UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of involvement in decision-making on the productivity of three-man laboratory groups Ponder, Arthur Aubrey 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973 A2 P65.pdf [ 6.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0106769.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0106769-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0106769-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0106769-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0106769-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0106769-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0106769-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0106769-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0106769.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF INVOLVEMENT IN DECISION-MAKING ON THE PRODUCTIVITY OF THREE-MAN LABORATORY GROUPS by . Arthur A. Ponder A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION i n the DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA March, 19.73 I n p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s for an a d v a n c e d d e g r e e a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , I a g r e e t h a t t h e L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and s t u d y . I f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e c o p y i n g o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may be g r a n t e d by t h e Head o f my D e p a r t m e n t o r by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s u n d e r s t o o d t h a t c o p y i n g o r p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l n o t be a l l o w e d w i t h o u t my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . D e p a r t m e n t o f The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada i ABSTRACT An i n q u i r y was c a r r i e d o u t i n t o t h e e f f e c t s o f i n v o l v e -ment i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , r e l a t e d t o how t o p e r f o r m a g i v e n t a s k , on t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f three-man l a b o r a t o r y g r o u p s . One o f t h e p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e w e a l t h o f c o n t r a d i c -t o r y f i n d i n g s i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e i s t h a t t h e " m o t i v a t i o n a l " e f f e c t s o f b e i n g i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and t h e e f f i c a c y o f d e c i s i o n s made appear t o be two l o g i c a l l y s e p a r a b l e e f f e c t s , a l t h o u g h b o t h a r e o f t e n t r e a t e d as one. As a c o n s e -quence, an a t t e m p t was made t o c o n t r o l t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e s t r a t e g y u s e d between t h e two t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . The t h e o r e t i c a l b a s i s f o r t h e e x p e r i m e n t was McGregor's (I9 60) a d a p t a t i o n o f need t h e o r y f o r t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n -t e x t and Lowin's (1968) a n a l y s i s o f t h e p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s o f p a r t i c i p a t i v e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g on p r o d u c t i v i t y . The t h r e e h y p o t h e s e s , d e r i v e d t h e r e f r o m , w h i c h g u i d e d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n were: (1) groups i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g would be more p r o d u c t i v e than groups w h i c h were n o t ; (2) would implement the s t r a t e g y d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e t a s k more f a i t h f u l l y , and; (3) g i v e n t h e c h o i c e , s u b j e c t s i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t would choose t o p e r f o r m i n a s i t u a t i o n i n which they were i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r a t h e r t h a n one i n which t h e y were n o t . The t a s k i n v o l v e d t h e a s s e m b l y o f m a t r i c e s f r o m component p i e c e s . The measure o f p r o d u c t i v i t y was t i m e t o s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n . R e s u l t s d i d n o t a g r e e w i t h p r e d i c t i o n s . I n a l l t h r e e c a s e s t h e h y p o t h e s e s were n o t c o n f i r m e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y p r o d u c -t i v i t y and c h o i c e r e s u l t s w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n t o t h a t p r e d i c t e d by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . The e x p e r i -m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s , a s s u m p t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t e s t p o p u l a t i o n and t h e t h e o r y i t s e l f w ere r e - e x a m i n e d i n an a t t e m p t t o o f f e r p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r t h e s e f i n d i n g s . i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION 1 Organizational Decision-making 3 The Implementation of Decisions by the Organizations 10 The Concept of Plan 10 Summary of the Concept of Plan 20 The Relationship of the Organization's Plan to i t s P r o d u c t i v i t y . 22 How Can Involvement i n Decision-making Improve P r o d u c t i v i t y 23 Related Research 31 Experimental Non-organizational Research 32 P o s i t i v e Findings 33 Problematic Findings 3 8 Observational Studies i n Organizational Settings 44 P o s i t i v e Findings 45 Problematic Findings 47 Experimental Studies i n Organizations 49 P o s i t i v e Findings 50 Problematic Findings 55 Conclusions 5 8 Statement of the Problem 60 Purposes of the Study 63 Expected Outcomes 64 I I THE EXPERIMENT 65 Population 65 i v C h a p t e r Page I I The P r o b l e m s 66 E x p e r i m e n t a l P r o c e d u r e s 71 C o n t r o l P r o c e d u r e s 75 The I n d e p e n d e n t V a r i a b l e 78 The Dependent V a r i a b l e 79 Q u e s t i o n s t o be An s w e r e d and H y p o t h e s e s t o be T e s t e d 79 P r e t e s t i n g 82 S c r i p t i n g 82 P o s t - e x p e r i m e n t D a t a G a t h e r i n g 83 A n a l y s i s o f t h e D a t a 83 I I I RESULTS 87 P r o d u c t i v i t y 87 F i d e l i t y o f P l a n I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 87 C h o i c e 89 IV DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS 9 6 Some P o s s i b l e Causes o f D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o d u c t i v i t y 100 The E x p e r i m e n t Re-examined 104 S o l i c i t i n g S u b j e c t s 104 The E x p e r i m e n t e r as an E x p e r t 10 6 Task and S i t u a t i o n a l N o v e l t y 107 A s s u m p t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e N a t u r e o f t h e T e s t P o p u l a t i o n 108 P o s s i b l e Reasons f o r t h e L a c k o f D i f f e r e n c e i n F i d e l i t y o f P l a n I m p l e m e n t a t i o n 112 P o s s i b l e N a t u r e o f T e s t P o p u l a t i o n 112 E x p l i c i t n e s s o f D i r e c t i o n s G i v e n t o S u b j e c t s 112 Task and S i t u a t i o n a l N o v e l t y 113 Some G e n e r a l C o n c l u s i o n s C o n c e r n i n g P r o d u c t i v i t y 114 P o s s i b l e F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g C h o i c e 117 P o s s i b l e 1 N a t u r e o f t h e T e s t P o p u l a t i o n 117 L a c k o f I n f o r m a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g P e r f o r m a n c e .. 118 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r T h e o r y 121 V Chapter Page IV Factors Which Could Contribute to the Development of a More Comprehensive Theory 124 Implications f o r Further Research 125 V SUMMARY The Problem 128 Conceptual Framework 129 Theoretical Base 130 The S p e c i f i c Focus of the Research 131 The Experiment 132 Hypotheses 132 Results 133 Poss i b l e Causes of Differences i n P r o d u c t i v i t y , F i d e l i t y of Implementation and Choice 135 Implications f o r Theory 135 Implications f o r Research 135 APPENDIX A 136 APPENDIX B 147 APPENDIX C 155 APPENDIX D 158 APPENDIX E 162 v i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Page I The Decision-making Process i n O r g a n i z a t i o n s 5 I I P o t e n t i a l Ranges o f Decision-making R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the S i x Stages o f the Decision-making Process . 7 I I I M a t r i x o f D ecision-making R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a Two L e v e l O r g a n i z a t i o n 9 IV The G e n e r a t i o n o f O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Plans Over Time .. 12 V The P l a n — S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f Human, Non-human and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l Resources 15 VI The P l a n - - S p e c i f i c a t i o n s and C o n t r o l 17 V I I P o s s i b l e L e v e l o f S p e c i f i c i t y of a P l a n 19 V I I I McGregor's H i e r a r c h y of Needs 25 IX Percentage o f Mothers R e p o r t i n g an I n crease i n the Consumption o f F r e s h M i l k 3 6 X Percentage o f Mothers F o l l o w i n g Completely Group D e c i s i o n or I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n i n G i v i n g Orange J u i c e 36 XI The E f f e c t o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n on P r o d u c t i o n 53 X I I A Comparison of the E f f e c t o f the C o n t r o l Procedure w i t h T o t a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Procedure on the Same Group 53 X I I I Change i n P r o d u c t i v i t y 57 XIV The L o c a t i o n of Problem S t a t i o n s and Assembly Area . 67 XV Problem 1 69 XVI Problem 2 " 70 v i i LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1 . Experimental Non-organizational Research 34 2 Observational Studies i n Organizational Settings 44 3 Experimental Studies i n Organizations 4 9 4 Performance Times of Matched Groups Under Decision-making and Non-decision-making Treatment Conditions 88 5 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a Proposed Second Test Session 89 6 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Conditions f o r a Proposed Second Test Session Expressed as Horizontal Percentages 91 7 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a Proposed Second Test Session Expressed as V e r t i c a l Percentages 91 8 Choice of Treatment Condition for a Second Proposed Test Session (Combined) 92 9 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n A f t e r Graduation 93 10 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition for a P o s i t i o n A f t e r Graduation Expressed as Horizontal Percentages 94 11 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n A f t e r Graduation Expressed as V e r t i c a l Percentages 94 12 Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n which Subjects Might Hold Upon Graduation from B.C.I.T. (Combined) - 9 5 The i n v e s t i g a t o r wishes to acknowledge the assistance and support of a l l members of the Committee, p a r t i c u l a r l y the constructive c r i t i c i s m and advice rendered by Dr. F.L. Brissey, the research d i r e c t o r and by Dr. R.J H i l l s . Chapter I The e f f e c t s of involvement i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n -making i s i d e n t i f i e d as the general area of i n t e r e s t . A conceptual a n a l y s i s of decision-making i n organizations i s offer e d . A d d i t i o n a l l y , an analysis of the implementation of decisions i s provided through the development of the con-cepts of resources and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l plan. Theory and emp i r i c a l findings dealing with involvement i n d e c i s i o n -making and p r o d u c t i v i t y are reviewed. The s p e c i f i c focus of t h i s laboratory study i s o u t l i n e d . Introduction One of the topics of i n t e r e s t to w r i t e r s on administra-t i o n i s the e f f e c t s of increasing the involvement of an organization's membership, p a r t i c u l a r l y those members at lower l e v e l s of the organization, i n the decision-making process of that o r g a n i z a t i o n . The current focus i s on the downward d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r improving member and or g a n i z a t i o n a l pro-d u c t i v i t y . In the works of management t h e o r i s t s such as Maslow (1965), McGregor (1961), and L i k e r t (1961, 1967), t h i s r e d i s t r i b u t i o n plays a c e n t r a l r o l e . Students of administra-t i o n such as Gross (1964), and Golembiewski (1967), to name only two, describe "post bureaucratic" structures i n which members at lower l e v e l s of the organization have increasing involvement i n the decision-making process. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n for t h i s r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i s generally on one of two grounds. F i r s t , i t i s held''to be morally 2 . c o r r e c t that members have greater involvement i n the d e c i s i o n -making of the o r g a n i z a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n decisions which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t them. There i s a trend i n our society toward an increasing populism r e f l e c t e d by an educational system which stresses the development of the i n d i v i d u a l (Kenniston, 1967). A d d i t i o n a l l y , s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s appear to have deve-loped a p r o f i l e of twentieth century man markedly d i f f e r e n t from that envisaged by Taylor (1947). E t z i o n i , discussing greater involvement i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making f o r the members at lower l e v e l s of organizations concludes . . . that i t i s j u s t , non-arbitrary and concerned with the problems of the workers, not j u s t the work. ( E t z i o n i , 1964, 38) Secondly, i t i s asserted that member p r o d u c t i v i t y and consequently o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y , w i l l be improved. The present concern i s not d i r e c t l y with the moral issue i . e . , the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l to increased decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s but rather with the effectiveness i s s u e . That i s , with the e f f e c t on p r o d u c t i v i t y of greater i n v o l v e -ment of members, at lower l e v e l s of the organization, i n the decision-making process. I t should be pointed out that what has been re f e r r e d to here, as involvement i n the decision-making process and the downward d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , have a number of apparent synonyms i n the l i t e r a t u r e . These include influence on the decision-making process, decentra-l i z a t i o n of decision-making, p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making and a number of others. Although meanings may vary, a l l appear to have at l e a s t one common element. In the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l con t e x t , t h i s common element concerns the freedom to decide. The c e n t r a l question concerns what happens when employees have the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making decisions concerning actions to be undertaken when compared to a condition i n which these same decisions are made by someone higher i n the authority structure The c l a s s i c view of organizations has tended to place r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for making c e r t a i n kinds of decisions i n the hands of those located i n the upper echelons of the organiza-t i o n . By way of contrast, i n organizations where the d e c i s i o n -making locus has been d e l i b e r a t e l y s h i f t e d , decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y has tended to be delegated or r e - d i s t r i b u t e d from the upper to lower l e v e l s of the organization. A search of the l i t e r a t u r e d i d not reveal an appropriate conceptual model for analyzing the decision-making process with i n organizations. As a consequence, a new model i s offered which may be b e t t e r s u i t e d to the problem under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Organizational Decision-making Broadly speaking, o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making may be thought of as decisions r e l a t i n g to the goals to be achieved and includes decisions about how best to achieve them. A number of more d e t a i l e d analyses of the decision-making process w i t h i n organizations have been made. One s i m i l a r to that 4 . a d v a n c e d by R u b e n s t e i n and H a b e r s t r o h (1966) i s o u t l i n e d b e l o w ( F i g u r e I) . I t d i v i d e s t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s i n t o s i x s t a g e s o r s u b - p r o c e s s e s . I t i n c l u d e s d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o (1) t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f t h e p r o b l e m ; (2) s e t t i n g o f p r i o r i t i e s ; (3) g e n e r a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s ; (4) s e l e c t i o n o f a s o l u t i o n ; (5) i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , and; (6) e v a l u a t i o n . Such an a n a l y s i s a p p e a r s u s e f u l i n e x a m i n i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s b e c a u s e i t s e p a r a t e s t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o -c e s s f r o m t h e c o n t e n t o f d e c i s i o n s . T h i s i s n o t t o s u g g e s t t h a t a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v e a l l t h e s e s t e p s o r t h a t t h e y need n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r i n t h e above s e q u e n c e . I t a p p e a r s p r o b a b l e t h a t a t l e a s t some d e c i s i o n s i n v o l v e a some-what d i f f e r e n t o r d e r i n g o f t h e s t e p s and t h a t t h e o u t p u t o f one s t e p may n e c e s s i t a t e t h e r e t u r n t o a p r e v i o u s one. I n a s i m p l e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n w h i c h t h e r e a r e o n l y two l e v e l s o f members, a manager and e m p l o y e e s , i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d between t h e two. I n g e n e r a l and f o r p u r p o s e s o f s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , t h r e e p o s s i b l e c o n d i t i o n s c o u l d o c c u r . F i r s t , d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g may be t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y o f t h e manager. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t may be t h e s o l e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e e m p l o y e e s , i n d i v i d u a l l y o r c o l l e c t i v e l y . F i n a l l y , d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g may be a j o i n t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o f t h e manager and h i s e m p l o y e e s . O b v i o u s l y t h i s l a t t e r c o n d i t i o n IDENTIFICATION of the PROBLEM(S) <—> Figure I The Decision-making Process i n Organizations (The process i s decomposable into s i x stages each of which e n t a i l s a p a r t i c u l a r type or types of decisions, These are represented schematically below.) SETTING of PRIORITIES GENERATION of ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS < > SELECTION of a SOLUTION < > IMPLE-MENTATION EVALUATION II III IV V VI 6 . represents a whole range of p o s s i b i l i t i e s from a heavy weight-ing on the manager's responsibility to a heavy weighting on that of the employees. Figure II represents the possible ranges of decision-making responsibility for the six stages of the decision-making process. At one end of the continuum, the manager would retain sole decision-making responsibility at a l l stages of the decision-making process. At the other end, decision-making respon s i b i l i t y i s delegated to the employees. In real-world organizations, i t appears unlikely that one would encounter either of these extremes. More commonly, at least i n certain stages, decision-making responsibility would be distributed between the two extremes and even this would vary from step to step of the decision-making sequence. One can conceive of the responsibility to make the implementation decision (step V) being vested primarily i n the manager or at least weighted heavily i n his favour, whereas in the generation of alternatives (step III), this need not be the case. These could be j o i n t l y determined or even primarily employee deter-mined . Another consideration in this analysis i s the level of importance or the scope of the decision to be made. (Lind-bloom, 1959) Considering the hierarchy of decision types from everyday, 'ad hoc' decisions of limited scope on up through broad policy decisions, the distribution of decision-M O M-) >i to +> IQ •H a) r-H o •rH 0 rQ u •rH CL, to c 0 cs a> •rH to A ! CU e • I d C 0 •H •H to H (0 •H H g u 1 cu CD a Q u 0 •H 0 CO Xi -rH •H -P fe O Q) M-H Q O IH to o cu 10 fO CU -p t n in G (0 rt •rH to rH CO CU •H Xi -P H-1 a CU +) 0 EVALUATION > IMPLEMENTATION > SELECTION OF A > SOLUTION GENERATION H OF H ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS SETTING OF H PRIORITIES IDENTIFICATION OF i—j PROBLEM (S) EH H O t-3 to i-q W <! W CM >H H O O J !3 & y s rt w CM CO w w o 1-3 DECISION-MAKING RESPONSIBILITY 8 . making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y presumably would vary according to the l e v e l of the d e c i s i o n to be made. For example, d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e l a t e d to the o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goal would more l i k e l y be manager-determined or at l e a s t heavily weighted i n that d i r e c t i o n i n most organizations. On the other hand, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to make 'ad hoc' decisions might r e s t p r i m a r i l y with the employees, p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r those which d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the employee and his work. F i n a l l y , i t appears appropriate to point out that with-i n any l e v e l there may be d i f f e r e n t kinds of d e c i s i o n s . For example, decisions r e l a t e d to working conditions could be considered to be on the same l e v e l as decisions r e l a t e d to s a l a r y . However they could also be construed as d i f f e r e n t kinds of decisions and consequently have d i f f e r e n t d e c i s i o n -making s t r u c t u r e s . Figure I I I has combined the factors of manager-employee r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , stages of the decision-making process, l e v e l s of d e c i s i o n and kind of d e c i s i o n . This view of an organiza-tion's "decision-space" suggests the p o s s i b i l i t y of d e p i c t i n g the actual d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y across the stages of the process, the l e v e l s of decisions to be made and the kinds of decisions for the simple two l e v e l organization. For more complex, m u l t i — l e v e l organizations the task might be somewhat more d i f f i c u l t , although i t appears, i n p r i n c i p l e , to be p o s s i b l e . For the moment, the conception i s a convenient device f o r examining a l t e r n a t i v e " p r o f i l e s " Figure I I I Matrix of Decision-making R e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a Two Tiered Organization KINDS OF DECISIONS 10. of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making. The Implementation of Decisions by the Organization The Concept of Plan I t appears reasonable to suggest that most groups engaged i n the goal attainment process, are guided by some kind of a plan; but t h i s i s not to say that t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s r e f l e c t t h e i r own planning or that they are a l l aware of such a plan. The present use of plan i s i n no way intended to convey a b e l i e f that the behaviour of a l l persons i n any organization i s n e c e s s a r i l y guided by some l o g i c a l , c a l c u l a t e d , consciously constructed plan. Although the use of the term plan does not preclude t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , the term i s used i n t h i s context to d i s t i n g u i s h , among other things, some intended s t r u c t u r e , systematization or coordination of group behaviour i n p u r s u i t of some goal or goals. T h e o r e t i c a l l y an observer would be able to observe an organization i n the goal attainment process and i d e n t i f y s t r u c t u r e , systematization or coordination i n the a c t i v i t i e s of i t s members, whether i t s members could do so or not. Acknowledging the f a c t that organizations may and often do function i n accordance with a consciously constructed plan and that f o r a v a r i e t y of reasons t h e i r planned actions w i l l not correspond on a one-to-one basis with the s t r u c t u r e , etc., i d e n t i f i e d by the observer, i t appears appropriate to make a working d i s t i n c t i o n between the plan (a symbolic device which includes i n d i c a t i o n s of intended behaviour) and i t s implementa t i o n (including a c t u a l behaviour as i t might be observed by a hy p o t h e t i c a l , i d e a l observer). O r d i n a r i l y , one would expect observed behaviour to appro-ximate what i s contained i n the plan. I t may not, however, because the plan i s incomplete, the plan i s not f a i t h f u l l y implemented f o r some reason or another or because the plan has been changed i n the course of ac t i o n . I t i s important to recognize that the plan, because i t i s a symbolic representa-t i o n , cannot f o r p r a c t i c a l purposes describe every aspect of every resource regarded as important f o r goal attainment. I t i s also important to recognize that decision-making and plan implementation are dynamic processes. Any organization, e s p e c i a l l y i n i t s stages of early development, may evolve a series of plans which occur as a r e s u l t of the mo d i f i c a t i o n of the i n i t i a l plan as outcomes may i n d i c a t e the need. Thus the decision-making process, so f a r as planning i s concerned, may be regarded as a ser i e s of assessment (or feedback) loops each with the p o t e n t i a l of producing a new plan (Figure IV). I t i s important to r e a l i z e that i n subsequent discu s s i o n , the term plan r e f e r s to a s p e c i f i c plan whether i t be I, I I , I I I , or IV. Thus the strategy of analyses employed here i s based on a momentary state of dynamic process and the experiment to Figure IV The Generation of Organizational Plans Over Time PLAN I PLAN I I PLAN I I I PLAN IV be discussed l a t e r i s a c t u a l l y a time-segment of such an on-going process. Assuming that the goal has been i d e n t i f i e d ( i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem) i t appears appropriate to focus on the planning process i t s e l f . I t may be thought of as the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of sets of resources which appear to be useful i n the attainment of the s p e c i f i c goal (generation of a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s ) . Generally speaking a goal may be attained i n a v a r i e t y of ways For example, e l e c t r i c power may be generated by means of hydro, atomic or even thermal power plants. Resources may be broadly 13 . defined as those people, goods and services and the r e l a t i o n -ships between and among them which could be u t i l i z e d f o r the successful attainment of a goal. Obviously the generation of h y d r o - e l e c t r i c i t y suggests d i f f e r e n t mixes of resources than power generated by thermal p l a n t s . The term resource i s used here i n i t s broadest sense and may include s p e c i f i c machines which could be u t i l i z e d , the v a r i e t y of appropriate s k i l l s , a range of po s s i b l e procedures to be followed, even time i t s e l f . For purposes of s i m p l i f i c a t i o n , resources are divided i n t o three d i s c r e t e categories. These are non-human, human and org a n i z a t i o n a l resources. The category of non-human resources embraces a l l resources except human beings (including t h e i r properties and charac-t e r i s t i c s ) and the r e l a t i o n s h i p s among and between classes of resources. I t may include not only a v a r i e t y of basic raw materials but f a b r i c a t e d machine systems such as bul l d o z e r s , computers or typewriters, each with t h e i r own unique sets of prop e r t i e s . Human resources r e f e r s to the 'people' component appro-p r i a t e to a t t a i n the goal. I t includes not only the range of people themselves but may also embody t h e i r s p e c i f i c properties such as age, sex, i n t e l l i g e n c e and the outcomes of t r a i n i n g and education. Further, i t i s apparent that to specify the range of people s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s with the p o t e n t i a l to accomplish the task i s one th i n g , but to secure t h e i r services i n the attainment of a goal quite another. Sometimes s p e c i f i e d , 14. but on other occasions simply assumed, are the motivational or a t t i t u d i n a l properties which are also viewed as e s s e n t i a l aspects of human resources. F i n a l l y , there i s a t h i r d set of resources r e f e r r e d to here as o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources. Broadly speaking these are the set of po s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between and among the non-human and human resources. I t may include procedures to be followed, d i v i s i o n of labour or even the sequencing of tasks. I t appears that o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources are of a higher order i n that they presuppose the existence of resources i n one or both of the previous categories. Once the a l t e r n a t i v e s have been i d e n t i f i e d , the planner i s then faced with the task of making the s p e c i f i