UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Workers participation : a survey of employees attitudes Brown, Patrick Timothy 1982-12-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


831-UBC_1982_A4_6 B76.pdf [ 4.62MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0095083.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0095083-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0095083-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0095083-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0095083-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0095083-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0095083-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

WORKERS PARTICIPATIONi A SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES ATTITUDES by PATRICK TIMOTHY BROWN E.A., The University of British Columbia, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE INf> BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Commerce and Business Administration) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May 1982 (c) Patrick Timothy Brown, 1982 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Cor^f^rcx- ^ B\ASi*\HST The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT Workers' participation (WP) is any process whereby workers have a share in the reaching of managerial deci sions in the enterprise. The major objectives of this study arei to clarify the various perspectives and con cepts involved with WP; to review and critique previous studies on workers' propensity to participate? and to survey the attitudes of a group of white-collar employees towards participating in decision-making. Desire for participation among employees was measured by their willingness to move to another nearby company which would allow them more influence in decision-making, every thing else being held the same (i.e., pay, working conditions, security, etc.). It was found that clerical employees and those willing to run for shop steward were more willing to move than were either technical-professional employees or those less willing to participate in their union. There is substantial support for direct participation in local deci sions and far less for medium and distant decisions. Lastly, when a cost factor for participation is introduced (i.e., time, security, pay) for those who desire more participation, the support falls substantially. No relationship was found between desire for participation and age, education or sex. - ii -ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank the following union representatives and labour educators: Anne Harvey for her enthusiastic support and access to the membership of her union? Clive Lytle for his helpful comments and personal contacts; and Frank Wall for his interest, encouragement and down-to-earth view point. Dr. David Cray critiqued my original survey instrument and made some very helpful suggestions. Dr. Vance Mitchell and Dr. Mark Thompson also read my revisions and offered criticism and support. Lastly, I wish to particularly thank my thesis super visor, Dr. Robert Davies, for his consistently con structive criticisms and encouragement. - iii -TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iiINTRODUCTION 1 I. Proponents for WP . . . . 5 II. Critics of WP 8 III. An Organization-Theoretic Framework 16 IV. Worker's Attitudes Towards Participations A Review 25 V. Hypotheses 3VI. The Survey Instrument 39 Sample and Methodology kQ $YII. Results ^2 VIII. Discussion 6k IX. Summary and Conclusions ....... 66 BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 APPENDICES ?3 Appendix 1 7Appendix 2 81 Appendix 3 8*4-- iv -LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE 1. Sample Characteristics k2 2. Rewards and Opportunities Offered at Work . . k$ 3. Effects of Cost Factors on Desire for Participation k& Forms of Workers Participation Desired .... 51 5. Decision-Making at Work 5^ 6. Hypotheses: Predictions and Results 57 7» Rewards and Opportunities Offered at Work by Job Category 60 8. Multiple Regression on the Desire for Participation (MOVSAM) 61 9. Multiple Regression on Overall Job Satisfaction (0VERSAT) 63 - v -LIST. OF FIGURES FIGURE PAGE 1. The Spectrum of Participation ......... 17 2. An Organization-Theoretic Framework for Analysis of Participation 24 3. Histogram of Satisfaction Derived from Work by Job Category 50 k. Histograms of Amount of Influence by Job Category 2 5. Workers' Desired Amount of Participation in Different Levels of Decision-Making .... 56 - vi -INTRODUCTION Worker's participation in management is an old, re curring idea which has been defined in many ways and attempted for various purposes. Recent interest in Canada1 and a noticeable trend in Europe towards worker's participa-2 tion make it timely to take a thorough look at this topic. The basic idea is that people who are managed should have some influence or control over decisions that affect them. The International Institute of Labour Studies, which has done by far the most comprehensive series of international studies on this topic, describes worker's participation as "any process whereby workers have a share in the reaching of managerial decisions in the enterprise " (Wall and Lischeron, 1977. P. 36). Much confusion in the area of worker's participation (WP) arises from the fact that neither proponents for nor critics xFor example, see "The Great Participation Debate," The  Labour Gazette. Vol. 76, No. 8, August 1976. The Honourable Gerald A. Regan, a recent federal Minister of Labour, has stated a strong government support for "quality-of-working-life" ^QWL) issues such as workers' participation. He stated that the 1980s will see a vigorous push for more participative decision-making and meaningful work." (The Canadian Personnel and I.R. Journal, Jan. 1981, p. 3^)« Kenneth F. Walker, "Towards the Participatory Enterprise* A European Trend," Annals. AAPSS. 431, May 1977, pp. 1-11. 2 of WP have been very precise about the nature of their pro posals or consistent in their use of concepts or terminology. A further hindrance to understanding is that any scheme of WP must be viewed within the context of the historical, economic, and social conditions of the country concerned, its values and traditions. For the purpose of clarity, a framework will be described for analysis of WP with the major'issues, definitions, and concepts which have emerged from the literature. A broad array of social, political, economic and demographic factors have produced forces towards greater WP. The Canadian economy is beset by problems of inflation, unemployment, lagging growth rates and industrial disputes. Individual enterprises with declining rates of productivity growth, high turnover, absenteeism and strikes are quick to grasp at any method which promises increased worker motivation and satisfaction, higher productivity, and a more cooperative in dustrial relations climate, The apparent relative economic success of a number of European countries, where forms of WP are well established, has convinced many of the desirability of increasing WP in the North American enterprise in hope of achieving similar success. However, the transferability of these systems to Canada is in great doubt (Davies 1979; Donahue, 1976) due to the differences in such factors as bargaining structure and the historical de velopment of the different labour-management relationships. 3 With rapid changes in economic structure and technology, a stronger emphasis on democratic social and political values, rising levels of education, and with the authoritarian remnants of the last war fading into the past, there is a shift in the philosophy and morphology of many work organizations. For example, it has been proposed that we have entered the "third managerial revolution" which is based on the principle of parti-cipativeness (Preston and Post, 197*4-). The first managerial re volution consisted of the appearance of management itself as a specialized function within hierarchical organizations. The second was the separation of ownership, and control which accom panied the growth in scale and complexity of managerial tasks and which led to the professionalization of management functions. Today, participative production relationships are viewed by many as a panacea for the alienation created by automation and large complex hierarchical organization (Child, 1976). A kind of evolutionary logic is implied as the process of industrialization unfolds and yields the "participation im perative" of post-industrial society. Kenneth Alexander (1975. P» ^5) points out the apparent paradox between the values and standards espoused in society at large and those which are firmly embedded in the institution of work: We live in a society which pays massive informal homage to individualism. We have structured our educational system which formally imbues our youth, year after year, with the social values of freedom, liberty, and individual expression. Then they learn that they are expected to spend a lifetime on a job while explicitly submitting to authority. . . and the rising educational level of the labour force makes the contradiction steadily more severe. The force of moral persuasion has been added to the trend towards participation as more people accept the moral dictum of the International Labour Office that "labour is not a commodity," and the Papal Encyclical which states that "the nature of man demands that in his productive activities he should contribute to the organization of these activities and find satisfaction in his work" (Pope John XXIII, 1976) (Quoted from Newton,1977t P. 8). In addition, government support for WP has been growing throughout North America. The U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, in a much debated study entitled "Work in America" (1973« P» 13) stated: "What the workers want most, as more than 100 studies in the past 20 years show, is to become masters of their immediate environments and to feel that their work and they themselves are important—the twin ingredients of self-esteem." In Canada, the federal government's "quality-of-working-life" (QWL) initiatives support and emphasize WP in decision-making on the shop floor which shifts authority and responsibility down the management hierarchy.-^ Using census data in the United States, one estimate showed that only 55 percent of workers enjoy discretion on the job (Brown,1975)• This leaves almost half the workers in America -'John Munro, "The quality of working life: a government view," The Labour Gazette, "Adapting to a Changing World," 1978. 5 with little influence over an extremely important aspect of their lives. I. Proponents for WP Those who support WP have been categorized into four different schools of thought by Edward Greenberg (1975). Firstly, the Management School is characterized by a concern for the alienation of the work-force as manifested in high turnover, absenteeism, low productivity, wildcat strikes, alcohol and drug abuse, psychosomatic illness and industrial sabotage. Most professional management today has been bciefly exposed to the ideas of. those who have been called the founding fathers of participative management and humanistic psychology: the emphasis on groups by Elton Mayoj the hierarchy of needs by Abraham Maslow; the trust, job enrichment and autonomy empha sized by Chris Argyris; Frederick Hertzberg's "satisfiers" or motivating factors and "dissatisfiers" or "hygiene" factors; the famous Theory X and Theory Y of Douglas McGregor; the cor porate culture of cooperation and participation which was the forerunner of matrix management by Rensis Likert; and the Theory Z organization style- based on Japanese-style concepts of long-term employment and participatory decision-making proposed by William Ouchi. Their education tells managers that it is precisely an environment of autocratic supervision and repetitive unful-filling tasks that leads to alienation. This has led to the 6 notion of restructuring the organization of work through various forms of job enlargement, job enrichment, and WP in decision-making. Secondly, the Humanistic Psychologist's School, con sisting of those already listed above and their followers, points out a fundamental incongruity between the psycholo gical needs of the individual and the characteristics of modern work organizations. For example, Maslow points to the basic incongruity between worker's needs for pride of achievement and develop ment of capacities with the repetitive, simple tasks performed by so many members of the work-force. Greenberg calls a third school the Participatory Demo crats. Elections and representation by governing elite is the most common form of democracy in Western societies today. However, the Participatory Democrats stress an older form of democracy which emphasizes the importance of participation in the social decision-making process and is based upon the belief that people have a capacity for responsible and moral delibera tion which can be improved by education and by the experience of cooperative collective action. From this perspective, the present rejection of the older form by modern revisionists, who argue for an elitist group versed in the art of governance, is antithetical to the very essence of democracy and contributes to the apathy and ignorance of the general population which 7 has been well noted in political science studies. As John Witte (1980, p. 25) puts it» The generally established academic position is that the general population knows little about current affairs, expresses almost random attitudes over time, and rarely organizes its political beliefs along any logical continuum. . . .There exists general mass apathy and political incompetence. However, the proponents of participatory democracy have been heard more in recent years, particularly in civil rights groups, the student movement, and various forms of community action groups. The Participatory Democrats continue to argue that the potential contributuion of workers in the decision making process will be beneficial to workers, business, and the society at large. Lastly, Greenberg categorizes one school as the Partici patory Left which attempts to use participation as a means to raise worker consciousness and to educate them away from acceptance of traditional capitalist values. Marx had contended that under capitalism the organization of production had denied the worker the opportunity for self-development and creativity by removing his control over what he produced and how he produced it. Wage labour, industrial specialization, powerlessness and passivity are viewed as characteristics of capitalism which lead to alienation. Marxists declare that these suppressive mechanisms must be removed along with private property through socialist revo lution. The philosophy of Gramsci and Gorz, set out in