHHoonHcH ocm .NHHHHQNHHwH .mcoHumH>mo onUCMHm .mdmmz

s oHpmH

m XHQmemfi

192

OVUC
632% ..H 5.: HH..
ooom. u meon smHH omeuHmucmum .Noom. u maaHm.

 

 

oo.H oN. NH. NN. NN. oH.H No.H sH
oo.H oN. oH. om. oo.H HH.N mHH
oo.H so. sH. oN.H sm.N sHH
oo.H NH. mm.H mN.N NHH

sH NHH HHH .NHH nmraHm om z mHHMHHm>

 

.m NomQEoo .HH mHmooHOQva .onom mHoHomm NocoocHudou CH mpomHHm>
Ham HON mcoHHmHmHHooHoHcH ocm .NHHHHQNHHmH .mcoHumH>oo onocmum .mcmmz

m wanme

m XHQmemfi

193

 

vONHC
oo.H H0.: no. mH. v0. Hm. mHHH
oo.H 50. ha. mN. mH. «UHHH
oo.H NH. HN. NH. mUHHH
oo.H mN. 0N. NUHHH
oo.H ON. HUHHH
oo.H NHHH

 

HHN HoH

mHHH «UHHH mUHHH NUHHH HUHHH <HHH manmwum>

.mmCHHHHN CmoHHoE< .HHH mHmmCHOQNm CH mmHQmHHm>
mCoHHmHoHHoonHCH oCm .NHHHHQCHHoH .mCoHumH>mo onoCmom .mCmoz

H mHQmB

O XHQmemd

194

 

 

mmuC
oo.H Nm.l OH.I MN.I NH.I Hm. mHHH
oo.H ON. Nv. mv. Hm. vUHHH
oo.H No.1 vm. NO. mUHHH
oo.H OH. mm. NUHHH
oo.H mm. HUHHH
oo.H NHHH
NHHH vUHHH mUHHH NUHHH HUHHH <HHH manmwum>

 

.m mCdeou .HHH mHmmCHoQNm CH mpomHHmb HHN
How mCoHHmHmHHooHoHCH CCm .NHHHHQCHHmH .mCoHumH>oo onoCmHm .mCmoE

N mHnms

U XHQZMQNN

195

 

 

meHmCOQmoHHH moumzou COHumHHmon COHuomumHDMm hon .xomHm
mmHuHmon oumemCoEoo ou NHHCCHHOQQO
CumoH ou Eooomum
xoocommm
CmCu Hocuo o>HuCooCH OCquoz NuHHHummHo>
uCoEmOMCmE Cqu QHCmCOHumHmH Coupon xHoZEmou How quCouHommo
m oCm oodexuos Cumuuoh m CHmo H
Howucou .NHHHOCCCN
QHCmCOHumHoH HCHHmmHo>pm
pHo who mmemoz COHumoHCCEEoo Como COHuomumHumm bow .xCHm
mmCHoomE NHCuCoE
oCoxon mpcouxo Emuooud COHudeoHuHmm COHumquooo .QHCmHoUmoH
oumCHpHonomuHomH>umdom ou oouHEHH mmopH
DOC .Qoowm CH oxmu UCC m>HO Hmoom mo COHumquEmHQEH moo Co muCoEuummop
Hocoo CuHs xuos ou >uHCCuH0dQO
NCCQEoo wo
mmmooom who ou omHuHEEoo OCHmo uoC COHuCouum oumemEEH pom mEouH showmmli
mmm>0HQEo COHCC ou mop COHumHHmCHm HCHmOO mCOHquCoo om>0HQEH «pom
mxwmfimm msooCmHHoomHZ omOCoCoxm mEmHH HmCOHquo< mooo
HCoEuHQOO

 

.moHHmCCoHummCO moCHHHHm CmoHHmE< Scum mHCoEEou

H mHQmB

m XHQ2mmm<

196

 

COHuquoHuHmQ man on: HOC oHp

m3 «Hm>oH NCm um no on meo pHoos
omHm oCo oC “COHuom quumCH pom pom
HEoHnoua m uCOQCO omo Hoo muouz m3