c s e l e c t i o n s from among the a l t e r n a t i v e s . The product of t h i s s e l e c t i o n process i s the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l plan. S p e c i f i c a l l y , a plan may contain reference to the three p r i n c i p a l d i v i s i o n s of resources mentioned above; again these are non-human, human and organiza-t i o n a l resources. Each of these categories may be thought of as embracing a p o t e n t i a l l y wide v a r i e t y of e n t i t i e s , p r o p e r t i e s , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and r e l a t i o n s . The planner's task i s to s e l e c t the combination that w i l l lead to the attainment of the goal i n accordance with some c r i t e r i a of u t i l i t y ( selection of a solu -tion) . A p r a c t i c a l example may serve to i l l u s t r a t e . Assume as a goal the c l e a r i n g of a number of acres of land. One the Figure V The P l a n - S p e c i f i c a t i o n of Human, Non-human and Organizational Resources S p e c i f i c a t i o n s Human Resources Se l e c t i o n of human resources with appropriate properties such as sex, t r a i n i n g , education, age, etc. Non-human Resources Se l e c t i o n of non-human resources with appropriate properties such as horsepower, maintenance features, etc. Organiza-t i o n a l Resources Se l e c t i o n of operations to be per-formed, r e l a t i o n s h i p s man to man, man to machine, machine to machine. non-human side there i s a considerable v a r i e t y of earth-moving equipment on the market. The task of the planner i s to s e l e c t the most appropriate, whether i t be a bul l d o z e r , grader or fr o n t end loader. In the category of human resources he must s e l e c t , from a v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t i v e s , an operator with the s p e c i f i c properties or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s necessary f o r the accomplishment of the task. Further, he must s e l e c t a set of org a n i z a t i o n a l resources (a set of r e l a t i o n s h i p s between human and non-human resources which w i l l y i e l d the s p e c i f i e d goal--i n t h i s instance the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the operator and the bulldozer and the operations to be performed). The planner may have the a d d i t i o n a l problem of c o n t r o l . One way of de s c r i b i n g the problem i s simply to state that resources are not s t a b l e . This applies p r i m a r i l y to human beings but not e x c l u s i v e l y so. I t i s one thing to s e l e c t and specify a b u l l d o z e r , an operator and the operations to be performed, and quite another to a c t u a l l y have these operations performed. The planner i s int e r e s t e d i n s e l e c t i n g an operator with not only the s p e c i f i c properties necessary to accomplish the task, but also one with the greatest l i k e l i h o o d of actu-a l l y performing the task. Further, he i s most l i k e l y i n t e r -ested, wherever p o s s i b l e , i n optimizing that p r o b a b i l i t y . (Figure VI) The degree of "match" between the symbolic plan and i t s implementation may be c a l l e d f i d e l i t y of implementation. Figure VI The P l a n - S p e c i f i c a t i o n s and Control SPECIFICATIONS CONTROL Human Resources Bulldozer Operator S e l e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , etc. Non-human Resources Bulldozer Preventive maintenance routines, etc. Organizational Resources Operations to be c a r r i e d out wages, p r o f i t sharing, etc. 18 . Another problem deals with the amount of d e t a i l to be displayed i n the plan. At one extreme, a plan may be l i t t l e more than a broad and h i g h l y abstract statement of i n t e n t i o n — t o harvest f i f t y Christmas trees. I t could remain s i l e n t about how, where, d e t a i l s of the operations to be c a r r i e d out, e t c . , l e a v i n g a great deal of l a t i t u d e or o p t i o n a l i t y for i n d i v i d u a l i n i t i a t i v e and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . On the other hand, the plan to harvest f i f t y Christmas trees could be highly d e t a i l e d and s p e c i f i c , s t a t i n g which trees to harvest, how the trees are to be harvested, the exact operations to be performed, as w e l l as the temporal sequence of operational events. The extent of the d e t a i l contained i n the plan may be c a l l e d i t s l e v e l of s p e c i f i c i t y . (Figure VII) Previously i t was suggested that when the plan i s treated as a symbolic representation i t cannot be complete i n any absolute sense of the term. Thus every plan leaves something unspecified and, therefore, some options open to i t s imple-menters. That i s , they may be and t y p i c a l l y are required to make some decisions concerning (exercise options r e l a t e d to) those aspects of the plan which are not described i n d e t a i l . The manner i n which the "blanks" i n the plan are f i l l e d i n may be defined as the exercise of options. However i t should be noted that i t could apply to any or a l l of the categories of resources. That i s , those who implement the plan may exer-c i s e options with respect to human, non-human, organizational Figure VII Poss i b l e Level of S p e c i f i c i t y of a Plan OPEN GENERAL Level of s p e c i f i c i t y CLOSED-SPECIFIC that p o r t i o n of the operations etc. d e t a i l e d i n the plan that portion of the operations etc. about which the plan remains s i l e n t 20. r e s o u r c e s (or any combination of t h e s e ) . Thus f a r i n the d i s c u s s i o n the p l a n has been t r e a t e d as though i t possessed a s i n g l e l e v e l of s p e c i f i c i t y , u n i f o r m acr o s s the whole p l a n . O b v i o u s l y t h i s need not be the case. In m u l t i - l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n s , working from h i g h l y complex p l a n s , i t appears l i k e l y t h a t the l e v e l of s p e c i f i c i t y may v a r y a c c o r d i n g to the task being performed, the l e v e l of the o r g a n i z a t i o n a t which i t i s performed and a number of o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . Even the p l a n f o r h a r v e s t i n g f i f t y Christmas t r e e s c o u l d s p e l l out p r e c i s e l y the manner i n which t r e e s were to be h a r v e s t e d but remain s i l e n t c o n c e r n i n g o t h e r aspects o f the o p e r a t i o n s , such as the s e l e c t i o n o f the t r e e s t o be c u t . A l t h ough the concepts o f p l a n s and p l a n n i n g are s u b j e c t to a more p e n e t r a t i n g a n a l y s i s , they are here regarded as h e u r i s -t i c concepts which appear to be u s e f u l i n the c o n t e x t o f the p r e s e n t i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f involvement i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and the e f f e c t s on p r o d u c t i v i t y . Summary of the Concept of P l a n To summarize, the concept of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p l a n c o n t a i n s the f o l l o w i n g p o i n t s . 1. I t has been proposed t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n s operate from a p l a n , which may be t r e a t e d as a symbolic r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n of human, non-human and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . Because i t i s a symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , the p l a n 21. cannot, for p r a c t i c a l purposes, describe every aspect of each resource. As a consequence, the plan may leave some options open to those who implement i t . That i s , the implementers may be required to exercise options r e l a t e d to those aspects of the plan which are not s p e c i f i c a l l y des-cri b e d . These options may be r e l a t e d to human, non-human or o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources or any combination of these. Each plan has what i s described as i t s l e v e l of s p e c i -f i c i t y . That i s , the degree to which human, non-human and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources are d e t a i l e d . The planner i s faced with the p o t e n t i a l problem of c o n t r o l . That i s , having designed a plan e i t h e r gen-e r a l or s p e c i f i c , what i s the p r o b a b i l i t y that i t w i l l be f a i t h f u l l y implemented? O r d i n a r i l y , the planner i s in t e r e s t e d i n maintaining a high probabi-l i t y that the plan w i l l be f a i t h f u l l y implemented and whenever p o s s i b l e doing what he can to insure that t h i s w i l l be the case. The planner i s also interested i n having whatever options may be provided by the plan exercised i n ways which enhance p r o d u c t i v i t y . The Relationship of the Organization's Plan to i t s P r o d u c t i v i t y In examining t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i t w i l l be h e l p f u l to enlarge on the previous example. Assume two groups are engaged i n the attainment of a g o a l — t o harvest f i f t y Christmas tr e e s . Assume further that one group i s c l e a r l y more productive than the other. For example, i t harvests the required f i f t y trees i n a shorter period of time. How might t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i v i t y be explained? Using the concept of plan i t appears possible to advance some p l a u s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . F i r s t , what i s the nature of the plans which the two groups are u t i l i z i n g ? For example, i f one plan s p e c i f i e s men as opposed to boys, and chainsaws as opposed to axes, then i t might be judged that the plan of the more productive group was simply a superior plan, other things being equal. Next, assuming an e f f e c t i v e plan, do both groups imple-ment the plan f a i t h f u l l y ? That i s , are the human, non-human and o r g a n i z a t i o n a l resources u t i l i z e d as they are s p e c i f i e d i n the plan. (The underlying assumption here i s that a plan of known effectiveness which i s f a i t h f u l l y implemented i s more l i k e l y to achieve the goal than one implemented with a lesser degree of f i d e l i t y , although t h i s need not always be the case.) F i n a l l y , how does each group exercise the options pro-vided by the plan? For example, does one group work more 23 . vigorously or exercise a greater degree of care? The point here i s that questions concerning p r o d u c t i v i t y apply to organ-i z a t i o n s generally and differences i n p r o d u c t i v i t y can be approached a n a l y t i c a l l y , i n very general terms, through the use of the concept of plan. Thus organizations i n t e r e s t e d i n increasing p r o d u c t i v i t y may do so by developing more e f f e c t i v e plans, having these plans implemented with greater f i d e l i t y and having the options provided by the plans exercised i n a way which enhances p r o d u c t i v i t y . How Can Involvement i n Decision-making Increase P r o d u c t i v i t y ? One of the ways i n which organizations attempt to develop more e f f e c t i v e plans, have the plans implemented with greater f i d e l i t y and have the options provided by the plan exercised i n a way which enhances p r o d u c t i v i t y i s through the i n v o l v e -ment of the people who are to implement the plan i n the development of that plan. Why should having the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making decisions a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of the plan, the f i d e l i t y of implementation or the exercise of options? Or i n other words, why should i t increase p r o d u c t i v i t y ? McGregor (1969) o f f e r s one explanation based upon his adaptation of a theory of human needs to the orga n i z a t i o n a l context. Man i s a wanting animal with a number of needs. Needs are organized i n a series of l e v e l s — a hierarchy of importance. The f i v e l e v e l s , from low to high, include p h y s i o l o g i c a l , safety, s o c i a l , ego and s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t needs. (Figure VIII) P h y s i o l o g i c a l needs are on the lowest l e v e l . They i n -clude the need f o r food, s h e l t e r , exercise and p r o t e c t i o n from the elements. I t appears reasonable to assume that f o r most employed persons these needs are s a t i s f i e d . Thus needs at the next higher l e v e l begin to dominate man's behaviour, to motivate him. Safety needs encompass the need f o r p r o t e c t i o n from danger, threat and de p r i v a t i o n . McGregor argues that t h i s i s not a need f o r s e c u r i t y . Rather that i f man does not f e e l threatened or dependent he i s w i l l i n g to take r i s k s . But when he f e e l s he may be the r e c i p i e n t of a r b i t r a r y a c t i o n , then h i s greatest need i s for guarantees, f o r p r o t e c t i o n and for s e c u r i t y . Once these lower l e v e l s of needs are s a t i s f i e d , then s o c i a l needs become important motivators of behavior. They include the need for belonging, for a s s o c i a t i o n , for accep-tance by h i s f e l l o w man and f o r the g i v i n g and r e c e i v i n g of friendship and love. Next i n the hierarchy are ego needs. These f a l l into two d i s t i n c t categories. The f i r s t r e l a t e s to self-esteem. The needs for self-confidence, for independence, for achieve-ment, for competence and for knowledge are part of t h i s group. The second are needs r e l a t i n g to one's reputation. Figure V I I I McGregor's Hierarchy of Needs HIGHEST LEVEL SELF-FULFILLMENT NEEDS EGO NEEDS (a) s e l f esteem (b) one's reputation SOCIAL NEEDS SAFETY NEEDS PHYSIOLOGICAL NEEDS LOWEST LEVEL They include needs f o r statu s , f o r reco g n i t i o n , for appreciation and f o r the deserved respect of one's f e l l o w s . F i n a l l y , at the highest l e v e l , are the s e l f - f u l f i l l m e n t needs. , There are the needs f o r r e a l i z i n g one's own pot e n t i a -l i t i e s f o r continued self-development and for being c r e a t i v e i n the broadest sense of the word. McGregor states that a s a t i s f i e d need i s not a motivator. However when the i n d i v i d u a l i s deprived of the opportunity to s a t i s f y some of these needs (f r u s t r a t i o n ) he may behave more independently, appear to lack ambition, express d i s l i k e f or r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and seem to be inherently self-centered and i n d i f f e r e n t to o r g a n i z a t i o n a l needs. I t can be hypothesized that having decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y provides opportu-n i t y to s a t i s f y some of the higher-order needs. But more important, not having i t deprives him of that opportunity. Presumably he i s less w i l l i n g e i t h e r to implement f a i t h f u l l y or to exercise options i n a way which enhances p r o d u c t i v i t y . A case can be made that having decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y provides more opportunity to s a t i s f y s o c i a l , ego and s e l f -f u l f i l l m e n t needs than a work s i t u a t i o n i n which the employee i s not involved i n the decisions of the organization, at any l e v e l . Group decision-making may provide greater opportunity for more meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n between group members. I t can provide chances f o r members to advance suggestions, have t h e i r ideas recognized, derive a d d i t i o n a l status and receive appreciation and r e c o g n i t i o n . To be involved i n the d e c i s i o n -making process can, of i t s e l f , be a c r e a t i v e a c t i o n i n the broad sense of the word. There are a number of other ways i n which possessing decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (DMR) might contribute to i n -creased p r o d u c t i v i t y . Lowin (1968), acknowledging the importance of ego need s a t i s f a c t i o n , l i s t s a number of these others, some of which obviously involve the s a t i s f a c t i o n of needs. 1. Closure and a sense of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Decison-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y gives the employee a greater awareness of h i s r o l e i n the system and enables him to see how his d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s f i t i n the t o t a l operation. 2. Shared goals. Being involved i n the decision-making process leads to i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of o r g a n i z a t i o n a l goals. 3. Pressure to conform to p r i o r commitments. Having p a r t i c i -pated i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making members are under pressure not to renege on e a r l i e r commitments. Thus greater adherence to an organizational "plan" could be expected of i n d i v i d u a l s who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the d e c i s i o n -making process. 2 8 . 4. Improvements i n t e c h n i c a l and administrative systems. Employees close to the scene can often spot opportunities f o r improving t e c h n i c a l and administrative systems which would be l e s s obvious to remote supervisory personnel.''' Although, under c e r t a i n conditions, having d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may lead to increased p r o d u c t i v i t y , i t can also be affected by a number of other factors quite unrelated to the decision-making process. For example, i f wages are too low the possible p o s i t i v e e f f e c t s of d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be washed out by resentment of the wage l e v e l i t s e l f . In terms of need theory, the s a l a r y f a i l s to s a t i s f y the employees 1 needs at a number of p o s s i b l e l e v e l s . Obviously DMR cannot be expected to bring about i n -creased p r o d u c t i v i t y under a l l circumstances. Lowin further suggests a number of conditions which can contribute to the l i k e l i h o o d that p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l be increased. The f i r s t i s that the employees have desire or need to be involved i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making. C l e a r l y , by i t s e l f , t h i s w i l l not guarantee p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . Yet to give DMR to employees who c l e a r l y do not want i t appears to i n v i t e f a i l u r e . A d d i t i o n a l l y he suggests that the extent, relevance, importance, and v i s i b i l i t y of the decision-making a c t i v i t i e s , the d i f f i -c u l t y of the issues s e t t l e d , the cohesiveness of the group and the c l a r i t y of goals a l l contribute to the l i k e l i h o o d that p r o d u c t i v i t y w i l l be improved. S i m i l a r l y , i n small face-to-face groups, the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of possessing decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be obscured by a number of factors p e c u l i a r to the groups them-selves. For example, i f the i n t e r a c t i o n of the group members i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y perhaps because one member dominates the decision-making process, then one might expect the r e s u l t s not to be p o s i t i v e or even negative r e s u l t s . The same hypothesis could be advanced concerning the q u a l i t y of the plan i t s e l f . I f , as a r e s u l t of decisions made by employees, an i n f e r i o r plan i s generated, a decline i n p r o d u c t i v i t y could occur. I t i s important to make a d i s t i n c t i o n between two d i f -ferent types of occurrences. The f i r s t i s behaviour of the employees which could occur independently of the plan. Given a plan, the degree of f i d e l i t y with which they implement i t , or the way i n which they exercise options provided by the plan, could a f f e c t p r o d u c t i v i t y . For example, employees may simply work more vigorously or with greater p r e c i s i o n . The second, i s change i n the plan i t s e l f . A d e c i s i o n to purchase desk c a l c u l a t o r s to aid members of an accounting department, who formerly did the c a l c u l a t i o n s by hand, improves p r o d u c t i v i t y . In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r example the employees need not work more vigorously, or more c a r e f u l l y . But for a given expenditure of energy, the amount of work done i s g r e a t e r — o r for a given l e v e l of care, the work i s more accurate. C l e a r l y 30 . i n c r e a s e s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y are due to the i n c r e a s e d e f f i c i e n c y of the c a l c u l a t o r method over the manual method. E f f i c i e n c y i s a r a t i o of energy consumed per u n i t o f output. T h i s i s not t o suggest t h a t p o s s e s s i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may not b r i n g about both s o r t s o f changes a t the same time, 2 or t h a t t h e r e may not be an i n t e r a c t i o n between the two. Given these views i t appears t h a t t h e r e may be a number of ways i n which involvement i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o u l d improve o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . I t now appears a p p r o p r i a t e to examine s t u d i e s i n the f i e l d to determine how w e l l these views are supported by a v a i l a b l e evidence. "The terms d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i n v o l v e -ment i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g have been employed i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y throughout t h i s d i s c u s s i o n . I t appears important to remind the reader t h a t both r e f e r , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t , to the d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g process and not' to the outcomes of these same d e c i s i o n s . To be i n v o l v e d o r have r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making d e c i s i o n s may f l a t t e r , g i v e r e c o g n i t i o n o r be t r e a t e d as an admission of worth. At the same time r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r outcomes may, under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s , thwart these same needs. For example, i f meeting needs r e q u i r e s "success," then i t may be p o s s i b l e to " f a i l . " F u r t h e r , i t may a l s o be d i f f i -c u l t to determine to what e x t e n t employees are h e l d accountable f o r the e f f i c a c y of d e c i s i o n s i n which they are i n v o l v e d . In a p r o f i t - m o t i v a t e d o r g a n i z a t i o n where employees are not deemed to be h e l d d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r d e c i s i o n s , they may be i n d i r e c t l y r e s p o n s i b l e . In the extreme, too many "bad" d e c i s i o n s and the o r g a n i z a t i o n may cease to f u n c t i o n . Not to minimize the p o t e n t i a l e f f e c t s of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r outcomes, i t i s s i m p l y o u t s i d e the scope of the p r e s e n t study. Related Research Studies i n v o l v i n g the downward d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may be divided into two general cate-gories. There are those studies i n which decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was the p r i n c i p l e independent v a r i a b l e under i n v e s t i g a t i o n and those, such as i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of the Scanlon Plan, i n which i t was only one of a number of apparently equally important independent v a r i a b l e s . Although the present study i s concerned p r i m a r i l y with the decision-making responsi-b i l i t y by i t s e l f , i t should be stated that management systems such as Interaction-Influence and the previously mentioned Scanlon Plan, which incorporate a broader d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , have been successful i n a num-ber of d i f f e r e n t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . L i k e r t (1961, 1967), presents some convincing evidence f o r the success of his manage-ment system at the Harwood Manufacturing Co. and i n the sales' d i v i s i o n s of various other companies. Lesieur and Puckett (1969), i n a study of the effectiveness of the Sanlon Plan, document s i m i l a r r e s u l t s i n three d i f f e r e n t manufacturing com-panies . Studies i n v o l v i n g p r i n c i p a l l y decision-making responsibi-l i t y have produced somewhat mixed r e s u l t s . In some contexts, organizational p r o d u c t i v i t y , or at l e a s t some measure of organ-i z a t i o n a l or i n d i v i d u a l performance, have been improved. In others t h i s has simply not been the case. Lowin (1968) suggests that studies i n v o l v i n g the downward d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be divided i n t o three d i s t i n c t cate-gories. These include experimental non-organizational research, experimental studies i n organizations and observational studies i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s . I t appears appropriate to review t h i s research one category at a time. I t would be both i m p r a c t i c a l and unnecessary to review a l l the r e l a t e d research since much of i t appears to bear tan-g e n t i a l l y on the t o p i c under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Thus the r e -searcher has attempted to review studies which are representa-t i v e of the f i e l d p a r t i c u l a r l y i n terms of the hypothesis that increased decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y improves organiza-t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . Experimental Non-Organizational Research The r e s u l t s produced i n t h i s type of research have been mixed. Under c e r t a i n conditions p o s i t i v e findings have oc-curred, under others problematic ones. (The d e s c r i p t i o n of findings as p o s i t i v e or problematic re f e r s to findings which support the hypothesis that r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r decisions improves o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p r o d u c t i v i t y . For purposes of c l a r i -f i c a t i o n , i t was f e l t that p o s i t i v e findings would include cases where the occurrence of, or increase i n , decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y were coupled with increases i n p r o d u c t i v i t y or other s i m i l a r indices of organizational performances. Problematic f i n d i n g s would include e i t h e r cases i n which occurrence of, or increase i n , decision-making r e s p o n s i b i -l i t y were coupled with e i t h e r a decline i n some other measures of or g a n i z a t i o n a l or i n d i v i d u a l performance or no recorded differences i n the above.) Table 1 categorizes some of these experimental studies i n terms of the r e s u l t s achieved. P o s i t i v e Findings Early studies by Lewin (1947) demonstrated the value of group discussion and dec i s i o n over l e c t u r e i n changing d i -etary h a b i t s . For purposes of t h i s review i t was assumed that a p a r a l l e l could be drawn between "discussion and d e c i -sion" and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making decisions, and " l e c t u r e " and n o n - r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Housewives i n a mid-western town were involved i n dis c u s s i o n leading to a step by step d e c i s i o n to increase milk consumption. No high-pressure salesmanship was used, i n f a c t pressure was c a r e f u l l y avoided. The con t r o l group was given a "good" l e c t u r e about the value of greater consumption of fresh milk. The amount of time used for each treatment was equal. The change i n milk consumption was checked a f t e r two weeks and four weeks. Figure IX indicates the s u p e r i o r i t y of the group de c i s i o n process. In a similar'study among farm women who had come to the maternity ward of the Iowa State H o s p i t a l , the e f f e c t of i n d i -v i d u a l treatment was compared with the e f f e c t of group d e c i s i o n . Table 1 Experimental Non-Organizational Research POSITIVE FINDINGS PROBLEMATIC FINDINGS Day & Hamblin (1964 Back (1961) Hare (1953) Bass & L e a v i t t (1963) Levine & Butler (1952) Bennett (1955) Lewin (1947) C a l v i n , Hoffman & Harden (19 57) Preston & Heintz (1949) Haythorn (1956) Radke & K l i s u r i c h (19 47) McCurdy & Eber (19 53) Tomekovic (19 62) Misumi (1959) Sales (1966) Shaw (1955) Simmons (1954) Torrance & Mason (1958) Again d i s c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n were c a r r i e d out by a group of mothers concerning the proper formula for feeding babies and the b enefits of orange j u i c e and cod l i v e r o i l . For the co n t r o l group each subject was given i n d i v i d u a l i n s t r u c t i o n by the n u t r i t i o n i s t l a s t i n g about twenty-five minutes. An equal amount of time was devoted to discussion and d e c i s i o n i n the group s e t t i n g . Figure X shows the s u p e r i o r i t y of the group d e c i s i o n procedure a f t e r periods of two and four weeks. S i m i l a r p o s i t i v e findings have been recorded i n a number of other studies; Radke and K l i s u r i c h (19 47) i n changing food habits of subjects and Levine and Butler (1952), i n an i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g , document p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s . The second study has been categorized as a laboratory study because of i t s c l o s e l y c o n t r o l l e d and somewhat a r t i f i c i a l manipulations. The study involved attempts to change the r a t i n g habits of foremen i n an i n d u s t r i a l s e t t i n g . The problem occurred because foremen tended to overrate performance of workers i n higher grade jobs and underrate the performance of workers i n lower grade jobs on the c r i t e r i a of accuracy, e f f e c t i v e use of working time, cooperation, output and a p p l i c a t i o n of job knowledge. Three groups were involved i n the experiment, two experimental and a c o n t r o l group. The former were a d i s -cussion and d e c i s i o n approach to the methods of r a t i n g , and a lecture-approach. The co n t r o l group received no treatment before foremen's ratings were made. Only the discussion and Figure IX Percentage of Mothers Reporting an Increase i n the Consumption of Fresh Milk A F T E R 2 W E E K S A F T E R 4 W E E K S ; 1 - 1 "• 1 ! G R O U P L E C T U R E GROUP L E C T U R E D E C I S I O N D E C I S I O N (Lewin, K.,"Frontiers i n group dynamics," Human Relations, 1947, 1, 2-38) Figure X Percentage of Mothers Following Completely Group Decision or I n d i v i d u a l I n s t r u c t i o n i n Giving Orange Juice o AFTER 2 WEEKS 1 AFTER 4 WEEKS 1 1 t 1 1 1 — 1 I 1 1 H — 1 I i S II Lit 1 1 1 1 i GROUP INDIVIDUAL G P 0 U P INDIVIDUAL DECISION INSTRUCTION DECISION INSTRUCTION (Lewin, K., "Frontiers i n Group Dynamics," Human Relations, 1947, 1, 2-38) d e c i s i o n group showed any s i g n i f i c a n t changes i n the r a t i n g s of the low and high grade jobs. The authors concluded that performance r a t i n g s were s i g n i f i c a n t l y affected only a f t e r group d i s c u s s i o n had transpired and a group decisio n had been reached. The e f f e c t s of discussion and d e c i s i o n on group judgements are also w e l l documented. Hare (1953) conducted an experiment with t h i r t e e n year olds a t a Boy Scout Camp. The task involved an i n i t i a l ranking of items of camping equipment to be taken on a t r i p alone through unknown country. Discussion followed under p a r t i c i p a t o r y or supervisory leadership. Each i n d i v i d u a l then ranked the items again and recorded his r e a c t i o n to the discussion and the leader. Greater a t t i t u d e convergence was found i n the p a r t i c i p a t i v e group. In a d d i t i o n , greater i n f l u -ence was shown by the p a r t i c i p a t i v e leader. Preston and Heinz (1949) had e a r l i e r conducted a s i m i l a r experiment with a popu-l a t i o n of college students. The task was ranking a l i s t of twelve prominent men according to t h e i r d e s i r a b i l i t y as a P r e s i d e n t i a l p o s s i b i l i t y . Ranking of subjects under p a r t i c i -pative leadership were found to c o r r e l a t e higher with group rankings than with t h e i r own i n i t i a l rankings. The f i n a l rankings of subjects under supervisory leadership were found to c o r r e l a t e higher with t h e i r own i n i t i a l rankings than with rankings formulated i n group discussions. 