Greenberg*s article, argues for the need of raising issues 8 and organizing labour through consciousness-raising worker's councils. With the entrenched, interlocking power of the state and capitalist corporations (Clement^ 1975)* with the instrumental attitudes of affluent workers in Western countries (Goldthorpe, 1968) who do not witness the stark horror of poverty and mass unemployment in the exploited countries of the world, and with corporatist or business labour unions, it has become more difficult to engender socialist attitudes. Therefore, they argue that workers* councils are the mediae through which workers may develop social consciousness, confidence in self-management, and appreciation of what can be achieved by cooperative and collective efforts. Thus, the Participatory Left views workers' councils as a means to an end; they are an educa tional prerequisite for a process of increasing worker's control over the economic order. II. Critics of WP The critics of WP in management are almost as numerous as its proponents. Hugh Clegg (i960), a sympathetic critic of industrial democracy for nearly three decades, argues that cooperative decision-making will lead to worker co-optation with a resulting anemia in the pursuit of wage and grievance demands. Several authors have critized WP from a Marxist pers pective. Harvie Ramsay (1977) argues that WP has not evolved out of the humanization of capitalism but occurs in cycles 9 which correspond to periods when managerial authority is seen to be challenged. Thus, Ramsay views participation as a means of attempting to secure labour's compliance. He describes the past attempts by management to introduce WP since the late 1800s and concludes that any real, sub stantial change in the power relationship between labour and management would not be tolerated by the owners of capital. Somewhat skeptically, he concludes (p. ^95)* Participation, then, was, and for the moment remains the latest vogue term for the old ideo logy of common interests, aiming to create' a forum for the communication of management's version of reality and the problems of business which would cause employees to temper their demands and accept managerial leadership. Michael Rose (1975) views participative management as merely the latest progression of management theory since Taylor's school of "scientific management." The vast majority of research in social science is viewed largely as an item of the ideological apparatus of capitalism. The focus of such researchers as Maslow, McGregor, Likert, and Argyris on issues of human efficiency and profitability demonstrates that science is once more the "servant of power." The very questions asked and the resources made available for research are all framed within the semantic structure of capitalism. Scientists are always tempted to present their work in a way that appeals to possible sponsors; thus, the great majority of industrial students have addressed themselves primarily to managerial problems. As the nature of those problems changed, so did 10 theories. Hence, participative management may be viewed as the latest theory developed to serve capitalism. Rose con cludes that any genuinely new approach to industrial theory or behavior would imply "a study of the changing forms and consequences of socio-economic exploitation in the production of all goods and services, especially of those consequences which generate challenges to the principle of exploitation itself" (p. 2771}. Harry Braverman (197*0 views WP in management and the whole "quality-of-working-life" (QWL) topic -iais: a duplicitous campaign" which is sheer deception and pretence. Social science accepts the capitalist mode of production and attempts, on occasion, to assuage the conscience by merely criticizing the mode of distribution. Braverman; would view the Humanistic Psychologists as solely focusing on the degree of the adjust ment of the worker rather than leveling their criticisms on the nature of the work and the mode of production itself. Alan Fox (197*0» though not classified as a Marxist, takes a radical perspective towards WP which views it as an attempt to win employee compliance and moral involvement. The unitary perspective of industrial relations assumes that workers and management strive together towards common objectives. Critics of WP scoff at proponents who take this "team" outlook and deny the inherent conflicts of labour-management relations. The pluralist perspective acknowledges the existence of divergent interests but assumes that these conflicts are 11 reconcilable through cooperation, structural adaptation of work places, and mediating institutions. The radical per spective, however, views conflict not only as a fundamental, but as an irreconcilable feature of industry as it is now structured. Thus, from the radical viewpoint, WP will only be meaningful and succeed if it includes a shift in the power in society and a radical change in the nature of the work itself. Radicals do not believe that management will willingly yield this power. Indeed, an opinion widely held is that Canadian employers believe that companies cannot be managed efficiently by applying democratic principles, that important decisions can not be a matter of compromise among opposing interests.-* Fox argues that unlike,the pluralist, the radical does not see the trade unions as restoring a balance of power between the propertied and the propertyless. The radical believes that most trade unions do not seriously challenge the status quo. There are many types of management decisions in'•.which em ployees might aspire to participate were they conscious of having the power to do so. However, most rank-and-file workers shun discretion and responsibility because of their social conditioning and adaptation to what they view as the "•"The unitary, pluralist, and radical perspectives were adapted from an earlier article by Robert Davies, "The role and relevance of theory in industrial relations; a critical review," The Labour Gazette. October 1977, pp. ^36-^5. ^G. Dufour, "Canada Cannot Import German Style Codeter-mination," The Labour Gazette. June 1977, pp. 9-1*4-. 12 inevitable, legitimate power relationship of the status quo. Fox believes that "would be" reformers, who are trying to gain the commitment of the workers, are merely trying to impose on others their own values and preferences.^ The widespread failure of the industrial enterprise to evoke the full moral involvement of the rank-and-file has been explained by blaming the workers rather than the nature of the work or the structure of the enterprise. Management has failed because they aspire to generate a high-trust response from employees in a low-trust situation. In our society, the individual's degree of moral commitment, identification and involvement is associated with the degree of control and discretion his job affords hims other forms of participation have only marginal effects. Thus, Fox concludes that "only a long-term radical programme of social equality stands any chance of generating a sufficiently wide spread sense of commitment to our common life" (p. 173) • The next group of critics attacks the psychological re search upon which much moral justification for WP is based. Perhaps, the most startling statement comes from Abraham Maslow himself (Eupsychian Management, 1965, p. 55)t A good deal of the evidence upon which he (McGregor) bases his conclusions comes from my researches and my papers on motivation, self-actualization, etc But I of all people This phenomenon of projection has been noted in several forums (e.g., Steimetz-1970; Sorcher-1971; Davies-1977). 13 should know, just how shaky this foundation is as a final foundation. My work on motiva tion comes from the clinic, from a study of neurotic people. The carry-over of this theory to the industrial situation has some support from industrial studies, but certainly I would like to see a lot more studies of this kind before feeling finally convinced that this carry over from tne study of neurosis to the study of labour in factories is legitimate. Two further difficulties with Maslow's hierarchy, which are particularly relevant to this study of participation, are the role of money and the closed system approach adopted by many writers which assumes that all but the basic needs may most usefully be satisfied in the work-context. Money is usually classified alongside physiological needs at the bottom of the hierarchy. Yet this appears to be totally misleading since money can be perceived as a general reinforcer which can satisfy a wide variety of needs at all levels of the hierarchy. The closed system approach, which ignores the compensation effects of leisure and non-work time, fails to confront the instrumental attitudes of many employees towards work and the realities of the organizational constraints involved in a market economy. Personality theory and attitudinal research describe indi viduals in terms of traits or clusters of behaviour and would predict that only certain types of employees would react positively to WP. Many workers would have to undergo sub stantial attitudinal change in order to be predisposed to participate. For example, Steimetz and Greenidge (1970) state 14 that employees may be categorized into those with an "ascendant" viewpoint such as the typical manager who welcomes the opportunity to participate whereas they con tend that most rank-and-file have an "indifferent" outlook or attitude which rejects participation as an extra burden. Between these two positions are those who possess "ambi valent" attitudes such as the low level managers and aspiring workers. Since the vast majority of initiatives in WP have come from management in North America it does not require an overly skeptical mind to view participation as another management technique to achieve greater worker commitment to organiza tional goals and increased profits—in other words, just another form of exploitation. Unions are suspicious (Donahue, 1976) and fear the "co-opting" of workers to the management team. More elitist, authoritarian, or paternalistic managers may take the professional stance that workers quite simply lack the expertise to make useful contributions,.to ?the manage ment of the enterprise. Indeed, this gap in knowledge must be bridged by information and training if participation is to be effective (Jain, 1978). Furthermore, they argue, an important factor of good management is the ability to make fast deci sions on crucial matters and that the participative decision making apparatus is inappropriate and cumbersome (Marchington and Loveridge, 1979). Many managers do not readily accept 15 what they perceive to he an erosion of management rights and prerogatives which participation may entail. They view humanistic psychology as too "soft" or idealistic, unfounded, or incompatible with the reality of the fast changing, com plex, competitive capitalist marketplace. A paradox becomes apparent when the very reasons that management might be expected to resist WP are also those which may explain the resistance of unions. Trade unions have emerged as a countervailing force against the abuse of mana gerial authority. An important aspect of the union's function is guarding against the intrusion of managerial authority. To the extent that such authority is eroded or shared with em ployees, the purpose of those unions whose major focus is ad versarial will diminish. Lastly, the worker, the most important factor involved and the focus of this thesis, may reject participation due to a general resistance to change, a genuine preference for a more passive role, or an instrumental outlook towards work as some thing to be tolerated in order to meet basic needs and to enjoy the consumption of goods and leisure. To conclude, an attempt has been made to draw the battle-line between the proponents for and critics of WP. It remains to empirical investigation to suggest which view is most consistent with reality. The proponents would antici pate a substantial desire among employees for participation 16 in order to satisfy their higher order needs, whereas the critics would anticipate worker skepticism or indifference, and only minimal support. The next section will develop a framework within which one may generate hypotheses and will further refine the definition of WP in management. 7 III. An Organization-Theoretic Framework' Walker (197*0 distinguishes two ways in which partici pation may be achieved. When workers exert influence on managerial functions in levels higher in the organizational structure the notion is termed "ascending participation." When managerial functions are delegated to lower levels the notion is termed "descending participation." A distinction may also be made between the form of parti cipation which is structured by design and the extent to which the instituted design is actively taken up and utilized. ^Structural participation" is used to describe the institu tional form which is introduced, whereas "living participation" is used to describe the actual personal involvement of the participants. Next, the institutions of WP may be legislated and formal, such as works councils, safety committees, or rules for repre sentation on company boards, or the institutions may be Drawn and adapted from Keith Newton, "The Theory and Practice of Industrial Democracy* A Canadian Perspective," ?*vvUSsion Paper No» Economic Council of Canada, August 17 voluntary and informal, such as committees for joint con sultation and non-binding negotiations. Furthermore, control over decision-making may stretch from unilateral decisions by management, at one extreme, through information giving, consultation, negotiation, to veto power over management's decisions and to unilateral worker control. Figure 1 (drawn from Davies, 1979. P« 8) offers a helpful outline of the spectrum of participation and delineates several terms which are often confused and used interchangeably in debates on WP. FIGURE 1 -THE SPECTRUM OF PARTICIPATION Degree of control by workers Nature of worker involvement General name Greatest control or full industrial democracy Lower limit of industrial democracy Least control, lower limit of participation Ultimate authority rests with the workers themselves to whom management is responsible. The enterprise is also collectively owned by workers. Decisions made jointly by management or shareholder representatives and Workers' representatives (i.e., indirect participation) at board level or on works' councils. Workers initiate criticisms and make suggestions that are discussed with manage ment. Management reserves the right to take the final decision but undertakes to provide workers with rele vant information before such decisions are taken. Workers are informed of management decisions as well as the reasons for them. Workers' control or self-management Co-determination Consultation or co-infiuence Information/communication 18 Participation may also take place at different levels ranging from those closest to the individual worker at the task level, through work group or section, department or factory, firm, industry, to the level of the economy. In addition, participation may be direct, such as schemes of job enlargment, rotation, and enrichment wherein the individual worker participates, or indirect, as in repre sentational schemes like works councils, company boards, or collective bargaining. Q Lastly, one may speak of the amount of participation in an organization in terms of the further dimensions of scope, degree, and extent. The scope of participation refers to the range of managerial functions in which workers take part. By degree is meant the extent to which workers influence managerial functions. By extent is meant how widely spread the participation is among the members of the workforce. Walker goes on to define two sets of internal organiza tional factors which determine the likelihood of WP. The first set of factors is known as the "participation potential" See also Kwoka J., "The Organization of Works A Conceptual Framework," Social Science Quarterly. Vol.57, No. 3, 1976, pp. 632-6^3, for a method of calculating the amount of parti cipation in an organization. 