ConH>Honm m>HmCoammHCo oCCoum
uom ou mHoHCo> coco m oEoomn pHoou

quumemCOC mH Emumoum CoHomQHoHuHmN

CmHHmuHHocuomulonum
>H0mH>HoQom mxHH u.Cop uuCoEoOmCmE

Nunonuom
.NHHHHomuCoooom .NHHHHmeOQmmm

QHmC
oHooz uH mHmo Como can quEommCmE NH

oHoom Cm
mm UCC HCCUH>HUCH Cm mm pmumouu OCHmm

moon HHmz 60H cH «UHHN

mmommH
omumHounbomCOC ozone COHumEHowCH

HOmH>Honm CHHZ uooucoo momwsoulmomm

xHozfimme

HOHHCOU .NuHHocuod

UCSOHm

.moHn
HnoHH

 

mmeEom moooCmHHoomHz

nmoooaoxm mEmHH HNCOHHH66<

.AU.HCOOV m xHQmemd

opoo
uCoEuHonQ

197

CH sHH: on on OCHCuOC mm: Emumoud
CoHudeoHuHmQ emu oCm HOmH>HmCCm
NE Cqu QHCmCOHumHoH boom m o>mn H

Emmy mQHoC uH NH commoHouCH
NHCo mum deomQ NCmE oou omomomn
OCHxHoz uoc mH ECHOOHQ COHHMQHoHuHmm

mEmeoud
IHSOCOC Co mEHH Coofi oou oCmdm

quddon 0C boo ooh HoumCHoHooo
Emuooum CoHummHoHuHmQ m mm: H

Emumoud

quEuqumo ommnnmmou
ucmauummoo HmmCan
ocefiuwmomo Comm.

moCmEHomuom new CH ooHHm

mEoHooud

NCCQEoo pCmHmHmoCo ou NHHCCHHOQQO .30HH0»

moCoHHooxm

mHoonE Emou ocoEm oOCooCoquHouCH

NHHHHmeCOQmoH Hoodoo ou Comma noHQHom

mEmHhoud

NCCQEoo oCmumHooCo ou NHHCCHHOQQO

 

mxumgmm WDOQCMHHOUmflz

.HU.HCOOV

m

ooOCmcoxm mEmuH HmCOHquo< opoo

xHDmem<

HCmEuHmamO

BIBLI OGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abelson, R.P. 1985. A variance explained paradox:When a
little is a lot. Pyschological Bulletin 97:129-133.

 

Adams, J.S. 1963. Toward an understanding of inequity.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67:422—436.

 

Adams, J.S. 1965. Inequality in social exchange. In Advances
in experimental social psychology, vol.6, edited by L.
Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press.

 

Anthony, W.P. 1978. Participative management.
Readinngddison-Wesley.

 

Arkes, H.R. and C. Blumer. 1985. The psychology of sunk
cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 35:124-140.

 

 

Ashford, S.J. 1986. Feedback-seeking in individual
adaptation: A resource perspective. Academy of
Management Journal 29:465-487.

 

 

Bass, A.R., and I.J. Firestone. 1980. Implications of
representativeness for generalizability of field and
laboratory research findings. American Psychologist
35:463-464.

 

Berger, J., M. Zelditch, B. Anderson, and B. Cohen. 1972.
Structural aspects of distributive justice: A status
value formulation. In Sociological theories in
progress, vol.2, edited by J. Berger, M. Zelditch, and
B. Anderson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

 

Berkowitz, L., and E. Donnerstein. 1982. External validity
is more than skin deep:Some answers to criticisms of
laboratory experiments. American Psychologist 37:245-
257.

Blau, P.M. 1964. Exchange and power in social life. New
York: John Wiley.

Blau, P.M. 1987. Microprocess and macrostructure. In Social
Exchange Theory, edited by K.S.Cook, 83-100. Newbury

 

198

199
Park: Sage Publications, Inc.
Bohman, J. 1991. New philosophy of social science: Problems

of indeterminancy. London and Cambridge: Polity Press
and MIT Press.

 

 

Calder, B.J., L.W. Phillips, and A.M. Tybout. 1983. Beyond
external validity. Journal of Consumer Research 10:112—
114.

 

Campbell, D. and J. Stanley. 1966. Experimental and
quasiexperimental design for research. Chicago: Rand
McNally.