3 8 . In an experiment to measure p r o d u c t i v i t y , Tomekovic (1962) used a population of grade s i x school p u p i l s and a task of adding columns of t r i n o m i a l numbers. The experimental group received an explanation of i t s work, discussed the explanation and the i n s t r u c t i o n s and made i t s own decisions r e l a t i n g to the working pace etc. The control group received only i n s t r u c t i o n s . I t was found that the experimental group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more productive than the co n t r o l group i n the number of examples completed. However no s i g n i f i c a n t d i fference between the groups as to the q u a l i t y of t h e i r work was recorded. Day and Hamblin (1964) i n a study conducted with women undergraduates, report s i m i l a r f i n d i n g s . The task involved the assembling of models of molecules using pegs, springs, and various coloured b a l l s provided i n Sargent K i t s for chemistry classes. I t was found that groups performing under close supervision were less productive than those under general supervision. Once again, close supervision seems to imply c o n s t r a i n t whereas general supervision implies freedom. Problematic Findings Bennett (1955) found the group discussion and decision technique to be less e f f e c t i v e than the lecture method i n influe n c i n g subjects. The experiment attempted to r a i s e the willingness of psychology students to volunteer as subjects i n psychological experiments. Group discussion as an i n f l u -ence technique was not found to be a more e f f e c t i v e inducement t o a c t i o n t h a n a l e c t u r e o r no i n d u c e m e n t a t a l l . A d d i t i o n -a l l y , a d e c i s i o n i n d i c a t e d by p u b l i c commitment was n o t f o u n d t o be more e f f e c t i v e i n a s s u r i n g t h e e x e c u t i o n o f t h e d e c i s i o n t h a n one i n d i c a t e d l e s s p u b l i c l y o r a n o n ymously. However, t h e f a c t o r o f c o m i n g t o a d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g a f u t u r e a c t i o n was f o u n d t o be e f f e c t i v e i n r a i s i n g t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t s u c h a c t i o n w o u l d be e x e c u t e d . F i n a l l y , a h i g h d e g r e e o f a c t u a l o r p e r c e i v e d g r o u p c o n s e n s u s r e g a r d i n g i n t e n t i o n t o a c t was f o u n d t o r a i s e t h e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i n d i v i d u a l members o f t h e g r o u p w o u l d e x e c u t e t h e a c t i o n above t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f a c t i o n by members o f a g r o u p c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a low d e g r e e o f c o n s e n s u s . M i s u m i (1959) r e p o r t e d one s t u d y w h i c h s u p p o r t e d B e n n e t t ' s f i n d i n g s and a n o t h e r w h i c h f o u n d l e c t u r e and d e c i s i o n l e s s e f f e c t i v e t h a n d i s c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n . Simmons (1954) r e p o r t -i n g t h r e e s t u d i e s o f a t t e m p t s t o i n f l u e n c e o v e r w e i g h t s u b j e c t s t o r e d u c e , f o u n d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between l e c t u r e and d i s c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n g r o u p s . Back (1961) d i s c o v e r e d t h a t t h e r e l a t i v e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f l e c t u r e as o p p o s e d t o d i s -c u s s i o n and d e c i s i o n depends upon p r i o r a t t i t u d e s and e x p e r i -ence and on t h e t i m e l a p s e between m a n i p u l a t i o n and measure. A s t u d y o f i n f l u e n c e t e c h n i q u e s by T o r r a n c e and Mason (1958) was c o n d u c t e d among f o u r h u n d r e d t w e n t y s e v e n a i r c r e w -men p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n s u r v i v a l e x e r c i s e s . Crew i n s t r u c t o r s were r e q u e s t e d t o ' c o n d u c t s u r v i v a l r a t i o n i n d o c t r i n a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o s p e c i f i c i n s t r u c t i o n s . The s u c c e s s o f t h e methods 40 . was judged through the use of f o u r c r i t e r i a of acceptance of the r a t i o n . S u p e r i o r r e s u l t s were achieved by making the food i n d o c t r i n a t i o n a r e g u l a r p a r t of the t r a i n i n g . P r o m i s i n g r e s u l t s were a l s o o b t a i n e d from a "low p r e s s u r e " technique r e l y i n g c h i e f l y on o b j e c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n . S i g n i f i c a n t nega-t i v e r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d from c o n d i t i o n s r e l y i n g upon pe r -s u a s i v e n e s s , s e t t i n g an example and the l i k e . Shaw (1955) conducted a study of a u t h o r i t a r i a n and non-a u t h o r i t a t i a n l e a d e r s h i p i n v a r i o u s communication n e t s . He concluded t h a t a u t h o r i t a r i a n l e a d e r s h i p produces b e t t e r p e r -formance but lower morale than does n o n - a u t h o r i t a r i a n l e a d e r -s h i p . Haythorn (1956) s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s o f v a r y i n g combina-t i o n s of a u t h o r i t a r i a n and e g a l i t a r i a n l e a d e r s and f o l l o w e r s . The f i n d i n g s suggested t h a t the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of e g a l i t a r i a n l e a d e r s h i p v a r i e s w i t h the p e r s o n a l i t y t r a i t s of the subor-d i n a t e s and of the l e a d e r s . In s t u d i e s u s i n g measures of p r o d u c t i v i t y , a number of p r o b l e m a t i c f i n d i n g s have o c c u r r e d . McCurdy and Eber (1953) used a p o p u l a t i o n o f elementary psychology students p l a c e d i n three-man groups. Four exp e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s matched demo-c r a t i c and a u t h o r i t a r i a n l e a d e r s w i t h democratic and a u t h o r i -t a r i a n f o l l o w e r s . The task was to c o r r e c t l y I d e n t i f y s w i t c h s e t t i n g s necessary to t u r n on a s i g n a l lamp. Using f o u r measures of p r o d u c t i v i t y the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s were achieved: When time i n minutes was p l o t t e d a g a i n s t runs, a l l groups were v i r t u a l l y a l i k e . S i m i l a r l y , on correct switch turnings per unit of time and errors per u n i t of work, no differences occurred. On the measure errors per u n i t of time, the com-bin a t i o n of democratic leadership and a u t h o r i t a r i a n followers produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y better r e s u l t s . However, on a r e p l i c a -t i o n of the same experiment no differences were found. Sales (1966) r e p l i c a t e d an i n d u s t r i a l assembly l i n e task i n a labora tory s e t t i n g . In t h i s experiment two male supervisors played both democratic and au t o c r a t i c r o l e s over both female and male workers. Sales reported no d i f f e r e n t i a l effectiveness what-ever between the two conditions; the p r o d u c t i v i t y means f o r the two wer.e v i r t u a l l y i d e n t i c a l . C a l v i n , Hoffman & Harden (1957), using subjects drawn from undergraduate psychology classes, compared the performance of b r i g h t and d u l l students i n a u t h o r i t a r i a n and permissive climates. The task was the f a m i l i a r game of twenty questions. The r e s u l t s suggested an i n t e r a c t i o n between i n t e l l i g e n c e and s o c i a l climate. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were recorded between permissive-bright and au t h o r i t a r i a n - b r i g h t for e i t h e r the number of problems solved or the number of questions asked. However the performance of a u t h o r i t a r i a n - d u l l subjects was s i g n i f i c a n t l y better than per-miss i v e - d u l l subjects both i n terms of the number of problems solved and the number of questions asked. In a r e p l i c a t i o n of the same study modified to take into account problem d i f f i c u l t neither of the above r e l a t i o n s h i p s were s i g n i f i c a n t . A d d i t i o n a l l y , d i f f i c u l t y of problem did not have any s i g n i f i -cant e f f e c t . In a t h i r d experiment an attempt was made to secure a "happiness score." No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found i n p r o d u c t i v i t y between the groups. In terms of "hap-piness," p e r m i s s i v e - d u l l subjects dealing with d i f f i c u l t problems were the most unhappy. F i n a l l y , Bass and L e a v i t t (1963) conducted three experi-ments r e l a t i n g planning a c t i v i t i e s to performance and a t t i t u d e The major focus centered on comparing the performance of t r i o s who planned f o r themselves with t r i o s who were assigned plans and with t r i o s who spent no time preplanning at a l l . The experimental tasks included word-sentence production, the common targets game and the numbers game. In a l l these experi ments, differences i n p r o d u c t i v i t y between the three groups f a i l e d to reach s i g n i f i c a n c e . I f one accepts that the sample of laboratory studies pre-sented here i s generally representative of the f i e l d , then i t appears that there are as many problematic findings as there are p o s i t i v e ones. One of the main issues i n the use of the laboratory to study org a n i z a t i o n a l phenomena i s whether the parameters of real-world organizations can be represented i n short-term laboratory experiments. Lowin i n c r i t i c i z i n g the use of laboratory studies to i d e n t i f y e i t h e r casual r e l a t i o n -ships and/or mediating variables a f f e c t i n g organizational performance concluded: Given these issues, i t i s hard to j u s t i f y the common use of laboratory experimentation i n exploring organiza-t i o n a l PDM ( p a r t i c i p a t i v e decision-making). In the study of PDM, s i m p l i s t i c laboratory models f a i l to r e f l e c t j u s t those issues which form the very heart of the organiza-t i o n a l phenomenon. (Lowin, 1968, 87) When using the laboratory f o r i n v e s t i g a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l phenomena, the experimenter compromises. In return for a degree of c o n t r o l which would not o r d i n a r i l y be possible i n f i e l d s e t t i n g s some of the r e a l i t y may be s a c r i f i c e d . I t appears that, the two methods are complementary. That what i s i d e n t i f i e d i n the laboratory may y i e l d information pertinent to experiments to be c a r r i e d out i n the f i e l d . As Weick suggests: External and i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y can be achieved i f the experimenter moves back and f o r t h between the laboratory and the f i e l d . (Weick, 19 67, 49) He further suggests that the laboratory i s a good s t a r t i n g point f o r t e s t i n g some of the t h e o r e t i c a l propositions of the l i t e r a t u r e . Since both o r g a n i z a t i o n a l theory and research are i n t h e i r e a r ly stages, i t i s reasonable to expect that more att e n t i o n i n the immediate future w i l l be focused on i n t e r n a l v a l i d i t y rather than external v a l i d i t y . (Weick, 1967, 48) and f i n a l l y Experiments have numerous shortcomings but they are also more v e r s a t i l e than e x i s t i n g f o l k l o r e would suggest. As more of the shortcomings of the laboratory are pin-pointed, i t should be possible to strengthen t h e i r r o l e i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l research. Furthermore, an increasing number of phenomena can now be created i n the laboratory and i t seems c l e a r that imaginative investigators w i l l be able to increase the phenomena that can be brought under laboratory c o n t r o l . Although there i s l i t t l e h i s t o r y of organizations i n the laboratory, the promise seems considerable. (Weick, 1967, 49) To dismiss laboratory experimentation as a v a l i d method of i n v e s t i g a t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l phenomena appears to be a premature a c t i o n . Each experiment must be judged on i t s own merits. I t appears that laboratory experiments properly con-ducted, have the p o t e n t i a l to provide the same richness of information which they have provided i n other f i e l d s . Observational Studies i n Organizational Settings Observational studies have turned up s i m i l a r l y mixed r e s u l t s . A representative sample of these studies i s presented i n Table 2. Table 2 Observational Studies i n Organizational Settings POSITIVE FINDINGS PROBLEMATIC FINDINGS MacKay (1964) Meltzer (1956) Kahn & Tannenbaum (1957) Tannenbaum & Georgeopoulos Argyle, Gardner & C i o f i (1958) Fleishman & Peters (1962) Halpin (1954) Stryker (19 56) (1957) Wickert (1951) P o s i t i v e Findings Kahn and Tannenbaum (1957) conducted a study of leader-ship s k i l l s and functions of union stewards and t h e i r r e l a t i o n -ship to member p a r t i c i p a t i o n and co n t r o l among the rank and f i l e of four union l o c a l s . Member p a r t i c i p a t i o n and con t r o l were measured by attendance at meetings, member a c t i v i t i e s at these meetings (such as making and recording motions, asking questions, e t c . ) , involvement i n committee work and voting i n union e l e c t i o n s (indices of p r o d u c t i v i t y ) . The independent v a r i a b l e of leadership s k i l l was measured by indices of the stewards s k i l l i n communicating, j o i n t decision-making, stewards resourcefulness providing support f o r the men and the inter-personal r e l a t i o n s h i p between the membership and the steward. Although the r e l a t i o n s h i p s of the other indices are somewhat unclear, the rank order of l o c a l s , with respect to the stewards' involvement of members i n decision-making, corresponded exactly to the r e l a t i v e l e v e l of member p a r t i c i -pation i n union a f f a i r s i n these four l o c a l s ( p r o d u c t i v i t y ) . Mackay (1964) examined the r e l a t i o n s h i p of organizational structure and teacher performance i n thirty-one Alberta schools. Organizational structure was measured by teachers' responses on Ha l l ' s Organizational inventory (HOI), s p e c i a l l y modified to make i t appropriate for educational organizations. P u p i l achievement on ninth-grade examinations set by the Department of Education provided a measure of teacher perfor-mance. Academic aptitude of pupi l s was c o n t r o l l e d by SCAT (School and College A b i l i t y Test) scores. On the dimension of h i e r a r c h i c a l authority and p u p i l achievement, there was a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t negative r e l a t i o n s h i p . A high degree of h i e r a r c h i c a l authority tended to be associated with low achievement of pupi l s i n the ninth grade. Conversely, p u p i l s i n schools where authority r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p r i n -c i p a l and teachers were minimized and where some aspects of decision-making were decentralized, performed better on a set of standard external examinations. S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s were recorded by Tannenbaum and Georgeo-poulos (1957) i n a study of c o n t r o l i n two manufacturing p l a n t s . They found that i n the plant i n which more co n t r o l was exer-cised over employees above the l e v e l of the "rank and f i l e " r esulted i n i t s performing at a lower l e v e l of effe c t i v e n e s s . At the same time, the work force tended to be characterized by lower morale and worker s a t i s f a c t i o n . However i t should be pointed out that equal c o n t r o l over rank and f i l e employees was recorded i n both plant s . Wickert (1951) investigated employee turn-over and morale among several groups of young women employees of the Michigan B e l l Telephone. Employees who remained i n the employ of the company made some s p e c i f i c observations about t h e i r jobs which those who resigned did not. F i r s t , they tended to say that 47. they had a chance to make decisions on the job. Secondly, they reported that they f e l t that they were making an impor-tant c o n t r i b u t i o n to the company. Meltzer (1956) examined the c o r r e l a t e s of p r o d u c t i v i t y among p h y s i o l o g i s t s i n the United States. Data came from a questionnaire returned by over seventy-five percent of the nation's p h y s i o l o g i s t s . He found that p r o d u c t i v i t y and f r e e -dom were p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e l a t e d . I t was also found that the a v a i l a b i l i t y of research funds was also an important f a c t o r i n f l u e n c i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y and that p r o d u c t i v i t y of physiolo-g i s t s working i n organizations was approximately the same as those working independently. Problematic Findings Argyle, Gardner & C i o f i (1958) investigated c e r t a i n dimensions of supervisory s t y l e r e l a t e d to p r o d u c t i v i t y , absen-teeism and labour turnover. I t was discovered that higher pro-d u c t i v i t y was associated with democratic and general supervision but only where piece r a t e was not i n force. However there was a s i g n i f i c a n t inverse r e l a t i o n s h i p between democratic fore-manship and absenteeism. Labour turnover appeared unrelated to supervisory s t y l e . Halpin (1954), i n a study of airplane commanders i d e n t i -f i e d two major dimensions of leadership—Consideration and I n i t i a t i n g Structure. A trend toward negative c o r r e l a t i o n s 48. was found between superiors' ratings and the Consideration scores and a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between these r a t i n g s and I n i t i a t i n g Structure scores. Conversely, the c o r r e l a t i o n s between a S a t i s f a c t i o n Index and the dimension scores showed a trend i n the opposite d i r e c t i o n . Thus the superiors and subordinates were i n c l i n e d to evaluate oppositely the con-t r i b u t i o n s of these dimensions to the effectiveness of leadership. Fleishman and Peters (1962) reported a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between I n i t i a t i n g Structure and p r o d u c t i v i t y but only i n production groups. In non-production groups the two were negatively c o r r e l a t e d . In a study of attempts to make the Ansul Chemical Co. of Winconsin more " p a r t i c i p a t i v e , " Stryker (1956) documented the use of p r a c t i c a l l y a l l the then new doctrines of "good com-munications" and "human r e l a t i o n s . " The president, Robert C. Hood, had p r a c t i c a l l y run the gamut of group management techniques from "buzz sessions" to " v e r t i c a l conferences" and "role p l a y i n g . " (Stryker, 1956, 134) The r e s u l t s of these e f f o r t s speak for themselves. In the ten years before Hood took over as president i n 1949, sales had increased by one thousand percent. Since 1950 sales had increased only as much as the general l e v e l of business volume. (During t h i s period the GNP had gone up 40% and Ansul's sales had increased from $9,100,000 to $12,700,000.) During the same period most of the leading companies i n the chemical industry had shown f i f t y to one hundred percent sale increases. Ansul's chief competitor i n the f i r e extinguisher business, Kidde & Co., had increased sales roughly one hundred and seventy percent. The author concludes: People are important, but so i s the matter of making things and s e l l i n g them. Managers have a l i m i t e d amount of time to run a business; the more they become preoccu-pied with "people centered" management and the abstrac-t i o n of human r e l a t i o n s , the less energy they have to expand on the hard n e c e s s i t i e s of operations. (Stryker, 1956, 136) Experimental Studies i n Organizations A s i m i l a r l y mixed pattern of r e s u l t s has occurred i n exper-imental studies i n the organizational context. A representative sample of these studies i s contained i n Table 3. Table 3 Experimental Studies i n Organization POSITIVE FINDINGS PROBLEMATIC FINDINGS Bavelas & Strauss (1961) Coch & French (1948) Fleisman (1965) K u r i l o f f (1963) Lawrence & Smith (19 55) French, I s r a e l & Aas (1960) French, Kay & Meyer (19 66) Morse & Reimer (1951) Tannenbaum & A l l p o r t (1956) Rice (1953) 50 . P o s i t i v e Findings Bavelas and Strauss (19 61) conducted a study i n a toy factory where g i r l s were given more decision-making responsi-b i l i t y . They were allowed to c o n t r o l the speed on a paint l i n e conveyor. They sped i t up when they f e l t l i k e working and slowed i t down when they didn't. P r o d u c t i v i t y and earn-ings soared, and soared higher by f a r than that which the engineers had believed to be the normal output. The g i r l s apparently established t h e i r own eq u i l i b r i u m . For when the company o f f i c i a l s wrested c o n t r o l of the l i n e from the employees once again, they a l l q u i t , as d i d the foreman. Coch and French (1948) conducted what has become one of the c l a s s i c experiments i n o r g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making. The experiment took place i n a garment factory where increas-ing costs and competition had created the need f o r updating of products and procedures. I t involved three experimental groups and a c o n t r o l group. When changing product and pro-cedure, the c o n t r o l group went through the usual routine. The production department modified the job, and a new piece rate was set. A meeting of the workers was held i n which they were t o l d why the change was necessary and at what l e v e l the new piece rate had been set. Questions were answered and the meeting ended. Experimental group 1 followed a d i f f e r e n t procedure. A meeting was held at which i t was demonstrated, as dramatically as p o s s i b l e , the need for change. Management then presented a s i x point plan to set the new job and piece r a t e . 1. Make a check study of the job as i t was being done. 2. Eliminate a l l unnecessary work. 3. Train several operators i n correct methods. 4. Set the piece rate by time studies on s p e c i a l l y t r a i n e d operators. 5. Explain the new job and rate to a l l the operators. 6. Train a l l operators i n the new method so they can reach a high rate of production w i t h i n a short time. The group approved the plan. The s p e c i a l operators were selected to help design the new job, which was then to be studied by the time and motion men so as to t r a i n the other operators. . Experimental groups 2 and 3 went through much the same kind of change procedure. However the groups were much smaller. The meeting was held to demonstrate the need f o r change, only t h i s time a l l operators were selected as s p e c i a l operators. Thus a l l operators p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the design of the new job and were subjects of time study a n a l y s i s . The res u l t s of t h i s experiment are recorded i n Figure XI. As can be seen quite r e a d i l y , p r o d u c t i v i t y appeared to vary with the degree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . As a further t e s t of these r e s u l t s , the control group was put through the f u l l y p a r t i c i p a t i v e treatment for another change a few months l a t e r . The dramatic e f f e c t on p r o d u c t i v i t y i s d e t a i l e d i n Figure XII. S i m i l a r f i n d i n g s were obtained by Fleishman (19 65) i n a study of work group p r o d u c t i v i t y i n a dress fa c t o r y . P a r t i c i -pation increased the t r a n s f e r e f f e c t from the one s t y l e change to the next i . e . the usual dropoff i n production was substan-t i a l l y reduced or eliminated. Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t i s the author's observation: I t also appears that d i r e c t p a r t i c i p a t i o n of i n d i v i d u a l workers may not be as important as t h e i r group's p a r t i c i -pation i n the work changes. (Fleishman, 1965, 141) K u r i l o f f (1963) describes an experimental t e s t of McGre-gor's Theory Y i n an instrument fa c t o r y . To implement the theory, management made a number of changes i n the plant. 1. The minimum salary was r a i s e d to $100 per week, $24 higher than p r e v a i l i n g rates i n the community. I t was f e l t that t h i s would take care of p h y s i o l o g i c a l needs. 2. In attempting to s a t i s f y safety needs h i r i n g p o l i c y was changed so that l a y o f f s were avoided during slack time and a d d i t i o n a l h i r i n g i n peak periods. This was accomplished through the s t o c k p i l i n g of major items. 3. In an e f f o r t to s a t i s f y s o c i a l needs the structure of the work force was modified. Assembly l i n e s were changed to seven man work teams. Each team was responsible for planning i t s work, assignment of tasks, etc. The r e s u l t s of t h i s experiment are quite remarkable. The absentee rate dropped to less than half of that p r e v a i l i n g i n F i g u r e XI The E f f e c t o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n on P r o d u c t i o n * 53. 80 70 60 50 4 0 3 0 ~i i i r~r Job change occurs—a-' T 1 v r — i — i i — ) — i — i — i — i — r Exp. group 2 . h ly A M A /' s i%> /V-// / A. ' Exp.group 1 I I I I Control group J 1 t _ l I L _ ! I I _ L _ l . = i l = J L 2 4 G S 10 12 14 16 1G 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 33 40 Working days (Coch, L e s t e r , and J.R.P. French, J r . , Overcoming r e s i s t a n c e t o change, Human R e l a t i o n s , 1948, 1 ( 4 ) , 512-532) F i g u r e X I I A Comparison o f the E f f e c t of the C o n t r o l Procedure w i t h T o t a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n Procedure on the Same Group* 8 0 70 CO "E 50 AO 3 0 i — i — r ~ T Same group wi'.h -'olal participation Control group with control procedure i r i r V JL_J J- I I . _L__J . I . i 1 L 6 2 4 "6 8 10 | 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 A f t e r Pa/3 transfer Before transfer (Coch, L e s t e r , and J.R.P. French, J r . , Overcoming r e s i s t a n c e to change, Human R e l a t i o n s , 1948, 1 ( 4 ) , 512-532) *Number of working days f o r which o b s e r v a t i o n s were recorded, versus average output i n u n i t s per hour. s i m i l a r businesses i n the community. P r o d u c t i v i t y was i n -creased by t h i r t y percent. A d d i t i o n a l l y , q u a l i t y also im-proved. There were seventy percent fewer complaints from the f i e l d than had occurred before the new system came into e f f e c t . Lawrence and Smith (19 55) performed an experiment to determine whether i n d u s t r i a l employees s e t t i n g t h e i r own group goals a t t a i n e d higher production output than employees p a r t i -c i p a t i n g i n group d i s c u s s i o n only. When mean experimental production was compared with mean con t r o l production on an i n d i v i d u a l b a s i s , i t was found that those groups s e t t i n g t h e i r own goals showed s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater increases. F i n a l l y , Rice (1953) investigated changes i n p r o d u c t i v i t y brought about by a change i n the s o c i a l organization of the work f o r c e . He found that as a r e s u l t of g i v i n g the worker increased r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r decision-making, a number of phenomena occurred. F i r s t , there was an increase i n the mean e f f i c i e n c y of the experimental groups. However t h i s was accompanied by an increase i n damage costs and a drop i n maintenance below a minimum acceptable l e v e l . A f t e r an i n i -t i a l period of " s e t t l i n g down," a new higher l e v e l of perfor-mance was reached i n which e f f i c i e n c y was higher and damage lower than before reorganization. 