19 of the firm or the characteristics of the workplace itself* the autonomy of the enterprise; its size; its technology; and its organizational structure and climate. A second set of factors are the "human factors" which include the worker's "propensity to participate" and which determine the extent to which the potential for participation is rea lized. First considering the autonomy of the firm, in countries with a large degree of central planning, decisions concerning the desired degree of WP are often taken above the level of the firm. Legislative provisions likewise limit freedom of action at the company level. In a country like Canada with a "branch-plant economy," the formulation of company policy may take place in multinational headquarters outside the country. Thus, the less autonomy a firm possesses, then the less opportunity exists for WP. Technology is a second important factor which affects functional complexity, specialization, and the physical layout of the workplace which, in turn, affects the degree, scope, extent, and form of WP. For example, in a highly automated plant with massive capital investment, there may be very little leeway for worker involvement in decision making. A number of research studies have confirmed that an organization's tasks and the technologies necessary to accomplish them are major determinants of organizational 20 structure. For example, Joan Woodward (1965) divided firms into three basic groups based on their production techno logy: unit and small batch production, large batch and mass production, and process production. It was found that the more complex the technology, going from unit up to process production, the greater the number of managers and manage ment levels. The span of management was also found to in crease from unit to mass production and then decrease to process production. The last major relationship discovered was that the greater the technological complexity of the firm, the larger was the clerical and administrative staffs. Though the link between technology and social or organi zational structure has been demonstrated, the proponents for WP argue that this link does not necessarily determine social patterns or the most appropriate decision-making process. A socio-technical systems approach has been proposed which suggests that the technology itself must be adapted to social systems for true profit maximization (Trist and Bamforth, 1951). Critics, such as Rose (1975)t counter that insofar as a technology demands a typical pattern of organization (if a profit is to be made) then it creates role determined be havior. The demands of the technology permit only marginal adjustments to the entailed system of work-roles through job enlargement, rotation, etc. Such conclusions are gloomy fox managers eager to reduce industrial unrest and for 21 humanitarians committed equally to the dignity of man and the profit motive. The possibility exists that technology is ideologically based; that is, if one views workers as typically lazy and indifferent, then one would design a technology which re moves as much discretion as possible from the worker and couple this with close supervision. On the other hand, if one views workers as seeking to satisfy needs for achieve ment and discretion, then one would opt for more flexible technological design and work group autonomy. It may be that wider cultural and social patterns of differing societies are stronger determinants of participation than the nature of the technology itself (Gallie, 1978). Third, the size of the firm can affect the participation potential in that the more personal, less specialized, and less complex atmosphere in small firms may be more conducive to communication and cooperation than large firms with greater formalization, standardization, specialization and impersonal supervision (Child, 1976). As an organization grows in size, its problems and approaches to these problems change markedly. Problems of coordination and communication increase, new levels of management are likely to emerge, and tasks can become more interrelated (Greiner, 1972). Hence, with the increased complexity and problems of control in large organizations, it is unlikely that management will be predisposed to WP»9 22 if it is viewed as relinquishing control in a zero-sura game. However, managers who are convinced that sharing decisions will augment control will certainly support WP. Fourth, the organizational structure, which is interde pendent with the previous variables of size, technology, and autonomy, may hinder or enhance the likelihood of success for WP. A "flat" organizational structure would appear to be more conducive to WP than a "tall" structure (Walker, 1974). A company organized into strictly divided functional depart ments with an emphasis on status, ranking, and titles may develop a climate characterized by rigidity, traditionalism, and an emphasis on rules and regulations. Alternatively, a tall structure may also be conducive to WP if there is strong support at the top. Conversely, less mechanistic structures may result in flexible, innovative, and informal climates. Such factors, as the involvement of ownership in the enterprise, and the sharing of information, authority, and power, all have direct implications for participation potential (Cummings and Berger, 1976) (Gowler and Legge, 1978). The interaction between the worker's propensity to parti cipate, which is determined by the expectation of reward and past experience and conditioning, and the manager's willing ness or ability to share decision-making, are the human factors which will determine the extent to which the partici pation potential is actually realized. The first questions for the workers to consider, and the focus of this thesis, are: To what extent and in what decisions do they really want to participate? How strong is this desire to participate and what is the actual value of participation to the worker; that is, what are workers willing to trade off, if necessary, to achieve more job discretion? These are difficult questions to answer for a number of reasons: (l) even when workers themselves are surveyed, there may be a difference between declared opinions and the extent to which they would or could be acted out in reality; (2) the effort that workers are willing to put into active or living participation will be affected by their self-esteem and per ceptions of their own capabilities, the perceived costs ba lanced against the perceived rewards, and the amount of trust already established between themselves and management based upon past experience. At the same time, the attitudes of managers founded]upon various philosophies will affect the degree to which managers are prepared to accept concepts of WP. If supervisors or lower level managers perceive a threat to their jobs or authority, one would expect any scheme of WP to be met with resistance and sabotage. The interaction between the manager's attitudes and the worker's propensity to participate will determine, in particu lar situations, the amount and form of participation, given the potential set by organizational constraints and characteristics which are not amenable to change. 2k To summarize and conclude this section, the following model is a general framework for WP within which analysis and evalua tive researcn may be undertaken. With this summary of the con text of WP established, we. can now xurn to the specific question of what exactly are workers' attitudes towards participation? FIGURE 2 AN ORGANIZATION-THEORETIC FRAMEWORK FOR ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION 1 EXTERNAL FACTORS Economic, political, and social climate, legislation. INTERNAL FACTORS The Participation Potential Human Factors Technology, size, autonomy, organiz ation structure. Cognitive/attitudinal characteristics of managers and workers. FORMS AND DIMENSIONS Legislated/voluntary, ascending/descending, representative/participative, formal/informalj structural/living. Degree, scope, extent, amount. INTERNAL EFFECTS Changes in productivity, absenteeism, turnover, conflict, motivation, satisfaction, work attitudes, health and safety, self-actualization. EXTERNAL EFFECTS Impact on public opinion; democratization of society at large; pressure for further legislation. DETERMINANTS MORPHOLOGY > CONSEQUF.NCES (NEWTON,1977) 25 V. Workers' Attitudes T.owards  Participation: A Review This thesis is focusing on one single element of the framework for WP, that is, the workers' attitudes towards participation or their propensity to participate. The reasoning behind this choice was forcibly stated by Walker (1972, p. II83): The critical factor appears to be workers' attitudes towards WP in management since if there is little interest and pressure among workers, little difference is made by their having high capacity and high relative power, or by a high acceptance of WP on the part of management. This point is reiterated by Clarke et al. (1972, pp.18-19): The present state of knowledge does not give a definitive answer to the fundamental question of to what extent workers want to, participate. . . . Indeed some commentators have gone so far as to suggest that little or no interest exists among employees. Wall and Lischeron (1977, P« 13) point to a more specific lack of information: There is scant evidence of the strength, as opposed to prevalence, of the interest in immediate participation, nor is there much consideration of desires in relation to diffe rent decision-making topics. More recently, Witte (1980, p. 2k) in a study of WP in an American manufacturing corporation declares that the state of knowledge is still woefully lacking: "Very little is known about how much influence workers feel they should have in different types of corporate decisions." 26 The purpose of this study is to help the efforts to fill that gap in knowledge so that we may deal intelli gently with WP, to avoid its pitfalls and false promises, and to reap its potential benefits. First, a review of the more relevant information accumulated thus far proves useful. Previous Studies The conclusion that workers desire more influence in decisions than is allowed by their current jobs has been supported by a number of studies originating at the University of Michigan. Daniel Katz (1951) found that, of 580 clerical workers in the home office of a large eastern insurance company, only 2k percent were satisfied with the amount of decision-making in their jobs. Katz further reported that, of 5»7°0 employees in a heavy-industry plant, 51 percent wanted to "have more say" about the way their work was done. Moreover, 65 percent thought the work would be better done if the men had more oppor tunities to make suggestions about such things as the design, setups, and the layout of the work. However, the majority of workers (68 percent) felt that they had little or nothing to say about how their job should be carried out. Nancy Morse (1953) reported that, of 7^2 clerical workers in a large insurance company, 73 percent would like to have more decisions to make than were possible in their present jobs. 27 Arnold Tannenbaum (1956) used general questions to measure perceived control, influence, or participation, and demonstrated that desired control is consistently-higher than actual control at most levels in the organiza tion. Furthermore, the discrepancy between actual and ideal control increases as one moves from the top downward in organizations. Thus, workers believe that, relative to the current distribution, their influence should be in creased. However, in another study (Tannenbaum and Kahn, 1958, pp. 88-9*4-1 96-97) when workers were asked to rank the goals they felt their union should pursue, "increased say in running the plant" ranked fourteenth out of fifteen goals, with only 22 percent checking it as "something the local should do." Reporting on a study done in Norway, Harriet Holter (1965) found that the majority of workers in both blue- and white-collar companies wanted increased participation in decisions that concerned their own work and working condi tions (56 and 67 percent, respectively), but only a small minority (16 and 11 percent, respectively) wanted more participation in decisions concerning the management of the entire company. Holter also discovered that the employees who wanted participation for themselves were in more highly skilled jobs, were more interested in advance ment in the company, identified strongly with company goals, and were significantly more efficiency-minded than those 28 who were not interested in participation. These findings correspond well with Tannenbaum's findings over the last twenty years and bode well for managers who are able to utilize these workers' ambitions. The challenge to the unions is to indoctrinate these more ambitious members and reward them so as to ensure that any conflicts between company goals and those of the union will be resolved in favor of therunion. Any perceived loss of control or influence over the membership, which may be involved in some schemes of WP, would certainly be met by staunch resistance by union leaders. Tabb and Goldfarb (1970) examined the attitudes of 861 employees in 16 Israeli organizations. All the enter prises were designed to encourage WP through various repre sentational systems. Among a sample of 646 workers, they found 54 percent to be clearly in favor of participation, 16 percent opposed to the idea, and the remainder believing it to be impractical (20 percent), or being undecided (10 percent). Hiilgendorf and Irving (1970) studied the attitudes of over 2,000 British rail workers. They classified the answers to an open-ended question dealing with the areas, if any, in which workers would like to participate. They found that 58 percent of the responses concerned the way in which work was carried out. 29 Hespe and Warr (1971) asked 2^3 individuals in a sample of British, male blue-collar workers if they would like to have more influence in the running of their depart ments than they currently had, and 61 percent responded in the affirmative. Based on the same sample, Hespe and Little (1971) have also shown that there exists a strong desire for indirect participation in decisions affecting method of pay ment, hours of work, work methods, and the use of work study techniques. Here, the model view was that there should be negotiation on proposed changes and "no action until agree-ment is reached." Very few felt that these were decisions which management had a right to make entirely on its own. It is useful to pause here and assess the essential weakness in the evidence recounted thus far. The American studies are now almost thirty years old and with increased levels of education and changes in workers' expectations, especially among the younger workers, one may wonder whether attitudes towards participation have changed. More over, in many of the investigations (e.g., Holter, Hilden-dorf and Irving, Katz, and Morse), the examination of indi vidual desires for participation has been of a secondary nature. In several studies, there was no union influence. Lastly, there is little information in these studies on the strength of the interest in direct participation, nor is there much consideration of desires in relation to different decision-making topics. 