 

 

Carlsmith, J.M., P.C. Ellsworth, and E. Aronson, E. 1976.
Methods of research in socialgpsychology. Reading:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

 

Chalos, P., and S. Haka. 1989. Participative budgeting and
managerial performance. Decision Sciences 20:334-347.

 

Cobb, A.T. 1986. Informal influence in the formal
organization: Psychological and situational correlates.
In Group and organization studies, vol. 11. Newbury
Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

 

Cohen, R.L. 1985. Procedural justice and participation.
Human Relations 38:6433-663. Coleman, J.S. 1990.
Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.

 

 

Coleman, J.S. 1990. Foundations of social theory. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.

 

Coleman, J.S. and T.J. Fararo. 1992. Rational choice theory:
Advocacy and critique. Newbury Park: Sage Publications,
Inc.

 

 

Collins,R. Theoretical sociology. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace,
Jovanovich.

 

Cook T.D. and D.T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation:
Design and analysis issues for field settings. Chicago:
Rand McNally.

 

 

Cook, K.S. and R.M. Emerson. 1978. Power, equity and
commitment in exchange networks. American Sociological
Review 43:721-39.

 

Cook, K. S and R.M. Emerson. 1984. Exchange networks and
the analysis of complex organizations. In Research in
the sociology of organizations, edited by 8.8.

 

 

200
Bachrach. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Cook, K. and T. Parcel. 1977. Equity theory: Directions for
future research. Sociological Inquiry 47:75-88.

 

Cutcher-Gersenfeld, J. 1991. The impact on economic
performance of a transformation in workplace relations.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44:241—260.

 

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

Danserau, F., G. Graen, and B. Haga. 1975. A vertical dyad
linkage approach to leadership within formal
organizations: A longitudinal investigationof the role
making process. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance 13:46-78.

 

Dienesch, R.M. and R.C. Liden. 1986. Leader-member exchange
model of leadership: A critique and further
development. Academny of Management Review 11:618-634.

 

Dittrich, J.E. and M.R. Carrell. 1979. Organizational equity
perceptions, employee job satisfaction, and
departmental absence and turnover rates. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance 24:29-40.

 

 

Drury, D. 1980. Black self—esteem and desegregated schools.
Sociology of Education 53:88-103.

 

Duchon, D., 8.6. Green and T.D. Taber. 1986. Vertical dyad
linkage:A longitudinal assessment of antecedents,
measures, and consequences. Journal of Applied
Psychology 71:56-60.

 

Emerson, R.M. 1962. Power-dependence relations. American
Sociological Review 27:31-41.

 

 

Emerson, R.M. 1972. Exchange theory, part I: A
psychological basis for social exchange. In
Sociological theories in progress, vol.2, edited by J.
Berger and B. Anderson. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Emerson, R.M. 1987. Toward a theory of value in social
exchange. In Social exchange theory, edited by K.S.
Cook. Newbury Park, Sage Publications.

Ferris, G.R. and J.A. Wagner III. 1985. Quality circles in
the United States: A conceptual reevaluation. Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science 21:155-167.

201

Foa, U.G. 1993. Interpersonal and economic resources. In
Resource Theory: Explorations and applications, edited
by U.G. Foa, J. Converse, Jr., K.Y. Tornblom, and E.B.
Foa. San Diego: Academic Press, Inc.

 

French, J.R.P., E. Kay, and H.H. Meyer. 1966. Participation
in the appraisal system. Human Relations 19:3—20.

 

Frost, C.H., J.H. Wakely, and R.A, Ruh. 1974. The Scanlon
plan for organization development: Identity,
participation, and equity. East Lansing: Michigan State
University Press.

 

 

Gillmore, M.R. 1987. Implications of generalized versus
restricted exchange. In Social exchange theory, edited
by K.S. Cook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Gould, R.V. 1993. Collective action and network
structure.American Sociological Review 58:182-196.

Graen, G. and T.A. Scandura. 1987. Toward a psychology of
dyadic organizing. In Research in organizational
behavior, vol. 9, edited by L.L. Cummings and B.M.
Staw. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Greenberg, J. 1988. Equity and workplace status. Journal of
Applied Psychology 73:606-613.

 

Harsanyi, J.C. 1986. Advances in understanding rational
behavior. In Rational choice, edited by J. Elster. New
York: New York University Press.

