THESlI This is to certify that the thesis entitled PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP AS A DETERMINANT OF IDEA/ SUGGEST ION GENERATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL SIMULATION presented by Richard A. Steinberg has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Pho Do degree in PSYChOlogy daze/Wm ‘ bar professor Date June 5, 1981 0-7639 llllllll \l\\\\\\\\\l\\l\|l\l\lllllllllllll “ll 3 1293 10386 6913 RETURNING MATERIALS: IV1£31_) Place in book drop to I R remove this checkout from w your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP AS A DETERMINANT OF IDEA/SUGGESTION GENERATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL SIMULATION BY Richard A. Steinberg A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1981 giapu§.flmu.fl.l.r . - -. . e (I???) ABSTRACT PARTICIPATIVE LEADERSHIP AS A DETERMINANT OF IDEA/SUGGESTION GENERATION: AN EXPERIMENTAL SIMULATION BY Richard A. Steinberg Participative decision-making (PDM) has been a topic of interest in the organizational behavior/organization development literature for many years. Most researchers have examined the relationship of a participative style of leadership or decision-making and satisfaction and/or productivity. Relatively little thought has been given to a certain type of innovative behavior, i.e., the generation of task-related ideas and suggestions, as a possibly benefi- cial outcome of such a participative style. Another little- researched, but important aspect of PDM is the effect of a formal, prescribed PDM system (e.g., the Scanlon Plan) on such innovative behavior. This dissertation examines the impact of two variables on the idea-generating behavior of work-group members: first, style of leadership and decision- making; and second, the presence or absence of a formal PDM system. It was predicted first, that a participative style gasmopposed_toranwanthoritarianlstylemwouldmresultiinumore Richard A. Steinberg task-relatedridea_ggne£§tign, and second, that the presence, W wen 1d,-.re. sult. sinlmore_ taskarelated- -Qijjpmmalfluisxstem idea eneration than not having such a system. One hundred twenty undergraduate subjects were assigned to 40 groups. Each group worked on a simulated manufacturing task. Groups were supervised by either a trained partici- pative or authoritarian leader. Also, half of the groups worked in a formal participation system condition. Verbal .ideasrandmsuggestionsfljiie.,winnovative_behaYiermwene __recorded-be£ore ._dur.i-.n gin, Qflijfleritheiexperimentm. writtenrideasiandisuggestions.were.gatheredninmresearch questionnaire 5 -, admit bis}; Er 322929. -EQJanetiQn. .errheraskf- Analysis- of . var iance o f ,1;th 901W??? ”9;- "Vegboalrflggestions indicatediaigreater_numberrofrsuggestionsmwerempredueedwin ‘thewparticipatiyewccnditicns, but_the,difference_betfleen figmkaqnuLJntdkumEflH4Eu3QJfl4EufiruLrpxwfiny4uutrmnméifié4fie= cant. None of the effects were significant for the analy- sis on written suggestions. Discussion focuses primarily on why certain aspects of a participative style of leadership and decision-making are conducive to the verbal provision of task-related ideas and suggestions by work-group members. Limitations on the interpretation of findings and implications for organi- zations are also discussed. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S Many thanks are due those who graciously gave their time and effort to assist me with this research. Dr. Neal Schmitt, committee chairperson, provided assistance well above and beyond the call of duty, as he took time during his sabbatical year to guide my disserta- tion. It has been a privilege to consider Neal as both an excellent teacher and friend. Dr. Mary Zalesny is to be thanked for her consistently helpful ideas and valuable feedback, her "Open-door" policy, her sense of humor and her friendship. She helped to make the pressures of the dissertation much easier to take. Dr. Robert Davis always provided insightful comments and offered different perspectives on issues. Dr. Lorraine Uhlaner encouraged me to pay attention to important details that might otherwise have gone un- noticed. Rand Gottschalk served both as a consultant and close friend. He unselfishly and patiently gave much of his time to teach me what I needed to know about the computer and statistics, and to drive me to softball games and other places. I am eternally grateful. ii Special thanks are due my nine independent study students who spent countless hours, days, and weeks helping to prepare for and conduct this study. In addition, Mike DuPuis, Bob McAlpine, and Tom Russian did most of the monotonous data coding. Finally, there are those who, while not directly involved with the dissertation, provided the love, support, warmth, encouragement and inspiration needed to pull me through this endeavor: The Milford House pe0p1e and Associates (past and present), Joanie, and, of course, my family. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW . . . Participative Decision-Making (PDM) . . Innovation in Organization . . . . . Innovation in Innovation-Resisting Organizations . . . . . . . . Innovation in Innovation-Producing Organizations . . . . . . . . A Model of Organizational Innovation . The Relationship of PDM to the Amount of Innovation in Organizations . . . . Participative Climate, Leadership Style and Innovation. . . . . . . . Formal PDM and Innovation: The Scanlo Plan 0 O O C O O C O O O O I I 0 METHOD 0 I O O O O O O O O O 0 Independent Variables. . Leadership Training . . . Experimental Task . . . . Dependent Variables . . . Subjects . . . . . . . Procedure. . . . . . . . Recording Verbal Idea/Suggestions. . . COding. O O O O O O O Debriefing . . . . . . Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . iv Page vi vii 12 12 15 18 Chapter III 0 RESULTS 0 O I O O O O O O O O O O Manipulation Check. . . . . . . . . Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . Verbal Idea/Suggestions . . Written Idea/Suggestions. . . . Univariate Analysis of Variance with Consideration Adjusted as a Covariate. . IV. DISCUSSION 0 O O O O O O O O C O O The Participative-Authoritarian Leadership Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . Verbal Suggestions . . . . . . . . Written Suggestions. . . . . . . . The Formal-No Formal Participation System DimenSion I O O O O O O O O O 0 Limitations on Interpretation of Findings . Implications for Organizations. . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. Task Directions . . . . . . . . . . B. Additional Standards and Rules for Production TaSk O O O O O O I O O O O O O O C. (Part 1) Task Questionnaire . . . . . . C. (Part 2) Idea/Suggestion Form. . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O O O O O O O O O Page 54 54 58 58 59 59 62 62 62 66 68 72 74 77 78 83 84 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Means and F-ratios for Manipulation Check Items . 57 2. Intercorrelations of Dependent Variables . . . 59 3. Means and Standard Deviations for Amount of Verbal and Written Idea/Suggestions for All Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 4. Analysis of Variance on Verbal and Written Idea/Suggestions. . . . . . . . . . . 60 vi Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Continuum of Leadership Behavior . . A Process Model of Major Hypothesized Effects of Certain Aspects of PDM on Innovative Behavior . . . . . . . . . A Process Model of Hypothesized Relationships among Formal SP Participation, Employee Perceptions of PDM, and Innovative Behavior. Graphic Representation of Predictions vii Page 20 38 39 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW Participative Decision-Making (PDM) Participative decision-making has been a topic of great interest in the organizational behavior/organizational development literature for at least three decades prior to the 19803 (e.g., Nicol, 1948; Lawrence & Smith, 1955; Lowin, 1968; and Dachler & Wilpert, 1978). However, there appear to be as many definitions and names of "participative decision-making" in this literature as there are writers about the tOpic. Dachler and Wilpert (1978) called atten- tion to many other labels which appear to designate content areas similar to PDM: industrial democracy, worker self- management, power equalization, autonomous work groups, and democratic leadership. In addition, the authors accurately point out that ". . . the term participation has a variety of meanings across investigators" (p. 1). Due to both the variety of labels and definitions utilized in the literature and the fact that some of the authors cited in this paper did not provide explicit definitions of participation, the Tannenbaum and Schmidt (1973) "Continuum of Leadership Behavior" will be used as a point of reference (see Figure l). The continuum presents a range of possible leadership behavior available to a manager. On one extreme is the manager who maintains a high degree of control over decision-making (the authori- tarian or autocratic manager). At the other extreme is the manager who gives a high degree of control over decision- making to subordinates. The studies cited in this paper that claim to use or that refer to participative decision- making comfortably fit in the area of the more subordinate- centered leadership, i.e., the area denoted by the three categories to the extreme right. References to authoritarian or autocratic leadership comfortably fit in the area of the more manager-centered leadership, i.e., generally in the area of the two categories to the extreme left. The impor- tant point to keep in mind, then, as Tannenbaum and Schmidt indicate by reference to their continuum, is that the extent of participation in decision-making is not an either-or phenomenon. Rather, it is a matter of degree. Subordinate-centered Boss-centered ‘ leaderahrp 4._> Use of authority by the manager Area of freedom for aubordinarea Malger Mazager Majager Manager Manager Manager Manager makes "aella" preaenra preaeura preaenta defines perrmra decision deeraion. ideas and remarlve problem. hams, subordinates and invuea deciaion geu aaka group to function announce: queauom. subject to auggeariona, to make amhm lrmm it. change. make: decraron. defined by deciaron. superior. Figure l. Continuum of Leadership Behavior (Adapted from Tannenbaum and Schmidt, 1973). Past research on participation has not been grounded solely in one leadership perspective. For example, some researchers have used a decision-making perspective (e.g., Lowin, 1968; Vroom & Yetton, 1973; Locke & Schweiger, 1979) while others have used a problem-solving approach (e.g., Hoffman & Maier, 1961; Maier, 1952). These leadership perspectives, and perhaps others, reflect what might be called a leadership climate for participation. McGregor (1960) and Likert (1961) are two theorists who have dis- cussed such a concept. For example, a leader's or manager's role prescriptions in McGregor's Theory Y would stress democratic procedures and participative decision-making, and their importance in develOping a climate in which human potential of idea generation, problem-solving, and creativity are maximized. Likert's participative-group system (i.e., System 4) attempts to foster a participative climate through highly cohesive groups, involving the groups in the decision- making process, and then establishing high goals through those groups. Thus, perhaps the concept of participation should not be thought of as emerging from, or best discussed from, any one perspective. Rather, drawing from various leader- ship frameworks, including participative decision-making and problem-solving styles, helps to form an overall climate for participation. Of the research that has been conducted on decision- making, some of it has been normative or prescriptive in nature. Of the work in this area, Vroom and Yetton's (1973) theory is the most widely known. Basically, it identifies the styles or strategies Of decision-making that should be used by managers in solving problems that have specific attributes. These strategies range from highly autocratic (no subordinate involvement) to highly partici- pative (full subordinate collaboration in decision-making). The bulk Of the research on PDM, however, has been gener- ally non-prescriptive in nature. Of this research, Lowin's work is particularly noteworthy. Lowin noted that the varied research tactics and findings regarding PDM make it clear that PDM is too complex a phenomenon tO be "proved or disproved," and, as a result, intervening or mediating variables in the PDM process have garnered more attention (as Lowin felt they should). Lowin also deveIOped a model Of organizational PDM which concentrated on PDM as "social equilibrium." He then contrasted PDM (defined by Lowin as "a mode Of organiza- tional Operations in which decisions as tO activities are arrived at by the very persons who are to execute those decisions"), with the more traditional hierarchical (HIER) mode Of Operations "in which decision and action functions are segregated in the authority structure" (p. 69). Lowin felt that no complex organization could ever totally Operate at either extreme Of the scale, i.e., it could neither Operate on a purely PDM principle, nor could it totally remove decision-making functions from its other activities. Both Of these areas emphasized by Lowin, i.e., the impor- tance Of intervening variables in the PDM process and the PDM-HIER dimension, will be examined later in the context Of the proposed research. Many Of the researchers in the PDM area have implicitly assumed on an a priori basis that PDM is "good." Then, the effect Of PDM on certain variables--almost always producti- vity or satisfaction--was ascertained. The implicit assumption Of the "goodness" Of PDM has not been held by all researchers however. For example, Locke and Schweiger (1979), who define PDM as "joint decision-making" in an extensive review of the literature, take issue with the ideological arguments that have been made for PDM, and attempt to treat it as a practical issue--i.e., that PDM should be promoted only if its use will increase organiza— tional efficiency. They examined the literature on the effects Of PDM on productivity and satisfaction, finding "equivocal" support for both relationships. However, support was stronger for the "PDM leads tO satisfaction Of employees" idea. (Satisfaction, according to the authors, would likely not pass muster anyway as a "practical" out- come.) Similar results have been noted in other extensive reviews Of the PDM literature. First, Anderson (1959), examining the studies comparing democratic (PDM) and authoritarian approaches to teaching, found democratic approaches to be generally more favorable with respect to a morale (i.e., satisfaction) criterion, but found nO trend with respect to a learning criterion; and Stogdill (1974) concluded that PDM usually led to higher morale (i.e., satisfaction) than directive leadership, but did not necessarily lead tO higher performance. Despite the presence Of occasional papers like Lowin (1968) and Dachler and Wilpert (1978) discussed above, the focus Of past PDM literature, both prO and con, has been mainly on resulting satisfaction and productivity, or lack thereof. Relatively little thought has been given to other possible outcomes Of PDM. One of these "neglected" out- comes is innovation in organizations. The possibility exists that the effects Of PDM on the development Of inno- vations in organizations might be a smaller, more logical conceptual leap than that from PDM to increased producti- vity. In other words, innovative behavior may serve as one link between PDM and productivity. This research is an attempt to "capture" the variables Of interest (PDM and innovative behavior) and test their relationship in a