55. P r o b l e m a t i c F i n d i n g s F r e n c h , I s r a e l and Aas (1960) c o n d u c t e d an e x p e r i m e n t i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a N o r w e g i a n f o o t w e a r f a c t o r y . N i n e four-man g r o u p s o f e m p l o y e e s were t o p r o d u c e new p r o d u c t s . F o u r o f t h e g r o u p s were changed i n t h e u s u a l a r b i t r a r y manner. The o t h e r f i v e w e r e g i v e n more p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A l l g r o u p s met w i t h t h e f oreman and r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f t h e p l a n n i n g d e p a r t m e n t t o p l a n w h i c h o f t h e f i v e new p r o d u c t s s h o u l d be a s s i g n e d t o e ach g r o u p . Two o f t h e g r o u p s h e l d two a d d i t i o n a l m e e t i n g s t o d e c i d e t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r , a s s i g n m e n t o f j o b s t o g r o u p s ' members and t h e t r a i n i n g f o r new j o b s . The r e s u l t s showed no d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n e x p e r i m e n t a l and c o n t r o l g r o u p s i n l e v e l o f p r o d u c t i o n . A l l t h r e e m e e t i n g t y p e s p r o d u c e d p s y c h o l o g i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n on t h e p a r t o f w o r k e r s . F r e n c h , Kay and Meyer (1966) m a n i p u l a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o an a p p r a i s a l s y s t e m . Employees were i n v o l v e d i n p e r i o d i c a p p r a i s a l s e s s i o n s i n w h i c h t h e i r p a s t p e r f o r m a n c e and f u t u r e g o a l s were a s s e s s e d by t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . Through a c o m p l e x s y s t e m o f m e a s u r e s , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r s were a b l e t o a s c e r t a i n t h e u s u a l l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e s u b j e c t s and t h e s t a t e o f an employee's r e l a t i o n s w i t h h i s manager. The m a j o r f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y showed t h a t "goodness" o f man-manager r e l a t i o n s v a r i e d d i r e c t l y as t h e u s u a l l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n . A l t h o u g h i n c r e a s e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n g e n e r a l l y p r o d u c e d improvements i n r e l a t i o n s , d e c r e a s e s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i d n o t have t h e e x p e c t e d e f f e c t . Under c o n d i -t i o n s o f h i g h t h r e a t and low u s u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , e x p e r i m e n t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n has s t r o n g n e g a t i v e e f f e c t s on s u b s e q u e n t p e r -f o r mance i m p r o v e m e n t . F i n a l l y , i f s u b j e c t s p e r c e i v e d a h i g h g e n e r a l l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n , p e r f o r m a n c e was b e t t e r on t h e i r own g o a l s , b u t i f t h e y p e r c e i v e d a low l e v e l o f p a r t i -c i p a t i o n , t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e was b e t t e r on g o a l s i n d u c e d by t h e manager. The d e c e p t i v e e f f e c t o f i n c r e a s e d s u p e r v i s o r y p r e s s u r e was made c l e a r i n a l a r g e s t u d y by Morse and R eimer (19 5 1 ) . The e x p e r i m e n t t o o k p l a c e among c l e r i c a l employees i n f o u r p a r a l l e l d i v i s i o n s o f a l a r g e c o r p o r a t i o n . P r o d u c t i v i t y i n a l l d i v i s i o n s depended on t h e number o f c l e r k s i n v o l v e d . A t any one t i m e t h e r e was a g i v e n volume o f work w h i c h had t o be done. Thus t h e o n l y way p r o d u c t i v i t y c o u l d be i n c r e a s e d was t o r e d u c e t h e number o f c l e r k s p e r f o r m i n g t h e work, i . e . i n c r e a s e t h e a v e r a g e o u t p u t p e r man. The f o u r d i v i s i o n s were a s s i g n e d t o two e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s . I n one an a t t e m p t was made t o push down t h e l e v e l s a t w h i c h d e c i s i o n s were made by a l t e r i n g t h e s u p e r v i s o r y s t r u c t u r e . I n t h e s e c o n d , t h e l e v e l o f s u p e r v i s i o n was i n c r e a s e d and t h e l e v e l a t w h i c h d e c i s i o n s were made moved up . The r e s u l t s , a f t e r a p e r i o d o f t w e l v e months, a r e d i s p l a y e d i n F i g u r e X I I I . As can be s e e n t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l programme i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y F i g u r e X I I I Change i n P r o d u c t i v i t y 60 50; Salary costs 40 as per cent of base period 20 10 0 Before After Before After "Before" and "After" periods are 12 months each; (Morse, Nancy, and E. R e i m e r , "The e x p e r i m e n t a l change o f a m a j o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e . " J o u r n a l o f Ab n o r m a l S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1956, 52, 120-129.) by t w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t . A s i g n i f i c a n t i n c r e a s e i n p r o d u c t i -v i t y o f t w e n t y p e r c e n t was a l s o a c h i e v e d i n t h e p a r t i c i p a t i v e programme, b u t t h i s was n o t so g r e a t an i n c r e a s e as i n t h e o t h e r programme. However on measures o f employee s a t i s f a c t i o n , s u c h as s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s u p e r v i s o r s as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , t h e p a r t i c i p a t i v e programme came o u t ahead. Tannenbaum and A l l p o r t (1956) u s e d an e v e n t - s t r u c t u r e h y p o t h e s i s t o s t u d y t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f p e r s o n a l i t y and g r o u p s t r u c t u r e among f e m a l e c l e r i c a l w o r k e r s . S u b j e c t s p r e d i s -p o s e d t o p a r t i c i p a t i o n were p l a c e d i n a p a r t i c i p a t i v e work s t r u c t u r e . A u t h o r i t a r i a n s u b j e c t s were p l a c e d i n a s i m i l a r work s t r u c t u r e . A d d i t i o n a l l y two m i s m a t c h e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i -t i o n s were c r e a t e d . I t was f o u n d t h a t g r o u p s i n w h i c h t h e r e was p r o p e r m a t c h i n g o f p e r s o n a l i t y , and work s t r u c t u r e were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more p r o d u c t i v e t h a n t h o s e i n w h i c h m i s m a t c h o c c u r r e d . However t h e r e was no d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i v i t y between p a r t i c i p a t i v e and a u t h o r i t a r i a n g r o u p s . C o n c l u s i o n s What c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be drawn f r o m t h e r e s u l t s o f s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d h e r e ? Some o f t h e p r o b l e m s o f l a b o r a t o r y r e s e a r c h have been m e n t i o n e d e a r l i e r . The f i e l d s t u d i e s c i t e d h e r e have been c a r r i e d o u t i n o n g o i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n s and c o n s e -q u e n t l y e x p e r i m e n t e r s were c o n f r o n t e d by t h e p r o b l e m s o f t h i s t y p e o f s t u d y , p r i m a r i l y c o n t r o l , w h i c h a r e d e t a i l e d by B a r n e s ( 1 9 6 9 ) . B u t o f even g r e a t e r s i g n i f i c a n c e i s t h e l a c k o f any sem b l a n c e o f u n i f o r m i t y on w h i c h t h e s t u d i e s c o u l d somehow be e q u a t e d . What t h i s p o i n t s t o i s t h e o b v i o u s c o m p l e x i t y o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f t h e v a r i a b l e s . I t a p p e a r s t h a t even a t t h e c o n c e p t u a l l e v e l i t i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o d e t e r m i n e e x a c t l y what l e v e l s , k i n d s , s t a g e s , e t c . o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g were a c t u a l l y i n v o l v e d , and where t h e y w o u l d f i t i n t o any g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s o f s t u d i e s c o n d u c t e d i n t h e a r e a . F o r exam-p l e , e a c h s t u d y seems t o have i n c l u d e d d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o r k i n d s o f d e c i s i o n s . I n t h e Morse and Reimer s t u d y d e c i s i o n s were c o n c e r n e d w i t h m a n u f a c t u r i n g p r o c e d u r e s and p i e c e r a t e s , i n t h e A l l p o r t and Tannenbaum s t u d y d e c i s i o n s were r e l a t e d p r i m a r i l y t o w o r k i n g c o n d i t i o n s , s u c h as r e l e a s e t i m e and work l o a d , and i n t h e Mackay s t u d y d e c i s i o n s a p p e a r e d t o be o f a much b r o a d e r r a n g e o f k i n d s and l e v e l s . The same o b s e r -v a t i o n c o u l d be made c o n c e r n i n g t h e l e v e l s o f t h e o r g a n i z a -t i o n t o w h i c h d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was d e l e g a t e d . I n t h e S t r y k e r s t u d y t h i s i n c l u d e d o n l y e x e c u t i v e s , whereas i n t h e F r e n c h e t a l . s t u d y o n l y a s s e m b l y l i n e employees were i n v o l v e d . S i m i l a r l y , any h y p o t h e s i z e d e f f e c t s may be q u i t e d i f -f e r e n t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e t a s k p e r f o r m e d by t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r s . The q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by L e a v i t t (1962)-, t h a t o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f human p e r f o r m a n c e t o t h e o v e r a l l s u c c e s s o f t h e o p e r a t i o n , m i g h t w e l l a p p l y h e r e . Thus t h e e f f e c t s o f a c q u i r i n g 6 0 . d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e l a t e d t o a t a s k whose p e r f o r -mance i s dependent t o a g r e a t e x t e n t on human e f f o r t may d i f f e r f r o m t h o s e i n which t h e human e f f o r t i s more i n c i d e n t a l . The e f f e c t s o f r e d i s t r i b u t i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y may be v e r y d i f f e r e n t f o r p h y s i o l o g i s t s ( M e l t z e r , 1956) t h a n f o r weavers ( R i c e , 1953). F i n a l l y , i t appears a p p r o p r i a t e t o ask to what e x t e n t measures o f p r o d u c t i v i t y i n , f o r example, a m a n u f a c t u r i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n can be equ a t e d t o measures o f p r o d u c t i v i t y i n any o t h e r k i n d o f o r g a n i z a t i o n . I n view o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n s t r u c t u r e , g o a l s , employee p o p u l a t i o n s , l e v e l s and k i n d s o f d e c i s i o n s , l e v e l s o f t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n i n v o l v e d , t a s k and end r e s u l t v a r i a b l e s , a t t e m p t i n g t o compare t h e r e s u l t s o f one s t u d y w i t h a n o t h e r may be a h i g h l y p r e s u m p t i v e under-t a k i n g . To e x p e c t t o f i n d some g e n e r a l i z a b l e e f f e c t a c r o s s a v a r i e t y o f s t u d i e s may be somewhat n a i v e . Statement o f t h e Problem P u t t i n g a s i d e f o r t h e moment the d i f f i c u l t i e s o f t r y i n g to g e n e r a l i z e f r o m t h e r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s c i t e d above, a n o t h e r problem may be i d e n t i f i e d which has been touched upon e a r -l i e r . R e c a l l i n g the e a r l i e r d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e c o n c e p t s o f p l a n s and r e s o u r c e s , t h e downward d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c l u d e s the pos-s i b i l i t y t h a t d e c i s i o n s r e a c h e d by members may c r e a t e change, i . e . , as a r e s u l t of decisions they have made, they are no longer operating from the same plan. Suppose that the res-p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the d e c i s i o n to order a new machine accrues to the employees. The machine i s ordered, placed on l i n e and p r o d u c t i v i t y increases. How could one account f o r t h i s increase? F i r s t , the new machine i s superior to the one i t r e -places i . e . , with the amount of energy and care expended held constant, i t s u t i l i z a t i o n y i e l d s greater p r o d u c t i v i t y than the machine i t replaces. That i s , they are operating from a superior plan. Secondly, employees implement t h i s p a r t i c u l a r plan more f a i t h f u l l y than they had implemented previous plans. F i n a l l y , the options provided by the plan are exercised i n such a way as to enhance p r o d u c t i v i t y . For example, where the plan i s highly s p e c i f i c and d e t a i l e d i t may be that they simply worked more e n e r g e t i c a l l y / c a r e f u l l y . Thus, involvement i n organizational decision-making may y i e l d a superior plan. But i t could also produce a plan of comparable q u a l i t y or even an i n f e r i o r plan. S i m i l a r l y , involvement i n decision-making may lead to implementing a plan with greater f i d e l i t y , but i t could also bring about com-parable or even lower f i d e l i t y of implementation. Options provided by the plan may be exercised i n a way which enhances pr o d u c t i v i t y or they may not. In any given set of circumstances, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r making decisions may e f f e c t three areas i n which p r o d u c t i v i t y i s determined—the q u a l i t y of plan, f i d e l i t y of implementa-t i o n and the exercise of options. I t appears l o g i c a l that the f a c t o r s which a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of a given plan may not necessarily be the same as those a f f e c t i n g f i d e l i t y of imple-mentation or the exercise of options. For example, as Lowin (1968) suggests, to assign decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to those v/ho c l e a r l y do not want i t or, owing to the nature of t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r t r a i n i n g or s k i l l s , do not possess the necessary i n s i g h t s , may r e s u l t i n the development of an i n f e r i o r plan. At the same time, f i d e l i t y of plan implementa-t i o n may be high and options provided by the plan may be exercised i n ways which enhance p r o d u c t i v i t y . The point here i s that a b a s i c , a n a l y t i c separation may be made between the q u a l i t y of the plan ( i . e . , i t s effectiveness f o r achieving the goal) and the way i n which the plan i s implemented which includes f i d e l i t y of implementation and the exercise of options provided by the plan. In studies c i t e d here no attempt has been made to separate the eff e c t s of these two facto r s . Thus the r e s u l t s r e f l e c t not only the ef f e c t s of increased decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the way a plan i s implemented but on the q u a l i t y of the decisions made as w e l l . One can only speculate to what extent each has c o n t r i -buted to the plethora of contradictory fi n d i n g s . But i t appears to be another p o t e n t i a l l y v a l i d and important expla-nation f o r the differences which appear i n the r e s u l t s of a v a r i e t y of studies. Purposes of the Study The purpose of the study was to determine the e f f e c t s on p r o d u c t i v i t y of extending c e r t a i n decision-making responsi-b i l i t i e s to the members of laboratory groups. However, i n t e r e s t s i n t h i s experiment centred on the e f f e c t s on f i d e -l i t y of plan implementation and the exercise of options pro-vided by the plan. Consequently the experimenter attempted to c o n t r o l the q u a l i t i e s of plans between decision-making and non-decision-making groups. I t would, at best, have been i m p r a c t i c a l , and, at worst, impossible to have attempted to inv e s t i g a t e a l l possible d i s t r i b u t i o n s of manager-employee decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a l l l e v e l s and kinds of d e c i -sions and a l l stages of the decision-making process. Thus the experimenter was faced with the need to s e l e c t from t h i s very large set of a l t e r n a t i v e s . A s p e c i f i c kind of decision was selected--how to perform a p a r t i c u l a r task. In terms of the schema of org a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making presented ear-l i e r , t h i s was a "medium" l e v e l d e c i s i o n , above the l e v e l of 'ad hoc' decisions but c e r t a i n l y below the l e v e l of p o l i c y . A d d i t i o n a l l y , because i t was proposed to present organization members with a s i n g l e problem, the f i r s t two stages of the decision-making p r o c e s s — i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem and s e t t i n g of p r i o r i t i e s were e f f e c t i v e l y eliminated. F i n a l l y , with respect to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making responsi-b i l i t i e s , the researcher selected one i n which decisions were s e l f or group determined, the second i n which these were determined outside the group. Expected Outcomes The expectations of the experimenter, based on the work of Lowin (1968) and McGregor (1961) were that: 1. Groups involved i n decision-making w i l l be more productive than groups which are not involved i n decision-making. 2. Groups involved i n decision-making w i l l implement t h e i r plans with greater f i d e l i t y than groups which are not involved i n decision-making. 3. The preference of subjects i n the experiment w i l l be to perform i n groups which are involved i n decision-making rather than i n groups which are not involved i n d e c i s i o n -making . Chapter I I Following i s an o u t l i n e of the procedures followed i n the experiment i t s e l f . These include descriptions of the problems solved, treatment procedures f o r both the experi-mental and c o n t r o l groups and post-experimental interviews. Both the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s are i d e n t i f i e d . The types of hypotheses tested, data generated, s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s employed and computer programmes u t i l i z e d are also d e t a i l e d . The Experiment Population P a r t i c i p a n t s i n the experiment were obtained from among students e n r o l l e d i n the second year of the engineering tech-nologies at the B r i t i s h Columbia I n s t i t u t e of Technology, (B.C.I.T.), where the experimenter was an i n s t r u c t o r . Sub-jec t s were male and under t h i r t y years of age. They were r e c r u i t e d on a voluntary basis and no payment was involved. Because of the considerable numbers of foreign language students at the I n s t i t u t e , students who had not completed t h e i r high school education i n Canada were excluded from the experiment on the grounds that they might not be f l u e n t i n the language or could possess d i f f e r e n t c u l t u r a l backgrounds which might confound the research. Assignment to the two treatment conditions was made on a random basis . Each labora-tory group consisted of three persons, also assigned on a random basis . Since the u n i t of analysis was the group, the e x p e r i m e n t c o n s i s t e d o f t h i r t y g r o u p s ; f i f t e e n w i t h i n e a c h t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n . The P r o b l e m s The t a s k r e q u i r e d e a c h g r o u p t o engage i n p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g . The p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d t h e a s s e m b l y o f 12 x 12 m a t r i c e s ( B r i s s e y , F o s s m i r e & H i l l s , 1969) ( F i g u r e XV and XVI) f r o m component p i e c e s . These d i s p l a y s were u s e d f o r a p u r p o s e d i f f e r i n g f r o m t h a t f o r w h i c h t h e y were o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n e d . I n t h e p r e s e n t work t h e y were employed as p a t t e r n s w h i c h c o u l d be c u t up i n t o component p i e c e s and l a t e r r e a s s e m b l e d . The t a s k p r e s e n t e d t o g r o u p s was d i v i s i b l e i n t o two d i s t i n c t s u b - t a s k s , g a t h e r -i n g t h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e c e s s a r y t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e m a t r i x and t h e r e c o n s t r u c t i o n i t s e l f . I t was t h e v i e w o f t h e e x p e r i -m e n t e r , s u b s t a n t i a t e d by a number o f t r i a l s , t h a t o nce t h e n e c e s s a r y i n f o r m a t i o n had been g a t h e r e d a t a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m a t r i x w o u l d be a f a i r l y s t r a i g h t f o r -ward p r o c e d u r e and t h e number o f s t r a t e g i e s f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g i t a p p e a r e d l i m i t e d . The i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g s u b - t a s k was d e s i g n e d so t h a t i t c o u l d be a c c o m p l i s h e d i n a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t ways. To i n s u r e a c h o i c e o f p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i o n s and r u l e s were a p p l i e d t o t h e t a s k . 1. The p i e c e s were l o c a t e d a t f i v e " s t a t i o n s " w h i c h were s e p a r a t e d and removed f r o m t h e a s s e m b l y a r e a . ( F i g u r e XIV) F i g u r e XIV L o c a t i o n o f Problem S t a t i o n s and Assembly Area STATION 2 STATION 1 X X STATION 3 X ASSEMBLY AREA X X STATION 4 STATION 5 2. I n a d d i t i o n to the p i e c e s necessary to c o n s t r u c t the m a t r i x , t h e r e were c e r t a i n extraneous p i e c e s (ones which d i d not f i t anywhere) and oth e r p i e c e s which d i d f i t i n t o the mat-r i x but which appeared i n d u p l i c a t e . (Complete t a s k s e t s i n c l u d i n g d u p l i c a t e and extraneous p i e c e s are co n t a i n e d i n Appendix A.) 3. Subjects were r e q u i r e d to move the necessary i n f o r m a t i o n from the s t a t i o n s t o the assembly a r e a . However they were not p e r m i t t e d t o remove the p i e c e s themselves, r a t h e r they were p r o v i d e d w i t h blank m a t r i c e s and marking pens so t h a t d u p l i c a t e s c o u l d be made. The d u p l i c a t i o n i n c l u d e d not onl y the c o r r e c t shape of the p i e c e s but the c o r r e c t placement of the black and white c i r c l e s as w e l l . Addi-t i o n a l l y , the pieces of the s t a t i o n s could not be seen from other s t a t i o n s or the assembly area. Nor could the assembly area be seen from the s t a t i o n s . Scissors were provided at the assembly area to cut out and shape d u p l i -cate pieces. 4. To a i d i n the development of, but also to channel metho-dologies used i n , the assembly sub-task, subjects were provided with a w a l l diagram containing twenty s i m i l a r matrices. The matrix which they were to assemble exactly matched one of these. A copy of the w a l l diagram i s con-tained i n Appendix E. The information gathering sub-task e s s e n t i a l l y involved the s o r t i n g and s e l e c t i o n of information and the return of t h i s information to a c e n t r a l l o c a t i o n . The construction sub-task c a l l e d f o r solutions s i m i l a r to complex jigsaw puzzle assembly. This task was developed over a period of approximately one year using subjects drawn from the Faculty of Education at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. I t was necessary that the task have several unique properties which were not read-i l y a v a i l a b l e i n e x i s t i n g small group tasks. Naturally i t had to have a number of possible approaches to i t s s o l u t i o n and be reasonably challenging. But equally important, i t 69 . F i g u r e XV Problem 1 o © o o o © o o fe, §m mm §mk \0 m o O © o o © o m o O O O O O o o o o 0% o © o o o o o o o O i o © © © o o o © o €1 o o o o o o o o o o 0% 70. F i g u r e XVI Problem 2 o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o @ o o o o ' J T s o o o o o o o o 3 o o o o m o o o o m o o /r-rs.* o o o o o 0? o o o o © o @ © o o o o o had to o f f e r the p o s s i b i l i t y of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n among group members. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the t a s k had to p r o v i d e the oppo r t u -n i t y f o r the development of a f a i r l y s p e c i f i c p l a n which c o u l d be f o l l o w e d not o n l y by i t s d e v e l o p e r s but a l s o by ot h e r groups which had some f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the t a s k . Fur-t h e r , i t had to a l l o w f o r the development o f a p l a n which c o u l d be judged by obse r v e r s to have been implemented by groups e i t h e r c o m p l e t e l y f a i t h f u l l y o r w i t h l e s s e r degrees of f i d e l i t y . Tryouts and m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the t a s k were c a r r i e d o u t u n t i l the experimenter, a f t e r c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h groups o f s u b j e c t s and o b s e r v e r s , was reason a b l y s a t i s f i e d t h a t these requirements had been f u l f i l l e d . E x p e r i m e n t a l Procedures The procedures f o r both d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and n o n - d e c i s i o n making groups, a l t h o u g h p a r a l l e l , d i f f e r e d i n some r e s p e c t s . Decision-making groups were acquainted w i t h the r u l e s of the task and then g i v e n a p r e l i m i n a r y t r i a l . They were p e r m i t t e d to develop and implement whatever s t r a t e g y they chose and to amend i t as they saw f i t . A t the c o n c l u s i o n of t h i s p r e l i -minary t r i a l , they were then asked to d e s i g n a p l a n f o r g a t h e r i n g the i n f o r m a t i o n which would be more e f f i c i e n t than t h a t used i n the p r e v i o u s attempt, c o u l d be e a s i l y f o l l o w e d by another s i m i l a r group and which they themselves c o u l d apply to a s i m i l a r but s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t t a s k . The group was then asked to implement i t s p l a n . P r o d u c t i v i t y was mea-sured by the time r e q u i r e d to s u c c e s s f u l l y complete the t a s k . For d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups no p r o d u c t i v i t y measures were taken u n t i l the second attempt a t the t a s k . This o c c u r -r e d f o r two reasons. F i r s t , i t was f e l t t h a t s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e d some e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the ta s k t o be a b l e to make meaningful judgements concerning i t s s o l u t i o n . Secondly, one of the advantages of d e l e g a t i n g d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i -b i l i t y i s the f l e x i b i l i t y i t p r o v i d e s . I n order f o r t h i s p o t e n t i a l to be more f u l l y r e a l i z e d , i t appeared necessary t h a t each group have a chance to s e l e c t and amend procedures s u f f i c i e n t l y b e f o r e being l o c k e d - i n t o a p l a n . Non-decision-making groups were a l s o g i v e n a p r e l i m i n a r y attempt a t the t a s k . I n t h i s t r i a l v i r t u a l l y a l l d e c i s i o n s concerning the procedures to be used r e s t e d w i t h the e x p e r i -menter. The purpose o f t h i s phase was to a c q u a i n t s u b j e c t s w i t h the d i f f i c u l t i e s of the t a s k , but a l s o t o put them i n a p o s i t i o n t h a t they c o u l d have made some meaningful d e c i -s i o n s c o n c e r n i n g how to approach the t a s k , had they been c a l l e d upon to do so. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t was designed to help s e t up an " o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c l i m a t e " d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t experienced by the decision-making groups. As i n the other treatment c o n d i t i o n s , no p r o d u c t i v i t y measures were taken u n t i l the second attempt a t the t a s k . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the p r e l i m i n a r y t r i a l , n o n - d e c i s i o n -making groups were then asked to implement another p l a n f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g the t a s k which the experimenter f e l t was more e f f i c i e n t . The p l a n which the group a c t u a l l y implemented was t h a t developed by a corr e s p o n d i n g group of d e c i s i o n -makers. Once ag a i n p r o d u c t i v i t y was measured by the time r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y s o l v e the problem. Tryouts have demonstrated t h a t the g a t h e r i n g and s o r t -i n g of i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u i r e d the bu l k of the time r e q u i r e d to s o l v e the problem. Thus a p l a n which made p r o v i s i o n f o r atte m p t i n g t o i d e n t i f y redundancies or extraneous p i e c e s , or both, b e f o r e the i n f o r m a t i o n was t r a n s f e r r e d , had the poten-t i a l of r e d u c i n g the time. The word p o t e n t i a l i s used here i n r e c o g n i t i o n of the f a c t t h a t any p l a n may s p e c i f y an i n i t i a l attempt to i d e n t i f y redundancies, but i t w i l l o n l y reduce the time i f the redundancies can a c t u a l l y be i d e n t i f i e d ( I t should be emphasized t h a t any p l a n employed d u r i n g the experiment c o n t a i n e d o n l y statements concerning what proce-dures to f o l l o w i n o r g a n i z i n g to s o l v e the problem and not s u b s t a n t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n on how to s o l v e the problem i t s e l f . Thus i f the p l a n c o n t a i n e d , f o r example, a d i r e c t i v e f o r one member of the group to v i s i t a l l s t a t i o n s to attempt to i d e n -t i f y extraneous p i e c e s but not s p e c i f i c a l l y how to i d e n t i f y them i . e . , they are cut d i f f e r e n t l y . ) ,. When each group had completed the experimental o p e r a t i o n a b r i e f p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r i n g s e s s i o n was held. I t s purpose was to obtain some a d d i t i o n a l data which might extend the p r o d u c t i v i t y data derived from the ex p e r i -ment i t s e l f . In t h i s part of the procedures subjects i n both treatment conditions were made aware of the other t r e a t -ment co n d i t i o n . In the case of decision-making groups, subjects were t o l d that other groups were working with plans provided by the experimenter. They were then shown a video tape of the experimenter o u t l i n i n g a plan to a group. Follow-ing the tape, they were asked to choose which condition they would prefer to work under f o r a second t e s t session. In a d d i t i o n , they were asked the reasons behind t h e i r choice and whether they would prefer a s i m i l a r condition i n a job they might occupy upon graduation from B.C.I.T. For non-decision-making groups the procedure was i d e n t i -c a l except that subjects were shown a videotape of a group designing i t s own plan. Once again they were asked to choose t h e i r preferred condition f o r a second t e s t session, the reasons f o r t h e i r choice and a preferred condition for a job they might occupy upon graduation. Once these data were c o l l e c t e d , subjects were informed that there would be no second t e s t session. Subjects were then apprised of the purposes of the study and were asked not to discuss the study with t h e i r f e l l o w students. Addi-t i o n a l l y , i t was promised that once the r e s u l t s had been analysed, subjects would be welcome to a copy of the report. By f o l l o w i n g t h i s procedure, i t was assured that both groups i n a matching p a i r would have i d e n t i c a l plans to imple-ment. Whether or not one or both implemented t h e i r plans with f i d e l i t y was, of course, quite another question. Control Procedures I t was important to the success of t h i s experiment to be as c e r t a i n as possible that both decision-making and non-decision-making groups had an equal understanding of both the problem and the plan to be implemented. With respect to knowledge and understanding of the plan, an attempt was made to have the treatments as c l o s e l y p a r a l -l e l as was p o s s i b l e . Thus while decision-making groups were able to design a plan f o r the preliminary t r i a l , non-decision-makers followed a plan of comparable q u a l i t y . P r e - t e s t i n g showed that decision-making groups could i n v a r i a b l y improve t h e i r performance times on the second task. To make the two treatment conditions p a r a l l e l , the i n i t i a l plan provided f o r non-decision-making groups had to be of s u f f i c i e n t l y low q u a l i t y that the plans used by these groups f o r the second task would also lead to improved performance times. Hence, the i n i t i a l plan for the non-decision-making groups s p e c i f i -c a l l y provided that a l l pieces be duplicated and brought to the assembly area before the assembly sub-task was commenced. Also c r i t i c a l to the success of t h i s experiment was a reasonable degree of confidence that both decision-makers and non-decision-makers had an equal knowledge and understand-ing of the plan i t s e l f . To f a c i l i t a t e t h i s , c a r e f u l review procedures were developed so that both the experimenter and the subjects were aware of what steps were involved i n the plan. Once a decision-making group had developed i t s plan, the members were required to o u t l i n e the steps involved to the experimenter, who then recorded them. As a double check, the experimenter would then read back the steps. He would then ask "Is that c o r r e c t ? " I f any modifications were r e -quired, they were made at t h i s point. Each group was per-mitted to r e t a i n a copy of the plan. Non-decision-making groups were given a c a r e f u l o u t l i n e of the steps of the plan, developed by the matching d e c i s i o n -making group, which they were to fol l o w . Any problematic steps were c l a r i f i e d by discussion between the subjects and the experimenter. As a f i n a l check, the group members were then asked to o u t l i n e the plan they were to fo l l o w , as they understood i t . Any modifications or corrections were made at t h i s point. Once again, each group was permitted to r e t a i n a copy of the plan. To c o n t r o l f o r understanding of the task each group was allowed two attempts at s i m i l a r tasks... As mentioned p r e v i -ously, the f i r s t t r i a l was designed to acquaint subjects with the d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with task s o l u t i o n . Even though the treatments d i f f e r e d , i t was f e l t that one t r i a l was s u f f i c i e n t to provide subjects i n e i t h e r treatment condition with a reasonably thorough knowledge of the d i f f i c u l t i e s involved. This assessment was based on the information pro-vided by subjects i n the p r e - t e s t i n g sessions. F i n a l l y , the evaluation of the degree of f i d e l i t y of implementation proved a somewhat more d i f f i c u l t assessment to make. Because each plan developed by decision-making groups was unique, the steps tended to d i f f e r from one plan to the next. A d d i t i o n a l l y , some steps were obviously more c r i t i c a l to the success of an i n d i v i d u a l plan than others. Thus observers were required to make a somewhat subjective evaluation, "as o b j e c t i v e l y as p o s s i b l e , " as to how f a i t h -f u l l y each group had implemented i t s plan. This was accom-pli s h e d through the use of two independent observers. The observers were brought i n , once the plan had been e i t h e r developed by or delive r e d to the group and given copies of the plan to be implemented. I t was t h e i r task to judge, on a ten point sc a l e , how f a i t h f u l l y the plan had been imple-mented. The observers were unaware whether they were observ-ing decision-making or non-decision-making groups, i n f a c t observers were unaware of the experiment's hypotheses. A complete o u t l i n e of procedures used by^ the observers i s contained i n Appendix C. The Independent Variable The independent v a r i a b l e was the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I t was dichotomized i n t o d e c i s i o n -makers, i n which groups were permitted to design t h e i r own plans and non-decision-makers, i n which a plan was provided fo r each group. Certain aspects of the independent v a r i a b l e proved impossible to c o n t r o l . To delegate decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s one th i n g , to have group members p a r t i c i -pate equally i n a l l decisions i s quite another. A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t appears that a broad d i s t i n c t i o n can be made between d e c i -sions about how to perform the task and "housekeeping" d e c i -sions or decisions about the decision-making process i t s e l f . Thus once decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was delegated to a group, the way i n which i t became structured was outside the con t r o l of the experimenter. P i l o t study tryouts showed that i n c e r t a i n instances, the " i d e a l " condition of a l l three mem-bers p a r t i c i p a t i n g equally i n the decisions occurred. In others, one member or possibly two appeared to dominate. I t was o r i g i n a l l y intended that some measures of t h i s process would be kept but i t proved too d i f f i c u l t to carry out. As suggested e a r l i e r , i t may be that having the opportunity to p a r t i c i p a t e without a c t u a l l y doing so has as profound an ef f e c t as a c t u a l l y p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the making of decisions. Thus the evaluation of t h i s aspect of the decision-making process was necessarily abandoned. The Dependent V a r i a b l e The d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e was t h a t o f g r o u p p e r f o r m a n c e . I t was m e a s u red by t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o s u c c e s s f u l l y c o m p l e t e t h e p r o b l e m . O b v i o u s l y t h i s was o n l y one p o s s i b l e measure o f p e r f o r m a n c e . I t c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t f o r c e r t a i n t a s k s t h i s measure i s n o t t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e . F o r e x a m p l e , i n t h e m a n u f a c t u r e o f e x p e n s i v e e l e c t r o n i c e q u i p m e n t , p e r f o r -mance t i m e may be s e c o n d a r y t o f r e e d o m f r o m e r r o r . Time t o s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n r e f l e c t s t h e t i m e n e c e s s a r y t o c o r r e c t e r r o r s b u t b e c a u s e o f t h e many d i f f e r e n t t y p e s o f p o s s i b l e e r r o r s and t h e d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n s a t w h i c h t h e y c o u l d be c o m m i t t e d i t was deemed i m p r a c t i c a l t o keep an a c c u r a t e e r r o r c o u n t . A s u b s i d i a r y i n t e r e s t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r was c h o i c e o f c o n d i t i o n f o r a p r o p o s e d s e c o n d t e s t s e s s i o n . T h i s i n f o r m a -t i o n was g a t h e r e d d u r i n g t h e p o s t - e x p e r i m e n t i n t e r v i e w s e s s i o n s . Q u e s t i o n s t o be Answered and H y p o t h e s e s t o be T e s t e d The e x p e r i m e n t e r s o u g h t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e c o n t e n -t i o n t h a t t h e downward d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s -p o n s i b i l i t y i m p r o v e s g roup p r o d u c t i v i t y . A s s u m i n g t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f p l a n s was e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l l e d , any h y p o t h e s i z e d d i f f e r e n c e c o u l d have o c c u r r e d i n two w a y s . There were f i d e l i t y o f p l a n i m p l e m e n t a t i o n and/or t h e e x e r c i s e o f o p t i o n s p r o v i d e d by t h e p l a n . The b a s i c q u e s t i o n o f t h e w h o l e s t u d y remained "Are decision-making groups more productive than non-decision-making groups?" The argument developed by t h i s w r i t e r , based on the works of Lowin (1968) and McGregor (1961) was that they would be. Therefore the foll o w i n g substantive hypothesis was tested. Hypothesis 1: Decision-making groups w i l l be more productive than non-decision-making groups. To have re j e c t e d or f a i l e d to r e j e c t t h i s hypothesis would have added information over and above what has been provided by a v a r i e t y of studies discussed e a r l i e r . By con-t r o l l i n g one pos s i b l e source of d i f f e r e n c e , the q u a l i t y of the plan, i t was possible to as c e r t a i n whether having d e c i -sion-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y affected f i d e l i t y of plan imple-mentation and/or the exercise of options provided by the plan. Since a matched decision-making group and a non-decision-making group possessed the same plan, i t became possible to t e s t e m p i r i c a l l y the hypothesis, advanced by Lowin, that involvement i n decision-making puts pressure on members to conform to p r i o r commitments. Thus the second substantive hypothesis was: Hypothesis 2: Decision-making groups w i l l implement t h e i r plans with greater f i d e l i t y than non-decision-making groups. Whether o r n o t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s was r e j e c t e d , i t would have p r o v i d e d a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the e f f e c t s o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . I f t h e r e were no d i f f e r -ences i n f i d e l i t y o f i m p l e m e n t a t i o n , i t would be n e c e s s a r y t o l o o k e l s e w h e r e f o r f a c t o r s d i f f e r e n t i a l l y i n f l u e n c i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y . I f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s , t h i s a l o n e m i g h t a c c o u n t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y . However d i f f e r e n c e s would have been j u s t t h a t , and t h e r e would be l i t t l e p o i n t i n g o i n g on t o subsequent q u e s t i o n s . I n the event t h a t b o t h groups implemented w i t h n o t o n l y e q u a l b u t a h i g h degree o f f i d e l i t y , i t would have been p o s -s i b l e t o a t t r i b u t e d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y t o f a c t o r s o t h e r t h a n f i d e l i t y , namely , per formance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s n o t s p e c i f i e d i n t h e p l a n — t h e a r e a r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r as o p t i o n -a l i t y . F u r t h e r , i t would have been p o s s i b l e t o make some guesses about the way t h e s e o p t i o n s were e x e r c i s e d . F i n a l l y , i f membership i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups was c a p -a b l e o f s a t i s f y i n g h i g h e r o r d e r needs (and each s u b j e c t r e c o g -n i z e d t h i s ) t h e n one would e x p e c t t h a t , g i v e n the c h o i c e , s u b j e c t s would s e l e c t membership i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups r a t h e r t h a n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups f o r a second t e s t s e s -s i o n . The t h i r d s u b s t a n t i v e h y p o t h e s i s then was: H y p o t h e s i s 3: More s u b j e c t s w i l l choose t o work i n d e c i s i o n -making groups t h a n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups f o r a second t e s t s e s s i o n . P r e t e s t i n g Twelve groups were put through the f i n a l form o f the problem d u r i n g the 1971 summer s e s s i o n a t the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. These i n c l u d e d ten groups of d e c i s i o n -makers and two groups of non-decision-makers. Owing to the d i f f i c u l t y o f o b t a i n i n g s u b j e c t s , c o n s i d e r a b l e departure was made from the s t r i c t p o p u l a t i o n c o n t r o l which was used i n the a c t u a l experiment. S u b j e c t s r e p o r t e d the t a s k to be c h a l l e n g i n g . The time f o r complete t e s t s e s s i o n s r a n between f o r t y - f i v e and s i x t y - f i v e minutes. For the decision-makers times ranged from 10 to 21 minutes, w i t h a mean of 14 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 2.91. With a more homogeneous p o p u l a t i o n i t was expected t h a t t h i s range of performances would be somewhat reduced. P r e t e s t i n g demonstrated the f e a s i b i l i t y of t r a n s f e r r i n g the p l a n developed by the decision-makers to n o n - d e c i s i o n -makers and o f e v a l u a t i n g , w i t h reasonable accuracy, the degree of f i d e l i t y of p l a n implementation. S c r i p t i n g To s t a n d a r d i z e treatments as much as p o s s i b l e , s c r i p t s were employed wherever p o s s i b l e . This i n c l u d e d s c r i p t i n g not only d u r i n g the experiment i t s e l f but f o r the s o l i c i t i n g of s u b j e c t s and post-experiment data g a t h e r i n g as w e l l . A com-p l e t e s e t of s c r i p t s f o r both decision-makers and n o n - d e c i s i o n -makers are contained i n Appendices B and D. Post-experiment Data Gathering B r i e f interviews were held with subjects i n d i v i d u a l l y f o l l o w i n g each t e s t session. These interviews were c a r r i e d out by the observers as i t was f e l t that the presence of the experimenter might i n h i b i t the comments which subjects might make. The interviewers sought to obtain three kinds of i n f o r -mation. 1. The choice of condition (decision-making or non-decision-making) which the subject preferred f o r a second t e s t session. 2 . The reasons behind the choice. 3. A choice of condition which subjects would prefer i n a p o s i t i o n which they might occupy upon graduation from B.C.I.T. Analysis of the Data The data provided was of four d i s t i n c t types. These included p r o d u c t i v i t y data, two kinds of choice data and interview data r e l a t i n g to reasons for choice. P r o d u c t i v i t y data were to be analyzed through the use of the t - r a t i o f o r matched observations. Since each p a i r of groups used the same plan, times recorded by non-decision-making groups were not independent of times recorded by decision-making groups (Senter, 1969) Although the experimenter tested d i r e c t i o n a l hypothesis, i t was not f e l t that the use of one-tailed t e s t s could be j u s t i f i e d e i t h e r on a t h e o r e t i c a l basis or as a r e s u l t of the empirical f i n d i n g s of other studies. A d d i t i o n a l l y i t was f e l t that a on e - t a i l e d t e s t g r e a t l y enhanced the chances of an Alpha e r r o r . The l e v e l of confidence selected f o r r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis was (.05). Since only a s i n g l e v a r i a b l e d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y was being exa-mined, other sources of variance were hopefully randomized. However i t was f e l t that the higher (.01) l e v e l of confidence, too g r e a t l y increased the chances of missing r e a l differences between the groups. A t value for paired comparisons was computed by the Un i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Pa i r C programme. This programme also provided means and standard deviations f o r each treatment condition. F i d e l i t y of Implementation Data were analyzed by means of the Sign Test. (Siegal, 1956) The r a t i n g used i n t h i s study was at best a p a r t i a l l y ordered sc a l e , thus the information contained i n the ratings were expressed by a sign. I t was possible to rank with respect to each other the f i d e l i t y of implementation of the two groups i n earjh p a i r . For the same reasons as those expressed i n the previous s e c t i o n , the exper-menter selected a two-tailed t e s t and a l e v e l of confidence of (.05). Choice Data. The Analysis of these data required a two-step operation. Although one of the hypotheses guiding the study concerned the choice of subjects f o r a second t e s t session, i t should be pointed out that s e l e c t i o n of one or the other experimental condition could have been influenced by at l e a s t two f a c t o r s (a) a generalized preference f o r one or the other c o n d i t i o n ; or (b) t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r experience i n the condition to which they were assigned. I t seemed u n l i k e l y that a one-hour laboratory experience would s i g n i f i -cantly influence generalized preference. Consequently i t was decided to t e s t f o r independence between treatment and choice for a second t e s t session, and treatment and choice f o r a possible p o s i t i o n to be occupied upon graduation from B.CI.T If these were independent i t would have been possible to com-bine choice data for both treatment conditions. Combined choice data could then have been analyzed i n a two-cell table Tests f o r independence u t i l i z e d the Chi-square technique, casting treatment against the two choices. A d d i t i o n a l l y , Guttman's Lambda was computed to measure the strength of asso-c i a t i o n . (Freeman, 1965) These measures of p r e d i c t i v e a s s o ciation form a u s e f u l adjunct to the tests given by method. When the value of X^ turns out to be s i g n i f i c a n t one can say with c o n f i -dence that A and B are not independent. Nevertheless, the s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l alone t e l l s almost nothing about the strength of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Usually we want to say something about the p r e d i c t i v e strength of the r e l a t i o n as w e l l . (Hays, 1965, 610) I f p o s s i b l e , i t was planned to analyze the combined choice data by means of the Chi-square technique, for a simple two-cell t a b l e . Levels of confidence f o r r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis were once again (.05). Both Chi-square and Guttman's Lambda were computed by means of the Univ e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia—MVTAB. Interview Data Related to Choices. R e a l i z i n g the short comings of i n t r o s p e c t i v e data r e l a t e d to choice, i t was not planned to submit these data to rigorous s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i Rather, i t was assumed that the data would suggest some as-pects of the experimental or r e a l l i f e s i t u a t i o n s which appeared to condition choice. Chapter I I I The r e s u l t s of the experiment are reported. Non-decision-making groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more productive than d e c i s i o n -making groups. There was no difference i n the f i d e l i t y of implementation between the two groups. With respect to choice of condition f o r a second t e s t session, both groups chose s i g n i -f i c a n t l y i n favour of the non-decision-making condition. None of the three experimental hypotheses were confirmed. Results P r o d u c t i v i t y The performance times of both decision-making and non-decision-making groups are l i s t e d i n Table 4. For the d e c i -sion-makers, mean performance time was 13.84 minutes and with a C of 2.99. For non-decision-makers, mean performance time was 12.84 minutes with a C 2.53. Hypothesis 1: Decision-making groups (P) w i l l be more produc-t i v e than non-decision-making groups (P). The c a l c u l a t e d t value f o r paired comparisons was 2.73 (degrees of freedom = 14). A value of 2.15 i s required for si g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l for a two-tailed t e s t . This permitted r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis, the actual l e v e l of confidence being .02. However differences were not i n the d i r e c t i o n predicted by the experimenter. F i d e l i t y of Plan Implementation Hypothesis 2: Decision-making groups w i l l implement t h e i r plans T a b l e 4 P e r f o r m a n c e Times o f Matched Groups Under D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g and N o n - D e c i s i o n - M a k i n g Treatment C o n d i t i o n s D e c i s i o n - M a k e r s N o n - D e c i s i o n - M a k e r s P P Group Performance Group Performance N o . Time (Minutes) No. Time (Minutes) 01-1 13 .68 01-2 12 .43+ 02-1 1 5 . 1 8 02-2 12 .15+ 03-1 11 .18+ 03-2 1 1 . 6 7 04-1 16 .67 04-2 14 .05+ 05-1 9.58 + 05-2 9 .68 06-1 1 5 . 9 7 06-2 14 .22+ 07-1 14 .37+ 07-2 14 .42 08-1 16 .73 08-2 14 .60 + 09-1 1 1 . 9 5 09-2 10 .75+ 10-1 1 3 . 5 5 10-2 11.83+ 11-1 18 .30 11-2 15 .15+ 12-1 10 .97 12-2 10 .00+ 13-1 8 .92 + 13-2 9 .10 14-1 18 .13+ 14-2 18 .78 15-1 12 .37+ 15-2 13 .73 + i n d i c a t e s s u p e r i o r p r o d u c t i v i t y i n matched p a i r . with greater f i d e l i t y than non-decision-making groups. The f i d e l i t y of implementation was to be compared through the use of the Sign Test. Two observers' ratings of f i d e l i t y of implementation produced only one difference in rating. Observers gave a l l decision-making groups a perfect score of ten. For the non-decision-makers, observers gave a l l groups a similar score with one exception. In this instance, one observer gave a perfect rating of ten but the other gave a f i d e l i t y rating of only nine. Thus for the sixty ratings, only one produced a signed difference. Calculation of a pro-bability value i n the sign test requires a minimum of five signed differences.(Hays, 1965) Thus the calculation was meaningless and the n u l l hypotheses could not be rejected. Of considerable importance was the finding that a l l groups had implemented their plans with not only equal, but with a high degree of f i d e l i t y . Although the rating scale was only a p a r t i a l l y ordered scale, observers gave a l l groups a rating of perfect f i d e l i t y with the one exception discussed above. Choice Hypothesis 3: More subjects w i l l choose to work in decision-making groups ( P 1 ) than non-decision-making groups ( P . ) for a second test session. 90. As discussed i n the previous chapter, the experimenter was in t e r e s t e d i n discovering whether choice f o r a second t e s t session was conditioned by (a) a generalized preference for one or the other structure (b) t h e i r experience i n the treatment which they had undergone (c) or both. Two measures of independence were computed between t r e a t -ment and choice of condition for a second t e s t session. These were a Chi-square, with Yates c o r r e c t i o n , and a Guttman Corre-l a t i o n of P r e d i c t a b i l i t y . (Freeman, 1965 and Hayes, 1965) Treatment and Choice f o r a second t e s t session are cast i n Table 5. The v e r t i c a l and h o r i z o n t a l percentages are expressed i n Tables 6 and 7. Table 5 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition For a Proposed Second Test Session CHOICE P l EH P 16 29 45 p 12 33 45 28 62 90 Table 6 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r Proposed Second Test Session Expressed as Horizontal Percentages CHOICE EH P s EH W P rt EH p l 35 .56% 64.44% 45 26.67% 73 • 3 3 % 45 31.11% 68.89% 90 Table 7 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r Proposed Second Test Session Expressed as V e r t i c a l Percentages CHOICE z EH P W a EH rt EH 57.14% 46.77% 50% 42.86% 53 .23% 50% 28.00 62.00 90 A Chi-square value of .47 (df = 1) was c a l c u l a t e d . A value of 3.84 i s required f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the .05 l e v e l of confidence. Thus the n u l l hypothesis could not be r e j e c -ted. The p r o b a b i l i t y of such a value i s a c t u a l l y .50. Gutt-man 's Lambda was cal c u l a t e d as .05 and had a p r o b a b i l i t y of .94. Thus i t appeared that treatment and choice of structure for a second hypothesized t e s t session were unrelated. I t was then possible to combine choice data f o r both treatment conditions. Choice data for a proposed second t e s t session are contained i n Table 8. Expected frequencies were calculated on the basis of equal p r o b a b i l i t y . Table 8 Choice of Treatment Condition f o r a Second Proposed Test Session p P 28 (45) 62 (45) A Chi-square value of 12.84 (df = 1) was computed. A value of 3.84 i s required f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e at the (.05) l e v e l of confidence. This permitted r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothe-s i s P <; .001. However inspection shows that choice was not i n the d i r e c t i o n predicted by the experimenter. Although no hypothesis t e s t i n g was involved, choice data fo r a p o s i t i o n which subjects might hold upon graduation from B.C.I.T. were subjected to s i m i l a r analyses. Two measures of independence were computed between treatment and choice of condition f o r a p o s i t i o n a f t e r graduation. These were a Chi-square and a Guttman C o r r e l a t i o n of P r e d i c t a b i l i t y . Both Treatment and Choice are cast i n Table 9. The v e r t i c a l and ho r i z o n t a l percentages are expressed i n Tables 10 and 11. Table 9 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n After Graduation CHOICE EH P 21 24 45 P 14 31 45 35 55 90 Table 10 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n a f t e r Graduation Expressed Horizontal Percentages CHOICE P 2 P 2 p 46.67% 53 .33% 45 p 31.11% 68.89% 45 38.89% 61.11% 90 Table 11 Treatment Conditions and Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n a f t e r Graduation Expressed V e r t i c a l Percentages CHOICE EH P 2 P 2 p 60.00% 43.44% 50 .00% p 40 .00% 56 .36% 50.00% 35 55 A Chi-square value of 1.68 (df = 1) was c a l c u l a t e d . A value of 3.84 i s required for s i g n i f i c a n c e at the (.0 5) l e v e l of confidence. The n u l l hypothesis could not be rejected. The p r o b a b i l i t y of such a value i s a c t u a l l y .19. Guttman 1s Lambda c a l c u l a t e d as .09 with a p r o b a b i l i t y of .94. Thus i t appeared that treatment and choice of condition for a p o s i -t i o n a f t e r graduation were unrelated. I t was then p o s s i b l e to combine choice data for both treatment conditions. Choice data cast i n Table 12. Expected frequencies were c a l c u l a t e d on the basis of equal p r o b a b i l i t y . Table 12 Choice of Condition f o r a P o s i t i o n which Subjects Might Hold Upon Graduation from B.C.I.T. CHOICE P P 35 55 (45) (45) A Chi-square value of 4.44 (df = 1) was computed. A value of 3.84 i s required for s i g n i f i c a n c e at the (.05) l e v e l of con-fidence. This permitted r e j e c t i o n of the n u l l hypothesis P <C .05. However inspection shows that choice was i n favour of a non-decision-making condition. Chapter IV The d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i v i t y between treatment condi-tions i s a t t r i b u t e d to the d i f f e r e n t i a l exercise of options provided by the plan. Some speculation i s c a r r i e d on for pos s i b l e reasons why t h i s occurred. The experiment and some of the a u x i l l i a r y assumptions are re-examined. Impli-cations f o r both theory and fo r further research are reviewed. Discussion of the Results The d i f f e r e n c e i n the p r o d u c t i v i t y of decision-making and non-decision-making groups, although s i g n i f i c a n t at the ( .02 ) l e v e l , d i d not support the hypothesis that involvement i n decision-making would improve p r o d u c t i v i t y . The mean d i f -ference of 1.00 minutes, not large i n absolute terms, repre-sented a mean percentage di f f e r e n c e of some 7.78%. In the opinion of observers, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the f i d e l i t y of plan implementation between the two groups. Once again, the hypothesis of the experimenter, that decision-making groups would implemement t h e i r plan with greater f i d e l i t y than non-decision-making groups, was not confirmed. A d d i t i o n a l l y , observers rated both groups as achieving near perfect f i d e l i t y , an unexpected f i n d i n g given the hypothesis. To sum up, the experimenter conducted a study i n which neither of the substantive hypotheses r e l a t e d to p r o d u c t i v i t y were confirmed. The most obvious source of d i f f e r e n c e i n p r o d u c t i v i t y may have been sampling d i f f e r e n c e s . Assuming that t h i s was not the case i t i s then possible to i d e n t i f y where these differences occurred, using the concept of plan developed i n the f i r s t chapter. I t may be r e c a l l e d that p r o d u c t i v i t y was viewed as a f u n c t i o n of the q u a l i t y of the plan, the f i d e -l i t y with which i t i s implemented and the manner i n which options permitted by the plan are exercised. In t h i s p a r t i c u -l a r experiment, the q u a l i t i e s of the plans appeared to be e f f e c t i v e l y c o n t r o l l e d . Further, groups were judged to have implemented t h e i r own plans or the plans given to them with near per f e c t f i d e l i t y . Presumably therefore, differences i n p r o d u c t i v i t y must have occurred as a r e s u l t of the way decision-making and non-decision-making groups d i f f e r e n t i a l l y exercised the options provided by the plan. That i s , non-decision-making groups may have either devised more e f f i c i e n t procedures e.g., f o r detecting extraneous items, f o r c u t t i n g patterns, or simply worked f a s t e r or committed fewer e r r o r s . I t may also be r e c a l l e d that options provided by the plan may be exercised with respect to human, non-human or organizational resources. However i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r experi-ment, where the range of a v a i l a b l e non-human and organiza-t i o n a l resources was constrained, i t can be concluded that the major contributor to p r o d u c t i v i t y differences lay i n the area of human resources e.g., the decision-makers worked 98. more s l o w l y o r committed a g r e a t e r number o f e r r o r s . The term "major c o n t r i b u t o r " i s used h e r e i n r e c o g n i t i o n o f the f a c t t h a t some " s l i p p a g e " i s bound t o o c c u r because no p l a n i s c o m p l e t e l y s p e c i f i c . The p l a n s g e n e r a t e d by d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups were s u f f i c i e n t l y a b s t r a c t n o t t o p r e c l u d e t h e p o s s i b i -l i t y o f some d i f f e r e n c e s i n e i t h e r non-human o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l 1 r e s o u r c e s . W i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e measure o f p r o d u c t i v i t y , time t o s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n , the mean pe r f o r m a n c e time o f n o n - d e c i -s i o n - m a k i n g groups was 1 . 