 

Hausman, D.M. 1995. Rational choice and social theory: A
comment. Journal of Philosophy 92:96-102.

 

Homans, G. C. 1950. The human group. New York: Harcourt,
Brace.

Homans, G.C. 1961. Social behavior: Its elementary forms.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hougton, D. 1995. Reasonable doubts about rational choice.
Philosophy 70:53-68.

 

Hulin, C.L. 1971. Individual differences and job enrichment:
The case against general treatment. In New perspectives
in job enrichment, edited by J.R. Maher. New York: Van
Nostrant-Reinhold.

 

Jago,.A. G.and V.H. Vroom. 1975. Perceptions of leadership
style: Supervisor and subordinate descriptions of
decision making behavior. In Leadership frontiers,

202

edited by L. Larson and J.G. Hunt. Kent: Kent State
University Press.

Kenny, D.A. 1988. Interpersonal perception: A social
relations analysis. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 5:247-261.

 

 

Larrick, R.P., R.E. Nisbett and J.N. Morgan. 1993. Who uses
the cost-benefit rules of choice? Implications for the
normative status of microeconomic theory.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes
56: 331-347.

 

Lawler II, E.B., G.E. Ledford, and S.A. Mohrman, S.A. 1989.
Employee involvement in America: A study of
contemporary practice. Houston: American Productivity
and Quality Center.

 

 

Leanna, C.R. 1986. Predictors and consequences of
delegation. Academy of Management Journal 29:754—774.

 

Leanna, C.R. 1987. Power relinquishment versus power
sharing: Theoretical clarification and empirical
comparison of delegation and participation. Journal of
Applied Psychology 72:228-233.

 

 

Leitko, G., A. Greil and S.A. Peterson, S.A. 1985. Lessons
at the bottom: Worker nonparticipation in labor
management committees as situational adjustment. Work
and Occupations 12:285-306.

 

Levi-Strauss, C. 1969. The elementary structures of kinship.
(rev. ed.) Boston: Beacon.

Liden, R.C. and G.E. Graen. 1980. Generalizability of the
vertical dyad linkage model of leadership. Academy of
Management Journal 23:451—465.

 

 

Likert, R.L. 1967. The human organization. New York: McGraw-
Hill.

 

Locke, E.A. and D.M. Schweiger. 1979. Participation in
decision-making: One last look. In Research in
organizational behavior, Vol.1. Greenwich: JAI Press.

 

 

Maier, N.R.F. 1963. Problem solving discussion and
conferences: Leadership methods and skills. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Major, B., and M. Testa. 1989. Social comparison processes
and judgments of entitlement and satisfaction. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology 25: 101-120.

203

Major, B., and B. Forcey. 1985. Social comparisons and pay
evaluations: Preferences for same-sex and same-job wage
comparisons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
21:393-405.

 

Markovsky, B., J. Skvoretz, D. Willer, M.J. Lovaglia and J.
Erger. 1993. The seeds of weak power: An extension of
network exchange theory. American Sociological Review
58:197-209.

 

Markovsky, B., D. Willer and T. Patton. 1988. Power
relations in networks. American Sociological Review
53:220-36.

 

Mason, R.M. 1982. Participatory and workplace democracy: A
theoretical development in critique of liberalism.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

 

 

Mauss, M. 1966. The gift: Forms and functions of exchange in
archaic societies. London: Cohen and West.

 

McCarthy, S. 1989. The dilemma of non-participation. In
International handbook of participation in
organizations, vol.1, edited by C.J. Lammers and G.
Szell. Great Britain: Bookcraft, Ltd.

 

McGregor, D. 1960. The human side of enterprise. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

 

Melcher, A.J. 1976. Participation: A critical review of
research findings. Human Resource Management 15:12-21.

 

Miller, K.I. and P.R. Monge. 1986. Participation,
satisfaction, and productivity: A meta-analytic review.
Academy of Management Journal 29:727—753.

 

Mishan, E.J. 1976. Cost-benefit analysis. New York: Praeger.