30 Many of these weaknesses were overcome in a number of studies conducted by Wall and Lischeron (1977). They grouped decisions according to the level at which they occur in the organization. "Local participation" involves decision-making at the lowest levels in the organizational hierarchy, such as how the work is to be carried out, how tasks are to be scheduled, and how duties are allocated amongst available workers. "Medium participation" involves activities which traditionally have fallen within the autho rity of middle managers, such as the choice of new personnel, recommendations for promotions, training, and the purchase of equipment and new materials. Lastly, "distant partici pation" relates to the highest level of the organizational hierarchy dominated by senior managers and dealing with decisions which determine the growth and expansion of the organization, its overall policies, and major financial activities. Comparing three separate studies including answers from 131 nurses, lib factory workers, and 94 outdoor workers of a public local authority, they found that blue-collar workers wanted to exert an equal amount of influence as management in decision-making at all levels, whereas nurses showed a much weaker desire for participation except for the highly trained nurses who wanted more medium parti cipation. For the most part, they found that workers opted for direct rather than indirect forms of participation. 31 In the third survey by the University of Michigan (1977) on the quality of employment in America, Staines and Quinn (1979) used a national probability household sample of over 2,300 individuals drawn from the general working population in the"United States. They found frequent mention of problems concerning work content with 36 percent of workers reporting they had skills that they would like to use but could not, and 32 percent who said they were "over-educated" for their jobs. On a question concerning how much say workers should have about work-related decisions, the following responses include those who said either "a lot of say" or "complete say"« safety equipment and practices (76 percent), how work is done (kl percent), wages and salaries (30 percent), days and hours of work (19 percent), and hiring and layoffs (16 percent). Staines and Quinn also found that unionized workers expressed fairly positive attitudes towards labor unions, with 77 percent of the white-collar workers and 71 percent of the blue-collar workers reporting that they were "some what" or "very satisfied." However, members were less positive about their unions handling of non-traditional issues such as helping to make jobs more interesting, getting workers a say in how their employers run the busi ness, and getting the workers a say in how they do their own jobs. 32 More recently in a study of an American manufacturing corporation, John Witte (1980) sampled 145 non-supervisory employees and found very strong interest in direct, local forms of participation, with 83 percent of respondents wanting either "some say" or "a lot of say" on work pro cedures, whereas interest in distant decisions such as setting management salaries was weak (17 percent). When asked if they should be represented on the board of directors, 74 percent answered yes, 14 percent no, and 12 percent did not know. When a regression equation utilizing twelve independent variables was used to predict the strength of belief in WP, 44 percent of the variance was explained. It was found that youth and higher level job categories were statistically more important than higher education. Jbb classification, the degree of influence a respondent currently has in his job, and his evaluation of its physical attributes (e.g., enough help, time, and equipment available), and enjoyment inherent in the job were all very significant in predicting a worker's belief in participation. It is easy to imagine a worker responding that he would like more say, influence, or control at his workplace, espe cially when there is no direct cost to the individual worker as in representational schemes or over issues that directly impinged on his day-to-day worklife where the rewards are readily apparent. Many of the previous studies on WP may be criticized from this viewpoint. However, Witte 33 demonstrates that when any costs of participation are introduced, enthusiasm for its benefits seems to drop sharply. Out of a total sample of 145, he found that 45 percent were willing to move to another company (every thing else being equal) just for increased participation, 32 percent would be willing to work 2 extra hours per week, and only 17 percent would be willing to move to a partici pative job for 10 percent less pay. Witte speculates that two factors may explain many workers' reluctance: the natural acceptance of hierarchical authority (job contract rationale), and the fact that most people have never conceived of, much less had experience with, any form of direct democracy. He concludes that the profit motive may be inimical to democracy in the workplace in that the effects of individual ambition and competitiveness, meritocracy, and individual status incentives tend to erode democratic values which assume greater similarities in abilities and willingness to act responsibly, and which empha size communal rewards and cooperative environments. In summary, the literature suggests that there is sub stantial worker support for direct forms of WP at the local, task level, but very little interest in medium or distant o levels. However, there is some evidencevthat when the costs This conclusion is fairly well supported. See Ramsay, H., "Participation: The Shop Floor View," British Journal of I.R. Vol. Ik, No. 2, 1976, p. 130; and Wall T. and Lischeron, J. Worker Participation;(London: McGraw-Hill, 1977, p. 3^.) ' 3^ of participation are introduced (e.g., extra time or drop in pay), then interest drops sharply. Support for in direct, representational forms appears to be fairly strong though there is no study that this writer is aware of that introduces a cost factor, such as the potential threat of co-optation or collusion. This survey will attempt to overcome the weaknesses of the previous studies such as the lack of information on the strength of interest in the various forms of WP, on the speci fic decision-making topics, and on the sensitivity of the desire for participation when a specific cost factor is introduced. Lastly, much of the research has-been carried out in Europe or during the 1950s in the United States. In formation generated here in Canada will be more relevant to future debates on WP which will no doubt continue to be heated and frequent in the field of industrial relations and certain sectors of society at large. Within the organizational-theoretic framework for the analysis of participation (Figure 2), this study has limited itself to looking solely at an internal human factor which determines workers' participation, that is, the characteristics and attitudes of employees which are related to their desire for participation. As previously noted, it would make little sense for management or the union to push for a scheme of workers' participation unless the scheme has widespread and substantial support among the employees themselves. With this 35 goal in mind, we can now move on to the hypotheses, methods, and results of this study. V". Hypotheses HIi Age will be negatively correlated with desire for participation. In a recent case study of an American corporation, Witte (1980) found a negative correlation between age and belief in participation (r = -.37). Wall and Lischeron (1977) argue that younger people will demand a greater say because they are better educated and possess a more pervasive belief in demo cratic values than older people who were exposed to harder times. On the other hand, Walker (197^) has noted that in Yugo^ slavia, where forms of worker participation are well estab lished, older workers tend to participate more. Walker reasons that older workers may want to participate more be cause of their greater skill and experience. Since Witte's evidence is more recent, and since ex periences in Canadian society are more similar to those of the United States, the hypothesis predicts that younger workers will be more interested in participation than older workers. H2« J.ob skill level will be positively correlated with desire for participation. As Holter (1965) implies, higher level jobs, which allow more autonomy and intrinsic satisfaction, may stimulate the individual to support-worker influence in a wider range of 36 decisions. On the other hand, a report by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare on Work in America (1973) argues that lower-level jobs, hierarchically controlled and inherently unenjoyable, may stimulate a reaction from workers in the form of demands for more say in decision-making. However, participation may be to a degree a learned process: therefore, present participation may lead to a desire for increased influence. Workers at lower-level jobs tend to have only an instru mental involvement with the company, based on monetary and security needs (Andrisani, 1977)* Those workers who are in low skill level positions which do not include a significant degree of intrinsic reward may find little sense in viewing their work as anything else but a source of economic security. For many employees, work is not a central life interest. H3: Education will be positively correlated with desire for participation. Due to education's socializing function, level of educa tion is expected to be positively related to preferences for intrinsic rewards and a desire to influence decision-making (Strauss, 1974). It is easy to support the notion that more educated workers would feel more confident in being able to understand the process of decision-making and would be able to articulate their viewpoints to management more effectively. 37 Kb: Men will be more likely to desire more participation in decision-making than women. Evidence from Europe (Walker, 197^) seems to support this hypothesis. Women may possess a weaker attachment to the workforce due to traditional differential sex role socialization which places the major responsibility for child-care and homemaking more on women in our society, and which engenders women with a more passive, nurturant role than men. Men may draw more of their self-esteem from the role of the "provider" and hence, may be more likely to value work intrinsically in addition to its instrumental role as a means to earn a living. However, the current emancipation of women in North America, as well as changes in child-rearing practices, may render this difference insig nificant. H5* There will be more support for direct participation at the local level than at medium or distant levels of decision-making. This hypothesis is drawn from the work of Wall and Lischeron (1977) and is consistent with their findings as well as those of Marchington (1980). It would seem reason able that workers would want to participate more in those areas in which they possess the information and experience to make competent decisions and which are more immediate to their everyday lives. 38 H6: Support for participation will drop sharply when a cost factor (i.e., time, security, pay) is introduced. This hypothesis finds support in the work of Witte (1980) and is consistent with evidence from studies which point to a major group of employees, especially in less interesting work, who possess anlinstrumental attitude towards work, e.g. (Goldthorpe et al., 1968)j that is, those with an instrumental attitude may value increased pay much more than an opportunity for participation in decision-making. H7s There exists a "general participation syndrome," that is, those who desire more participation also participate more in other areas. This hypothesis is consistent with attitudinal research and personality theory which would predict the existence of a "participative type." In this case, desire for partici pation should be positively related to the respondent's willingness to run for shop steward. In a study on local union participation (Anderson, 1977), a "general participa tion syndrome" was referred to as an explanation for the finding that being involved in a greater number of outside organizations was positively related to participating in decision-making within the union. 