controlled setting, i.e., through the use Of an experimental simulation. The experimental simulation will allow for the simulation Of a manufacturing task, while Offering the added advantage Of experimental control of the important independent variables--a condition not Often found when conducting research in field settings. Specifically, this research will test the idea that the presence Of a participative style Of leadership will increase the amount Of innovative behavior (defined for the purposes Of this research as the amount Of task-related ideas and suggestions generated) by work groups. Also tested will be the idea that the presence Of a formal, prescribed system Of PDM will facilitate innovative be- havior. Innovation in Organizations The study Of organizational innovation, unlike the study Of PDM, is a much more recent phenomenon, with the bulk Of the research occurring in the last 15 years. One reason for the recent surge has been the belated realiza- tion by researchers that previous discussions and models Of innovation were much.more appropriate for individual rather than organizational innovation (Radnor, Feller, & Rogers, 1978; Warner, 1974). Innovation in an organization is defined here as "any idea, practice, or material artifact perceived to be new by the relevant unit Of adOption" (Zaltman, Duncan, & Holbek, 1973). By this definition, the organization, or its members, can be innovative without necessarily being inventive--taking into account the value Of both "inventing" ideas, and adapting "pre-invented" ideas to their situation --both considered to be "innovation." Zaltman, Duncan, and Holbek, following this line Of thought, felt that the dis- tinguishing characteristic Of an innovation is the per- ception by a social unit Of its newness, rather than it being an external Object. Thus, according to the authors, a practice that is an innovation for one organization is not necessarily an innovation for another. Innovations may be concerned with five aspects Of organization. Four of these, according tO Knight (1967) are: first, innovations that pertain to the product or services performed by the organization (e.g., the decision Of a firm to enter a new market); second, innovations that are production-process oriented (e.g., automated assembly lines), which involve some type Of changes in either the task systems Of the organization or in its physical pro- duction Operations; third, organizational-structure innova- tions (e.g., decentralizing decision-making); and fourth, peOple innovations (e.g., interpersonal skills training for supervisors). The above-mentioned aspects would seem to be highly inter-related such that implementing an innovation successfully on one aspect probably would depend on changes in the other aspects. Zaltman et a1. (1973) added another aspect to Knight's classification, that dealing with policy innovations, which involves major changes in the organization's strategies for achieving its major Objectives, and which the authors felt "is a sufficient but not necessary condition preceding any other type of change" (p. 15). The authors provide a health-field example Of this type Of innovation, noting the decision Of some family planning groups tO use monetary incentives tO encourage the practice Of birth-control by individuals and couples. In addition to writings on the types Of organizational innovations, as with the Knight article discussed above, researchers and writers have examined the types Of organi- zations most likely to innovate (e.g., Thompson, 1965; Shepard, 1967; Knight, 1967). Thompson (1965) studied the characteristics Of the traditional, bureaucratic form Of organization, and found it to be poorly suited for innovation. With their conser- vative orientation, bureaucratic organizations are likely to see novel solutions, which may use resources in a new way, as threatening. The internal distribution Of power and status assumes a greater importance than organizational goal accomplishment tO those with a bureaucratic orientation. This converts the organization into a system where politics determines who gets these extrinsic rewards (Burns & Stalker, 1961). The initial reaction to suggested changes and new ideas is likely to be, "How does it affect us"--with politi- cal interests and not organizational goals behind the question. Thompson feels, then, that the expectations Of consequences upon which these organizations base their decisions to change, or innovate, are strongly influenced by these same political interests. New ideas are seen as speculative and thus are especially dangerous to personal goals--particu1arly the goals Of status and power. Thus, according tO Thompson, bureaucratic organizations, which 10 are structured around these extrinsic goals, are not likely to be highly innovative. An innovative organization requires uncommitted re- sources, a diversity Of inputs, freedom from excessive external pressures, structural looseness, and the use Of group processes. Instead Of income, power, and status--the common extrinsic organizational rewards--positive feelings are Obtained from the search for innovative ideas, pro- fessional growth, and the esteem Of respected peers. These rewards are seen as more conducive tO innovation. Also, an innovative organization will display less control by superiors and more by self and peers. In addition, power and influence will be more broadly dispersed, the rationale being that concentrated influence and power Often prevent imaginative solutions to problems by limiting the number Of employees who have the Opportunity to contribute ideas. When discussing the structural requirements for innova- tive organizations, Thompson notes that the structural looseness required consists Of freer communications and more decentralized decision-making than is customary. Further- more, group processes will be more frequently used. All Of these will result in more and better interpersonal communi- cation (i.e., between peers, subordinate and supervisor, etc.) which.may facilitate innovation by increasing the amount and diversity Of input Of ideas and stimulation. Finally, Thompson makes a statement that is quite consistent with the philosophy of humanistic theorists (e.g., McGregor, 11 1960; Likert, 1967), and organization develOpment processes like the Scanlon Plan. Thompson writes that, "the innova- tive organization is innovative throughout and the innova- tive insights Of the engineer, the research scientist, the machine tender, the administrative expert are all needed" (p. 29) . The contrasts between traditional bureaucratic condi- tions and innovative requirements as seen by Thompson are quite substantial. If, in the United States, a shift to more innovative forms Of organization is desired, extensive changes in the attitudes Of organization leaders would probably be needed. This inference would result from the past and current dominance Of the bureaucratic organization in the United States. Shepard (1967) also discussed the problem Of innovative organizational conditions in a paper on innovative-producing and innovative-resisting organizations. He felt that most organizations have been designed to be innovation resisting, that is, to dO a narrowly prescribed list Of things in a reliable manner. TO maintain this reliable repetition Of prescribed Operations, strong defenses against innovation are required by the organization. Shepard writes: Efforts to innovate must be relegated to the cate- gories Of error, irresponsibility, and insubordina- tion, and apprOpriate corrective action taken to bring the would-be innovators "back in line." Any change is likely tO run counter to certain vested interests and tO violate certain territorial rights. Sentiments Of vested interest and territorial rights are sanctified as delegations Of legitimate authority 12 in traditional organizations, thus guaranteeing quick and effective counteraction against disturbances. (pp. 143-144) Innovation in Innovation- Resisting Organizations Innovative ideas, according to Shepard, would most likely occur to persons who are somewhat familiar with the situation(s) to which the idea would apply. This point is in agreement with the writings Of others (Knight, 1967; March & Simon, 1958). The implication is that most new ideas would probably arise at some distance from the power center Of the organization. New ideas are efficiently screened out Of the upward communication flow, since, as mentioned previously, they are considered "disturbances." Because decision-making power and authority are at the tOp levels Of the organization, it is almost a necessity for an idea to have tOp-level support if it is to become an innovation. In order to innovate in an innovation-resisting organization, the innovator may have to resort to such maneuvers as concealing the innovation from the rest Of the organization, avoiding major innovations, and acquiring a critical mass Of support, i.e., from internal and external sources. Innovation in Innovation- Producing Organizations People in these organizations may continuously learn, adapt to organizational and environmental changes, and successfully innovate in that environment. According to l3 Shepard, one important characteristic Of this type of organi- zation is periodicity, i.e., a capacity to use alternating organizational forms. For example, at the idea-generation phase Of the innovation process, Openness is needed in the organization so that a wide diversity Of persons can contri- bute, and so that a number of Options can be examined. At the implementation stage, a very different quality (e.g., singleness of purpose) may be needed, and so on. Those in the innovation-producing organization also attempt tO provide an environment in which persons feel that they can grow and achieve--seek tO "self-actualize" if you will. According to Shepard: This means a climate in which members can view one another as resources rather than competitive threats or judges; a climate Of Openness and mutual support in which differences can be confronted and worked through, and in which feedback on performance is a mutual responsibility among members so that all can learn to contribute more. Such an environment is difficult to provide, since it is at variance with traditional management doctrine. (p. 149) Consistent with the view Of providing an environment in which higher-order needs (e.g., feelings Of achievement) may be met, Knight (1967) also stressed the importance Of the environment in fostering innovative behavior. Knight cites "Gresham's Law" Of planning--routine drives out planning--as implying that a person is not likely tO be innovative when deeply involved in a very highly routine activity: 14 He is not likely to question his existing behavior and, therefore is unlikely to be creative. This indicates that an organization which keeps employees immersed in very routine activities is not likely to be a very creative one. (p. 481) The author goes on tO hypothesize that the attraction and development Of more creative (innovative) peOple will occur in organizations that "reward people for creative ideas, allow freedom to select and pursue problems, provide Open communication channels, and encourage different and unusual points Of view. . . ." It is quite apparent from the discussion Of Thompson (1965), Shepard (1967), and Knight (1967) that if organiza- tions desire tO move tO a more innovative form, a different type Of internal climate might be required. In the present context, "climate" refers tO general aspects Of an organiza- tion that tend to condition members Of the organization tO either accept or reject innovative behavior as a norm Of the organization. Because most bureaucratic organizations have been designed to assure reliability in performance, their internal climates suppress, rather than promote, innovative behavior. The acceptance (and encouragement) Of innovative behavior as an organizational norm would require an internal climate consistent with that norm. Despite the above and other writings about innovation, Tornatzky, ROitman, Boylan, Carpenter, Eveland, Hetzner, Lucas, and Schneider (1981) still found the innovation process literature, as a whole, tO be pervaded by uncer— tainty: 15 The act, and the process Of innovating is clearly one that involves grappling with unknowns. These unknowns or uncertainties may be technological, economic, or merely the manifestation Of personal and social variables. (p. 3) The same authors felt that it would be a "strategic and intellectual error" tO limit the analysis Of innovation to variables other than organizational variables (e.g., societal or individual levels), noting that "organizations involved in innovation are inevitably involved in controlling the uncertainties Of that process" (p. 3). A Model Of Organizational Innovation One way tO gain some degree Of control over the uncer- tainties Of the innovation process is to present a framework from which the process Of innovation might be explained. Yin (1978) presented four such frameworks: the Research, DevelOpment and Diffusion (R, D & D) approach, the Social Interaction approach, the Innovative Organizations approach, and the Organizational Change approach. Yin felt that only one Of these approaches, the Organizational Change approach, was most appropriate to describe the innovation process in organizations. The R, D & D approach to innovation, which covers the macro system that produces, markets, and implements new technology, views the innovative process from a multi- institutional point Of view. The steps include conducting basic research (the research component), develOping specific innovations to be applied to service problems (the develop- ment component) and communicating these innovations to 16 potential users (the diffusion component). Also included in the adOption, that is, the final installation and imple- mentation, Of an innovation. The major problem with this approach is that it contains a perspective biased towards the external environment Of the innovating organization. Thus, this approach seems to emphasize the production and diffusion Of new R & D products in the marketplace more than emphasizing potentially critical conditions and events within the innovating organization. The Social Interaction (Diffusion) approach concerns situations where individuals adopt specific innovations. Essentially, this perspective emphasizes that individuals learn about innovation from other adOpters, which creates a communication network through which innovation-related information passes. Thus an essential part of the adoption process is the social interactions, or communications, among individuals. The major disadvantage Of this approach is its primary concern with the behavior Of individuals, rather than the behavior Of individuals as part Of the innovative process in organizations. The Innovative Organizations approach attempts to identify the essential aspects Of innovative organizations, i.e., those characteristics shared by innovative organiza- tions. This approach, however, has never clearly eXplained how organizations change over time (i.e., process aspects). The Organizational Change approach deals with what happens in an organization as it undergoes change. The 17 process Of innovation is viewed simply as a type Of organi- zational change. Basically, the process involves four stages (Hage & Aiken, 1970): l. The prior state Of the organization before change, in which dissatisfaction or a sense Of Opportunity may arise, and there is a recognition Of the need for change. 2. Initiation, or the process Of planning for specific changes and identifying the resources to be used and procedures to be followed. 3. Implementation, or the actual occurrence Of change when the plan becomes a reality, and during which unanticipated responses may occur. 