Monge, P.R. and E.M. Eisenberg. 1987. Emergent communication
networks. In Handbook of organizational communication,
edited by F.M. Jablin, L.L. Putnam, K.H. Roberts, and
L.W. Porter. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Monge, P.R. and K.I.Miller. 1988. Participative processes in
organizations. In Handbook of organizational
communication, edited by G.A. Barnett and G.M.
Goldhaber. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

 

Morgan, J.N. and G.J. Duncan. 1982. Making your choices
count: Economic_principles for everyday decisions. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

204

Mowday, R.T. 1991. Equity theory predictions of behavior in
organizations. In Motivation and work behavior, edited
by R. Steers and L. Porter. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 

Oldham, G.R., C.T. Kulik, L.P. Stepina, and M.L. Ambrose.
1986. Relations between situational factors and the
comparative referents used by employees. Academy of
Management Journal 29:599-608.

 

 

Ostroff, C. 1993. The effects of climate and personal
influences on individual behavior and attitudes in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 56:56-90.

 

 

Pennings, J.M. and J.Woiceshyn, J. 1987. A typology of
organizational control and its metaphors. In Research
in the sociology of organizations, vol.5, edited by N.
DiTomaso and S.B. Bachrach. Greenwich: JAI Press.

 

Pfeffer, J. and G.R. Salancik. 1978. The external control of
organizations: A resource dependence perspective. New
York: Harper and Row.

 

 

Rousseau, D.M. and J.M. Parks. 1993. The contracts of
individuals and organizations. In Research in
organizational behavior, vol. 15, edited by B.M. Staw
and L.L. Cummings. Greenwich: JAI Press.

 

 

Satz, D. and J. Ferejohn. Rational choice and social theory.
Journal of Philosophy 91:71—87.

 

Schneider, B. 1983. Interactional psychology and
organizational behavior. In Research in organizational
behavior, vol. 5, edited by L.L. Cummings and B.M.
Staw. Greenwich: JAI Press.

 

Schneider, B. and A. Reichers. 1983. On the etiology of
climates. Personnel Psychology 36:19-40.

 

Singer, J.N. 1974. Participative decision-making about work:
An overdue look at variables which mediate its effects.
Sociology of Work and Occupations 1:347-371.

 

St. John, N. 19975. School desegregation: Outcomes for
children. New York:Wiley.

 

Staw, B.M. 1975. Attribution of the causes of performance: A
general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional
research on organizations. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance 13:414-432.

 

Staw, B.M. 1986. Beyond the control graph: Steps toward a

205

model of perceived control in organizations. In
International yearbook of organizational democracy,
vol.3, edited by R.N. Stern and S. McCarthy.
Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

 

Stolte, J.E. 1987. Legitimacy, justice and productive
exchange. In Social exchange theory, edited by K.S.
Cook. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

 

Stolte, J.F. 1990. Power processes in structures of
dependence and exchange. Advances inggroup processes,
vol. 7. Greenwich: JAI Press.

 

Stouffer, S.A., E.A. Suchman, L.C. DeVinney, S.A. Star, and
R.M. Williams, Jr. 1949. The American soldier:
Adjustment during army life, vol. 1. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.

 

 

Tunnel, G.E. 1977. Three dimensions of naturalness: An
expanded definition of field research. Psychological
Bulletin 84:426-437.

 

Tversky, A. and D. Kahneman. 1986. Rational choice and the
framing of decisions. Journal of Business 59: 251-278.

 

Vroom, V.H. 1960. Some personality determinants of the
effects of participation. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall.

 

Vroom, V.H., and A.G. Jago. 1974. Decision making as a
social process: Normative and descriptive models of
leader behavior. Decision Sciences 5:743-769.

 

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

 

Wagner, J. A. 1994. Participation's effects on performance
and satisfaction: A reconsideration of research
evidence. Academy of Management Review 19:312-330.

Walster, E.H., G.W. Walster and E. Berscheid. 1978. Equity
theory and research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

 

Walton, R.E. and R.B. McKersie. 1991. A behavioral theory of
labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction
system. Ithaca: ILR Press.

Yammarino, F.J., and T.J. Naughton. 1992. Individual and
group-based views of participation in decision making.
Group and Organization Management 17:398-413.

206

Yin, R.K. 1989. Case study research: Design and methods.

 

Newbury Park: Sage Publications, Inc.

”will!IL)Willi/(Ill!I!!!”II/III)!!!”fill/(III!!!(I