39 YIi The Survey Instrument The survey was adapted from two previous studies on attitudes towards participation by Marchington (1980) and Witte (1980). In these two studies, the desire for parti cipation was measured by asking respondents directly how much say did they want in decision-making. In this study, the desire for participation was measured by the willing ness of a respondent to move to another nearby"^0 company which would allow more say in decision-making, everything else being held the same (i.e., pay, job security, working conditions, etc.). Using willingness to move as a proxy for desire for participation still has some weaknesses since it involves potential "psychic costs" which may vary among individuals, such as leaving workmates or the anxiety associated with any change. However, it may be argued that simply asking an individual if he wants more say in his job may be akin to asking him if he wants more moneyV without attaching any cost, such as an increase in accoun tability or responsibility. If a respondent answers that he is willing to move, one may infer that his desire for participation is more genuine than if he merely replied that he wanted more say in decision-making, detached from any consequences to that reply. The intent of stipulating a nearby company was to remove any resistance to moving due to such factors as moving expenses, changing schools for children, or being uprooted from a commu nity. The survey was improved further by incorporating the suggestions of several labour educators concerning the survey design and the wording of particular questions. Care was taken to pose questions so as not to be at a level of generality which would have relatively little meaning for individuals in their particular work setting, yet not so context specific as to deny cross-setting comparisons. For example, employees were asked how specific decisions should be made, such as when the work day begins and ends? who is assigned to a job or task; and how much influence should they have in redesigning or reorganizing the workplace. The final draft (Appendix 1) was composed of thirty questions which attempt to measures job satisfaction; the form, extent, degree and scope of participation desired; the importance of influencing decision-making as compared to more traditional issues; the value of participation to individuals in terms of what they would be willing to trade in order to obtain more influence; and lastly, the desire and opportunity for union participation. Sample and Methodology The sample was taken from a major white-collar office and technical employees' union operating largely in the public sector. The surveys were distributed in October, 1981, at a shop stewards' meeting, forty stewards receiving 41 ten surveys each. The stewards were asked to distribute the surveys on a volunteer basis and to return the surveys to a central location. A possible bias exists in this technique in that those employees who would volunteer to fill in the survey may be more predisposed to participation than those who refused. In addition, the shop stewards may also tend to ask only those employees who, they believe, would be most likely to cooperate with a union-administered survey. A randomly distributed mail survey may have elimi nated the latter bias, but the former bias would remain unless the employees were strongly encouraged or rewarded to complete the survey on company time. Due to this design flaw, a certain bias is inevitable and must be reflected in the inferences which we may draw from the results. A follow-up letter was sent out to the stewards two weeks later reminding them to pick up the completed surveys, to remind members to fill-in the survey, and to point out that postage would be paid. Complete anonymity and confidentiality were guaranteed in order to elicit the most honest responses and to assuage union fears that the information might be used to their dis advantage . A total of 400 surveys were sent out and 237 usable returns were received for a response rate of 60 percent. A possible bias may exist in that the 40 percent who chose not to fill-in the survey may have different population kz characteristics than those who chose to complete the survey. For example, it has often been found that the less educated, those in lower occupational categories, and those unin terested in the subject of the survey have higher than average rates of non-response (Moser, 1972). However, a response rate of 60 percent is considered adequate for this type of survey as long as one remains aware of the nature and possibility of the non-response bias. The following sample characteristics were also noted 1 TABLE 1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS Job Category11 - clerical: 59% - technical-professional; kl% Demographics - median age: 32 (range: 18-62) - married: 59$ - female: kk% - mean number of children: 1..0 - median tenure: 6 years - completed or have some college: 55% Union Membership - rank-and-file: 83% - shop steward: 15% - union officer: 2% VII.. Results The survey included a question which broadly followed the distinction advanced by Hertzberg (1959) between "hygiene" and "motivator" factors. Before presenting the results of the Job category was determined using an objective measure. Respondents were asked to give a brief job description. 43 hypotheses, it is useful to draw a distinction between such factors as pay and opportunity for participation in decision making. Based on his studies, Hertzberg concluded that job satis faction and job dissatisfaction do not come from the presence or absence of one set of factors. Instead, they come from two separate sets of factors, which Hertzberg called "satis-fiers" (motivating factors) and "dissatisfiers" (hygiene factors). The satisfiers, or factors that motivate people to perform well and lead to feelings of satisfaction, include achievement, recognition, responsibility, participation in decision-making, and advancement. Hertzberg believed that the absence of these factors had little to do with the employee's dissatisfaction. The dissatisfiers included such factors as salary, working conditions, and job security. Positive ratings for these factors did not lead to job satisfaction but merely to the absence of dissatisfaction. Hence, according to Hertzberg*s theory, the satisfiers are related to the nature of the work or job content and the psychic rewards that result directly from performance of the work tasks. On the other hand, the dissatisfiers or hygiene factors come from the individual's relationship to the organi zation's environment or the job context in which the work is being done, such as the degree of physical safety and financial reward. 1*1+ Though "subsequent research studies indicated that this two-factor theory oversimplified the relationship between satisfaction and motivation (e.g., House, 1967) in that it was found that job context factors, such as salary, could lead to job satisfaction, and that the absence of job con tent factors, such as achievement and recognition, could lead to job dissatisfaction, nevertheless, the distinction still maintains a high degree of validity and is useful for the comparison that has been made in this study. Table 2 lists twelve questions which were posed con cerning the respondent's rewards and opportunities in his current job, and the respondent was required to answer in two parts as follows: 1) To what extent does your job offer you the following rewards and opportunities? (List supplied) 2) How important is each of these rewards and opportunities to you? These questions attempted to assess the respondent's atti tudes towards work and the relative importance of motiva tional factors (satisfiers) in relation to hygiene factors (dissatisfiers). Respondents were asked to answer from "very little" (1) to "very much" (5) on a five-point scale. Their responses represent an estimate and are no more than an attempt to rank these factors. The following results were obtained: 45 TABLE 2 REWARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED AT WORK: Mean Responses (B)-(A) leasure •issatis Now Ranked and Rank faction CAN n J-*- * * Measure of (A) Conditions (B) Importance Dissatis-Security of employment 3.94 (1) Convenient hours at work 3.8? (2) Friendly work relationships 3.86 (3) Good fringe benefits 3.62 (4) Good working conditions 3.41 (5) Good pay 3.26 (6) Hygiene Factors (Dissatisfiers) 4.30 (4) O.36 4.19 (6) O.32 4.37 (2) 0.51 4.18 (7) O.56 4.37 (2) O.96 4.35 (3) 1.09 Motivational Factors (Satisfiers) Control over own work 3.11 (7) 4.18 (7) I.07 Good supervision 2.98 (8) 4.00 (9) 1.02 Interesting and satisfying work 2.83 (9) 4.42 (1) 1.59 Opportunities to use my abilities 2.71 (10) 4.27 (5) 1.56 Recognition for work well done 2.54 (11) 4.18 (7) 1.64 Opportunities for upgrading and promotion 2.26 (12) 4.05 (8) I.79 (N = 237. For scoring this Table: (l=very little) through to (5=very much)) Looking at the hygiene factors, we see that employees are, for the most part, satisfied with these basics of the job. Security of employment, convenient hours of work, friendly relationships, and good fringe benefits are all sufficient, though good pay is just seen to be adequate (i.e Measure of Dissatisfaction = 1..09). In stark contrast, a different picture emerges when we examine the position of motivational factors. These appear to be poor sources of satisfaction, particularly opportu nities for upgrading and promotion. Recognition for work well done, opportunities to use one's abilities, and in teresting and satisfying work are^all seen to be lacking. Only moderate control over one's work is perceived. The five most important factors were ranked in the following order* interesting and satisfying work? friendly relationships; pay; job security; and opportunities to use one's abilities. Maslow (1970) postulated a theory of motivation based upon a hierarchy of needs ranging from physiological needs through to the need for self-actualization. Each need must be at least partially satisfied by the individual before he or she moves up the hierarchy to the next stage. In this case, Hertzberg's hygiene factors correspond to Maslow's physiological and security needs, whereas his motivational factors may be compared to Maslow's needs for self-esteem and self-actualization. Looking at the five most important 47 job factors to these respondents, we see that the minimum level of pay and security has been reached and thus, the motivational factors are viewed to be at least as important as the more basic hygiene factors. Desire for participation may be viewed within this framework as being a significant component of the need for esteem and self-actualization. Consistent with this viewpoint and Hertzberg's distinc tion, a survey of over 20,000 employees in the United States (Andrisani, 1978) yielded the following supportive findings! While students of labor-management relations would expect bread and butter factors to play a prominent role in shaping job satisfaction of workers, the National Longitudinal Surveys'1 data clearly do not support such a role. . . .Within virtually all the eight age-sex-race groups, workers highly satisfied with their jobs reported that the factors they liked best about their work were intrinsic in character, that is, inherent in the job content rather than job context. . . .(p. 246) As a further test of the importance of motivational factors, we may look at the sensitivity of the desire for participation when a specific cost factor is introduced; that is, what is the perceived relative importance of the desire for participation to a hygiene factor, such as pay or job security? (Hypothesis #6). Four questions were posed which asked respondents if they were willing to move to another nearby company which would offer them more say in decisions that affected them at work. The first question asked if they were willing to move to another nearby company where everything was the same (i.e., pay, security, conditions, etc.) except for the extra 48 opportunity for participation. The only costs associated with this move would be the psychic costs of change and leaving workmates. If they answered in the affirmative to question one, then they were requested to answer the next three questions. The second question added a cost factor of two extra hours per week without pay. The third asked if they were willing to give up their seniority. Lastly, the fourth asked if they would be willing to take a 10 per cent pay reduction for this opportunity to participate in decision-making. The results^are shown in Table 3 belowt TABLE 3 EFFECTS OF COST FACTORS ON DESIRE FOR PARTICIPATION (N = 23?) Cost Move? Same Conditions ( Move? 2 Hours Seniority 10$ Pay Yes 48$ No 20$ Uncertain _3&$ Yes 30$ 16$ 10$ ..." •'$*•' No 9$ 23$ 23$ Uncertain 2$ 2$ 15$ 100> 48$ 48$ _48$ As can be seen, about half (48$) of the respondents said that they would be willing to move, everything else being equal. (This is consistent with Witte's (1980) results of 45$ for a group of manufacturing employees.) Within this 48 percent, 30 percent would be willing to work two extra hours per week, 16 percent would be willing to give up their seniority, and only 10 percent would be 49 willing to take a 10 percent reduction in pay for the extra influence in decisions that affected them at work. Hence, we see that though participation is valued by at least half of the employees, the desire for participation diminishes sharply when a cost factor is introduced. Again, this would support the viewpoint that only a moderate level of interest exists for participation and that employees wish to increase the motivator factors, but not at the expense of the hygiene factors. Though employees' needs of esteem and self-actualization may be partially met by participation, their lower or more basic physiological and security needs are not so well met that they are willing to trade the latter for the former. These findings are consistent with several previous studies (e.g., Marchington 1980, Witte 1980, Wall and Lischeron 1977). The following question was posed in order to assess the respondent's satisfaction derived from worki 28) How much satisfaction do you get out of work as compared to other sources of satisfaction such as leisure time? (Coded LIEWRK) Again, a five-point scale varying from "very little" (1) through to "very much" (5) was applied. On the assumption that technical-professional work might be more satisfying than clerical work, separate response means for the job cate gories were calculated. The following histogram portrays these results: 50 FIGURE 3i Histogram of Satisfaction Derived  from Work by Job Category T-VALUE = -3.46, p = 0.001 very much' 5 satisfaction 4 from work 3 2.6 2.4 2 very little" 1 (N: = 2.37) Both ^ -;Cleri-. • " cal Tech.