4. Routinization, or the establishment Of the new changes as a stable and normal part Of organiza- tional procedures and behavior. As Yin pointed out, different authors have applied the same basic conceptual framework in numerous studies, using different labels for the stages (e.g., Lewin's (1947) "un- freezing," "change," and "refreezing" match the last three stages.) Yin further notes that the process occurs constantly in virtually every organization, and that managerial initia- tives such as planned change or organizational development rest on "the premise that a chronic capacity for change is a desirable state Of affairs for most organizations" (e.g., Bennis, Benne, & Chin, 1969). It is partially upon this premise--i.e., that a capacity for change is desirable for most organizations--that, later in this paper, a link will be established in the present research between the concept of innovation and the Scanlon Plan, a management process 18 which promotes and encourages change (and which includes participation in decision-making as one Of its core prin- ciples). The Relationship Of PDM to the Amount Of Innovation in Organizations Participative Climate, Leadership Style and Innovation Theoretically, participation in decision-making should influence the amount Of innovation in an organization. Basically, participative management provides an increased Opportunity for workers to participate in those decisions directly affecting their lives at work. More decisions are made at organizational levels closer to the areas Of organi— zational functioning that would be affected by the decisions. A major goal Of this style Of leadership is improved decision-making, although improvements in organizational structure, work procedures, and group process Often result (Cummings & Molloy, 1977). These improvements may take the form Of increased interactions among employees and their supervisors, peers, and subordinates for the purpose Of discussing and resolving work-related procedures and issues (i.e., a more Open communication system); a more accepting and less critical attitude in the organization regarding input (ideas, suggestions, Opinions, etc.) from employees; and, a greater Opportunity for employees to fulfill higher- Order, intrinsic needs. The belief here is that the increased interaction and discussion Of work-related 19 procedures and issues provided by PDM increases the Oppor- tunity for innovation merely by chance alone, i.e., the greater the amount Of work-related interaction that takes place, the greater the chance that innovative ideas will arise from this interaction (Tornatzky et a1., 1981; Hoffman & Maier, 1961). This, coupled with the belief that a more Open and less critical atmosphere, ideally provided by PDM, will lessen the inhibitions that an employee may have about expressing an idea (i.e., an innovation) regarding a work- related procedure or process (Likert, 1967; Lowin, 1968), lends credence to the hypothesis that a participative system will facilitate the development Of innovative behavior in organizations. In addition, the satisfaction Of certain higher-order needs (e.g., a sense Of accomplishment, achieve- ment) that might accrue from the consideration Of one's inputs into the decision-making process (Argyris, 1957; Likert, 1961), may, along with these other factors, produce a participative climate conducive tO more innovative ideas and behavior from employees (see Figure 2). Some research has been conducted which considers the relationship between PDM and innovation. This research has been conducted in non-industrial settings (e.g., Tornatzky, Fergus, Avellar, & Fairweather, 1981; Fairweather, Sanders, & Tornatzky, 1974; Hage & Aiken, 1967), and the researchers typically report a positive relationship. Hage and Aiken (1967), in a study Of welfare organi- zations, found a positive relationship between PDM and the 20 .HOH>msom o>Hpm>occH co Sam mo mpoommd cfimuuoo mo muoommm omuflmoauommm Home: mo Hoooz mmooonm d .N musmflm momma Hmpuorumnmfln hmmflumm Op wuflnsuuommo Oo>wooumm ATllll muonEoE HOCOflu rmNflcmmHO an .mGOMDmmm mauve Omuwaourxuo3 \ ouonmmOEum Imam pom mmmOH woumamu ATIIll mafimmmumxm usonm A HMOfluHuo mmmH .cmmo whoa rxuoz ..m.wv How>moon mcofluwnflncfl wmoH m>flpm>ocsfl commouocw moommfl Uoumaourxuo3 mo cowmmsomwo paw :Oflpomumuafl OHOE Sam mo muoommm :Houuoo 21 rate Of program change, and a negative relationship between more hierarchical authority and program change. Fairweather, Sanders, and Tornatzky (1974) conducted a four-year, nationwide study attempting tO find the para- meters Of social change in mental health organizations. Two hundred fifty-five state and federal psychiatric hospitals in the 0.8. were involved. The purpose Of the study was to persuade them to adopt the "community lodge" as an innova- tive treatment program. This method had previously been established as a valid and helpful mental health program. A strong and recurrent relationship was found between PDM and the degree Of change Observed in the hospitals. The authors noted that a clear and consistent finding was "the degree to which involvement across disciplines, across social status levels, and with more groups, produced greater change." Mindful Of the importance Of some degree Of PDM, they further added that, "(I)t is abundantly clear that change does not emanate from unilateral decisions-~even though they might emanate from the top." As a follow-up tO the Fairweather et al. (1974) study, Tornatzky et a1. (1981) tested the general hypothesis that broad-based PDM in organizations will result in a greater likelihood Of movement towards implementation Of an organi- zational innovation (i.e., the "community lodge"). Speci- fically, three hypotheses were Offered. First, attempting to manipulate the breadth Of involvement (the number Of peOple) in early decision-making relative to the innovation, 22 the authors hypothesized that "the more peOple involved in early initiation decisions, the more likely decisions for innovation will result." Second, manipulating the guality and intensity Of group discussion and interaction relative to the innovation, they hypothesized "(T)he more discussion and interaction relative to the innovation, the more likely decisions for innovation will result." In addition to manipulating the number Of people involved in decision- making, and the intensity Of involvement in decision-making, they also attempted to vary the organizational roles and status of those involved in decision-making relative to the innovation. Specifically, the researchers hypothesized that "(G)reater involvement of non-administrators would more likely yield decisions for innovation." The study used 108 psychiatric hospitals. Some Of the key findings Of the study were that methods to increase participation which focused on process (i.e., altering the intensity and frequency Of interaction) pro- duced a greater degree of perceived participation by organi- zation members, and that felt (or perceived) participation seemed to be correlated with implementing an innovation. In addition, techniques to increase PDM which focused on organizational framework more typically produced a decision for innovation. These findings led the authors to conclude that a continued focus on the relationship between organi- zational processes and decision-making, and innovation, 23 seemed warranted. As a summative, "generic hypothesis" for their research, Tornatzky et a1. felt that: (C)hange and innovation without human contact, and interpersonal interaction, is not likely tO be either beneficial or complete. Conversely, if change agents, and dissemination programs, can facilitate a greater magnitude Of interaction, and discussion, in organiza- tions involved in innovation then perhaps there will be a higher probability Of the innovation process proceeding to a successful conclusion. (p. 192) The results Of the three studies discussed above, despite an indication that a relationship exists between PDM and innovation, should still be viewed cautiously for the present research. It would seem that whether the results Of these studies would generalize to manufacturing tasks, i.e., the type Of task simulated in the present research, is still Open to question. In another non-industrial PDM-innovation study, White and Lippitt (1960) felt that their leadership climate studies Of a boys' club showed that a democratic, as Opposed tO an autocratic climate, was superior. However, there did seem to be little tendency for democratic groups to dO better than autocratic groups in the task-oriented variable Of making "group-minded" suggestions, which might be regarded as a type of innovative behavior. In addition, even if a positive relationship was found for the "group- minded" suggestions variable, the generalizability of these findings is also questionable. Three studies conducted within organizations have been able to tie PDM tO innovation-related variables, though not to innovation directly (Burns & Stalker, 1961; Coch & 24 French, 1948; and Maier, 1953). Burns and Stalker (1961) in their well-known study Of 20 industrial firms in England and Scotland, found that an organic structure, with its smaller authority hierarchy and wider involvement in decision- making, is more effective in dealing with the more unstable (i.e., uncertain) conditions that Often accompany attempts of innovation. In the classic study by Coch and French (1948), the researchers varied workers' participation in decisions to adOpt new production line procedures in a pajama manufacturing plant. As a result Of increased participation, a greater degree Of acceptance Of the procedures was found. The study was not designed specifically for, nor did it demonstrate the effects Of PDM on innovation per se, but it was able to show strong evidence for PDM's effectiveness in lessening resistance to new line procedures--in effect, lessening the resistance tO innovation, as Opposed tO promoting innovation. Maier (1953) used industrial personnel (primarily first-line supervisors and middle managers) in a role- playing situation in order to test the effectiveness of training leaders in group decision procedures (i.e., PDM). He found that the solutions Of those trained in group decision tended to be either acceptance Of the implied solution or the develOpment Of some compromise solution. Trained leaders also tended tO be more tolerant, considerate and Open to suggestions (e.g., innovative ideas). The results seemed to show that a group's resistance tO change 25 could be sharply reduced by training the leader in group decision procedures. This, Of course, is similar to the Coch and French (1948) study discussed above, in which PDM was shown to lessen resistance to innovation or change. Although the last three studies discussed dealt with the relationship Of PDM to innovation in a peripheral manner, they did not directly assess the impact Of PDM on innovation or innovative behavior. One study that did directly assess the extent Of this relationship was conducted by Litwin and Stringer (1968). College-age subjects participated in three simulated business organizations, each headed by a president with a distinct specific leadership style. The simulation procedure involved producing miniature construction models Of radar towers and radar-controlled guns Of various kinds from "Erector Set" parts. The major tasks Of the businesses were production, product development, and control (account- ing). The businesses were accountable to a simulated government agency, which, among other things, was responsible for releasing specifications for new products and product changes. The periodic changing Of product specifications as well as other pressures from the agency revolved around a steady demand for new products.- Thus, innovations were stressed, and the businesses were made very much aware of this. The three organizations in the study were as follows (pp. 98-99): 26 Organization A: British Radar The president placed strong emphasis on the maintenance Of a formal structure. Members Of the organization were assigned roles, their spheres of Operation were tightly defined, and they were held responsible for the strict performance Of their duties. Seriousness, order, and relative status were heavily stressed. All levels Of management were encouraged to exercise position-based authority, and deviation from explicit organizational rules was punished. Communication was allowed only through strict vertical channels, was fonmal in nature, and was only permitted to cover matters directly related tO the task. A conservative policy was maintained toward the task, the managerial credo being that reliable and consistent quality was more important than product innovation. Organization B: Balance Radar A loose, informal structure was endorsed by the presi- dent Of Organization B. He stressed friendly, COOpera- tive behavior, group loyalty, and teamwork, and he tried tO reflect these values in his own behavior. Group decision making was encouraged at every level. Punishment was dispensed with and was replaced with a relaxed atmosphere Of encouragement and assistance. To insure the absence Of conflict and frustration, managers were encouraged to pay special attention tO the self—development and personal well-being Of the workers. Group meetings were established in which the workers could better get to know one another. Organization C: Blazer Radar High productivity was valued by the president Of Organization C. Each participant was encouraged tO set his own goals and take personal responsibility for results. Efforts to be innovative and creative were supported and reinforced by management. Com- petitive feedback was given frequently so that progress toward goals could be easily evaluated. Rewards for excellent performance were given in the form Of recog- nition and approval, as well as in promotions and pay raises. An attempt was made to create a feeling of pride and teamwork in the organization-through emphasis on competition against an external standard. Members were encouraged to seek each other's help around task issues, and nO formal system Of communications was instituted. 27 Litwin and Stringer examined their results in terms Of two dimensions: group norms that developed, and organi- zational performance. "British Radar's" hierarchical structure led to the development of separate sets of norms for management and workers. Aloofness was one Of the more noticeable norms of management: Eppy had the formal author- ity, exercised final control, and made all Of the decisions. In addition, they relied on formal and depersonalized com- munications. Written messages were the common mode Of interaction. Communications were always directed not at a person, but at a position. A significant employee norm that developed in "British" was that a person should do only what he or she was told to do, and nothing more. Thus, innovative behavior (i.e., idea generation) was strongly discouraged. When, in the early stages Of the simulation, employees had helped out in areas other than their own, this behavior was rather harshly criticized. After that, employees refused to take risks. The most Obvious norms that developed in "Balance Radar" were friendliness, equality (exemplified by Open and rather casual management styles, and lack of concern for status), and democratic decision-making (e.g., managers would try to solicit different Opinions before making changes). But the purpose Of democratic decision-making in "Balance" seemed to be more concerned with group unity and the quality Of interpersonal relationships than with task— related issues, like innovation. 