0 0 minutes l e s s t h an f o r d e c i s i o n -making g r o u p s , n o t a l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e i n a b s o l u t e terms. N e i t h e r t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r nor t h e o b s e r v e r s c o u l d d e t e c t any-t h i n g c o n s i s t e n t i n t h e b e h a v i o u r o f groups i n e i t h e r t r e a t -ment c o n d i t i o n w h i c h c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e . F o r example, one group may have moved more q u i c k l y from s t a t i o n t o s t a t i o n g a t h e r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n than t h e i r matched c o u n t e r p a r t s . Other t h i n g s b e i n g e q u a l , one c o u l d e x p e c t the An example o f a p l a n used by one m a t c h i n g p a i r o f groups i s l i s t e d below. P l a n 1 . To p r o c e e d one s t a t i o n a t a t i m e — a l l members b e g i n a t s t a t i o n # 1 . 2. As one s t a t i o n i s completed move onto n e x t . 3. T r y t o i d e n t i f y d u p l i c a t e p i e c e s as we move a l o n g o r p o s s i b l e "no f i t s . " 4. when the l a s t s t a t i o n i s i n p r o g r e s s whoever i s f r e e f i r s t can s t a r t c u t t i n g o u t t h e p i e c e s . 5. A l l work to p u t the p u z z l e t o g e t h e r . f a s t e r moving group to be more productive. S i m i l a r l y , one group may have worked i n a r e l a t i v e l y e r r o r - f r e e fashion while t h e i r matched counterparts d i d not. The time required to c o r r e c t errors must increase the time to successful comple-t i o n , other things being equal. Had i t been p r a c t i c a l to videotape each of the t e s t sessions and apply event analysis to the tapes, a behaviour pattern or patterns may have been i d e n t i f i a b l e . Conversely, differences may have been so subtle or i n t e r a c t i o n s so subtle that such an a n a l y s i s would also f a i l to reveal c l e a r d i f -ferences. Thus the experimenter i s l e f t to conclude that the exercise of options need not be r e s t r i c t e d to a s i n g l e beha-vio u r , but rather a range of possible behaviours such as those suggested above, some or a l l of which may be operative at the same time. The question then is--"Why were non-decision-making groups more productive?" I t would appear that explanations f a l l i n t o two or p o s s i b l y three general categories. The f i r s t i s r e l a t e d to the experimental procedures themselves and the p o s s i b i l i t y that some bias was u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y introduced into the experi-ment which would account for the d i f f e r e n c e . (Campbell and Stanley, 19 66) The second deals with the correctness of the theory i t s e l f , or the hypotheses'and a u x i l l i a r y hypotheses derived therefrom. Here the most obvious explanation would be that the theory i s 100. s i m p l y i n c o r r e c t . T h a t i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g does n o t s a t i s f y a g r e a t e r number o f h i g h e r o r d e r needs and, as a c o n s e q u e n c e , does n o t l e a d t o g r e a t e r p r o d u c t i v i t y . O b v i o u s l y i t w o u l d be d i f f i c u l t t o d i s c o u n t t h e t h e o r y on t h e b a s i s o f a s i n g l e e x p e r i m e n t , w i t h so much e x p e r i m e n t a l e v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y . However i t does a p p e a r u s e f u l t o examine some o f t h e a u x i l l i a r y h y p o t h e s e s . As H e m p h i l l s u g g e s t s I f a p a r t i c u l a r way o f t e s t i n g a h y p o t h e s i s H p r e s u p -p o s e s a u x i l l i a r y a s s u m p t i o n s A i , A 2 , . . . A N — i . e . , i f t h e s e a r e u s e d as a d d i t i o n a l p r e m i s e s i n d e r i v i n g f r o m H t h e r e l e v a n t t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n I - - t h e n as we saw e a r l i e r , a n e g a t i v e t e s t r e s u l t , w h i c h shows I t o be f a l s e , t e l l s us o n l y t h a t H o r one o f t h e a u x i l l i a r y h y p o t h e s e s must be f a l s e and t h a t a change must be made somewhere i n t h i s s e t o f s e n t e n c e s i f t h e t e s t r e s u l t i s t o be accommodated. A s u i t a b l e a d j u s t m e n t m i g h t be made by m o d i f y i n g o r com-p l e t e l y a b a n d o n i n g H o r by m a k i n g changes i n t h e s y s t e m o f a u x i l l i a r y h y p o t h e s e s . (Hempel, 1966, 28) F i n a l l y , t h e r e e x i s t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f a c t o r s i n b o t h a r e a s i n t r u d i n g i n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b etween i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and p r o d u c t i v i t y . I t i s t h e r e f o r e p r o p o s e d t o d i s c u s s f a c t o r s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e e x p e r i m e n t w h i c h c o u l d have c o n t r i b u t e d t o t h e r e s u l t and t h e n t o d i s c u s s i n s u b s e q u e n t s e c t i o n s a l t e r a t i o n s w h i c h m i g h t be made i n e i t h e r e x p e r i m e n t a l p r o c e d u r e s a n d / o r t h e t h e o r y i t s e l f . Some P o s s i b l e Causes o f D i f f e r e n c e i n P r o d u c t i v i t y One s u c h s o u r c e o f d i f f e r e n c e may l i e i n t h e c h a r g e s g i v e n s u b j e c t s i n e a c h o f t h e t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups were r e q u i r e d t o 1 0 1 . implement, to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y , a plan supposedly developed by the experimenter. Their r e s p o n s i b i l i t y e n t a i l e d s o l v i n g the problem using a pre-designed method. P r o d u c t i v i t y i s determined by the effectiveness of the plan, the f i d e l i t y of plan implementation and behaviour not s p e c i f i e d i n the plan. On the one hand, subjects i n non-decision-making groups had c o n t r o l over how f a i t h f u l l y they implemented the plan and other behaviours not s p e c i f i e d i n the plan. However responsi-b i l i t y f or the q u a l i t y of the plan lay elsewhere. On the other hand, decision-making groups were required to design a plan and then implement i t to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y . In these cases, p r o d u c t i v i t y was determined not only by t h e i r f i d e l i t y of implementation and the exercise of options, but by the q u a l i t y of the plan which they had developed. In the f o r -mer case, subjects may have perceived themselves as being evaluated i n terms of p r o d u c t i v i t y only. In the l a t t e r case, they may have perceived themselves as being evaluated both i n terms of p r o d u c t i v i t y and the effectiveness of the plan which they had developed, as w e l l as t h e i r own a b i l i t y to carry i t out. What e f f e c t could t h i s have on produ c t i v i t y ? Decision-making groups appeared to have a double r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f i r s t i n terms of the development of a plan and second i t s imple-mentation. Thus i t may be that having r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for both processes brings about a "trade-off," deliberate or 1 0 2 . u n c o n s c i o u s , b e t w e e n s p e e d a n d w h a t m i g h t b e d e s c r i b e d a s d e l i b e r a t e n e s s . T h a t t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e i r own p l a n i n d u c e s s u b j e c t s t o h e s i t a t e , t o b e m o r e d e l i b e r a t e , t o "make s u r e " t h a t t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r p l a n i s n o t o b s c u r e d b y e r r o r — t h a t t h e y c a n , a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , make t h e i r p l a n w o r k . S i n c e t h e mean d i f f e r e n c e b e i n g d i s c u s s e d h e r e i s o n l y 1.00 m i n u t e s , e v e n s m a l l h e s i t a t i o n s o n t h e p a r t o f s u b j e c t s c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n p r o d u c t i v i t y . D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s w e r e c l e a r l y c h a r g e d w i t h d e v e l o p -i n g a p r o d u c t , i n t h i s c a s e a p l a n . I t c o u l d b e c o n s i d e r e d a g r o u p p r o d u c t w h e t h e r o r n o t a l l g r o u p members p a r t i c i p a t e d a c t i v e l y i n i t s d e s i g n . B y a g r e e i n g t o t h e p l a n , e i t h e r e x p l i c i t l y o r t a c i t l y , b y .not a t t e m p t i n g t o m o d i f y o r b l o c k t h e p l a n g r o u p m embers may b e c o n s i d e r e d t o h a v e b e e n i n v o l v e d i n i t s d e v e l o p m e n t . T h i s d i f f e r s f r o m n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s w h e r e t h e p l a n a p p e a r e d c l e a r l y t o b e t h e p r o d u c t o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r . How c o u l d t h i s a c c o u n t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f o p t i o n s ? A s a r e s u l t o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p l a n , i t may b e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t s i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s w o u l d h a v e a p r o p e n s i t y t o m o n i t o r o t h e r member's a c t i -v i t i e s . To c o m p a r e w h a t t h e y a r e d o i n g w i t h w h a t o t h e r g r o u p members a r e d o i n g a n d t o v e r i f y t h a t i t i s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e p l a n i t s e l f . A d d i t i o n a l l y , w h e n p r e s e n t e d w i t h t h e o p p o r -t u n i t y t o p u r s u e a r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e b e h a v i o u r s , u n s p e c i f i e d 1 i n the plan, they may even i n t h i s instance have a tendency to "check back" with other members of the group. This need not be s p e c i f i c approval seeking but merely a tendency to continue the p r a c t i c e established e a r l i e r to stop and con-sider a l t e r n a t i v e s . In non-decision-making groups, where i n t e r a c t i o n was p r i m a r i l y between the experimenter and the i n d i v i d u a l sub-j e c t s , i n t e r e s t i n what others are doing may be le s s l i k e l y to develop. A d d i t i o n a l l y , members of the group have only one person with whom to "check back," the developer of the plan, i n t h i s case, the experimenter. Although no one i n e i t h e r treatment c o n d i t i o n s p e c i f i c a l l y asked "Is t h i s what I do next?," i t does not mean that the more subtle forms of h e s i -t a t i o n , suggested above, did not take place. A t h i r d p o s s i b i l i t y i s that members of decision-making groups were more uncertain concerning the performance of the task and, as a consequence, tended to proceed more slowly, i . e . , work more d e l i b e r a t e l y . Although groups i n both t r e a t -ment conditions were placed i n novel s i t u a t i o n s i t could be argued that non-decision-making groups were provided with more d i r e c t i o n i . e . , placed i n a more "structured" s i t u a t i o n . I f a greater degree of structure serves to reduce uncertainty, increase confidence, etc., then i t appears possible that t h i s could explain greater p r o d u c t i v i t y on the part of non-decision making groups. 104 . What have been o f f e r e d h e r e a r e t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a -n a t i o n s o f what m i g h t have happened. O b v i o u s l y t h e y a r e h i g h l y s p e c u l a t i v e i n n a t u r e . However i t now a p p e a r s a p p r o -p r i a t e t o r e - e x a m i n e t h e e x p e r i m e n t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r c e r t a i n f a c t o r s c a n be i d e n t i f i e d w h i c h w o u l d s e r v e t o s u p p o r t any o r a l l o f t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s o r even t o s u g g e s t o t h e r p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s . The E x p e r i m e n t Re-examined S o l i c i t i n g S u b j e c t s I t was s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r t h a t by s o l i c i t i n g s u b j e c t s on a v o l u n t a r y r a t h e r t h a n c o m p u l s o r y b a s i s , t h e t e s t p o p u l a t i o n w o u l d more l i k e l y be composed o f s u b j e c t s who p o s s e s s e d a "need f o r i n d e p e n d e n c e . " T h a t i s , t h e y w o u l d want t o be i n -v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . Terms s u c h as "need f o r i n d e p e n -dence," d i r e c t i o n s e e k i n g " and " a u t h o r i t a r i a n " a r e u s e d h e r e i n a v e r y r e s t r i c t e d s e n s e . They a p p l y t o t h e need e i t h e r t o be r e l a t i v e l y f r e e f r o m o r s u b j e c t t o t h e d i c t a t e s o f h i g h e r a u t h o r i t y o r c o n v e r s e l y p e r h a p s t o e x e r c i s e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h a t i s , f r e e d o m t o d e t e r m i n e s t r a t e g i e s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r work by t h e m s e l v e s o r i n c o n c e r t w i t h t h e i r p e e r s , o r t o have t h e s e d e t e r m i n e d by t h e i r " s u p e r i o r s . " I n v i e w o f t h e e x p r e s s e d p r e f e r e n c e f o r t h e n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o n d i t i o n , i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t j u s t t h e o p p o s i t e was t r u e . S i n c e t h e 105. experimenter was an i n s t r u c t o r of B.C.I.T., many of the sub-jects were students i n h i s classes and for those who were not, the f a c t that he was an i n s t r u c t o r was well-known. Thus i t may.be that subjects who agreed to p a r t i c i p a t e had an o r i e n t a t i o n toward dependent behaviour, at l e a s t compared to the population as a whole, from which subjects were drawn. They may have experienced d i f f i c u l t y saying "No" to an author-i t y f i g u r e . Vroom (19 60) found that involvement i n decision-making was r e l a t e d both to a t t i t u d e s toward the job and to perfor-mance. A d d i t i o n a l l y , he discovered that those who were more a u t h o r i t a r i a n responded less favourably to involvement than those who had a greater "need f o r independence." Vroom discusses performance as an a t t i t u d i n a l or motivational matter but i t could also be affected i n another way. I t might rea-sonably be expected that i f s o l i c i t i n g procedures had selected subjects who preferred to be d i r e c t e d , then the double charge given to the decision-making groups might make subjects more cautious and, as a consequence more del i b e r a t e , than the si n g l e charge given to non-decision-making groups. I f subjects i n the decision-making condition were i n c l i n e d to be more hesitant, then t h i s could account, at l e a s t i n part, for the difference. In the same ve i n , i f subjects were i n c l i n e d to be "direc-t i o n seeking," then the decision-making condition may have 1 0 6 . forced them to do what they would rather not—make decisions. Although t h i s "mismatch" condition need not n e c e s s a r i l y have a "de-motivating" e f f e c t (Katz, et a l . , 1950) there i s abun-dant evidence to show that i t might (Ronan, 19 70). The Experimenter as an Expert The f a c t that the experimenter was a doctoral student at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia was well-known among sub-j e c t s . Thus he may have been viewed as an "expert" i n the s o l u t i o n of the type of problem used here. In f a c t , ten sub-je c t s revealed t h i s i n post-experiment interviews. Conse-quently i t may be that members of decision-making groups saw t h e i r plans as being evaluated against what the "expert" might generate. Once again one might expect more deliberate behaviour on the part of members of decision-making groups. Furthermore non-decision-making groups might w e l l have assumed that they had a good plan and focussed t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on speed and accuracy of implementing the plan, p a r t i c u l a r l y when,for them, those would be the most obvious (perhaps only) grounds f o r being evaluated by the experimenter. Thus, while the decision-making groups may or may not have been more deliberat e , the non-decision groups may have had more reason to work r a p i d l y . 107 . Task and S i t u a t i o n a l Novelty The s e l e c t i o n of a task f o r laboratory research poses an i n t e r e s t i n g and d i f f i c u l t problem. Choosing between novel tasks and tasks more f a m i l i a r to the subjects may be c r i t i c a l . In t h i s experiment subjects were drawn from several areas of study w i t h i n the engineering f i e l d , making i t extremely d i f f i -c u l t to s e l e c t a task which would have been equally unfamiliar to a l l . This procedure runs the r i s k of inadvertently i n t r o -ducing another v a r i a b l e to the study. Weick suggests A person who i s i n an experiment, l i k e the newcomer on the job, often has low confidence i n h i s judgments, i s e a s i l y influenced, misunderstands i n s t r u c t i o n , i s uninformed, f i n d s the job novel or i n t e r e s t i n g , i s cau-tious and t o l e r a t e s many demands that would anger him i n more f a m i l i a r s e t t i n g s . Many of these behaviours d i s s i p a t e as he comes more accustomed to the assignment. (Weick, 1967, 47) In t h i s study, pains were taken to insure both that the task was novel and that a l l groups had an equal opportunity to become f a m i l i a r with i t . How much time would be required to make subjects confident, comfortable and f a m i l i a r with the task remains an unknown. However, i n response to the question concerning preferences for a p o s i t i o n which might be held upon graduation from B.C.I.T., subjects s i g n i f i c a n t l y preferred the non-decision-making condition. Closer questioning by the interviewers revealed that a dozen subjects put a time l i m i t and q u a l i f i c a t i o n s upon t h e i r choice. That i s , some subjects preferred to be directed i n i t i a l l y , but once they were 108. f a m i l i a r w i t h what was t o be done, w o u l d p r e f e r some d e c i s i o n -m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . T h i s r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f w h e t h e r s u b j e c t s were g e n e r a l l y c o n f i d e n t , e t c . , i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r l a b o r a t o r y s i t u a t i o n . I f t h e y were n o t t h e y may have been more i n c l i n e d t o s e e k d i r e c t i o n f r o m someone e l s e , i n t h i s c a s e , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r and t o f e e l more c o m f o r t a b l e when t h i s d i r e c t i o n was p r o v i d e d . Thus one m i g h t e x p e c t more u n c e r -t a i n t y , l a c k o f c o n f i d e n c e , d e l i b e r a t e n e s s , e t c . , i n d e c i s i o n -m a k i n g g r o u p s p o s s i b l y m a n i f e s t i n t h e s o r t o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h c o u l d a c c o u n t f o r t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t i m e r e q u i r e d t o c o m p l e t e t h e t a s k ( p r o d u c t i v i t y ) . A s s u m p t i o n s C o n c e r n i n g t h e N a t u r e o f t h e T e s t P o p u l a t i o n Re-e x a m i n e d . I n a d d i t i o n t o some o f t h e p o s s i b l e d e t e r m i n a n t s o f d i f -f e r e n c e s d i s c u s s e d a bove, some o f t h e a s s u m p t i o n s made c o n -c e r n i n g t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t e s t p o p u l a t i o n s h o u l d be r e - e x a m i n e d i n t h e l i g h t o f e v i d e n c e f r o m t h e e x p e r i m e n t i t s e l f and f r o m an o u t s i d e s o u r c e . I t was assumed t h a t a y o u n g , p r o f e s s i o n a l g r o up w o u l d be more l i k e l y t o want t o be i n v o l v e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s . ( K o r n h a u s e r , 1962) The c h o i c e made by s u b j e c t s f o r a s e c o n d t e s t s e s s i o n was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f a v o u r o f membership i n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s . I f t h i s were t h e s o l e p i e c e o f e v i d e n c e a v a i l a b l e , i t c o u l d be a r g u e d t h a t t h i s o c c u r r e d b e c a u s e o f s o m e t h i n g u n i q u e i n t h e e x p e r i -ment i t s e l f . However i n r e s p o n s e t o a q u e s t i o n a b o u t p r e f e r r e d 109 choice of condition f o r a possible p o s i t i o n upon graduation from B.C.I.T., s i m i l a r choices were recorded. Some a d d i t i o n a l evidence, taken from a study by Dennison, et a l . (1972), appears to be consistent with t h i s point of view. In a study of the impact of community col l e g e s , the authors sampled seven-thousand students from B.C.I.T., ten community colleges and the four subgroupings of Vancouver C i t y College i n c l u d i n g Langara Sepcial Programmes, A r t School and the Vocational School. Contained i n the questionnaire were three questions which appear to bear on the idea of preference f o r or against involvement i n decision-making. The f i r s t question posed to students was "Do you prefer assignments which are d e f i n i t e or ones i n which things are l e f t l a r g e l y or completely to your own I n i t i a t i v e ? " Of the B.C.I.T. students 61.3% prefer d e f i n i t e assignments, tying f o r the highest percentage among the populations sampled. A d d i t i o n a l l y , the percentage of 3 8.6% who preferred that i t be l e f t to students, ranked second lowest among responding groups. I f t h i s can be accepted as a measure of desire f o r d e c i s i o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y r e l a t e d to one's work, then i t would appear that B.C.I.T. students may be more i n c l i n e d to seek d i r e c t i o n compared to other populations sampled and i n the context of t h e i r r o l e s as students i n educational organizations A s i m i l a r question, concerning c o n t r o l , was also posed. "Should students p a r t i c i p a t e i n the control and organization 110 . of courses, academic p o l i c y decisions and matters of t h i s s o r t ? " The B.C.I.T. students, who responded a f f i r m a t i v e l y , represented 4 2.9% of that population. In t h i s they ranked second lowest or fourteenth out of a possible f i f t e e n . The percentage of B.C.I.T. students who responded negatively composed 22% of that population, the highest percentage among a l l the groups of students sampled. Even more rev e a l i n g were the responses to a t h i r d ques-t i o n . "Which of the following statements comes c l o s e s t to your own view?" (a) Students should be given very great f r e e -dom i n choosing t h e i r subjects of study and i n choosing t h e i r own areas of i n t e r e s t w i t h i n those subjects; (b) There i s a body of knowledge to be learned and the f a c u l t y i s more compe-tent than the student to d i r e c t the student's course of study through required courses, p r e r e q u i s i t e s , and the l i k e , " The percentage of B.C.I.T. students who selected the statement that students should have freedom was 30.5%, by f a r the lowest of any of the populations sampled. R e c i p r o c a l l y , the percen-tage who selected the statement that the f a c u l t y should d i r e c t was 69.5%, the highest of any of the population groups. This i s not to suggest that there i s a one-to-one corres-pondence between the questionnaire responses and the degree to which subjects wished to be involved i n decision-making. However, i f these reponses can be taken as an i n d i c a t i o n of what degree of involvement B.C.I.T. students generally prefer 111. and/or f e e l i s appropriate, then i t seems that t h i s experiment may have dea l t with subjects who tended more to be au t h o r i -t a r i a n , at l e a s t with respect to educational i n s t i t u t i o n s and the r o l e of students i n decision-making, and r e l a t i v e to some of the other populations sampled by Dennison, et a l . I t seems quite p o s s i b l e that the experiment was viewed as an extension of the educational context and expectations regarding the preferred r o l e f o r students would therefore have been a factor i n t h i s study. I t may be that inadvertently, the experimenter has i d e n t i f i e d the same phenomenon as Tannenbaum and A l l p o r t (1957). That subjects, who i n the main prefer the non-decision-making c o n d i t i o n , function best i n that condition. I t may be reasonable to suggest that i f subjects were more i n c l i n e d to seek d i r e c t i o n , then to thrust them i n t o a s i t u a t i o n i n which, at l e a s t i n the planning phase, l i t t l e or no d i r e c t i o n was provided may have caused them to behave a l i t t l e more c a u t i o u s l y , and somewhat more slowly, than would be the case i n non-decision-making-groups. S i m i l a r l y member-ship i n non-decision-making-groups may have provided more of a "match" between the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n of the subjects and the greater degree of d i r e c t i o n provided i n t h i s treatment condi-t i o n , thereby reducing the i n c l i n a t i o n to proceed "slowly but surely." 