-Prof. This confirms that this particular group of employees derives only a moderate degree of satisfaction from their work when compared to alternative sources of satisfaction. As ex pected, the technical-professional -employees draw signifi cantly more satisfaction from their work than the clerical group (T-VALUE = -3»k6, p = 0.001). However, even they draw only a moderate degree of satisfaction. Hence, we might infer that employees will only be moderately predisposed towards participation since work is not viewed as the major source of life satisfaction to the majority of these employees. We can now turn to the different characteristics of parti cipation previously described in this paper within the organi zation-theoretic framework or model (p. 24 hereof). Firstly, let us look at the strength of interest in the various forms of workers' participation. Secondly, let us investigate the degree, extent, and scope of the desire for participation} 51 that is: In what specific decisions do workers want to participate? Looking first at the desired form of workers' partici pation, the following results were obtained: TABLE k FORMS OF WORKERS PARTICIPATION DESIRED (Agree or Strongly Agree) 12) Joint decision-making on how the work is done 92$ Consultation concerning how the work is done 90$ Workers' representatives on the Board of Directors 6l$ Employees should share in company pss%£i1^f 60$ Management should share all company information 52$ All workers should own and run the company 12% (N = 237) We find a high degree of support for joint decision making on how the work should be done (92$) and for consul tation (90$); moderate support for worker directors (6l$), profit-sharing (60$), and sharing of all company informa tion (52$): and only weak support for complete workers' control or ownership (12$). Hence, we find no radical challenge to managerial authority or legitimacy, but rather 52 an interest in consultation and ensuring that one's view point has an influence in decision-making. Respondents were also asked the following questions concerning the amount of perceived influence they had over their jobs: 14) In general, how much say do you personally have over decisions that affect you at work? (Coded GENSAY) 15) How much say ought you to have over these decisions? (Coded OTSAY) Perceived lack of say: WHATSAY = OTSAY - GENSAY' Again, a five-point scale was applied varying from "very little" (1) through to "very much" (5) and the following results were obtained: FIGURE 4: Histograms of Amount of Influence by Job Category Amount of Influence 5 4 3 2 1 0 Clerical 1 1 ^"?* 5 4 3 2 1 Tech.-Prof. 3.6 2.4 1.2 GENSAY OTSAY WHATSAY GENSAY ^SAY^^ATSAY Both the clerical employees and the technical-pro fessional group thought that they should have the same amount of influence over decision-making (3*6). However, the clerical employees perceived themselves as having less 53 present influence (1.9 compared to 2.4, T-VALUE = 3.11, p = 0.002) and also had a significantly greater per ceived lack of say than the technical-professional group (1.7 compared to 1.2, T-VALUE = 2.73, p = 0.007). Hence, we might expect a greater desire for participation among clerical employees. To shed more light in this area, sixteen questions were asked which dealt with the various types of deci sions commonly faced in the work environment. Following Wall and Lischeron's (1977) distinction, these questions were classified into three groups: "local" decisions, which are those that most directly affect the worker in his immediate environment, such as how much work should be done in a day, or how this work is to be done: "medium" decisions, which are usually made at the level of middle management, such as hiring, firing, and promotion; and lastly, "distant" decisions, which deal with corporate policy, such as investment or pricing, and are usually handled by top management. The responses were noted on a three-point scale varying from management decision (1), joint decision (2), to workers' decision (3). The following results were obtained: 13) DECISION Local Decisions - When the work day begins and ends - Quantity of work for the day - Quality of the work - The way the work is done - Who is assigned to a task - Redesigning or reorganizing workplace - Setting of wages or pay scales Medium Decisions - Selection of foremen or supervisors - Who should be fired - Who gets promoted - Who should be hired - Who should be laid-off - Designing a new plant or office Distant Decisions - Setting of managements' salaries - Distribution of resources or profits - Setting policy on pricing, new products or services TABLE 5 MAKING AT WORK (N = 23?) Actually Made Should be Made  Management Joint Workers' Manag. Joint Workers Decision Decision Decision Dec'n. Dec'n. Dec'n. ~~wr ~~wi— w —-m—~m—m— 41. 5 10 82 8 63 30 7 16 78 6 66 23 11 21 71 8 51 44 26 5 7 88 5 71 3 22 72 6 61 .35 4 6 80 14 51 49 0 16 80 4 94 5 1 41 54 5 84 15 1 41 57 2 88 12 0 37 62 1" 90 9 1 f? 44 3 88 11 1 44 53 3 90 10 0 26 72 2 96 4 0 51 46 3 98 2 0 53 46 1 95 5 0 52 ^5 3 55 All employees in this survey were covered by a number of collective agreements, and it is somewhat surprising to find them responding that decisions jointly made at the bargaining table are actually made by management (e.g., setting of wages or pay scales). However, management typi cally administers the collective agreement, whereas the union issues grievances whan violations occur. For example, though the basic pay levels are set at the bargaining table, the pay structure is usually controlled by management through job evaluation. Hence, management appears to many employees to be making decisions because the constraints set down in the collective agreement are not as visible on a day-to-day basis. Thus, the illusion of greater management influence in decision making is created. From Table 5i one sees a consistently positive shift in all response categories from management decision towards joint decision-making. There is only one decision that employees would seemingly want more say in than management, and that is redesigning or reorganizing their own workplace (2.08 on the three-point scale). It is clearly evident that the strongest desire for participation exists at the local level where employees feel they have the„competency and information to make the best decisions. When asked how decisions should be made on the scale from (1) to (3), the following means for local, medium, and distant 56 levels of decision-making were obtained! (Hypothesis #5) FIGURE 5t Workers' Desired Amount of Participation  in Different Levels of Decision-Making Decisions Workers 3 Joint Manage ment 2 \- 1.93 1.62 1.50 All differences in the means are significant at p <0.001 Local Medium Distant (N = 237) As expected, we see that in general there is more interest in decisions at the local level (1.93), less in medium deci sions (1.62), and the least in those distant decisions in which employees have the least knowledge or experience (1.50). Consistent with the form of decision-making chosen, there is no radical movement to remove the majority of decision-making from management, but rather a strong desire for joint decision making, especially at the local level. To conclude, we see that the scope of managerial functions in which workers want to participate is generally limited to local decision-making for direct personal participation, and medium or distant levels for, representative participation. The degree that workers want to influence decisions is sub stantial for local decisions, but only moderate for medium and distant decisions, falling considerably short of workers' control. Lastly^ the extent of the desire to participate 57 among employees appears to be moderate also, with slightly less than half of the workers willing to change companies, everything else being equal, in order to be able to have some increased say in decisions that affect them at work. These findings are consistent with the instrumental attitude towards work held by many of these employees. From the preceding discussion, we see that hypotheses H5 (more support for participation at the local than at medium or distant levels of decision-making) and H6 (support for participation will drop sharply when a cost factor is introduced) have been accepted and we can reject the null hypothesis in these cases. The other key variables and their coding may be found in Appendix 2, along with a computer matrix of the correlation coefficients. As can be read directly from the correlation matrix in Appendix 2, the results for the other hypotheses are as followsi (Note that the sign for the dependent variable (MOVSAM) must be reversed due to coding.) TABLE 6 HYPOTHESESi PREDICTIONS AND RESULTS Independent Hypothesized Rel'n with Results Variable Desire for Participation (Dependent Variable MOVSAM) (Pearson r), (Signi-• ficance) HI Age Negative r = -OilO p= 0.10 H2 Job Skill Level Positive  = -0.23, P = 0.002 H3 Education Positive r = -0.04, p = 0.31 H4 Sex (l=male,2=female) Negative  = -0.05, P = 0.25 *H7 Participation in other areas Positive r = 0.13, p = 0.05 *(As measured by willingness to run for steward - RUNSTEW) 58 Hence, setting our level of acceptance at 0.05, we find that only hypothesis H7 can he accepted. As noted previously, hypotheses H5 and H6 may also be accepted $ that is, there is more support for participation at the local level than at medium or distant levels of decision-making (H5), and support for participation drops sharply when a cost factor is intro duced (H6). No significant relationship with desire for participation (MOVSAM) was found for age, education, or sex. At odds with our hypothesis, clerical employees were more willing to move for increased participation than were the technical-professional group. In order to check for possible interaction effects and to control for covariates, such as education and age, a number of two-way analyses of variance were run on the factors which could possibly interact. There was no significant interaction between sex and job skill level. For example, male clerical workers were no more inclined to desire participation than female clerical workers (F = 0.61, p = n.s.). When education was controlled for, there was no significant difference in desire for participation between those less than 35 years of age and those over 35 (F: = 0.01, p = n.s.). Nor were there any significant differences between men and women on the dependent variable when the effects of education and age 59 were removed from the error variance. In sum, no significant interaction effects were dis covered and the effects of introducing controls on the major relationships were insignificant. Though age, education, and sex did not have the pre dicted relationship with desire for participation (MOVSAM), we do find older, more highly educated males in the technical-professional group. (See JOB:, column 2, Appendix 2.) A closer look at the data shows that the technical-professional employees differ from the clerical employees on several charac teristics. In order to take a closer look at these diffe rences, Table 2 (Rewards and Opportunities Offered at Work) was disaggregated by job category in order to determine if the technical-professional employees differed significantly from the clerical employees on how they perceived their present working conditions. Hence, we find that the technical-professional group scores significantly higher than the clerical group on all the motivational factors or those aspects of the job which lead to satisfaction. There are no significant differences on the hygiene factors except for the global measure stated as "good working conditions." Consistent with the higher scores on the motivational factors, the technical-professional group also declared that they draw more satisfaction from their work than do the clerical employees. (T-VALUE « -3.46, p = 0.001). 60 TABLE 7 REWARDS AND OPPORTUNITIES OFFERED AT WORK BY JOB. CATEGORY Conditions Now (Mean Response) (A) (B)- T-VALUE, Signi-Cleri ca1 T.lehikTPr of f (B) - (A) fieance Hygiene Factors (Dissatisfiers) Security of employment 3-9 4.0 0.1 0.84, n.s. Convenient hours of work 3.8 3.9 0.1 0.54, n.s. Friendly work relationships 3.8 4.0 0.2 1.53. n.s. Good Fringe benefits 3.6 3.7 0.1 0.74, n.s. Good working conditions 3.2 3.8 0.6 3.76, 0.000 Good pay 3.2 3.3 0.1 0.39, n.s. Motivational Factors (Satisfiers) Control over my own work 2.9 3.^ 0.5 2.51. 0.013 Good supervision 2.8 3.3 0.5 2.34, 0.020 Interesting and satisfying work 2.5 3.3 0.8 4.21, 0.000 Opportunities to use my abilities 2.5 3.1 0.6 3.93. 0.000 Recognition for work well done 2.3 2.8 0.5 3.07. 0.002 Opportunities for upgrading and promotion 2.0 2.6 0,6 3.94. 0.000 (N: =237- For scoring this ©able: (1 = very little) through to (5 very much)). 61 Perhaps most significant for this study, the technical-professional group perceived themselves as having more con trol over their own work than did the clerical employees. This greater perception of influence and greater satisfaction derived from their work could explain the greater reticence about moving to a more participative w>o/rk environment among the technical-professional group. For further clarification, a multiple regression was run on the desire for participation (MOVSAM), and 22. percent of the variance was explained. The results are shown in Table 8 as follows» TABLE 8 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ON THE DESIRE FOR PARTICIPATION (MOVSAM) MULTIPLE R 0.47425 R SQUARE O.22492 ADJUSTED R SQUARE 0.17247 STANDARD ERROR O.41861 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DF REGRESSION 9. RESIDUAL 133SUM OF SQUARES 6.76323 23.30670 MEAN SQUARE 0.75147 0.17524 4 . 28827 P 0.0001 SUMMARY TABLE VARIABLE MULTIPLE R R SQUARE RSQ CHANGE SIMPLE R WHATSAY 0 33258 0 1 1061 0 1 1061 -0 33258 JOB 0 38962 0 15180 0 04 1 19 0 26694 LIEWRK o 42653 0 18192 0 03012 0 29422 RUNSTEW 0 46089 0 21242 0 03050 0 14289 EDUC 0 46617 0 21731 0 00489 0 02068 SEX 0 47047 0 22135 0 00403 0 01738 YRSEMP O 47244 O 22320 O 00186 O 16008 AGE 0 47344 0 22414 0 00094 0 06685 MEMBER - 0 47425 0 22492 0 00077 -0 06070 (CONSTANT) VARIABLE B BETA STD ERROR B WHATSAY JOB LIEWRK RUNSTEW EDUC SEX YRSEMP AGE MEMBER (CONSTANT) -0. O. 0. O. -O. 0. O. 0. O. 7394986E-01 222 1887 7569486E-01 1793041 2678895E-01 7364425E-01 2988680E-02 1356471E-02 3173985E-01 -0.21708 0.23964 0. 18607 O. 19377 -0.05723 0.07885 .0.03720 0.03299 0.03344 0.5195575 0.02846 0.08401 0.03339 0.08678 0.03894 * 0.07608 * 0.00697* 0.00344 * 0.08713 * (# Non-significant at p=s. 05) 62 The variable which accounted for the most variation in desire for participation (MOVSAM) was perceived lack of influence (WHATSAY) which accounted for II percent of the variance. The next three variables in order of importance are: job skill level (JOB, 4. percent), satisfaction derived from work (LIEWRK, percent), and willingness to run for shop steward (RUNSTEW, 3; percent). Hence, we find that the respondent's perceived lack of influence is far more pre dictive of their willingness to move to a more participative work setting than any other variable. In order to determine to what degree perceived lack of influence (WHATSAY) affected the overall measure of job satisfaction (OVERSAT.: see questions 10 and 11 in Appendix 1-Survey), a regression was run with good pay (GPN), inte resting work (INTWKN), and perceived lack of influence (WHATSAY) as the independent variables. Due to multicolli nearity among the rewards and opportunities offered at work which might affect overall job satisfaction, interesting work and good pay were chosen because of the weak correlation with each other (r = 0.07;'). The results are shown in Table 9> , Interesting work was by far the most powerful variable explaining 4-8 percent of the variance, followed by perceived lack of influence (4 percent), and good pay (2 percent). Hence, those employees in the more interesting technical-professional jobs are more satisfied than those in clerical positions. 