28 "Blazer Radar" developed rather clear-cut norms, One of which was a norm Of teamwork. This norm, however, un- like "Balance," did not extend to the decision-making pro- cess. This may have been because Of another norm which was particularly strong among the managers and supervisors in this organization, that of individualism and responsi- bility (i.e., a willingness to take more and more personal responsibility). In addition, "Blazer" developed a norm Of wanting to "beat the competition," (i.e., a strong deter- mination to win), and risk-taking (e.g., innovative behavior) was accepted. Results of the study showed that "Blazer" performed better than "Balance," and "Balance," in turn, performed better than "British" on the two innovation variables in the study: number Of new products and materials-saving innova- tions. The "Blazer" climate seemed to encourage members to innovate and to be Open to others' innovations and ideas. In addition, on a productivity measure, "Blazer" was the only high performing organization. These results suggest that innovative behavior might be most effective and helpful to an organization, and most likely to appear, if a strong emphasis on productivity exists in the organization. It is also apparent that the authoritarian, formal climate in "British," which emphasized sticking to standard procedures and strict performance of duties, was quite effective in dissuading innovative behavior. In the "Balance" organization, the friendly, democratic climate 29 encouraged Openness to others' ideas and mutual dependence, but the lack of emphasis on individual and group responsi- bility for idea generation (innovative behavior), and on the importance Of productivity, may account for the organiza- tion's low productivity and only moderate innovativeness. The Litwin and Stringer study, of all the studies reviewed, most directly--and innovatively--probed the association between leadership style and innovative behavior. It was not sound in all respects, however. Perhaps the major problem was with the extreme nature of the leader- ship styles in the three organizations. The leadership style in the "Blazer" organization was perhaps the only one Of the three that was somewhat realistic (if not idealistic). The concern with maintaining order, exercising authority and control, and other aspects of extreme authoritarian leader- ship was excessive in the "British" organization, while the concern with maintaining informality, creating warm, friendly relationships and a relaxed, easy-going atmosphere, etc., which was supposed to be indicative Of participative leader- ship, was excessive in the "Balance" organization. Most organizations, obviously, fit somewhere between these extremes. A non-participative leader, contrary to those in the "British" organization, does not necessarily have to be unfriendly, extremely critical Of poor performance, and, in general, as unfeeling as those portrayed in the "British" organization. On the other hand, participative leaders are 30 not necessarily the warm-hearted, friendly, and easy-going "teddy bears" portrayed by the "Balance" group. Because of the noted concerns with the studies dis- cussed above, it was decided to conduct a study to assess the relationship between PDM and the amount of innovative behavior. In this research, the innovative behavior to be studied will consist Of a type Of behavior that occurs very early in the innovation process, i.e., task-related idea and suggestion generation. In order that the key variables might best be controlled, the decision was made to conduct the study using a simulated task setting, similar to the Litwin and Stringer (1968) study. Formal PDM and Innovation: The Scanlon Plan The research discussed up to this point has, for the most part, not dealt with formal, i.e., prescribed PDM. As indicated by the Continuum of Leadership Behavior (Figure l), the presence Of PDM was typically a matter of degree rather than a matter Of having it or not having it. In this section, discussion will focus on the potential advantages Of having a formal, prescribed system Of PDM in an organi— zation for the purpose of promoting innovative behavior (i.e., task related ideas and suggestions). Throughout this section, the Scanlon Plan will be discussed as a system representative Of other formal PDM systems. The Scanlon Plan is an innovative management process for total organization development (Frost, 1978). The 31 assumptions about human motivation and behavior integral to the Scanlon Plan are basically McGregor's (1960) Theory Y assumptions--most notably that the average worker will seek and accept job responsibility, desires to exercise autonomy and creativity, strives toward self-actualization, and is not by nature passive or resistant to the organization's needs and goals. One Of the Scanlon Plan's core principles, which is essential for the successful implementation and maintenance Of the Plan, is participation. Frost defined participation as: the structured and guaranteed Opportunity and responsi- bility provided all employees to influence the decision process within the company, and to become accurately informed and responsible in their respective areas and roles of competence. A major element Of the Scanlon Plan is a formal com- mittee framework established in the organization designed to encourage, facilitate communication of, evaluate, and decide the status of productivity improvement suggestions in any or all areas of the organization's functioning. According to Greenwood (1977), The basic principle behind a committee structure Of this type is that employee potential of ideas, creativity and innovation is more likely to surface if provided a visible and responsive vehicle. In essence, it is one application Of the now prevalent participative decision making (PDM) literature. (underlines added) It is Obvious from the above discussion of the Scanlon Plan that it can be classified as a type Of PDM. Of parti- cular interest for the present research is Dachler and 32 Wilpert's (1978) analysis Of "formal" vs. "informal" parti- cipation. This analysis is included in their discussion Of "properties of participatory systems, i.e., the structures and processes along which different kinds Of participatory schemes may vary." They note that past discussion and research on participation has implicitly considered PDM to be an organizational treatment or intervention strategy. This then implies that a power base or base Of legitimization exists which an agent uses to develop and apply the treat- ment. The power base or base Of legitimization, and thus a PDM system, can vary from "formal" to "informal." The formal base is an "explicitly recorded system of rules and agreements imposed on or granted to the organization," while the informal base refers to a "nonstatutory consensus emerging among interacting members." The most common base Of legitimization for formal PDM treatments in the United States is management policies, which are unilateral regula- tions about individual or group involvement in organization decisions. On the other hand, arrangements of informal participation rely on a consensus among interacting indi— viduals and groups, and become sanctioned through both practice and evolving norms or customary procedures. It would not be unreasonable to expect, as Dachler and Wilpert point out, that a participatory system imposed or granted through formal rules "is likely to be different from a participatory system that emerges informally among 33 interacting members and that is legitimized by the develop- mental process" (p. 11). This, Of course, does not mean that formal and informal participatory schemes are totally independent of each other. Rather, formal systems may be overlaid on an existing informal participatory system, and a participatory system that is formal in nature is likely to develop some aSpects Of an informal participatory system. The Scanlon Plan, and many other formal systems of PDM, are generally subsumed under the latter category. As mentioned previously, the Plan includes specific procedures for implementing certain principles of management, e.g., a formal committee structure designed to encourage parti- cipation. Indeed, the Frost (1978) definition Of partici— pation mentions "the structured and guaranteed Opportunity and re5ponsibility provided all employees to influence the decision process within the company, . . ." But, in addi- tion to this, the Scanlon Plan philOSOphy encourages the "nonstatutory consensus" among interacting organizational members that is the basis Of informal participation. The importance of providing clear definitions of "formal" and "informal" systems, such as those Of Dachler and Wilpert, should not be underestimated. Uhlaner has accurately pointed out that while there is nothing wrong with a formal—informal dichotomy per se, it is frequently the case in the literature that such dichotomies are not clear. Specifically, she notes that in the formal-informal 34 literature, the concepts have been defined in such a way that certain key aspects Of formal-informal have been con— founded with each other, e.g., source (management or immedi- ate work group) or format (written or unwritten). The solution to this problem is to clearly define what one means by "formal" and "informal." Dachler and Wilpert have done this by clearly focusing on role source: upon whose initia- tive it is that participation is expected. Formal refers to participation established by management; informal--by the immediate work group. Though predominantly formal systems of PDM may have some "informal" attributes, and vice-versa, it still seems that formal PDM systems like the Scanlon Plan "stick out" (at least in the U.S.) because they were established for- mally through tOp management policies. Perhaps this is because there are and have been relatively few systems of this type in the U.S. (compared to the legislated, statutory history Of "industrial democracy" in many European coun- tries). In any case, this noticeable difference between formal (as displayed by the Scanlon Plan) and informal participatory schemes is of interest for the present research. A key question of interest for the proposed research is essentially, "Which type Of participatory system, i.e., a predominantly formal system or a relatively informal system, would be more facilitative Of innovative behavior in organizations?" This is not a topic that has been 35 discussed in the literature, but is one that certainly deserves consideration. It also would not be unreasonable to consider a formal PDM system as an innovation for organizations, when one considers the definition of "innovation" provided earlier. However, perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of a formal PDM system is that it may be essentially an innova- tive process or system from which other innovations in the form of suggestions may be facilitated as a result of the participative framework Of such a system. At this point, the concepts of primary and secondary innovation gain importance. According to Davis, "virtually all organiza- tional development involves innovation in the primary and possibly the secondary level. By primary level, I mean the organizational development interventions themselves are innovations for most organizations" (p. 7). Davis includes PDM as an example of primary innovation. He then points out that frequently these primary innovations (e.g., PDM) serve as vehicles for discovering secondary innovations. According to Davis: Secondary innovations result from OD interventions that tap the creative, problem-solving talents of employees. By permitting employees to have a greater voice in the Operations for which they are responsible (a primary innovation), for example, they are more apt to discover secondary Operational innovations that will improve effectiveness. (p. 7) From Davis' discussion, it becomes apparent that systems Of PDM such as the Scanlon Plan, as primary 36 innovations, may produce secondary innovations, in the form of work-related ideas and suggestions. In the previous section it was noted how the process of PDM would be conducive to innovative behavior in organi- zations. An effective formal PDM system like the Scanlon Plan should be even more conducive to innovative behavior than most forms of PDM. This is basically because the SP, through its committee system, is formally designed to actively promote participation, and thus, through the processes noted in the preceding section, innovation. An innovative idea in an effective SP organization typically passes through a formal process (i.e., a produc- tion and screening committee) designed to handle just such ideas. Thus, the "processing Of innovation" should be greatly facilitated. As Greenwood (1977) states, "(T)he Plan formalizes a means through which all employees, within the limits Of their capabilities, can constructively respond to current situational realities" (p. 55). SO then, an important attitude that should exist in Scanlon organiza- tions, that "nobody knows a job better than the person who's on it," should help to promote innovative behavior. Furthermore, in an effective SP organization, an ambience not merely conducive to, but actively encouraging innovative behavior exists. It is to everyone's advantage in the organization if innovative behavior occurs (i.e., producti- vity improvement ideas) because they may all reap the rewards of innovation in the form of a bonus. The originators 37 of innovative ideas brought to fruition may reap intrinsic rewards as well (e.g., a sense Of achievement or accomplish- ment). Even the originators Of suggestions and ideas that are not accepted by the organization may still be intrinsi- cally motivated by a sense Of challenge to "be innovative." It is conceivable that, in SP organizations, employees' perceptions of how effectively their SP participation system is functioning may color their perceptions Of PDM in general, and vice versa. Thus, another process model, based on Figure 2, emerges. This model (Figure 3), however, incorpo- rates hypothesized relationships Of the formal Scanlon participation system with previously hypothesized relation- ships Of general PDM and innovative behavior. The designa- tion Of PDM as primary innovation and the resultant ideas and suggestions as secondary innovation is also made. Though the Scanlon Plan has been discussed at some length, the planned research will test certain aspects inherent in most formal PDM systems--not just the Scanlon Plan. In addition, this research will not attempt to test the relationships discussed above in a field setting (i.e., real organization). Rather, an attempt will be made to Operationalize the variables Of interest in an experimental simulation, analogous to the Litwin and Stringer (1968) study discussed earlier. This type of research Offers the advantages Of allowing the experimenter control and manipula- tion Of key variables, and of facilitating the identifica- tion Of causal linkages. The ideas tested and evaluated 38 (Primary Innovation) (Secondary Innovation) Formal PDM: "recommended" SP Participation System (suggestion system mechanics, . . . . increased innovative part1c1pation philosophy, etc.) behavior (i.e., work- f\ related ideas and sug- gestions) by organiza- Certain perceived aspects Of tional members general PDM more interaction and discussion Of work-related issues l/ ‘ 9 more Open, less critical f " 'H a less inhibitions about atmosphere I expressing work-related l ideas perceived opportunity to satisfy higher-order needs Figure 3. A Process Model of Hypothesized Relationships Among Formal SP Participation, Employee Perceptions of PDM, and Innova- tive Behavior. 