112. P o s s i b l e Reasons for the Lack of Difference i n F i d e l i t y of Plan Implementation There appear to be a number of possible contributors to the f a c t that groups i n both treatment conditions implemented t h e i r plans with not only equal but high f i d e l i t y . At the r i s k of being somewhat r e p e t i t i v e , i t appears appropriate to deal with these i n a separate section. Possible Nature of the Test Population F i r s t , the evidence from the Dennison, et a l . (1972) study suggests that the t e s t population may have been one which tended to seek d i r e c t i o n . Since t h i s possible factor has been d e a l t with at length i n the previous s e c t i o n , i t appears appropriate merely to note i t s relevancy to the ques-t i o n of f i d e l i t y of plan implementation. E x p l i c i t n e s s of Directions Given to Subjects I t may be r e c a l l e d that d i r e c t i o n s given to subjects con-cerning implementation of the plan were rather e x p l i c i t ( i . e . , "Whatever plan you devise I would l i k e you to s t i c k c l o s e l y to i t throughout the exercise," or "Once again I would l i k e you to fol l o w the plan c l o s e l y " ) . I t appears possible that such s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n s f o r the plan implementation phase of the experiment may have outweighed any e f f e c t s induced by differences i n the plan development phases of the treatments 113 . themselves. I t may also be r e c a l l e d that i t was hypothesized that decision-making groups would, as a r e s u l t of involvement i n decision-making, more f a i t h f u l l y implement t h e i r plans. However, with a population which may have sought d i r e c t i o n and where some e x p l i c i t d i r e c t i o n was provided f o r the imple-mentation phase, i t may be that t h i s e f f e c t could have over-ridden any e f f e c t s generated by treatment d i f f e r e n c e s . I t could be that with a population of t h i s nature that subjects would have chosen to follow d i r e c t i o n s c l o s e l y regardless of the p r i o r treatment. Task and S i t u a t i o n a l Novelty F i n a l l y , as Weick (1967) suggests, subjects may be more l i k e l y to fo l l o w d i r e c t i v e s i n novel s i t u a t i o n s than they would be i n more f a m i l i a r ones. I f , as was proposed e a r l i e r , subjects were not s u f f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r with e i t h e r the task or the experimental s i t u a t i o n , then one might expect greater adherence to the plan than i f t h i s were not the case. To summarize, i t appears that p o t e n t i a l l y three f a c t o r s , the nature of the t e s t population, the e x p l i c i t n e s s of d i r e c -tions i n the implementation phase of the experiment and the novelty of the experimental task or the experimental s i t u a t i o n may have combined i n some way to produce t h i s r e s u l t . How-ever i t should be pointed out that i n these instances plans appeared to be s u f f i c i e n t l y unambiguous and simple, and 1 1 4 . apparently subjects possessed the s k i l l s and a b i l i t i e s neces-sary to implement them. I t could be that had the plans been more complex or required higher l e v e l s of s k i l l s and a b i l i -t i e s on the part of subjects, that t h i s r e s u l t would not nec e s s a r i l y have occurred. Some General Conclusions Concerning P r o d u c t i v i t y In the f i r s t chapter i t was suggested that when employees are involved i n or g a n i z a t i o n a l decision-making several p o s s i -b i l i t i e s may occur. The f i r s t concerns the effectiveness of the plan i t s e l f . Obviously a plan may have a p o s i t i v e (+), negative (-), or n u l l (0) e f f e c t on p r o d u c t i v i t y . The assump-t i o n here i s that there e x i s t s a p r i o r plan or at l e a s t some ya r d s t i c k against which the effectiveness of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r plan may be measured. Thus a plan which, f o r example, may be said to have n u l l e f f e c t on p r o d u c t i v i t y would simply be no more or l e s s e f f e c t i v e than a p r i o r plan. The second p o s s i b i l i t y , though not unique to s i t u a t i o n s i n which group members p a r t i c i p a t e i n decision-making, i s concerned with the f i d e l i t y of plan implementation and the exercise of options provided by the plan both of which may have a p o s i t i v e (+), negative (-), or n u l l (0) e f f e c t on p r o d u c t i v i t y . Once again the judgements that a group imple-mented a plan more f a i t h f u l l y implies that some scale of f i d e l i t y of implementation e x i s t s or at l e a s t some comparative 1 1 5 judgement can be made to some other group, r e a l or hypothetical Allowing that p r o d u c t i v i t y i s determined by the q u a l i t y of the plan, the f i d e l i t y of plan implementation and the exer-c i s e of options provided by the plan, some rather obvious conclusions can be drawn. Ignoring f o r the moment the ques-t i o n of the magnitude i t appears the content or nature of plans, plan implementation and the exercise of options may w e l l determine the r e s u l t s i n a given experiment. For example, the e f f e c t s of a superior plan may be masked by less than adequate implementation of that plan. S i m i l a r l y , as happened i n t h i s experiment, there may be no difference i n f i d e l i t y of plan implementation but a clea r difference i n the exercise of options allowed by the plan. There appear to be nine sign combinations, suggesting one possible explanation f o r the plethora of contradictory findings i n the l i t e r a t u r e . I f one can consider p r o d u c t i v i t y as being determined by four sets of v a r i a b l e s , s i t u a t i o n a l , p e r s o n a l i t y , i n t e r a c t i o n of the actors and c u l t u r a l , then the mix which produces the most e f f e c t i v e plans i s not necessarily the same mix which produces the most f a i t h f u l implementation of a plan or the most e f f e c t i v e exercise of options provided by the plan, which w i l l lead to higher p r o d u c t i v i t y . In t h i s p a r t i c u l a r experiment i t was not possible to determine how e f f e c t i v e the mix had been i n producing e f f e c t i v e plans. But given t h i s mix of va r i a b l e s and holding the q u a l i t i e s of plans constant, 116 . i t was p o s s i b l e to show the e f f e c t s of involvement i n d e c i s i o n -making on p r o d u c t i v i t y . To summarize, i n attempting to advance explanations f o r the r e s u l t s , a number of p o s s i b l y important mediating v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d and discussed. As a r e s u l t , several avenues f o r further research became apparent. These w i l l be discussed, i n depth, i n a subsequent sect i o n of the chapter. Keeping i n mind the l i m i t a t i o n s which have had to be placed on the r e s u l t s of t h i s study, i t was demonstrated that when the q u a l i t y of the plan was held constant, that f i d e l i t y of imple-mentation was both equal and high and with respect to time as a c r i t e r i o n , non-decision-makers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more pro-ductive than decision-makers. Choice Choices of subjects f o r a second t e s t session s i g n i f i -cantly favoured membership i n non-decision-making groups. Again t h i s was contrary to the hypothesis that subjects would opt f o r membership i n non-decision-making groups. Although no hypothesis t e s t i n g was involved, subjects s i g n i f i c a n t l y favoured the non-decision-making condition for a p o s i t i o n 2 which they might hold upon graduation from B.C.I.T. One problem arose for the experimenter from the wording of the question about preference of structure for a p o s i t i o n which subjects might occupy upon graduation from B.C.I.T. Unfortunately the question was t i e d to the treatment which the 117. P o s s i b l e F a c t o r s I n f l u e n c i n g C h o i c e P o s s i b l e N a t u r e o f t h e T e s t P o p u l a t i o n T u r n i n g t o t h e q u e s t i o n o f s u b j e c t s ' c h o i c e o f c o n d i t i o n f o r a s econd t e s t s e s s i o n and f o r a p o s i t i o n w h i c h m i g h t be o c c u p i e d upon g r a d u a t i o n f r o m B.C.I.T., s e v e r a l p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n s can be advanced f o r t h e r e s u l t s . However i t s h o u l d be p o i n t e d o u t t h a t c h o i c e and p r o d u c t i v i t y a r e p r o -b a b l y n o t u n r e l a t e d . Thus i t c o u l d be h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t many o f t h e same v a r i a b l e s i n f l u e n c i n g p r o d u c t i v i t y would a l s o i n f l u e n c e c h o i c e . The most o b v i o u s e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h e n a t u r e o f t h e t e s t p o p u l a t i o n i t s e l f . I t was s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r i n t h e c h a p t e r t h a t t h i s s t u d y may have been c a r r i e d o u t w i t h s u b j e c t s who p r e f e r r e d to be d i r e c t e d . The D e n n i s o n , e t a l . (197 2) s t u d y r a i s e s s e r i o u s d o u b t s about whether B.C.I.T. s t u d e n t s want t o be i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r work. I f t h i s i s , s u b j e c t s had j u s t undergone. Thus they c o u l d i n d i c a t e a p r e -f e r e n c e f o r a c o n d i t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t which t h e y had j u s t e x p e r i e n c e d o r a p r e f e r e n c e f o r some o t h e r . S i n c e b o t h t r e a t -ments were a t extremes o f t h e continuum, a p r e f e r e n c e f o r o t h e r t h a n a d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o n d i t i o n , i n d i c a t e d o n l y a p r e f e r e n c e f o r something d i f f e r e n t f r o m what the s u b j e c t e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l t r e a t m e n t . T h i s c o u l d have i n c l u d e d a n y t h i n g from s l i g h t l y l e s s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to no d e c i s o n -making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a t a l l . S i m i l a r l y , a p r e f e r e n c e f o r something o t h e r t h a n the n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o n d i t i o n c o u l d have i n c l u d e d a n y t h i n g from v e r y l i t t l e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to more o r l e s s complete d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g r e s -p o n s i b i l i t y . As a consequence, d a t a p r o v i d e d by r e s p o n s e s t o t h e s e q u e s t i o n s , have t o be c a r e f u l l y q u a l i f i e d . 118 . i n f a c t , c o r r e c t t h e n i t a p p e a r s l o g i c a l t h a t s u b j e c t s w o u l d s e l e c t a t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e g r e a t e s t amount o f d i r e c t i o n was p r o v i d e d . I n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s a g r e a t e r amount o f d i r e c t i o n was p r o v i d e d i n t h e p l a n d e v e l o p -ment p h a s e o f t h e t r e a t m e n t . I n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s , t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e p l a n was l e f t more o r l e s s u n c o n s t r a i n e d . T h i s a p p l i e d n o t o n l y t o t h e s u b s t a n t i v e c o n t e n t o f t h e p l a n i t s e l f b u t t o t h e way i n w h i c h t h e g r o u p o r g a n i z e d t o d e v e l o p t h e p l a n . F o r e x a m p l e , t h e g r o u p was f r e e t o d e v e l o p as a l e a d e r l e s s one, w i t h a l l members p a r t i c i p a t i n g e q u a l l y i n a l l d e c i s i o n s o r , a t t h e o t h e r e x t r e m e , one member c o u l d make a l l d e c i s i o n s f o r t h e g r o u p . Thus i t does n o t a p p e a r u n r e a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t s u b j e c t s who p r e f e r r e d d i r e c t i o n w o u l d s e l e c t membership i n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s f o r a s e c o n d t e s t s e s s i o n r a t h e r t h a n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s , where l e s s d i r e c -t i o n was p r o v i d e d . L a c k o f I n f o r m a t i o n C o n c e r n i n g P e r f o r m a n c e A s e c o n d p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n o f c h o i c e l i e s i n t h e i n f o r -m a t i o n s u b j e c t s were g i v e n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r g r o u p s ' p e r f o r m a n c e r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r g r o u p s o r some y a r d s t i c k o f p e r f o r m a n c e . I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d t h a t t h e e x p e r i m e n t was d e s i g n e d so t h a t s ub-j e c t s had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o p e r f o r m two p r o b l e m s o l v i n g e x e r -c i s e s . A f t e r t h e f i r s t t r i a l , s u b j e c t s were p r o v i d e d w i t h o n l y v e r y l i m i t e d and n o n - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r 119 . p e r f o r m a n c e , ( i . e . , "You have now had one a t t e m p t a t a p r o b l e m and no d o u b t have n o t i c e d e r r o r s t h a t y o u have made and ways i n w h i c h y o u c o u l d i m p r o v e y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e , " o r "You h a v e now had one a t t e m p t a t a p r o b l e m and I have n o t i c e d e r r o r s t h a t you have made and ways i n w h i c h y o u c o u l d i m p r o v e y o u r p e r f o r -mance") . A t t h e end o f t h e s e c o n d t r i a l , no i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d c o n c e r n i n g p e r f o r m a n c e b e c a u s e i t was f e l t i t w o u l d s e r v e l i t t l e p u r p o s e as no f u r t h e r t a s k s were t o be p e r f o r m e d by s u b j e c t s . I n r e t r o s p e c t , i t a p p e a r s t h a t by n o t p r o v i d i n g some i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g p e r f o r m a n c e , t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r may have e l i m i n a t e d one o f t h e n e c e s s a r y i n g r e d i e n t s f o r s u c c e s s f u l i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g , a t l e a s t so f a r as i t a f f e c t s c h o i c e . Even t h e e a r l y a n a l y s t s o f a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s y s t e m s , s u c h as B a r n a r d ( 1 9 5 8 ) , r e c o g n i z e d t h e v a l u e o f what m i g h t be d e s c r i b e d as " p a y o f f s . " A d v o c a t e s o f t h e S c a n l o n p l a n , s u c h as L e s i e u r and P u c k e t t (1969) , were aware o f t h e i m p o r -t a n c e o f m o n e t a r y p a y o f f s . However B a r n a r d a l s o r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e were o t h e r i m p o r t a n t p a y o f f s b e s i d e s money, s u c h as p r e s t i g e o r s t a t u s , s e n s e o f a c c o m p l i s h m e n t and a number o f o t h e r s . I n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r e x p e r i m e n t s u b j e c t s had s c a n t i n f o r m a -t i o n , o t h e r t h a n what m i g h t be t e r m e d " i n t u i t i v e , t o j u d g e t h e i r g r o u p s 1 p e r f o r m a n c e s . There were no s t a t e m e n t s by t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r ("You d i d b e t t e r / w o r s e t h a n g r o u p s A, B o r C) o r 1 d i s p l a y s of performance times f o r t h e i r and o t h e r groups. Si n c e t h e r e was no monetary p a y o f f i n v o l v e d , i t was assumed t h a t s u b j e c t s i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g groups would r e c e i v e t h e i r "reward" i n o t h e r ways i . e . , a chance to have t h e i r i d e a s r e c o g n i z e d , d e r i v e a d d i t i o n a l s t a t u s and r e c e i v e a p p r e c i a t i o n I t may be t h a t these s o r t s of p a y o f f s are t i e d c l o s e l y to h aving i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the groups' performance. For example, the r e c o g n i t i o n f o r an i d e a may stem i n p a r t from the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of t h a t i d e a when i t i s put t o work. I f s u b j e c t s have no i d e a of how t h e i r group performed r e l a t i v e to o t h e r s , then the r e c o g n i t i o n may not be r e a d i l y f o r t h -coming . One might h y p o t h e s i z e t h a t c h o i c e s might d i f f e r a c c o r d -i n g t o whether the group performed w e l l or p o o r l y compared to o t h e r r e f e r e n t groups. This g i v e s r i s e to another p o s s i b l e avenue f o r r e s e a r c h which w i l l be d i s c u s s e d l a t e r i n the c h a p t e r . However i t occurs to t h i s w r i t e r t h a t the need to know, r e g a r d l e s s of whether they have f a r e d w e l l or p o o r l y r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r groups, may be a v e r y important v a r i a b l e . That i s , i f no i n f o r m a t i o n concerning performance i s p r o v i d e d then what purpose i s t h e r e i n being i n v o l v e d i n d e c i s i o n s . I f one of the sources of p a y o f f i s removed, then whey not take the e a s i e r approach where the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the p l a n l i e s elsewhere. 1 2 1 . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Theory On the one h a n d , the v e r y t h e o r y d e s c r i b e d i n c h a p t e r one may be used t o e x p l a i n t h e s e r e s u l t s . The e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i -t i o n s may a c t u a l l y have f r u s t r a t e d the h i g h e r o r d e r needs e . g . , the l a c k o f i n f o r m a t i o n on p e r f o r m a n c e . T h i s r e p r e s e n t s (or c o u l d r e p r e s e n t ) a f r u s t r a t i n g f a c t o r t o h a v i n g needs f o r competence met . M o r e o v e r , a number o f o t h e r f a c t o r s such as the p o s s i b i -l i t i e s o f b e i n g e v a l u a t e d n e g a t i v e l y i n the i n s t r u c t i o n a l s e t t i n g and the l a c k o f any o b v i o u s " p a y o f f " may have r e p r e -s e n t e d e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e o f what would be r e q u i r e d to meet the h i g h e r o r d e r n e e d s . I n o t h e r words the t h e o r y may be a l l r i g h t , b u t the e x p e r i -ment may n o t have p o s s e s s e d the t e s t i m p l i c a t i o n s i t demands. A d d i n g to t h i s the s h o r t t ime span and the absence o f l o n g range w o r k i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , one must be c a u t i o u s i n any c r i t i c a l a p p r a i s a l o f the t h e o r y . The f a u l t may be l e s s w i t h the t h e o r y and more w i t h i t s e x p o s i t i o n . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , e a r l i e r i n the c h a p t e r i t was s u g g e s t e d t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and p r o d u c t i v i t y was i n f l u e n c e d by s i t u a t i o n , p e r s o n a l i t y , i n t e r a c t i o n o f the a c t o r s and c u l t u r a l v a r i a b l e s . A t the same t ime i t appears p r o b a b l e t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s n o t a s i m p l e l i n e a r o n e . From the p o i n t o f v i e w o f needs , t h e r e appears to 122. be not a s i n g l e need h i e r a r c h y f o r people i n o r g a n i z a t i o n s but r a t h e r a v a r i e t y o f p o s s i b l e need h i e r a r c h i e s and a number of p o s s i b l e ways i n which each of these c o u l d be s a t i s f i e d . ( F i e d l e r , 1965) S i m i l a r l y , although each may be capable of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n a l c o n t e x t , the s i t u a t i o n a l and i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s most l i k e l y to s a t i s f y them presumably depends upon p e r s o n a l i t y and/or c u l t u r a l background. This i s not to suggest t h a t a l l human behaviour i s i d i o s y n c r a t i c , but i t i s to suggest t h a t t h e r e w i l l always e x i s t i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a -b i l i t y . A number of v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s tudy, which c o u l d have mediated the r e l a t i o n s h i p . Both t a s k and s i t u a t i o n a l n o v e l t y appear to be p o s s i b l e m e d i a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . I f s u b j e c t s f e l t s t r a n g e , e i t h e r w i t h the t a s k or the e x p e r i m e n t a l s i t u a t i o n , then they may have behaved v e r y d i f f e r e n t l y than i f t h i s had not been the case. C i v i l and S t r u c t u r a l t e c h n o l o g i s t s , one of the f i e l d s of e n g i n e e r i n g s t u d i e s from which s u b j e c t s were drawn, may have behaved v e r y d i f f e r e n t l y p erforming an e n g i n e e r i n g r e l a t e d t a s k , such as a d e s i g n problem, than they d i d performing t h i s r a t h e r a b s t r a c t t a s k . S i m i l a r l y , i f the c o n d i t i o n s of work, i . e . , three-man peer groups, were u n f a m i l i a r to the s u b j e c t s , then behaviour might a l s o have been a f f e c t e d . L i k e r t (1961) documents the d i f f e r e n c e i n behaviour of employees a c c o r d i n g to how they p e r c e i v e d t h e i r s u p e r i o r s . For t h i s p a r t i c u l a r experiment i t has been suggested t h a t the 123. experimenter may have been p e r c e i v e d as an e x p e r t i n t h i s p a r -t i c u l a r area of p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g . At the same time, the r e l a -t i o n s h i p of the experimenter who may a l s o be p e r c e i v e d to have power over s u b j e c t s i n terms of course grades, may a l s o have a f f e c t e d b e h a v i o u r . Had the experimenter been p e r c e i v e d as p o s s e s s i n g no more e x p e r t i s e than the s u b j e c t s themselves o r had the experimenter not been an i n s t r u c t o r a t the I n s t i t u t e , would t h i s have a f f e c t e d behaviour? Would knowing the nature of the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n i t s e l f change the hypotheses? I t has been suggested t h a t t h i s p a r t i -c u l a r p o p u l a t i o n may have been one which sought d i r e c t i o n . Had a p o p u l a t i o n been used, which c l e a r l y sought more i n v o l v e -ment i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g have behaved d i f f e r e n t l y ? F i n a l l y , had the experiment p r o v i d e d i n f o r m a t i o n concern-i n g the groups' performance r e l a t i v e to o t h e r groups, have a l t e r e d c h o i c e p a t t e r n s f o r a second t e s t s e s s i o n ? What i s suggested here are a number of p o s s i b l e v a r i a b l e s which may bear on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between decision-making and p r o d u c t i v i t y . Although the g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i n v o l v e -ment i n de c i s i o n - m a k i n g leads to g r e a t e r need s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y may h o l d i n p r i n c i p l e , i t appears to r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e refinement. Even the l i m i t e d aspects of human behaviour d e a l t w i t h i n the pre s e n t study appear too complex to be e x p l a i n e d by such a g e n e r a l statement. But the view does p r o v i d e a p o i n t of d e p a r t u r e , p e r m i t t i n g the 124 . experimenter to determine the refinements t h a t may be necessary. A theory i s needed which takes i n t o account some of the v a r i -a b l e s suggested above. For example, Kenniston (1965) c i t e s a number of s t u d i e s o f campus u n r e s t i n which d i f f e r e n t popula-t i o n s such as artsmen, engineers and theology students were i n v o l v e d d i f f e r e n t i a l l y i n v a r i o u s campus p r o t e s t s . This suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n t p o p u l a t i o n s have d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s , needs, e t c . and may t h e r e f o r e behave very d i f f e r e n t l y i n s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n s e.g., involvement i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . A theory which f a i l s to take i n t o account such f a c t o r s as popula-t i o n d i f f e r e n c e s , appears to have l i m i t e d p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . F a c t o r s Which Could C o n t r i b u t e to the Development of a More Comprehensive Theory For a more complete theory to evolve i t appears t h a t a t l e a s t two t h i n g s are necessary. F i r s t , some s o r t of taxonomic framework needs to be developed i n t o which the v a r i o u s e m p i r i -c a l s t u d i e s done to date can somehow be p l a c e d . (Maguire, 1971) Such a framework, besides b r i n g i n g some order to r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s i n the a r e a , might w e l l f o r c e r e s e a r c h e r s to be more e x p l i c i t c oncerning j u s t what i t i s they are i n v e s -t i g a t i n g . As was suggested e a r l i e r , i t i s o f t e n d i f f i c u l t to t e l l , i n o t h e r than the most g e n e r a l terms, what was being i n v e s t i g a t e d (e.g., the k i n d s , l e v e l s , s t a g e s , e t c . of d e c i -s i o n s ) . 125. Secondly, as suggested above, t h e r e i s a need to c o n t i n u e the development of t h e o r e t i c a l and c o n c e p t u a l systems t h a t w i l l s y s t e m a t i c a l l y i n c o r p o r a t e the p l e t h o r a o f v a r i a b l e s which appear to c o n d i t i o n the c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . A number of p o s s i b l y i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d i n t h i s study, not to mention those i d e n t i f i e d i n o t h e r s t u d i e s . Perhaps of even g r e a t e r v a l u e would be the drawing t o g e t h e r , i n a u n i f i e d body, the t h i n k i n g which c u r r e n t l y e x i s t s i n the f i e l d . O b v i o u s l y what has been suggested i s an i d e a l and i t may be too e a r l y to attempt t h i s . However, t h i s p a r t i c u l a r study has r a i s e d a number of qu e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h which w i l l be o u t l i n e d i n d e t a i l i n the next s e c t i o n . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research From the p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o n , a number of q u e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h may be suggested. 1. Were the r e s u l t s of t h i s study a t t r i b u t a b l e to the nature of the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n i t s e l f o r would the same r e s u l t s have been achieved r e g a r d l e s s of the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n u t i l i z e d ? I t has been suggested i n a number of p l a c e s t h a t the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n o f B.C.I.T. students may have been one which sought d i r e c t i o n . A t the same time t h e r e i s "the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t the same r e s u l t would have been achieved r e g a r d l e s s of the t e s t p o p u l a t i o n ; t h a t something s i t u a t i o n a l i n the experiment i t s e l f 126 . would produce the same r e s u l t s , over time, with d i f f e r e n t groups. One way of approaching t h i s would be to r e p l i c a t e the experiment with d i f f e r e n t t e s t populations, such as those i d e n t i f i e d by Dennison, et a l . Since the B.C.I.T. population might reasonably be considered to be on the direction-seeking end of the continuum, then r e p l i c a t i o n s with groups with an apparently greater "need for independence" might determine whether t h i s was a population or a s i t u a t i o n a l phenomenon. If the r e s u l t s were d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t groups, one might reasonably assume that i t was a population phenomenon. I f , however, r e s u l t s tended to be consistent over various t e s t populations, one might conclude that i t was a s i t u a t i o n a l phenomenon. 