63 TABLE 9 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ON OVERALL JOB SATISFACTION (OVERSAT) MULTIPLE R 0.73422 R SQUARE 0.53908 ADJUSTED R SQUARE 0.53294 STANDARD ERROR 0.75642 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE DF REGRESSION 3. RESIDUAL 225SUM OF SQUARES 150.57072 128.73932 MEAN SQUARE 50.19024 0.57217 87.71838 P O.OOOO VARIABLE INTWKN WHATSAY GPN (CONSTANT) SUMMARY TABLE MULTIPLE R R SQUARE RSQ CHANGE SIMPLE R 0.69295 0.71969 O. 73422 0.48018 O. 51795 0. 53908 0.48018 0.03778 0 . 02 1 13 0.69295 -0.36479 0. 21O06 VARIABLE INTWKN WHATSAY GPN • (CONSTANT) B 0.5341298 -0.1561208 0/1591932 1.433625 BETA O. 63984 -0.17753 0. 14732 (•'Significant at p=^.01) STD ERROR B 0.03908 V 0.O4167 0.04957 >/ Moreover, perceived lack of influence does not appear to have a very strong effect on the respondents' declared level of overall job satisfaction. This last point bears repeating. Though the respondents' perceived lack of influence is a better predictor of desire for participation than any other variable, the magnitude of its influence on overall job satisfaction is fairly small (i.e., h percent). Either perceived lack of influence is not a 64 significant issue for most of these employees compared to their other concerns, or alternatively, the measure itself may be so general and ^relative as to render it a weak correlate of job satisfaction. To conclude, for this sample of employees, clerical workers and those willing to run for the position of shop steward are significantly more willing to move to another nearby company which would allow them an opportunity to participate in decision-making that affects them than are either technical-professional employees or those less willing to participate in their union. There is substantial support for direct participation in local decisions and significantly less for medium and distant decisions. Lastly, when a cost factor for participation is introduced for those who desire more participation, the support falls significantly and substantially. VIII. Discussion Age, education, and sex appear to be poor predictors of the desire for participation as measured by the willingness of a respondent to move to a nearby company with a more parti cipative environment, everything else being held the same (pay, benefits, conditions, etc.). Several previous studies have looked at the effect of age on the propensity to participate, and what emerges is a totally confusing picture. In general, there is no correlation between age and desire for participation, as was the case in 65 this study. A younger employee's initial zeal and desire for participation may soon be extinguished in a work environment that offers no such opportunity. Older em ployees, who are more likely to possess the knowledge and experience to participate effectively, may refrain from doing so due to established norms or attitudes, or alter natively, may already have a sufficient degree of influence in decision-making and be fairly satisfied with their present situations, as appears to be the case for the technical-professional group in this study. Ninety-one percent (91$) of this sample has at least completed high school. A lower level of education may only inhibit participation if it is considerably lower than the level for this group of employees, such as the level of education that exists in the "underdeveloped" countries of the world. In this sample, women and those less educated want to influence those local decisions with which they are most familiar. They also have the opportunity and desire to influence the more difficult medium and distant level deci sions through their representatives. Unfortunately, this study did not ask the respondents directly whether they desired direct personal participation or indirect represen tational participation in the various decisions. However, one may reasonably infer that respondents would prefer direct participation in local decisions and, meist likely, represen tation in medium and distant decision-making. 66 Only 20 percent of our sample definitely refused to move for increased influence. The other 80 percent either agreed to move (48 percent) or were uncertain (32 percent) about moving for more influence. This would lead one to believe that there is a fairly widespread support and interest in the idea of workers' participation among em ployees. The low ranking of the motivator factors as present sources of satisfaction strongly indicates an under utilized human resource. However, the perceived lack of influence among respondents had only a minimal influence in explaining overall job satisfaction (i.e., 4 Percent). In addition, only a minority of employees (10 percent) were willing to actually take a 10 percent reduction in pay for an opportunity for increased influence in decision-making. These last two points would lead one to believe either that worker participation is not a burning issue for most em ployees ("Having a lot of say over how my work is done",was ranked 8th out of 12 bargaining issues), or that they see indirect participation through their union combined with their present limited amount of direct participation as adequate for their purposes. IX. Summary and Conclusions To again put WP in a wider perspective, it is useful to look at the vested interests of all parties involved. As organizations, unions look upon WP as a means to change the balance of power by increasing their influence over medium and 67 distant decision-making, whereas management views WP as a means to boost company efficiency and employee effort while maintaining the status quo as far as possible. From this study, we see that employees themselves, for the most part, desire increased direct participation in local deci sions which have an immediate impact on their day-to-day lives and in which they feel most competent to make deci sions. The majority of employees respects management's expertise in making the more complex medium and distant decisions as long as their interests are represented through their union. Hence, when discussing WP, it is important to be clear with which viewpoint one is dealing. In the case of this study, we have been looking at the employees' perspective. Since the clerical workers have less influence over local decision-making than the technical-professional group, they are more willing to move for increased participation. How ever, though this desire for increased influence is wide spread among employees, it is not a very highly ranked concern. A scheme of job enrichment or redesign which increases employees/*!; discretion might be well received by this parti cular group of clerical workers. A recent survey of union activists in British Columbia has shown that the preferred method of dealing with issues such as workers' participation in decision-making, is through joint programs rather than 68 collective bargaining (Ponak and Fraser, 1979)• Interest in job design which increases the employees' discretion has been recently demonstrated by the B.C. Federation of Labour in their newly established course on job design. Hence, both management and labour are becoming increasingly aware of the desirability of increasing workers' participa tion in decision-making, especially at the local level. The next step in a thorough study would be to evaluate the participation potential of the various organizations in which these employees work, in order to assess the organiza-' tional characteristics which might hinder or assist in the implementation of a scheme of workers' participation. However, the evaluation of the participation potential is beyond the limits set for this study, and must be left for other researchers to explore and illuminate. 69 BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander, K.O. "On Work and Authority* Issues in Job Enlargement, Job Enrichment, Worker Participation and Shared Authority." American Journal of  Economics and Sociology, Vol. 34,No. 1, January 1975. PP. 43-54. Anderson, J. "Local Union Participation: A Re-examination." Industrial Relations. Vol. 18, 1979, pp. 18-31. Andrisani, P.J. Work Attitudes and Labour Market Experience: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Surveys* New York, N.Y., Praeger Publishers, 1978. Braverman, H. Labour and Monopoly Capital: the degradation  of work in the 2 0th century. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1975* Business Week. TThe New Industrial Relations," May 11, 1981, pp. 84-98. Child, J. "Participation, Organization, and Social Cohesion." Human Relations. Vol. 2 9, No. 5. 1976, pp. 429-451. Clarke, R.O., Fatchett, D.J., and Roberts, B.C. Workers' Participation in Management in Britain. London: Heineman, 1972. Clegg, H. 1 A New Approach to Industrial Democracy. London: BlackWil> Clement, W. The Canadian Corporate Elite: An Analysis of  Economic Power. McClelland and Stewart Ltd., 1975. Cumnaings, L., Berger, C. "Organization Structure: How Does It Influence Attitudes and Performance?" Organization  Dynamics. Autumn 1976, pp. 34-49. Davies, R.j;. "The Role and Relevance of Theory in Industrial Relations: A Critical Review." The Labour Gazette. October 1977, PP» 436-445. Davies, R.J. "Introduction: Industrial Democracy in Inter national Perspective." In Industrial Democracy Today: A New Role for Labour. G. Sanderson, ed., 1979, pp. 3-17. Donahue T. "Why U.S. Unions Reject Codetermination." The  Labour Gazette. Sept. 1976, pp. 473-477. Fox, A. Man Mismanagement. London: Hutchinson, 1974. Gallie, D. "In.tSearch of the New Working Class; Automation and Social Integration within the Capitalist Enterprise••, uambnage university Press, ly/ts. 70 Goldthorpe, J.,, Lockwood, D., Beckhoffer, F. and Pratt, J. The Affluent Worker: Industrial Attitudes and  Behavior. C.U.P., 1968. Gowler, D.and Legge, K. "Participation in Context: Towards a Synthesis of the Theory and Practice of Organizational Change, Part I." The Journal of Management Studies. May 1978, pp. 149-175. Greenberg, E. "The Consequences of Worker Participation: A Clarification of the Theoretical Literature." Social  Science Quarterly. Sept. 1975. PP- 191-209. Greiner, L. "Evolution and Revolution as Organizations Grow." Harvard Business Review. July-August 1972, pp. 37-46. Hertzberg, F. Work and the Nature of Man. New York: World Publishing, 1966. Hespe, G., and Little, A. "Some Aspects of Employee Partici pation." In Psychology at Work, P. Warr, ed. Harmonds-worth: Penguin, 1971. Hespe, G. and Warr, P. Do Employees Want to Participate? Paper given at 17th International Congress of Applied Psychology, Belgium, 1971. Hilgendorf, D., and Irving, B. Worker Participation in Manage ment: A Study of the Attitudes of British Rail Employees. Report of the Human Resources Centre, The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, 1970. Holter, H. "Attitudes towards employee participation in com pany decision-making processes." Human Relations. Vol. 18, 1965. PP. 297-321. HouseJ R. "Hertzberg's Dual-Factor Theory of Job Satisfaction and Motivation." Personnel Psychology. Vol. 20, No. 4, (Winter 1967), PP. 369-389. Katz, D. "Satisfactions and Deprivations in Industrial Life." In Industrial Conflict. A. Kornhauser, R. Dubin, A. Ross, eds. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954. Marchington, M. Responses to Participation at Work. Gower Publ. Co., Limited, England, 1980. Marchington, M.f and Loveridge, R. "Non-Participation: The Management View?" The Journal of Management Studies. May 1979, pp. 171-194^ 71 Maslow, A. Eupsychian Management; A Journal* Homewood, Illinois, 1965. Maslow, A. Motivation and Personality. New York, Harper and Row, 1970. Morse, N. Satisfactions in the White Collar Job. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1953* Moser, C, and Kalton, G. Survey Methods in Social Investi gation. New York, Basic Books Inc., 1972. Newton, K. The Theory and Practice of Industrial Democracy1 A Canadian Perspective^ Discussion Paper No. 94, Eco nomic Council of Canada, August 1977* Obradovic, J..., "Participation and Work Attitudes in Yugo slavia." Industrial Relations. Vol. 9. 1970, pp.l6l-l69. Ponak, A., and Fraser, C. "Union Activists Support for Joint Programs." Industrial Relations, Vol. 18, No. 2, (Spring 1979), PP. 197-209. Preston, L., and Post, J. "The Third Managerial Revolution." Academy of Management Journal. Vol, 17, No. 3, Sept. 1974, pp. 4-76-486. Ramsay, H., Cycles of Control: Worker Participation in Socio logical and Historical Perspective." Sociology. Vol. 11, 1977, PP. 481-506, Rose, M. Industrial Behavior; Theoretical Developments Since  Taylor. London; Lane, 1975. Sorcher, M. "Motivation, Participation, and Myth." Personnel  Administration. Sept. - Oct., 1971, pp. 20-24. Staines, G., and Quinn, R. "American workers evaluate the quality of their jobs." Monthly Labour Review. January 1979, PP. 3-12. Steimetz, L., and Greenidge, C. Realities that Shape Mana gerial Style: Participative Philosophy Won't Always Work." Business Horizons. October 1970, pp. 23-32. Strauss, G. et al. Organizational Behavior. Madison, Wis., Industrial Relations Research Association, 1974. Strauss, G., and Rosenstein, E. "Workers' Participation: A Critical View." Industrial Relations. Vol. 9, No. 2, February 1970, p. 208. 72 Tabb, J:., and Goldfarb, A. Workers' Participation in  Management: Expectations and Experiences. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1970* Tannenbaum, A. "The Concept of Organizational Control." Journal of Social Issues. Vol. 12, 1956, pp. 50-60. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Work in  America. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1973• Walker, K. "Workers' Participation in Management: an Inter national Perspective." Monthly Journal of the Bureau  of Public Enterprises. (Ministry of Finance, New Delhi, Lok Udyog), Vol. 5. 1972, op. 1173-118?. Walker, K. "Workers' Participation in Management - Problems, Practice, and Prospects." Bulletin of the International Institute for Labour Studies. Vol. 12. 1974. pp. 3-^36. Walker, K. "Toward the Participatory Enterprise: A European Trend." Annals. AAPSS. 431, May 1977, pp. 1-11. Wall, T., and Lischeron, J. Worker Participation - a critique  of the literature and some fresh evidence. London, McGraw-Hill, 1977. Witte, J. Democracy. Authority, and Alienation in Work -Workers' Participation in an American Corporation. The University of Chicago Press, 1980. Woodward, J. Industrial Organization. London, Oxford Uni versity Press, 1965# 72 B APPENDICES 73 APPENDIX li WORKER'S ATTITUDES TOWARDS PARTICIPATION: A SURVEY - Please do not put your name on this survey. Please be frank and honest in your replies. 