39 in this study should provide the basis for future research in field settings. In summary, this study will test the participative- authoritarian and formal PDM system-no formal PDM system dimensions and their interaction. Specifically tested will be the predictions that the mean perfommance of groups in the participative condition will be higher than the mean performance Of groups in the authoritarian condition, that the mean performance of the formal PDM system groups will be higher than that of the no-formal PDM system groups, and that there will be no interaction. Figure 4 presents a graphic representation Of these predictions. Innovative Formal Behavior (i.e., Idea/ NO Suggestion formal Generation) Partici- Authori- pative tarian Figure 4. Graphic Representation of Predictions. CHAPTER I I METHOD Independent Variables There were two independent variables in this study, each with two levels. The first independent variable was degree Of participativeness of the leader (authoritarian vs. participative, i.e., the degree to which a leader creates a participative or authoritarian climate). The second inde- pendent variable was degree of formality Of participation system (formal system (FS) vs. no formal system (NFS)), which refers to whether the experimental condition had a formal system Of participation. It is assumed that authori- tarian leaders may in fact exist in organizations that have formal systems for participation (e.g., a Scanlon Plan), though one might be tempted to speculate that they may eventually be "weeded out" Of such organizations. The four WQEIELIQERL WEEKS; I “perticaipatiyerleege ,1; .Wal systemjggpertieipationI (2) pe-FEiQi-PaLiXE. _leggerlwithog§1§Iformal.systemwfor_participation, (3) authorfn W1; ,uithlajgmeLsystemrfonrpWQn. and (4) authoritarianwleader“withoutwalformallsystem_for_partir cipation. Ralsky (1976) provided an excellent summary Of I ,. mm... . 40 41 behaviors characteristic Of authoritarian and participative leaders: (A)uthoritative [authoritarian] leaders are conceptu- alized as exerting their influence in the group freely and exercising strong control over the group process. Responsibility for the group product lies with the authoritative leader and, as such, places the owner- ship Of the group problem within the leader. Because Of this locus Of ownership, the authoritative leader responds to questions from the group by receiving them and then unilaterally deciding upon their resolution rather than reflecting them back to the group. . . . Furthermore, authoritative leaders monitor task accom- plishment on a close, frequent basis. . . . It is important to note . . . that authoritative leaders are not conceived of as punitive. Participative leaders are conceptualized as encouraging the group to control its own process. Responsibility for the group product lies within the group and, as such, places the ownership of the group problem within the group. Since the locus Of problem ownership is placed in the group the leader responds to questions from the group by reflecting them back to the group for resolution by consensus. . . . Participative leaders monitor group process in a general manner. . . . While it is important to recognize that author- itative leaders are not conceived Of as punitive, it is equally important to note that participative leaders are not completely permissive and seen as abdicating their role, but rather as aiding the group to use its potential in reaching problem solution. (pp. 45-46) Leadership Trainipg Leaders for this study were independent—study under- graduates at Michigan State University. They were trained to assume the roles of both participative and authoritarian leaders. The training was similar to the leadership train- ing provided in the Ralsky (1976) study, with emphasis being placed on first, providing the theoretical underpinnings of participative and authoritarian leadership; second, acclimating the leaders to the experimental task by 42 demonstrating the task, answering questions, and reviewing introductory scripts to be used during experimental sessions; and third, providing extensive practice, through the role- playing technique, so that the leaders would be able to effectively portray "authoritarianism" or "participative- ness." During the actual experimental sessions, the leaders had available a list of behavioral guidelines that noted the prescribed roles Of both the authoritarian and parti- cipative leaders, in order to facilitate the portrayal Of these roles. These guidelines, which were used in the Ralsky (1976) study, are: Authoritarian 1. Use "I" instead Of "we." 2. Direct communication to yourself. 3. Establish control Of process early. 4. Compliment and criticize on a personal basis. 5. Remind group of time constraints and appeal to logic. 6. DO not be punitive. Participative l. Summarize. 2. Present alternatives. 3. Probe when there is early consensus. 4. Involve all group members. 5. Allow the group to make the decision. 6. Emphasize when a decision has been made. Experimental Task Major considerations for choosing a task for this study were first, that it be an effective and realistic simulation Of a manufacturing task that might exist in a real organization; and second, that the task be such that 43 it would easily accommodate different levels Of the inde- pendent variables and the measurement of the dependent variables. The task used in this research was a variation of the Production Task: Real Estate Problem (Hall, Bowen, Lewicki, & Hall, 1975). Basically, the task involved having small groups construct a building with computer cards (the "raw materials"), using a ruler, scissors, stapler and tape (the "tools"). The goal of each group was ostensibly to make the greatest profit possible in their project. During this study, the groups were not made aware that the primary interest of the experimenter was to measure innovative behavior. (See Appendix A for complete Task Directions.) As will be discussed in the Procedure section, this task adequately met the criteria for choosing an eXperi- mental task noted earlier. Dependent Variables l. The major dependent variable in this study was the innovative behavior Of groups. Innovative behavior was defined for the purposes Of this research as tpempgmber_ofi Wm, fox—immingflqm—seaeda Wags , managaialaspecWotaAmlred \in the task Of manufacturinqfithe building: These may have involved the actual production process, materials, intra- group relations, etc. Data was collected for both verbal suggestions (recorded before, during, and after the task) 44 and written suggestions (recorded after the task). (See Procedure section for description of how the idea/suggestions were collected.) 2- Number Pfflnohn-redeedent ides/suggestions.__ee.r__.9roup_; ~5— \. ”an... _,,._._,__ Subjects Subjects for this study were 120 undergraduate students at Michigan State University. They were solicited by the experimenter from the Introductory Psychology subject pOOl. Potential subjects were informed that the experimenter was looking for subjects to participate in research that would measure the task performance Of groups. They were told that two sessions per group would be held, the second one a couple of weeks after the first. Interested students then signed up for the research. On the evening before their scheduled session, subjects were contacted to remind them Of the scheduled time and location of the session. Subjects were randomly assigned to 40 groups Of three and these 40 groups were randomly assigned to one Of the four experimental conditions. Procedure Subjects reported to a designated room at a specified time. Five minutes after the designated time, the experi— menter briefly explained the nature Of the task (group performance on a construction task), and then asked all subjects to read and sign a consent form. Subjects were then told that they would be participating as a group on a 45 task for about 1% hours, including their responses to a questionnaire. In addition, the experimenter explained that the subjects would be asked to perform the task again at a second session, in a few weeks. (In reality, the subjects would not perform the task a second time. They were led to believe this to establish a feeling Of "ongoingness" in the subjects, i.e., that this session was not a "one-shot deal" and that they were to be part Of an ongoing group--in an ongoing organization.) After this introduction, the experi- menter introduced the leader, and then left the room. The leader was supplied with either an authoritarian or participative script, depending on the condition being run: Authoritarian: Thank you for coming tonight. My name is and I'm assisting in some research involved in the task performance of groups. Before I explain the details Of this project, why don't we all introduce ourselves starting with you. (Leader points to the subject on his left.) (After all the introductions are completed, Leader says) Okay. Let me tell you about the task we're going to perform tonight and again in a few weeks. It's called "Production Task: Real Estate Problem" and my function is to lead this group to Optimal performance. If you will all read the directions silently while I read them aloud, I'm sure the task we're going to perform will become clear. (Leader gives subjects the directions for the task and reads them aloud.) (See Appendix A for Task Directions.) In addition to the directions that I've just read, this is a list Of other standard rules and procedures provided by the experimenter for this task. Let's try not to make any errors in following them, because I'm responsible for the group's performance on this task. (Leader hands out COpies of list to subjects and reads them aloud.) (See Appendix B.) 46 If there are no questions, I'd like to spend some time talking about the Objectives for this group regarding this task, and how the group is going to be organized and coordinated to accomplish the task. The experimenter has given me a few minutes to discuss these things. I thought about these issues last week and wrote some thoughts down on paper. (The leader will then proceed to discuss the above from notes on a piece Of paper. Basically, the leader's discussion will revolve around the following points: (1) Objec- tives: to make as much profit as possible, more than any other group, and to construct a building Of the highest quality. (2) plan to be used to achieve these Objectives: most effective way is for leader to direct all aspects Of the construction process. (3) organi- zation of group members to accomplish the task: the leader will designate specific functions and responsi- bilities for each group member, and all questions should be directed to the leader. (4) utilization Of resources: the group must be efficient in their use of resources, thus the leader will closely monitor their use.) If there are no questions, I'll get the experimenter, and he'll tell us when to begin. (Leader Opens door and calls in experimenter, who enters.) (Experimenter says) Okay. You'll have 20 minutes to complete this task, and one minute to deliver it to the Real Estate Board's table. (Experimenter points out Real Estate Board and Supply Depot.) Ready? Begin production. (The experimenter exits.) Participative: Thank you for coming tonight. My name is and I'm assisting in some research involved in the task performance Of groups. Before I explain the details of this project, why don't we all introduce ourselves. (Pauses and allows subjects to introduce themselves.) (After all the introductions are com- pleted, Leader says) Okay. Tonight, and again in a few weeks, we're going to perform a task called "Production Task: Real Estate Problem," and our function is to perform the task at an Optimal level. Let's all read the directions. (See Appendix A for Task Directions.) (Leader gives subjects the direc- tions. After having allowed enough time for each subject to read the instructions silently, Leader says) Okay. Any questions so far? (Pauses to answer questions.) In addition to the directions that we've just read, the experimenter has provided us with a list Of other 47 standard rules and procedures for this task. We're all responsible for understanding these procedures and rules, and, Of course, all responsible for the group's ultimate performance on the task. (Leader hands out OOpies Of list to subjects, and allows time for them to read the list.) (See Appendix B.) Any questions? Okay, why don't we spend some time discussing the task. The experimenter has given us a few minutes to discuss these things. (Using participative techniques (described in Leadership Training section), the leader proceeds to lead a group discussion Of the Objectives for the group regarding the task, and how the group should be organi- zed and coordinated to accomplish the task. (Group discusses these issues, then Leader says) Okay. Any more questions or comments? (Pause) Okay then, I'll get the experimenter, and he'll tell us when to begin. (Leader Opens door and calls experimenter, who enters.) (Experimenter says) Okay, you'll have 20 minutes to complete this task, and one minute to deliver it to the Real Estate Board's table. (Experimenter points out Real Estate Board and Supply Depot.) Ready? Begin production. (The experimenter exits.) (For both) When 20 minutes had elapsed, the experimenter entered the room and said, "Time is up. StOp production. You have one minute to deliver your building to the Real Estate Board's table," and exited when the building had been delivered. The Real Estate Board spent approximately five minutes appraising the building, after which they fed back results to the group. All groups were told that theirs was "about average" performance. While the appraisal was being conducted, clean-up took place, according to instructions. The next steps varied according to the condition: (A) NO Formal PDM system (NFS)--authoritarian condition and NFS-participative condition. The leader passed out a questionnaire to the group members. The questionnaire contained items concerning 48 participation and group process, but also contained a . question asking for ideas and suggestions regarding the task (the major dependent variable). The participation and group process items were essentially "decoys," used to "pad" the questionnaire. The "ideas and suggestions" question was neatly "tucked in" the questionnaire, so as not to arouse suspicion that "this is what the experimenter is really interested in," and thus unduly influence the sub- jects' responses. (See Appendix C for the questionnaire.) Before filling out the questionnaire, the group was told by the leader: 1. For NFS-authoritarian condition After you fill out this questionnaire, I'll evalu- ate how I think this group did on the task, and then I'll announce some goals and Objectives for this group for the next run. If there are nO questions, why don't you fill out the question- naire? The leader then excused himself for a few minutes (in order to provide a freer atmosphere in which to fill out the questionnaire). After the subjects had completed the questionnaire, the leader collected them, and conducted the above-noted discussion, using authoritarian techniques noted previously. After the discussion, the leader asked the subjects to not discuss the research with others, mentioned that the group members would be called to confirm a meeting time for the next session, and dismissed the group. 