1. What is your job? (Please give a brief description. ) 2. Year born. 3. Marital status I |single I Imarried CZ! widowed • divorced/separated 4. Sex I I male Qfemale 5. Number of dependents. 6- Fathers primary worklife occupation. Mothers primary worklife occupation. 7. Number of years with this employer. 8. Education I I elementary • some highschool •c ompleted highschool some college • completed college 9. Rank-and-file • Shop steward Union officer 74 -2-10. To what extent does your job offer you the following rewards and opportunities? Please put a tick (/) for each statement in the space nearest the answer which you believe best describes your rewards and opportunities. In addition, put a tick (vO for each statement showing how important each reward or opportunity is to you. Conditions now Importance -good pay Very Very Little Much 1 1 1 1 Very Little 1 1 1 -security of employment 1 II 1 -good working conditions l 1 1 1 J ... I 1 .. J 1 1 . ! i. .1 .. ,_L ._] L__ -friendly relationships at work 1 1 1 1 -recognition for work well done -opportunities for upgrading and promotion 1 I L 1 I i 1 I -control over my own work i i 1 1 -opportunities to use my abilities i i i • i i -convenient hours of work i i 1 i ! 1 1 -good supervision | | [ -good fringe benefits 1 ! I 1 I ii' ] 111 -interesting and ! ij satisfying work i 1 1 | '! Ill Very | Much 11. As an overall measure, how satisfied are you with your job? Very Little Very Much. 75 -3-12. Below are some statements connected with the idea of participation by workers in industry. Could you say whether you agree, disagree, or are unsure about each of the statements.'Please tick (•) the appropriate column for each statement. -employees should share in company profits Strongly Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Agree -management should not share with workers all the company information -management should consult workers about how the work is to be done -workers' representatives should not sit on the Board of Directors -management and workers' representatives should make decisions together about~ how the work is done -workers should never question management's decisions —--'— -all workers should jointly own the company and run it for themselves | i i ' i 1 13. Many decisions are made which affect you in your workplace every day. The following question asks both how you think these decisions are actually made and how they should be made. Please go through the list below and place a tick (•) against the method which best describes your view for each decision. -when the work day begins and ends Actually made [Management Joint Workers) [Decision Decision Descis -selection of foremen or supervisors -who should be firejd -who gets promoted Should be made Management Joint Workers Decision Decision Decision 76 Actually made Management Joint Decision Decision -how much work people should do in a day I Should be made Workers Management Joint Workers Decision!|Decision Decision Decision -the quality of the work -who should be hired -the way the work is| done(methods & procedures) -who is assigned to job or task -who should be laid-bff -setting of pay scales or wages -setting of managements salaries I -redesigning or reorg anizing your workplace -how the company distributes its resources or invests profits j -designing a new plant or office j -setting policies on-pricing, new products, or services 14. In general, how much say do you personally have over decisions that affect you at work? Very Little Very Much 15- How much say ought you to have over these decisions? Very Little Very Much 77 -5-16. Below are a list of issues which you may be concerned about. What issues would you like your union to push for in bargaining? Put a tick (v/) in the space depending upon how important the issue is to you. -safe working conditions Not very Important Important 1 1 J 1 -job security 1 1 | 1 -pay 1 1 1 1 -opportunities for upgrading or promotion 1 1 1 1 -having a lot of say over how the company is run 111! -convenient hours or shorter work week ! 1 1 I -opportunities to use my abilities I 1 1 1 -having a lot of say over how my work is done 1 1 II -fringe benefits -interesting and satisfying work -having a lot of say over how my work group is run " J 1' ' "j -training or education 'III.: 17. If there was another company somewhere-nearby that would allow you to make more decisions than at your present workplace, and if the pay, benefits, conditions, etc...were all the same, the only diff erence being a chance for you to have more say in decisions that affect you, do you think that you would try to get a job there rather than your present job? • Yes • No J jUncertain (If the answer to the above question was'yes', then please answer questions 18, 19, & 20. If your answer was 'no' or 'uncertain* then you may skip these questions.) 78 -6-18. As you can imagine, making decisions like those already mentioned takes time. If this other company asked you to spend some extra time without pay, say two hours a week, in order to get these decisions made, would you still change companies? D Yes - LZlNo | j Uncertain 19. Would you be willing to increase the risk of being laid-off by moving to this other company and loosing your seniority? • Yes • No | jUncertain 20. What if the pay at this other job or company were less...say 10$ less? Would you still take the job? • Yes DNo [ [Uncertain 21. How important to you is it who is elected or appointed to the following offices? (Please tick (•) the appropriate column.) -Canadian Labour Congress Not Very Important Important 1 II I •_. 1 -Workers" representative on joint committee(e.g. safety) i 1 1 1 . • J -shop steward 1 1 1 1 J -Union officer (local) 1 1 1 1....- - j -Union officer (national or international) 1 1 1 1 j -B.C. Federation of Labour II 1 II 22. Have you yourself ever considered standing for the position of union officer? •Yes •No 23. Would you stand for the position of union officer if asked to by your fellow workers? 2k. How much opportunity is there for membership participation in your union? 25. What percentage of the time do you spend working on a machine? • 0-20* • 20-40* • 40-60* • 60-80* Q80-100* 26. How much is the speed at which you work set by a machine? 27. What percentage of time do you usually spend working alone? • 0-20* •20-40* •40-60* •60-80* • 80-100* • Yes • No Very Little Very Much Very Little Very Much 80 -8-28. How much satisfaction do you get out of work as compared to other sources of satisfaction such as leisure time? Very Little Very Much 29. What is your annual income? • Less than $10,000 O$10,001-15,000 • $15,001-20,000 • $20,001-25,000 • $25,001-30,000 • $30,001-35,000 lZi$35,ooi-40,ooo •$40,001-45,000 •$45,001-50,000 • More than $50,000 30. We would appreciate any comments or opinions you would like to express concerning workers" participation. Please feel free to do so in the space below. Thank you very much for your co-operation. 81 APPENDIX 2: Key Variables. Coding, and Correlation Matrix Variable Coding AGE 18 to 64 JOB 1 Clerical 2 Technical-Professional EDUC 1 Elementary 2 Some Highschool 3 Completed Highschool 4 Some College 5 Completed College SEX 1 Male 2 Female RUNSTEW:"Have you ever considered standing for the position of shop steward or union officer?" 1 Yes 2 No LIEWRK:"How much satisfaction do you get out of your work as compared to other sources of satisfaction such as leisure time?" 1 (Very Little) through to 5 (Very Much) MEMBER 1 Rank-and-File 2 Shop Steward 3 Union Officer YRSEMP(Tenure) 1 to 45 Variable Coding MOVSAM:"If there was another company somewhere nearby that would allow you to make more decisions than at your present workplace, and if the pay, benefits, conditions, etc... were all the same, the only difference being a chance for you to have more say in decisions that affect you, do you think that you would try to get a job there rather than your present job?" 1 Yes 2 No 3 Uncertain GENSAY:"In general, how much say do you personally have over decisions that affect jreu at work?" 1 (Very Little) through to 5 (Very Much) OTSAY:"How much say ought you to have over these decisions?" 1 (Very Little) through to 5 (Very Much) WHATSAY:(OTSAY - GENSAY) (Perceived lack of influence) SPSS BA^CH SYSTEM 01/22/82 PAGE 2 FILE " WORKPART (CREATION DATE = 11/13/81) -PEAR SON CO R R E L A T I 0 N C 0 E F F I C I E N T S AGE JOB EDUC SEX RUNSTEW LIEWRK MEMBER YRSEMP MOVSAM WHATSAY AGE 1 .0000 ( 0) P = * * * * * 0.1877 ( 233) P=0.002 -0.0762 ( 236) P=0.122 -0.1642 ( 237) P=0.006 -0.0992 ( 236) P=0.064 0.1125 ( 237) P=0.042 0.0660 ( 217) P=0.167 0.4497 ( 237) P=0.000 0.1014 ( 159) P=0.102 -0.0390 ( 237) P=0.275 JOB 0.1877 ( 233) P=0.002 1.0000 ( 0) P = * * * * # 0.2795 ( 232) P=0.000 -0.2989 ( 233) P=0.000 -0.1981 ( 232) P=0.001 0.2220 ( 233) P=0.000 0.1287 ( 213) P=0.030 0.2988 ( 233) P=0.000 0.2323 ( 156) P=0.002 -0.17G9 ( 233) P=0.003 EDUC -0.0762 ( 236) P=0.122 0. 2795 ( 232) P=0.000 1.0000 ( 0) p = * * * * * -0.0712 ( 236) P=0.138 -0.0149 ( 235) P=0.410 0.1058 ( 236) P=0.052 0.0176 ( 216) P=0.399 -0.0864 ( 236) P=0.093 0.0402 ( 159) P=0.307 -0.0589 ( 236) P=0.184 SEX -0.1642 ( 237) P=0.006 -0.2989 ( 233) P=0.000 -0.0712 ( 236) P=0.138 1.0000 ( 0) P * 0.1864 ( 236) P=0.002 -0.0283 ( 237) P=0.332 -0.1360 ( 217) P=0.023 -0.1493 ( 237) P=0.011 0.0536 ( 159) P=0.251 0.0746 ( 237) P=0.126 RUNSTEW -0.0992 ( 236) P=0.064 -0.1981 ( 232) P=0.001 -0.0149 ( 235) P=0.410 0.1864 ( 236) P=0.002 1.0000 ( 0) P = * * * * * -0.0589 ( 236) P=0.184 -0.5152 ( 216) P=0.000 -0.0489 ( 236) P=0.227 0.1277 ( 159) P=0.054 -0.1362 ( 236) P=0.018 LIEWRK 0.1125 ( 237) P=0.042 0.2220 ( 233) P=0.000 0.1058 ( 236) P=0.052 -0.0283 ( 237) P=0.332 -0.0589 ( 236) P=0.184 1.0000 ( 0) p = * * * * * -0.0125 ( 217) P=0.427 0.0710 ( 237) P=0.138 0.2981 ( 159) P=0.000 -0.2171 ( 237) P=0.000 MEMBER 0.0660 ( 217) P=0.167 0.1287 ( 213) P=0.030 0.0176 ( 216) P=0.399 -0.1360 ( 217) P=0.023 -0.5152 ( 216) P=0.000 -0.0125 ( 217) P=0.427 1.0000 ( 0) p = + -0.0080 ( 217) P=0.453 -0.0539 ( 146) P=0.259 0. 1225 ( 217) P=0.036 YRSEMP 0.4497 ( 237) P=0.000 0.2988 ( 233) P=0.000 -0.0864 ( 236) P=0.093 -0.1493 ( 237) P=0.011 -0.0489 ( 236) P=0.227 0.0710 ( 237) P=0.138 -0.0080 ( 217) P=0.453 1.0000 ( 0) P — * * * * * 0. 1527 ( 159) P=0.027 -0.1373 ( 237) P=0.017 MOVSAM 0.1014 ( 159) P=0.102 0.2323 ( 156) P=0.002 0.0402 ( 159) P=0.307 0.0536 ( 159) P=0.251 0. 1277 ( 159) P=0.054 0.2981 ( 159) P=0.000 -0.0539 ( 146) P=0.259 0.1527 ( 159) P=0.027 1.0000 ( 0) P = * * * * * -0.3452 ( 159) P=0.000 WHATSAY -0.0390 ( 237) P=0.275 -0.1769 ( 233) P=0.003 -0.0589 ( 236) P=0.184 0.0746 ( 237) P=0.126 -0.1362 ( 236) P=0.018 -0.2171 ( 237) P=0.000 0.1225 ( 217) P=0.036 -0.1373 ( 237) P=0.017 -0.3452 ( 159) P=0.000 1.0000 ( 0) P = * * + * * (COEFFICIENT / (CASES) / SIGNIFICANCE) (A VALUE OF 99.0000 IS PRINTED IF A COEFFICIENT CANNOT BE COMPUTED) APPENDIX 3« Table of Previous Studies Morse (1953) Katz (195M Tannenbaum (1956) Holter (1965) Tabb and Goldfarb (1970) Measure of Desire for Participation Sample Size and Composition H=300 (Interview)"Would you like to make more dec-isions in your work?" 1. Same as above. 2. "Would you like to have more or less to say about the way your work is done?" Asked for •actual' & •desired' amount of control on a 5 point scale from 'no say(l) through to 'great deal of say'(5) (Questionnaire)"Would I N=l,128 you like to participate 52* Female more in decisions that 48* Male directly concern your own work and working 225£i5*2022" "Would you like to par ticipate more in decis ions that concern the management of the whole enterprise?" (Questionnaire and Int- N=86l erviews)"Are you in favour of participation?" N=742,84* Fem. 16* Male Job Category White-collar (W.C.) (Clerical) N=580 I W.C. (Fem. majorityf (Clerical) N=5.700 (Male majority) Blue-collar (B.C.) B.C. 628 W.C. 500 B.C. 557 B.C. 304 W.C. Ownership Desire for W.P. Private | 73*(Yes) (Insurance Co. ) Private (Insur.Co) 76*(Yes) Private (Heavy Industry 51*(More) Country and Unionization U.S. (non-union) U.S.(East) (non-union) U.S.(union) Private I Mean Actual=1.9 U.S.(union) (Industrial) Mean Desired=2.5 Private I 56*Yes,B.C. Norway(Oslo) (10 factories, 67*Yes,W.C. 7 large insur. co.,& 1 large scale indus.) (mixed union ization) Public (Histadruth) Heavy industry and manufact uring I l6*Yes,B.C. ll*Yes,W.C. 5^*(Yes) Israel (union) Measure of Desire for Participation Sample Size and Composition Hilgendorf & Open-ended question- I N=2000 Irving(1970) naire dealing with the areas,if any,in whichI workers would like to| participate. Hespe & Warr (197D Hespe & Little(197D "Would you like to have more influence in the running of your department than you currently have?" Subjects were asked for th»4r views on the way management should deal with various decisions. N=243 (Male) N(Same sample as above) Wall and (Questionnaire)Subjects N=131(Fem. Lischeron were asked the desir-(1977) ability and practicality of being involved in various decisions.' Job Category lOwnership B.C. B.C. W.C. (Nurses) Various questions rel- N=118(91 male) B.C. ating to different levels (27 fem.) of decision-making were asked. Subjects were asked: i N-94(Male) 'How much say should you and your workmates have" over various decisions. Public Desire for W.P. Country and Unionization Highest response England (British Rail) S^SgS^ <-i0n> Private (Eight different industrial enter prises) 6l*(Yes) England (union) Modal view was negotiations over local decisions. Public I Local & distant England (Two hospitals) decisionsC50* Medium=55* Private | Local,medium, North (Steel products) & distant England decisions>50* B.C. I Public (Gromj4skeepers) Local,med.,dist- England ant>50* (About \ Representative at unionized) distant level & direct at local& medium Staines and Quinn(1979) Witte(1980) Marchington (1980) Measure of Desire for Participation Asked workers how much say they should have about various work related decisions. Sample Size and Composition! Job Category N=2300 (Randomly drawn from general population) Asked:"How much say should you have in the following areas?" (Questionnaire)"Do you feel that you personally have enough say in decisions made at your place of work? N=145 (50* Fem.) (45* Spanish) N=141 (20* Female) All job categories Ownership IDesire for W. Country and Unionization Public and Private 4l*(A lot of say over how the work is.done) U.S. B,C* 1 Subsidiary 83*(A lot of ti c Kef SauT^ °f P,Ubli*ly ^ -eflocal^on-stereo equip.,) owned parent decisions) union) company 17*(A lot of say in distant decisions) (B-C I Private (Manufacturing ikitchen furniture) Enough say(43*) England More say own job(35*) More say Dept. level(9*) More say Comp. level(13*) (union) co 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items