49 2. For NFS-participative condition After you fill out this questionnaire, I thought that we might evaluate, as a group, how we feel we did on the task, and then possibly establish some goals and Objectives for ourselves for the next run. Is that Okay with the group? Okay, why don't you fill out the questionnaire? The leader then excused himself for a few minutes. After the subjects had completed the questionnaire, the leader collected them, and conducted the above-noted dis- cussion, using participative techniques noted previously. After the discussion, the leader asked the subjects to not discuss the research with others, mentioned that the group members would be called to confirm a meeting time for the next session, and dismissed the group. (B) Formal PDM system (FS)-authoritarian condition and FS- participative condition. The leader passed out task "idea-suggestion" forms, and a questionnaire to each group member. The questionnaire was basically the same as that received by both NFS condi- tions, except that it did 293 include the question asking for ideas and suggestions regarding the task, i.e., the major dependent variable. In this sense, it served as a control. The written share of the major dependent variable, of course, was measured by the task "idea-suggestion" form, which was distributed along with the questionnaire. Before filling out the form and the questionnaire, the group was told by the leader: 50 1. For FS-authoritarian condition Because the experimenter feels that both profit Egg input from task group members are important, an idea and suggestion system has been established in which Ell ideas and suggestions regarding improving gpy aspect Of the task process will be given serious consideration. The ideas will be given to a com- mittee consisting of one Of you, members of the other task groups, and the experimenter, and the committee will then decide how each idea or sug- gestion should be dealt with, and whether it should be put into effect for the next session. (Of course, the "committee" will never have to meet, because there is not to be a second session.) Feedback, if you desire it, will be given to you on any or all suggestions that you make. Once again, suggestions about gpy aspects of the task are encouraged--improving quality, speed, cost savings, materials, group process, managerial aspects, etc. This (holds up "idea-suggestion" form) is the form you'll be using for that. After you've completed the "idea-suggestion" forms, please fill out this questionnaire (holds up questionnaire). After you've filled out both Of these, I'll evaluate how I think this group did on the task, and then I'll announce some goals and Objectives for this group for the next run. If there are no questions, why don't you fill these out, starting with the "idea- suggestion" forms? The leader then excused himself for a few minutes. After the subjects had completed the "idea-suggestion" forms and the questionnaire, the leader collected them, and conducted the above-noted discussion (i.e., how the group performed, goals and Objectives), using authoritarian tech- niques noted previously. After the discussion, the leader said, "By the way, I'll be calling one Of you before the next session to serve on the 'idea-suggestion' committee." Also, the leader mentioned that the group members would be called to confirm a meeting time for the next session, and that the "idea-suggestion" committee would meet immediately 51 prior to the task meeting. After asking the subjects to not discuss the research with others, he dismissed them. 2. For FS-participative condition Because both the experimenter and I feel that both profit 32g input from task group members are impor- tant, an idea and suggestion system has been established in which 211 ideas and suggestions regarding improving 33y aspect of the task process will be given serious consideration. The ideas will be given to a committee consisting of one Of you, members of the other task groups, and the experimenter, and the committee will then decide how each idea or suggestion should be dealt with, and whether it should be put into effect for the next session. Feedback, if you desire it, will be given to you on any or all suggestions that you make. Once again, suggestions about 22y aspects Of the task are encouraged--improving quality, speed, cost savings, materials, group process, managerial aspects, etc. This (holds up "idea- suggestion" form) is the form you'll be using for that. After you've completed the "idea-suggestion" forms, please fill out this questionnaire (holds up questionnaire). After you've filled out both Of these, I thought that we might evaluate, as a group, how we feel we did on the task, and then possibly establish some goals and Objectives for ourselves for the next run. Is that Okay with the group? Okay, why don't you fill these out, start- ing with the "idea-suggestion" forms? The leader then excused himself for a few minutes. After the subjects had completed the "idea-suggestion" forms and the questionnaires, the leader collected them, and conducted the above-noted discussion, using participa- tive techniques noted previously. After the discussion, the leader asked for volunteers to serve on the "idea-suggestion" committee. (If too few or tOO many volunteered, the group was asked to make the decision as to how to select one com- mittee member.) (Note: Even though the dependent measures had already been collected at this point, leading the 52 subjects to believe that such a committee meeting would take place, and that the entire task group would meet again, was a safeguard against subjects informing other potential sub- jects that the study actually only required one session-- which may have influenced their responses. All subjects were asked, though, at this point, to not discuss the research with others.) The leader then mentioned that the group members would be called to confirm a meeting time for the next session, and that the "idea-suggestion" committee would meet immediately prior to the task meeting. The group members were then dismissed. Recording Verbal Idea/Suggestions In addition to the written format for collecting idea/ suggestions that was described above, verbal idea/suggestions by the subjects were also recorded before, during, and after the task. These were recorded by the experimenter assistants who made up the Supply Depot and Real Estate Board. 'Subjects were not aware that their verbal idea/ suggestions were being recorded (i.e., the experimenter assistants were seated behind the subjects, so the subjects faced away from the assistants, and faced the group leader.) 9291.113 .Raters were trained to distinguish between verbal and written idea/suggestions which were task-related and those that were not task-related. Only those task-related 53 statements were used in the analyses. There was approxi- mately 98% agreement on what constituted task-related suggestions. The raters were also asked to report the number Of non- redundant (i.e., original) idea/suggestions for each experi- mental group. For example, one suggestion made three times was to be considered only one suggestion. Debriefing When all groups had been run, the experimenter tele- phoned each subject and scheduled an appointment to explain the purpose Of the research. Any questions the subjects had were answered at that time. Data Analysis The effects of the independent variables were tested using analyses Of variance. CHAPTER III RESULTS Manipulation Check Two types of data were collected to assess the effec- tiveness of the training given the work group leaders, i.e., the extent to which the leaders were able to effectively diSplay participative or authoritarian behavior. First, videotapes Of the four leaders were made during experimental sessions. These were shown to six advanced graduate students in the organizational psychology area. Two of the tapes showed participative leaders, and two showed authoritarian leaders, with each tape using a different leader. The six graduate students independently assessed the leadership style depicted in each of the four tapes correctly. That is, there was 100% agreement that the leaders effectively portrayed the style Of leadership that they were trained to portray. The second type Of data consisted Of a set Of questions administered to the experimental subjects after the task was completed (but before the subjects were debriefed). All subjects rated their leaders on the following items on six point Likert scales, ranging from "to a very great extent" 54 55 tO "to no extent" (adapted from Ralsky, 1976). (Note: These items correspond to items 16-22 in the questionnaire [see Appendix C]). 1. To what extent did the leader try to influence the decisions made by the group? 2. To what extent did the leader encourage communi- cation among all members Of the group? 3. To what extent was the leader considerate of the feelings Of other group members? 4. To what extent did the leader stimulate members of the group to make contributions to the task process? 5. To what extent did the leader ask for suggestions from the group? 6. To what extent did the leader use the suggestions, Of other members of the group in attempting to complete the task? 7. To what extent did the group, excluding the leader, actually derive the most effective way of com- pleting the task? If the training of the leaders was successful, it should follow that authoritarian leaders would be perceived as higher on influence (item 1 above), while participative leaders would be higher on encouragement Of communication (item 2), stimulation Of contributions (item 4), suggestion solicitation (item 5), use of suggestions (item 6), and group derivation of means of task completion (item 7). NO difference between leadership styles should be found in con- sideration (item 3). This was expected because the training Of group leaders stressed the non-punitive nature Of autho- ritarian leadership. 56 Responses to these items Of the subjects in the authoritarian and participative conditions were compared through a multivariate analysis of variance. As expected, the multivariate analysis revealed a significant manipula- tion effect (F (7, 112) = 38.95, p < .001). Subsequent univariate tests Of each item are shown in Table l. The univariate tests show that subjects in the authori- tarian condition saw their leaders as exerting significantly more influence on decisions than did the subjects in the participative condition. Subjects in the participative condition saw their leaders doing significantly more Of the following than did subjects in the authoritarian condition: encouraging communication among the group members, being considerate Of group members' feelings, stimulating group members to make contributions to the task process, asking for suggestions from group members, and using group members' suggestions. In addition, subjects in the participative condition felt that their groups actually derived the most effective way Of completing the task to a greater extent than did subjects in the authoritarian condition. With the exception Of the item concerning leader con- sideration of the feelings Of group members, the subjects' perceptions Of their leaders were in the predicted direction and statistically significant. 57 Table l.--Means and F-ratios for Manipulation Check Items. Authoritarian Participative Item Condition (N=60) Condition (N=60) F-ratio #1 To what extent did the 3.52 1.97 81.31* leader try to influ- ence the decisions made by the group? #2 To what extent did the 2.58 4.33 71.76* leader encourage com- munication among all members Of the group? #3 To what extent was the 3.66 4.88 39.57* leader considerate of the feelings of other group members? #4 TO what extent did the 3.68 4.50 15.49* leader stimulate members Of the group to make contributions to the task process? #5 To what extent did the 2.02 4.85 239.51* leader ask for sug- gestions from the group? #6 To what extent did the 2.78 5.12 114.29* leader use the sugges- tions Of other members of the group in attempt- ing to complete the task? #7 TO what extent did the 3.24 4.67 47.40* group, excluding the leader, actually derive the most effective way of completing the task? fp < .001. 58 Dependent Variables The primary concern of this study was to examine the differential effects of authoritarian vs. participative leadership and a formal system Of participation vs. no formal system of participation on innovative behavior (in the form Of task-related ideas and suggestions). The results of the study were analyzed at the group level using analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the number Of verbal and written suggestions only. Because the correlation between the number Of verbal idea/suggestions and total number Of idea/suggestions was so high (r = .93), further analysis of the total number of suggestions per group was not necessary. Similarly, due to the high correlation between the number of verbal suggestions per group and number Of non-redundant suggestions per group (r = .90) further analysis Of non- redundant suggestions was not pursued. The total number Of verbal suggestions and total number Of written suggestions were uncorrelated (r = .03) (see Table 2). In summary, then, the analyses for this study were focused on the number Of verbal and the number of written idea/suggestions. Verbal Idea/Suggestions The results Of the 2 x 2 ANOVA (degree of participative- ness by system formality) indicated that for verbal idea/ suggestions, there was a significant main effect for the degree Of participativeness (F(l,36) = 53.28, p < .001). However, there was neither a significant main effect for 59 Table 2.--Intercorrelations of Dependent Variables. Type Of Suggestion Verbal Written Total(Verb. & Writ.) Nonredundant Verbal .03 .93 .90 Written Total(Verb.&Writ.) Nonredundant the degree of formality of the participation system nor a significant interaction effect. Written Idea/Suggestions The results of the 2 x 2 ANOVA (degree of participa- tiveness by system formality) indicated that for written idea/suggestions, the tests for both degree Of participa- tiveness and degree Of formality main effects and their interaction were non-significant. Means and standard deviations as well as the analysis Of variance for both verbal and written idea/suggestions are presented in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. Univariate Analysis of Variance with Consideration Adjusted as a Covariate Because the training given leaders emphasized that authoritarian leaders are non-punitive, it was predicted that there would be no significant differences in the subjects' perception Of the consideration of authoritarian and participative leaders. However, the results showed 60 Table 3.--Means and Standard Deviations for Amount of Verbal and Written Idea/Suggestions for All Conditions. Type Condition Verbal Written :2 so :2 so Participative-formal 19.1 9.9 7.6 3.8 Participative-no 21.5 8.3 9.9 5.0 formal Authoritarian-formal 5.6 4.8 8.4 3.7 Authoritarian-no 2.9 1.9 9.7 3.9 formal Note: N = 10 groups per condition. Table 4.--Ana1ysis of Variance on Verbal and Written Idea/ Suggestions. F Source df 2 2 Verbal w Written w Degree Of Participativeness l 53.28* .571 .05 .000 Degree of Formality l .01 .000 1.89 .023 Participativeness vs. Formality 1 1.35 .004 .15 .000 Error 36 (48.35) (17.16) 61 that subjects in the participative condition perceived their leaders to be significantly higher in consideration than subjects in the authoritarian condition. TO control for the effects of perceived leader consideration, uni- variate analyses Of variance on the dependent measures were calculated with adjustment for the group consideration scores as a covariate. The results of this analysis for the dependent measures, i.e., the total number Of verbal and written suggestions, remained the same. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Two predictions were Offered in this research. First, it was believed that groups whose leaders used a participa- tive style Of leadership would display more innovative behavior (in the form Of task-related ideas and suggestions) than groups whose leaders used an authoritarian leadership style. Second, it was predicted that groups with access to a formal system of participation would be more likely to display innovative behavior than groups without access tO such a system. The results Of an ANOVA showed that the first prediction was strongly supported, but only for verbal suggestions. There was nO support for the second prediction. Discussion will focus on the participative-authoritarian leadership dimension and the formal-no formal participation system dimension. The Participative-Authoritarian Leadership Dimension Verbal Suggestions As predicted, groups whose leaders used a participative leadership style generated significantly more verbal 62 63 task-related ideas and suggestions than groups led by authoritarian leaders. This section will pertain to verbal suggestions, almost all of which were provided before and during the task. The next section will pertain to written suggestions, which were provided after the task. Both the summary of behaviors characteristic of authoritarian and participative leaders provided in Chapter II, and Figure 2, which presents a process model of hypothesized effects of PDM on innovative behavior, provide a framework for explana- tion of the results. In the summary of leader behaviors, it is pointed out that participative leaders encourage the group to control its own process, that the group has responsibility for the group product, and that ownership of the problem lies squarely within the whole group--not just within the leader. Indeed, one way for a group to handle the responsibility for and ownership of a problem is to suggest ways to overcome the problem. (In the simulated task in this research, the problem, as it is so often in "real" organizations, was to make a cost-effective, and quality, product). It is the nature of participative leadership to encourage and rein- force this type of behavior, i.e., task-related ideas and suggestions. Conceivably, the opportunity for leader- provided reinforcement (as well as intrinsic reinforcement, e.g., a feeling of achievement if one's ideas are considered and/or implemented) can motivate group members to continue the suggestion-making behavior. 64 Authoritarian leaders, on the other hand, exert strong influence and control over the group process. This, in effect, limits the amount of input provided by group members in general, and more specifically, limits task-related ideas and suggestions. Unlike participative leaders, authoritarian leaders do not generally seek out ideas from group members. Rather, they tend to unilaterally decide issues with little input from members of the group. Seeing this type of be- havior in a leader, it is not surprising that group members do not contribute more ideas--though the authoritarian leader may never actually say, "I don't want your input," his or her behaviors indicate that such input will not be seriously considered. The Opportunity for reward (intrinsic and extrinsic) for the group members and thus the motivation to contribute are then reduced. The results of the research can also be explained in light of Figure 2. The three aspects of PDM noted in the model (i.e., more interaction and discussion of work-related issues, a more open, less critical atmosphere, and the per- ceived Opportunity to satisfy higher-order needs) seemed to be much more prevalent in the participative condition than in the authoritarian condition. First, the model indicates the belief that the mere opportunity to interact and talk about the task would lead to more ideas and suggestions. In fact, this appeared to happen in the experimental sessions. Relative to groups in the authoritarian conditions, there seemed to be a 65 substantially greater amount of overall discussion for groups in the participative condition. With the task at hand, it was inevitable that a great deal of the discussion would regard the task. And, of the task-related discussion, it would follow that at least some of that discussion would consist Of ideas and suggestions regarding the task, especi- ally considering that participative leaders tend to encourage such behavior. Groups in the authoritarian condition, though not told that they could not discuss work-related issues, had very little reason to--they were autocratically told by the leader how the task was to be done. Second, participative leaders often strive to create a more open and less critical atmOSphere, as indicated in Figure 2. One of the benefits of this, which was often dis- played within the groups in the participative condition, was noticeably less inhibition about expressing ideas, relative to groups in the authoritarian condition. Indeed, on some occasions participative leaders had to diplomati- cally hold back one person's expression of ideas until another group member was finished expressing one Of his or her own. On the other hand, some subjects in the authori- tarian condition appeared frustrated and uncomfortable about the perceived lack Of Opportunity to express themselves, and others appeared to simply resign themselves to doing what the leader wanted (perhaps due to the realization that any ideas that they did have would not be considered anyway). In fact, when given the Opportunity to express themselves 66 in writing after the task, many subjects who were in the authoritarian condition said that they "should have been allowed to give suggestions during the task." They said this even though, as pointed out previously, they were never told that they were not allowed to make suggestions. Third, it would seem that the perceived Opportunity for group members to satisfy higher-order needs (e.g., a sense of achievement, esteem) may have been greater in the participative than in the authoritarian condition. Argyris (1957), Likert (1961) and other theorists firmly believed that higher-order need achievement would Often occur when one's inputs into the decision-making process were con- sidered and/or one's ideas implemented. In the participative condition, leaders were receptive to inputs from group members. In most cases, discussion among all group members ensued, and the group decided which ideas would be the best to put into effect. Written Suggestions Idea/suggestions were collected in two modes: verbal and written. Virtually all verbal suggestions were recorded before and during the task during the group interaction. All written suggestions were recorded after the task was completed. While the results showed that the first pre- diction (i.e., that groups in the participative condition would display more innovative behavior than groups in the authoritarian condition) was supported for the total amount 67 of suggestions and for the amount of verbal suggestions, the prediction was not supported for the amount of written suggestions. That is, there were no significant differ- ences between the authoritarian and participative conditions in the amount Of written suggestions. The preceding section speculated on why support was found when the total number, and particularly the total number of verbal, suggestions was considered. This section will consider possible explana- tions for why the prediction did not hold for written suggestions. One possible explanation was indicated by a comment from one of the subjects after the experimental session. The subject, who had taken part in the participative con— dition, commented that because he had been given the Oppor- tunity before and during the task to verbalize his ideas, he did not feel the need to write them down. It should be pointed out that even though the verbal suggestions were typically given to improve the task at hand, while the written suggestions regarded ways to improve the task in future sessions, subjects may not have seen this as an important distinction. That is, they may have felt that suggestions that they provided verbally during the task would indeed be taken into account in future sessions. Another possible explanation for the lack of differ- ences between conditions concerns the nature of the autho- ritarian groups. As discussed in the previous section, the authoritarian leaders may have provided an atmosphere which 68 inhibited the verbal expression of work-related ideas by group members. However, the written format may have been seen as an outlet for their pent-up ideas. That is, some subjects in the authoritarian condition, not perceiving much of a chance to make suggestions before and during the task, may have used the written form for cathartic purposes-— using the Opportunity to "spill out" at least some of the ideas that had been held inside them. It is interesting to note that many of the written suggestions from subjects in the authoritarian condition were suggestions that the group members be allowed to express their ideas verbally before and during the task! Thus, the possible decrease in the number Of suggestions from the participative groups, and the possible increase in the amount of suggestions from the authoritarian groups due to the reasons discussed above may account for the lack of significant differences between the two conditions. The Formal-NO Formal Participation System Dimension Contrary to what had been predicted, there were no significant differences on the dependent measure between groups that had access to a formal system for participation and groups that did not have access to such a system. The expected differences were based on the belief that the presence of a formal system designed to promote participation would encourage innovative behavior. 69 The lack of support for this prediction might be taken as an indication of non-support for the model presented in Figure 3, which attempted to expand upon the model presented in Figure 2 by adding a formal PDM dimension. In essence, the results would point to the conclusion that whereas having leaders with participative styles of management would promote the innovative behavior of work-group members, the installation of a formal system Of PDM to promote and pro- cess such behavior would be fruitless. However, because of some potentially limiting factors regarding this study, such a conclusion may be premature. These factors are discussed in the next section. Limitations on Interpretation Of Findings One possible limitation on interpreting the results of this study concerns the "formality of PDM system" manipula- tion. Subjects in the formal system condition were not made aware of such a system until the task was completed. Upon completion of the task, the subjects in both formal conditions (authoritarian and participative) were given idea/suggestion forms and then told that an idea/suggestion system had been established "in which all ideas and sugges- tions regarding improving any aspect of the task process will be given serious consideration." They were further informed that the (written) ideas would be processed through a committee system in which their group would be represented. The perception of such a formal system was expected to, but 70 did not, increase the suggestion-making behavior by sub- jects. Though the subjects in the formal system conditions were informed of the existence of such a formal system, they never actually experienced it. That is, they never did get to participate on a committee or see their suggestions proceed through a formal process. This may have been a critical omission. It is possible that such formal systems Of PDM may indeed increase and facilitate idea/suggestion- making behavior--but only after organization members have the chance to see a successful system in action, i.e., the chance to see that such a system works. Once they see that it does, innovative behavior might Ehgg increase. In this study, subjects' expectancy that their suggestion-making efforts would lead to their ideas being seriously considered, and possibly implemented, may have been low, thus lowering their motivation to contribute such ideas. In addition, the fact that subjects were informed of the formal system of PDM and then immediately asked to write their idea/suggestions may not have given the subjects enough time to consider the potential benefits that might accrue from submitting idea/suggestions through such a system. That is, subjects may not have had time to develop beliefs of potential advantages of a PDM system, and then provide idea/suggestions in accordance with such beliefs. A further manipulation concern involves the "no-formal PDM" conditions. The subjects in these conditions were 71 not informed of any formal PDM system to process their written ideas or given idea/suggestion forms. However, they were given the Opportunity to write their task-related suggestions in the questionnaire that they filled out (see Appendix C). Possibly, some subjects saw this Open-ended question (i.e., question 5) as a part Of a formal system for PDM. That is, the mere existence Of a question asking for task-related idea/suggestions may have been enough to encourage idea/suggestion-making behavior in some of the subjects. In addition to the issues raised above, there are the concerns inherent in conducting a study using a simulated manufacturing task with college students as subjects in artificially-created groups. While it was possible to more stringently control the independent variables than would typically be possible in field settings, whether the results would generalize to field settings (i.e., work groups in real organizations) is Open to question. As stated by Ralsky (1976), "Student subjects receiving [extra class credits] for working in groups in which they have minimal historic relationships among themselves and their leader surely respond to experimental conditions in a different manner than ongoing work groups" (p. 84). It is also conceivable that variables not measured in this study such as group size (e.g., an eight-person as Opposed to a four-person group), type of task (e.g., a strictly cognitive as Opposed 72 to a building construction task), etc., may have influenced the results. Implications for Organizations The results of this research provide some support for the View that work groups whose leaders use a participative style Of leadership will typically display more innovative behavior (i.e., generate more task-related ideas and sugges— tions) than groups whose leaders use an authoritarian leader- ship style. This research support demonstrates the practical usefulness of a participative style of leadership and decision-making--not only in terms Of the possible intrinsic rewards provided those who participate, but also in terms of the increase in verbal, task-related, potentially pro- ductivity-improving ideas and suggestions elicited. This would suggest the need for participative leadership training in those job situations in which task-related input from work-group members is thought to be beneficial. The contention that groups with access to a formal system of participation will be more likely to diSplay innovative behavior than groups without access to such a system was not supported by this research. As noted in the previous section, though, a question remains as to whether the "formal participation system" dimension was adequately tested, i.e., whether the subjects actually perceived such a formal system, and even if they did, whether it was necessary for the subjects to see the formal system "in 73 action." Perhaps another attempt to test this dimension, taking the noted concerns into account, would result in support for the hypothesis. Such support would show the potential usefulness of formal systems for participation in organizations (preferably in addition to already existing informal mechanisms for participative decision-making). Indeed, it would indicate that organization members may be more motivated to contribute productivity-improving ideas and suggestions in such organizations because a formal system Of participation would provide a clear and responsive medium for their ideas. APPENDICES APPENDIX A TASK DIRECTIONS APPENDIX A TASK DIRECTIONS In this task you will have an Opportunity to construct a building. The success of your group will be measured by the profit you make in your project. Profit is determined by subtracting costs from the total appraised value of the finished structure. As you will see, several factors are involved in determining the appraised value. Therefore, it is essential that your group analyze this task carefully, set some Objectives, and plan the best possible organiza- tion that will allow you to meet them. Your group will be required to construct a building out of computer cards and to "sell" it at the end of the con- struction time. The sale price will be the total appraised value as determined by the real estate board evaluation standards outlined below. While the appraised value of the building may be heavily considered, it is still essential that your group try to make as much profit as possible. Materials and Tools The raw materials and tools available are: computer cards, one ruler, one scissors, one stapler, and one roll of tape. Extra staples and tape will be available, upon request, without extra charge. The cost Of computer cards (raw materials) is described below. Cost of Cards Cards cost $70.00 each. At the beginning of the task session, your group will receive a package of 100 cards and be charged $7,000 as an initial, start-up investment. Additional cards may be purchased from the supplier at the regular price. At the end of the task session, you may redeem any unused cards for $50.00 each. If you need to purchase or redeem cards, one person and only one person from your group must go to the supply depot to carry out the transaction. The experimenter will designate the supply depot at the beginning Of the task session. 74 75 Construction and Delivery Time At the beginning of the task session, the experimenter will announce the amount of time you will be allotted to construct your building. Your team is not allowed to build until the experimenter announces "Begin production." When the time is up, the experimenter will announce "Stop pro- duction." No construction is allowed after this point. You will have one minute in which to deliver your completed structure to the real estate board for appraisal. Buildings received after one minute will not be appraised. No team members are allowed to remain with the building after it is delivered. Real Estate Board The board is composed of assistants to the experimenter. They are responsible for appraising each building and assuring that building codes are met. The board will con- vene during the construction period to decide on criteria for the "drop-shock" test and quality and aesthetic values. Once a building is appraised, it cannot be reappraised later. The Board will also be responsible for computing the profit for your group. Building Code All buildings must be fully enclosed (floors and roofs). They must also have ceilings that are 3 inches from the floor, and be capable of withstanding a "drOp-shock" test. The drop shock test may consist Of dropping the building or drOpping an Object (e.g., heavy book) on the building. It will be the real estate board's responsibility to decide on the test. Appraisal Values Buildings are appraised on the basis Of quality and aesthetics. The total Of the quality and aesthetic values is then multiplied by the total square inches of floor space in the building to Obtain the total appraised value. Quality Valuation Quality is determined by subjecting the building to the "drOp-shock" test. Various qualities are assigned values as follows: Minimal Quality: $12.00 per square inch of floor space Good Quality: $14.00 per square inch Of floor space Better Quality: $16.00 per square inch of floor space TOp Quality: $18.00 per square inch Of floor space 76 Aesthetic Valuation The real estate board can set this anywhere from zero to $3.00 per square inch, depending on their appraisal of aesthetic value. Other Instructions Once construction begins, you will not be allowed to ask the experimenter to clarify any rules. You are on your own. Five minutes before construction is to stop, the experimenter will notify you of the time remaining. While the real estate board is appraising the buildings, your group, according to instructions, will be responsible for cleaning up left-over raw materials and returning them to the supply depot. All unused cards should be redeemed. Reminder Your group will be performing the entire task today, and the entire task again in a few weeks. APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND RULES FOR PRODUCTION TASK APPENDIX B ADDITIONAL STANDARDS AND RULES FOR PRODUCTION TASK The table in the work area must remain exactly as it is --it should not be moved. Each group member must remain at their designated position at the work area, unless their designated duties require that they leave that position (for example, see #3 below). One, and only one, group member will be responsible for Ell Of the following duties: (a) distributing tools and equipment, (b) going to and purchasing from the supply depot additional tools and equipment that may be needed, and (c) delivering the completed building to the Real Estate Board. This person is 293 permitted to assist in building construction. The supply depot will be Open evey five minutes for one minute. You.must watch to see when it Opens. Materials and supplies may not be purchased at other times. 77 APPENDIX C (PART 1) TASK QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX C (PART 1) TASK QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions by placing an "X" above the one Option that you choose. DO not put your name anywhere on this question- naire. Only the experimenter will see your responses. 1. I cared about whether or not my group performed well on the task. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree 2. I contributed a great deal to help my group perform well on the task. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 3. I tried, to the best of my ability, to help the group perform well on the task. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 4. I tried to make my Opinions known during the task. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree 78 79 Think about the task that your group just performed. What ideas or suggestions do you have that you feel would help to make your group more effective and/or efficient in performing the same task again--in other words, ideas/suggestions that would make it easier to achieve the goals of your group? The ideas/suggestions may deal with the actual production process, materials, intragroup relations, etc. They may involve quality, speed, cost savings, managerial aspects--virtually anything--but they must be task-related. Be specific! write as many ideas/suggestions as you feel are necessary. (There are two sheets of blank paper attached.) If you need more paper, you may Obtain it at the supply depot. Please number your ideas/ suggestions. 10. ll. 12. 80 There was much disagreement among members of the group. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree My Opinion was given adequate consideration by the other members of the group. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree I was quite satisfied with being a member Of this group. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree On the whole I was satisfied with my group's performance. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree I felt inhibited from expressing my feelings during the group dis- cussions. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree I had considerable influence in determining my group's method of performing the task. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree I felt a real sense of involvement with the group. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree l3. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 81 If I were taking part in another task, I would like working with these same peOple. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree Rather than working as one unified group, it seemed the group worked in sub-groups or as individuals on the task. Strongly Agree Slightly Neither Slightly Disagree Strongly Agree Agree Agree nor Disagree Disagree Disagree The group had a great deal Of influence on my final ideas about what would be a good way to perform the task. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree To what extent did the leader try to influence the decisions made by the group? Very Great Some Little Very To NO Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent To what extent did the leader encourage communication among all members of the group? Very Great Some Little Very To NO Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent ‘To what extent was the leader considerate of the feelings of other group members? Very Great Some Little Very To NO Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 82 To what extent did the leader stimulate members of the group to make contributions to the task process? To NO Very Little Some Great Very Extent Little Extent Extent Extent Great Extent Extent To what extent did the leader ask for suggestions from the group? Very Great Some Little Very To NO Great Extent Extent Extent Little Extent Extent Extent TO what extent did the leader use the suggestions of other members of the group in attempting to complete the task? To No Very Little Some Great Very Extent Little Extent Extent Extent Great Extent Extent To what extent did the group, excluding the leader, actually derive the most effective way Of completing the task? TO No Very Little Some Great Very Extent Little Extent Extent Extent Great Extent Extent I would like the same leader for the next session. Strongly Disagree Slightly Neither Slightly Agree Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree nor Agree Agree Disagree APPENDIX C (PART 2) IDEA/SUGGESTION FORM APPENDIX C (PART 2) IDEA/SUGGE STION FORM Ideas/suggestions may deal with the actual production process, materials, work-group structure, etc. They may involve quality, speed, cost savings, managerial aspects--virtually anything--but they must be task- related. Be specific! Proposed Idea/suggestion: Potential Benefits: 83 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, R. C. Learning in discussion: A resume Of the authoritarian-democratic studies. Harvard Educational Review, 1959, 22, 201-215. Argyris, C. Personality and organization. New York: Harper, 1957. Bennis, W. G., Benne, K. D., & Chin, R. (Eds.). The planning of change, 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1969. Burns, T. & Stalker, G. M. The management of innovation. London: Tavistock, 1961. Coch, L., & French, J. R. P., Jr. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-533. Cummings, T. G., & Molloy, E. S. Improving productivity and the quality_of work life. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1977. Dachler, H. P., & Wilpert, B. Conceptual dimensions and boundaries Of participation in organizations: A critical evaluation. Administrative Scienceguarterly, 1978, gg, 1-39. Davis, R. H. The role Of innovation in organizational development. Alexandria, VA.: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1981. Fairweather, G. W., Sanders, D. H., & Tornatzky, L. G. Creating change in mental health organizations. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1974. Greenwood, W. H. III. The Scanlon Plan Profile: Construct validation and test Of a model of Scanlon Plan effec- tiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1977. Hage, J., & Aiken, M. Social change in complex organiza- tions. New York: Random House, 1970. 84 85 Hoffman, L. R., & Maier, N. R. F. Quality and acceptance of problem solutions by members of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 401-407. Knight, K. E. A descriptive model of the intra-firm innova- tion process. Journal Of Business, 1967, 40, 478-496. Lawrence, L. C., & Smith, P. C. Group decision and employee participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 32, 334-337. Lewin, K. Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept, method and reality in social science; social equilibria and social change. Human Relations, 1947, 1, 5-42. Likert, R. New patterns of management. New York: McGraw- Hill, 1961. Likert, R. The human organization. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. Jr. Motivation and organi- zational climate. Boston: Harvard University, 1968. Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. Participation in decision- making: One more look. In Staw, B. M. (Ed.), Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, Inc., 1979. Lowin, A. Participative decision making: A model, litera- ture critique, and prescriptions for research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 68-106. Maier, N. R. F. An experimental test of the effect of training on discussion leadership. Human Relations, 1953, p, 161-173. Maier, N. R. F. Principles Of human relations: Applica- tions to management. New York: Wiley, 1952. March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. Organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1958. McGregor, D. The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960. Nicol, E. A. Management through consultative supervision. Personnel Journal, 1948, 21, 207-217. 86 Radnor, M., Feller, I., & Rogers, E. Research on the diffusion of innovations by organizations: A re- appraisal. In Radnor, M., Feller, I., & Rogers, E. (Eds.), The diffusion.of innovations: An assessment. Evanston, I11.: Northwestern University, 1978. Shepard, H. A. Innovation-resisting and innovation- producing organizations. In Rowe, L. A., & Boise, W. B. (Eds.), Organizational and managerial innovation. California: Goodyear Publishing CO., Inc., 1973. Stogdill, R. M. Handbook Of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: The Free Press, 1974. Tannenbaum, R., & Schmidt, W. H. How to choose a leader- ship pattern. In W. E. Natemeyer (Ed.), Classics Of organizational behavior. Illinois: Moore Publishing CO. Inc., 1978. Thompson, V. A. Bureaucracy and innovation. In Rowe, L. A. & Boise, W. B. (Eds.), Organizational and managerial innovation. California: Goodyear Publishing CO., Inc., 1973. Tolman, E. C. Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York: Century, 1932. Tornatzky, L. G., Fergus, E. 0., Avellar, J. W., & Fair- weather, G. W. Socia1_process and social innovation: A national experiment in the dissemination and imple- mentation of social technology. New York: Pergamon Press, Inc., 1981. Tornatzky, L. G., ROitman, D., Boylan, M., Carpenter, J., Eveland, J. D., Hetzner, W. H., Lucas, B. G., & Schneider, J. Innovation processes and their manage- ment: A conceptual, empirical, and_policy review Of innovation process research. Manuscript in prepara- tion, 1981. Uhlaner, L. Personal communication, February 18, 1981. Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. Leadership and decision-making. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1973. Warner, K. The need for some innovative concepts Of innova- tion: An examination of research on the diffusion of innovations. Policy Sciences, 1974, 5, 433-541. White, R., & Lippitt, R. Autocracy and democracy. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. 87 Yin, R. K. Organizational innovation: A psychologist's View. In Radnor, M., Feller, I., & Rogers, E. (Eds.), The diffusion of innovations: An assessment. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, 1978. Zaltman, G., Duncan, R., & Holbek, J. Innovations and organizations. New York: Wiley & Sons, 1973. "I7'!!!!!!!'l!!‘!!!!!“