2. What e f f e c t s would providing information concerning groups' performance have on choice of treatment condition f o r a subsequent t e s t session? I t appears that t h i s i s a c t u a l l y a two-part question. The f i r s t part r e l a t e s to whether providing information would have any e f f e c t on choice. The second, deals with the possible d i f f e r e n t i a l e f f e c t s of providing t h i s information, depending on whether the group was "successful" or "unsuccessful" r e l a -t i v e to other groups or to group norms. In the d e c i s i o n -making cond i t i o n , one might expect successful groups to opt for the decision-making condition a second time. However i t could be hypothesized that unsuccessful groups might choose 127 . the n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c o n d i t i o n . I n n o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s , i t c o u l d be e x p e c t e d t h a t u n s u c c e s s f u l groups m i g h t choose membership i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g g r o u p s . S u c c e s s f u l groups would more l i k e l y be i n c l i n e d t o r e m a i n i n the same t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , i t would be easy t o d e t e r -mine whether p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n on per formance i n f l u e n c e d c h o i c e i n any g e n e r a l way. C e r t a i n l y a number o f o t h e r p o s s i b l e avenues o f r e s e a r c h have been i d e n t i f i e d . The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the e x p e r i m e n t e r t o the s u b j e c t s r e q u i r e s some f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n . C l e a r l y an e x p e r i m e n t a l c o m p a r i s o n i n w h i c h t h e e x p e r i m e n t e r was p e r -c e i v e d as p o s s e s s i n g e x p e r t i s e and one i n w h i c h he d i d n o t , would not be d i f f i c u l t t o d e s i g n . A d d i t i o n a l l y , e x p e r i m e n t s d e a l i n g w i t h such a s p e c t s as t a s k n o v e l t y v e r s u s f a m i l i a r i t y , s i t u a t i o n a l n o v e l t y v e r s u s s i t u a t i o n a l f a m i l i a r i t y , and t i m e t o s u c c e s s f u l c o m p l e t i o n v e r s u s o t h e r p o s s i b l e measures o f p r o d u c t i v i t y a l l appear w o r t h w h i l e . C h a p t e r V -r i ^ r f s e n t e d h e ^ e i s a b r i e f o v e r v i e w o f t h e whole s t u d y , i n c l u d e d i s a summary o f what i s c o n t a i n e d i n C h a p t e r s I t h r o u g h I V . ^ Summary The Problem T h i s e x p e r i m e n t i n v e s t i g a t e d t h e e f f e c t s o f i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g on t h e p r o d u c t i v i t y o f three-man l a b o r a -t o r y g r o u p s . In terms o f t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g w i l l improve p r o d u c t i v i t y , a r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l e d t h a t s i m i l a r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s had p r o -duced as many p r o b l e m a t i c f i n d i n g s as p o s i t i v e ones. One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r t h i s p l e t h o r a o f c o n t r a d i c t o r y f i n d i n g s may be t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p i n v o l v e s two l o g i c a l l y s e p a r a b l e s e t s o f f o r c e s which t e n d t o be t r e a t e d as a s i n g l e one. The f i r s t i s t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y f o r a c c o m p l i s h i n g a g o a l ; t h e s econd i s t h e way w h i c h t h e s t r a t e g y , once d e v e l o p e d , i s implemented F o r example, i n v o l v e m e n t i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g may m o t i v a t e employees t o work h a r d e r , b u t the s t r a t e g y which they d e v e l o p t o a c h i e v e th e g o a l may n o t be as e f f e c t i v e as was f o r m e r l y u sed. O b v i o u s l y a number o f c o m b i n a t i o n s o f more, l e s s o r e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s and employees who implement t h i s s t r a t e g y more, l e s s o r e q u a l l y e f f e c t i v e l y a r e p o s s i b l e . 129 . Conceptual Framework An a n a l y s i s of the decision-making process was presented which divided decision-making i n t o s i x d i s c r e t e steps. These included decisions r e l a t e d to (1) the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of the problem; (2) s e t t i n g of p r i o r i t i e s ; (3) generation of a l t e r -native s o l u t i o n s ; (4) s e l e c t i o n of a s o l u t i o n ; (5) d e c i s i o n to implement; and, (6) evaluation. At the same time a continuum for the involvement i n decision-making was proposed i n which decisions could be mana-ger determined, employee determined or j o i n t l y determined. This l a t t e r category suggests a number of possible weightings from r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a d e c i s i o n l y i n g p r i m a r i l y i n the hands of the manager to l y i n g p r i m a r i l y i n the hands of the employees. I t was also proposed decisions could be of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s from, at the lowest l e v e l , "ad hoc" decisions on up to p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s , at the highest l e v e l . Within any l e v e l of decisions there could also be d i f f e r e n t kinds of decisions. For example, decisions r e l a t i n g to working conditions could be considered to be on the same l e v e l as decisions r e l a t e d to s a l a r y , but be construed as d i f f e r e n t kinds of decisions. By combining these c r i t e r i a , i t would be possible to p l o t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of decision-making r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for a l l stages of the process, for a l l l e v e l s of decisions to be made and for a l l kinds of decisions for a simple two l e v e l 130 o r g a n i z a t i o n . Por more complex, m u l t i - l e v e l o r g a n i z a t i o n s t h e t a s k m i g h t be somewhat more d i f f i c u l t , a l t h o u g h i t a p p e a r s , i n p r i n c i p l e t o be p o s s i b l e . A d d i t i o n a l l y , an a n a l y s i s o f t h e i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f d e c i s i o n s by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n was d e v e l o p e d t h r o u g h the use o f t h e c o n c e p t o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l p l a n . I t appears p r o b a b l e t h a t g r o u p s i n t h e g o a l - a t t a i n m e n t p r o c e s s a r e g u i d e d by a p l a n , w h i c h may be t r e a t e d as a s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p a r t i c u l a r r e s o u r c e s and t h e i r i n t e n d e d employment. Once d e v e l o p e d , t h e p l a n may be implemented f a i t h f u l l y o r w i t h l e s s e r d e g r e e s o f f i d e l i t y . S i m i l a r l y , when the p l a n i s a s y m b o l i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f i n t e n d e d a c t i v i t i e s and outcomes, i t c a n n o t , f o r p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , be complete i n e v e r y d e t a i l . Thus i t w i l l p r o v i d e some o p p o r t u n i t y f o r t h o s e who implement i t t o e x e r c i s e o p t i o n s r e l a t e d to non-human, human o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s . One o f t h e ways i n which o r g a n i z a t i o n s attempt to d e v e l o p more e f f e c t i v e p l a n s , have t h e p l a n s implemented w i t h g r e a t e r f i d e l i t y and have the o p t i o n s p r o v i d e d by t h e p l a n e x e r c i s e d i n a way which enhances p r o d u c t i v i t y i s t h r o u g h the i n v o l v e -ment o f t h o s e who a r e t o implement t h e p l a n i n i t s development. T h e o r e t i c a l Base I t was h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t groups which were i n v o l v e d i n the development o f a p l a n would be more p r o d u c t i v e than groups 131. which had the plan developed for them. The r a t i o n a l f or t h i s was based on McGregor's adaptation of need theory. I t was proposed that involvement i n decision-making would provide an opportunity for more meaningful i n t e r a c t i o n between group members. I t could provide chances for group members to advance suggestions, have t h e i r ideas recognized, derive a d d i t i o n a l status and receive appreciation and rec o g n i t i o n . I t was s l s o suggested that involvement i n the decision-making process could have appealed to needs associated with c r e a t i -v i t y . To summarize, a greater number of needs at various l e v e l s would be met. A d d i t i o n a l l y , f o l l o w i n g Lowin (1968) i t was proposed that involvement i n decision-making could lead to increased p r o d u c t i v i t y i n a number of other ways. These included (1) closure and a sense of p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; (2) shared goals; (3) pressure to conform to p r i o r commitments; and, (4) improve-ment i n t e c h n i c a l and administrative systems. The s a t i s f a c t i o n of needs and the ef f e c t s proposed by Lowin were looked upon as motivators which would cause employees to work more e f f e c t i v e l y and hence, be more pro-ductive . The S p e c i f i c Focus of the Research In any given set of circumstances, r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or making decisions may a f f e c t three areas i n which p r o d u c t i v i t y 132 . i s determined—the q u a l i t y of the plan, f i d e l i t y of plan implementation and the exercise of options provided by the plan. However a basic l o g i c a l separation appears, to e x i s t between the q u a l i t y of the plan ( i . e . , i t s effectiveness f o r achieving the goal) and the way i n which i t i s implemented ( f i d e l i t y of plan implementation and the exercise of options provided by the p l a n ) . The purpose of t h i s study was to c o n t r o l the q u a l i t y of the plan and to determine the e f f e c t s on f i d e l i t y of implementation and the exercise of options of involvement i n decision-making. The Experiment Subjects, i n groups of three, were involved i n solving problems s i m i l a r to jigsaw puzzles. In the experimental condition groups developed t h e i r own plans f o r s o l v i n g the problem and implemented them. In the control c o n d i t i o n , groups implemented the plans developed by other groups. P r o d u c t i v i t y was defined as time to successful completion of the experimental task. Hypotheses The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was guided by three hypotheses: (1) groups i n the decision-making condition would be more produc-t i v e ; (2) would implement t h e i r plans more f a i t h f u l l y ; and (3) subjects generally would s e l e c t membership i n d e c i s i o n -133 . making groups f o r a second t e s t session. Results Groups which had the plan developed f o r them were more productive than decision-making groups although the mean diffe r e n c e was only 1.00 minutes, i t was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i -f i c a n t . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n how f a i t h f u l l y groups implemented the plans. Groups i n both treatment condi-tions were judged to have implemented t h e i r plans with near p e r f e c t f i d e l i t y . Subjects' choice f o r a second t e s t session '•'as s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n favour of membership i n non-decision-s piking groups. Po s s i b l e Causes of Differences i n P r o d u c t i v i t y , F i d e l i t y of Implementation and Choice I t was suggested that the lower p r o d u c t i v i t y of d e c i s i o n -making groups might be accounted f o r i n three ways. F i r s t , because decision-making groups were required to design and implement a plan as opposed to simply implementing one, they may have perceived themselves as being evaluated both i n terms of p r o d u c t i v i t y and the effectiveness of the plan which they had developed and t h e i r own implementation. Thus I t may have been that having r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f or both process brings about a "trade-off" between speed and' deliberateness. That the implementation of t h e i r own plan induced subjects to he s i t a t e , to be more deliberate and to "make sure." 134 . Secondly, i t was suggested that because the plan was a group product, i t may be that subjects i n decision-making groups had a propensity to monitor other member's a c t i v i t i e s , leading to the sort of h e s i t a t i o n or deliberateness which could reduce p r o d u c t i v i t y . F i n a l l y , i t was suggested that the lack of f a m i l i a r i t y with the experimental s i t u a t i o n or the problem, judged to be pos s i b l y more unf a m i l i a r to decision-making groups, would have made subjects more uncertain and, as a consequence, to work more slowly or more c a r e f u l l y . The experiment was re-examined i n an attempt to i d e n t i f y v a r i a b l e s which might account f o r the performance of d e c i s i o n -making groups. P o t e n t i a l l y c o n t r i b u t i n g factors were the way i n which subjects were s o l i c i t e d , the experimenter possibly being viewed as an expert, the novelty of both the task and s i t u a t i o n and the nature of the t e s t population i t s e l f . In a d d i t i o n three possible contributors to the lack of dif f e r e n c e i n f i d e l i t y of plan implementation between t r e a t -ment conditions were advanced. These included the nature of the t e s t population, task and s i t u a t i o n a l novelty and the e x p l i c i t n e s s of d i r e c t i o n s i n the plan implementation phase of the experiment. F i n a l l y , two factors which could have influenced choice were also i d e n t i f i e d . These were the nature of the t e s t population and the f a c t that the experiment provided subjects 135 . w i t h no i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g the " s u c c e s s " or " f a i l u r e " o f t h e i r performance. I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Theory The p o s s i b i l i t y was r a i s e d t h a t the theory was c o r r e c t b u t t h a t the e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s may have been e x a c t l y the o p p o s i t e of what would have been r e q u i r e d to s a t i s f y h i g h e r o r d e r needs. I t was a l s o proposed t h a t a l t h o u g h the g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t involvement i n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g leads to g r e a t e r need s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y , may h o l d i n p r i n c i p l e , i t i s s i m p l y too g e n e r a l to h o l d i n a l l c a s e s . A number o f v a r i a b l e s have been i d e n t i f i e d , i n t h i s and o t h e r s t u d i e s , which may mediate the r e l a t i o n s h i p . A theory i s c a l l e d f o r which takes i n t o account these and o t h e r v a r i a b l e s e . g . , the nature o f the p o p u l a t i o n , t a s k , degree of i n v o l v e m e n t , e t c . I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Research Two avenues f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h have been d e t a i l e d . The f i r s t i n c l u d e d r e p l i c a t i o n s w i t h o t h e r p o p u l a t i o n s to determine whether the r e s u l t s were a s i t u a t i o n a l phenomenon. The second suggested a m o d i f i c a t i o n of the experiment p r o v i d i n g s u b j e c t s w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r groups 1 performance to determine i t s p o s s i b l e e f f e c t s on c h o i c e . APPENDIX A Task S e t Nos. 1 & 2 Problem I S t a t i o n 1 o o * o O o o o o P o & o Problem I S t a t i o n 2 o o o • * • o o mm o • o o o o o o o o o o • o Problem I S t a t i o n 3 o • • o o • o • • H *3< e c cu o rH - H X ! -P O (0 P r o b l e m I S t a t i o n 5 Problem I I S t a t i o n 1 144. u -P ft w 1 4 6 . APPENDIX B S c r i p t s f o r D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and N o n - d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Groups APPENDIX B S c r i p t s S o l i c i t i n g Subjects I am engaged i n some problem solving research at the Univer s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. At present I am t r y i n g to get some persons who would be w i l l i n g to go through some problem solving exercises and be observed i n the process. I t w i l l require about 3 hours of your time broken into two 1^/2 hour sessions. Your task w i l l be to work on some f a i r l y simple problems with some of your school mates and our job w i l l be to observe your group's work. Obviously I cannot give you much information about the nature of the problems or the pur-pose of the study i n advance without the p o s s i b i l i t y of preju-d i c i n g the r e s u l t s . However, i f you sign up for t h i s project the nature of the problems w i l l be explained to you at the f i r s t t e s t i n g session. Once the project i s completed the pur-pose w i l l be f u l l y explained to you and the r e s u l t s made avai-l a b l e to you. I hope you understand the necessity of being rather vague at t h i s time. I f you are interested i n taking part i n t h i s project j u s t sign up on the l i s t and you w i l l be informed shortly of both the time and the place. I f you have any questions I would be glad to answer them 149 . b u t o f c o u r s e I must r e m a i n s i l e n t as t o t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s t u d y and t h e n a t u r e o f t h e p r o b l e m s t h e m s e l v e s . D i r e c t i o n s t o S u b j e c t s A r r i v i n g a t F i r s t T e s t S e s s i o n Thank you f o r v o l u n t e e r i n g t o t a k e p a r t i n t h i s e x e r c i s e . You w i l l n o t i c e t h a t t h e r e a r e j u s t t h r e e o f you h°r-i. T h i s i s because you w i l l be w o r k i n g as a three-man team i n t h e s e p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g e x e r c i s e s . 1) The p r o b l e m - s o l v i n g t a s k i s somewhat s i m i l a r to b u i l d i n g j i g s a w p u z z l e s . 2) On the w a l l i n f r o n t o f you a r e a number of 12 x 12 m a t r i c e s each w i t h i t s own u n i q u e p a t t e r n o f b l a c k and w h i t e d o t s <. One o f t h e s e has been c u t up i n t o a number of p i e c e s . 3) F i v e s t a t i o n s have been s e t up i n t h e room. At e a c h o f t h e s e s t a t i o n s you w i l l f i n d some o f t h e p i e c e s of t h e m a t r i x . However t h e p i e c e s a r e g l u e d onto sheets of p a p e r and c a n n o t be removed from the s t a t i o n . 4) On the t a b l e i n f r o n t are a number of blank m a t r i c e s , some marking p e n c i l s and a p a i r o f s c i s s o r s . I t w i l l be p a r t o f your t a s k to v i s i t the v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n , make d u p l i c a t e s o f the p i e c e s and b r i n g them to the a s s e m b l y area, Your task w i l l a l s o i n c l u d e r e c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e m a t r i x from the d u p l i -c a t e p i e c e s . A word o f w a r n i n g , t h e r e may be more p i e c e s the .v, ••.•••va need to c o n s t r u c t the m a t r i x . J u s t rex.i—\;ber t h a t the p i e c e s p r o p e r l y assembled f o r m a m a t r i x 12 x 12 of dots 1 5 0 . which exactly matches one of the matrices I n t h - : r a i l d i s -play. Are there any questions so far? This i s a timed exercise. The l e s s t i m e r e q u - 1 to gather the information and construct t h e m a t r i x , r' v m o r e s u c c e s -f u l has been your performance. (The treatments f o r ei t h e r t h e d e c i s i o n - m a k e r : r:r n o n -d e c i s i o n makers are then administered.) To the Decision-makers Now that the three of you are aware o f t h e n r .re o f t h e problem and the rules of t h e exercise, I am g o i n g : . ask y o u t o design a plan which you f e e l w i l l b e e f f e c t i v e In r . aging about a speedy s o l u t i o n . During t h i s f i r s t p r o b l e - ;on m a y change or amend your strategy as y o u g o a l o n g . I rr 1 g i v e y o u some time to consider what you are g o i n g t o d o . V,---JX: y o u a r e ready to begin the f i r s t problem j u s t l e t me k n o w r-em ember t h e l e s s time you take to gather t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a n d < • ' : c r u e t t h e matrix the more successful y o u h a v e b e e n Are there any questions? (The decision-makers a r e t h e n p e r m i t t e d t o d i . r .^s t h e i r strategy and come u p with a preliminary p l a n . ) Are you ready to begin? V e r y w e l l , Go! (At the conclusion of t h e f i r s t t r i a l „ ) Y o u have now had o n e attempt a t a p r o b l e m am' • doubt have noticed e r r o r s t h a t you h a v e made a n d ways i r d e b . you. 151. c o u l d improve your performance. The second problem w i l l be s i m i -l a r to but not i d e n t i c a l to the one you have j u s t completed. I would l i k e you to design a new plan f o r the problem which i s more e f f i c i e n t than that used i n the previous attempt, could e a s i l y be followed by another s i m i l a r group and which you your-s e l v e s w i l l be asked to use on the second problem. There i s one d i f f e r e n c e from the f i r s t problem. Whatever plan you devise I would l i k e you to s t i c k to the plan c l o s e l y throughout the exercise You should not deviate from the plan or change i t as you go a l o n g as you could i n the f i r s t attempt. Are t here any questions? Very w e l l , you may now commence your planning. (Once the group has designed i t s plan and indicated that i t i s ready.) Would you please o u t l i n e the plan for me? (The members of the group then o u t l i n e t h e i r plan and the experimenter writes i t down on a piece of paper.) As 1 understand i t your plan involves the following opera-tions : (The experimenter then reads back the plan. Any errors or Omissions can then be corrected.) Are you ready to attempt the second problem? I am going to bring two observers into the room to watch you while you attempt the second problem. Their purpose i s simply to observe you at work, so p l e a s e t r y n o t t o l e t t h e i r p r e s e n c e bov : r y o u . (The o b s e r v e r s a r e b r o u g h t i n and g i v e n c o p i e o f t h e p r o s p e c t u s . ) Are you r e a d y t o b e g i n ? Remember the l e s s t • . you r e q u i r e t h e b e t t e r y o u r p e r f o r m a n c e . A l r i g h t , Go I OR To t h e Non-Decision-makers Now t h a t you a r e aware of t h e nature o f the •  - •;.„-.I era and the r u l e s o f t h e e x e r c i s e , I am g o i n g to o u t l i n e zx tan f o r you w h i c h I f e e l w i l l be e f f e c t i v e i n b r i n g i n g about - -peedy s o l u -t i o n . I w o u l d l i k e you t o f o l l o w t h i s p l a n . 1) E a c h of y o u w i l l v i s i t one of the f i r s t t h r e e : : -.ions and make d u p l i c a t e s of t h e p i e c e s t h e n r e t u r n to the a s s e m b l y area. 2) The f i r s t p e r s o n r e t u r n i n g to t h e a s s e m b l y are? - i l l become t h e c u t t e r . His job w i l l be to c u t o u t a l l the p i e c e s w h i l e t h e o t h e r s r e t u r n t o do s t a t i o n s 4 and 5. 3) When t h e s e are f i n i s h e d a l l may work on the a s r - • M y t a s k . A r e t h e r e any q u e s t i o n s a b o u t the s t r a t e g y to b e >.:• •••-.? Remember t h e l e s s t i m e you t a k e t o g a t h e r the i n f o r m a t i o n - c o n s t r u c t t h e m a t r i x t h e more s u c c e s s f u l you have been. A r e you r e a d y ? Go I (At the conclusion of the f i r s t t r i a l . ) You have now had one attempt a t a problem and r have noticed errors that you have made and ways i n which you could improve your performance. The second problem w i l l be s i m i l a r but not i d e n t i c a l to the one you have j u s t complete*:'. I have figured out a plan which I f e e l should d e f i n i t e l y ..rove your performance. Once again I would l i k e you to f o l i o ' the p l a n c l o s e l y . (The experimenter then outlines the p l a n devi red e a r l i e r by the corresponding group of decision-makers,) I t i s quite clear what the p l a n i n v o l v e s ? Maybe you c o u l d o u t l i n e the strategy f o r me. (The subjects then repeat back the steps of the plan.) Are you ready to attempt the second problem? 1 am going to bring two observers i n t o the room to watch you r r r l e you attempt the second problem. T h e i r purpose i s simp] y to observe you at work, so please t r y not to l e t t h e i r presenc bother you. (The observers are brought i n and give n copier of the prospectus.) Are you ready to begin? Remember the l e s s t y o u r e q u i r e the better the performance. A l r i g h t , , Go I 154 . (Once t h e t e s t s e s s i o n has been completed, s u b v e r t s w i l l t h e n be asked to answer a few q u e s t i o n s about t h e e-< r r c i s e . T h i s post t e s t p r o c e d u r e i s o u t l i n e d i n the s e c t i o e v o s t Test P r o c e d u r e s . ) APPENDIX C P r o c e d u r e s F o l l o w e d by O b s e r v e r s APPENDIX C Observers were r e q u i r e d to judge to what ext. had f a i t h f u l l y implemented t h e i r own p l a n o r the had been g i v e n to them. At the c o n c l u s i o n o f the observers were brought i n t o the room and g i v e n co p l a n to be implemented. Since the p l a n contained steps to be performed i n sequence, the task of j u f a i t h f u l l y i t was c a r r i e d out was not i n o r d i n a t e ! However i n d e c i d i n g e x a c t l y what c o n s t i t u t e d a de the p l a n , the experimenter was r e q u i r e d to be sora t r a r y . E r r o r c o r r e c t i o n was not considered to be a from the p l a n . Thus I f a s u b j e c t was r e q u i r e d to p r i o r step again o r i n some other way c o r r e c t an not judged a departure from the p l a n . S i m i l a r l y c i s e of o p t i o n s i s , i n f a c t , behaviour not c e n t a l plan, i t became important f o r observers t o foe abl t i a t e between behaviour i n a d d i t i o n to the p l a n a which was a departure from the p l a n . Thus subjects, once they had completed the:a r o l e i n a g i v e n s t e p , could engage i n other beh^a as a i d i n g other members of the group„ This would s i d e r e d a departure from the p l a n so long as it. -"! fere with t h e i r or other members of the groups 1 a 157 of the next step of the plan. For example, a subject who had drawn his r e p l i c a t i o n s of the pieces and taken them to the assembly area, could aid another slower member. If lie was not ready to perform his r o l e i n the subsequent sees then t h i s would be considered a departure. Observers were required to judge on a ten pc • • scale how f a i t h f u l l y a group had implemented i t s plan. P e r f e c t f i d e l i t y would receive a perfect score of ten. "A mi nor v i o l a -t i o n , such as was possible i n the p r e v i o u s example, would reduce t h i s score by one, and each s i m i l a r v i o l a t : c i would r e d u c e t h e score by s i m i l a r amounts. More s e r i o u s departures would reduce the score by two or even t h r e e , Thus observers were required to make some rather s u b j e c t i v e j u d g e m e n t s . 1) Whether there had been a departure from the p l a n . 2) How serious was the departure ( i . e . : major or r r i n o r } ? At the conclusion of the exercise, they w e r e to rate the group on f i d e l i t y of plan implementation. What was h o p e f u l l y achieved was a p a r t i a l l y ordered scale, which although q u i t e subjective i n nature was more accurate than no r a t ' . u g at a l l „ APPENDIX D P o s t - e x p e r i m e n t a l I n t e r v i e w Q u e s t i o n s 159. APPENDIX D I n t e r v i e w Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r D e c i s i o n - m a k i n g Groups I am s u r e t h a t you r e a l i z e t h a t the d i r e c t o r o f t h e p r o j e c t has been a s k i n g y o u to s o l v e the problems u s i n g s o l u -t i o n s d e s i g n e d by y o u r g r o u p . Your task has simp.)./ teen to d e s i g n s o l u t i o n s and t o p u t them i n t o e f f e c t to the best o f y o u r a b i l i t i e s . Although you may not be aware of i t , o t h e r groups have been s o l v i n g p r o b l e m s u s i n g s o l u t i o n s designed by rur p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r . I w o u l d l i k e t o show you a video tape r f the d i r e c t o r o u t l i n i n g a s o l u t i o n t o t h e g r o u p . Assume f o r t h e n e x t t e s t s e s s i o n t h a t you. w o u l d be w o r k i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t g r o up members on a s i m i l a r but d i f -f e r e n t p r o b l e m . G i v e n t h e l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you p o s s e s s , w o u l d you p r e f e r to work i n a group w h i c h implements s o l u t i o n s d e s i g n e d by t h e p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r o r w o u l d you p r e f e r t o c o n t i n u e working i n a group which, designs i t s own s o l u t i o n s and p u t s them i n t o e f f e c t ? 1. same j j o t h e r j j 2 . Can y o u g i v e any r e a s o n s f o r y o u r c h o i c e ? 3. I n a j o b w h i c h you might occupy upon g r a d u a t i o n from B . C . I . T w o u l d y o u want t o have a s i m i l a r involvement i n she design o f s o l u t i o n s t o t h e problems r e l a t e d to your worn? 160. I n t e r v i e w Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r Non-decision-making Groups I am sure t h a t you r e a l i z e t h a t the d i r e c t o r of the p r o j e c t has been a s k i n g you t o s o l v e problems u s i n g s o l u t i o n s designed by him. Your task has simply been to put these s o l u t i o n s i n t o e f f e c t to the best of your a b i l i t i e s , , Although you may not be aware of i t , other groups have been g i v e n the freedom to des i g n t h e i r own s o l u t i o n s t o the problems and to put them i n t o e f f e c t to the b e s t o f t h e i r a b i l i t i e s . I would now l i k e to show you a video tape o f such a p l a n n i n g s e s s i o n . Assume f o r the next t e s t s e s s i o n t h a t you would be work-i n g w i t h d i f f e r e n t group members on a s i m i l a r but d i f f e r e n t problem. Given the l i m i t e d i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t you possess, would you p r e f e r t o work i n a group which designs i t s own s o l u t i o n s and puts them i n t o e f f e c t or would you. p r e f e r to continue to work i n a group which implements s o l u t i o n s designed by the p r o j e c t d i r e c t o r ? same other 2 . Can you g i v e any reasons f o r your choice? 3. In a job which you. might occupy upon graduation, from B.CdI„T would y o u want to have a s i m i l a r l a c k of invco vement xn the design o f s o l u t i o n s to the problem r e l a t e d t o y o u r work"? 161. T h e s e q u e s t i o n s w e r e u s e d a s a g u i d e f o r t h e i n t e r v i e w e r . I n t e r v i e w e r s w e r e e n c o u r a g e d t o a s k as many a d d i t i o n a l q u e s -t i o n s a s w e r e n e c e s s a r y t o o b t a i n t h e b a s i c i n f o r m a t i o n . A P P E N D I X E Wall Chart Containing Twenty Twelve-grain Matrices Xfc> J . 0 • o • o • o o o • 9 9 o o o • o o 0 o • • o 9 • • • o • • • • 0 o o O 0 • • • • • o o o o o 0 0 • • o o • o o o • 0 9 o o • • o o • o o 9 O o • • • o o • o o o • O o o o o • o o • o • 9 0 • o •  • • o • o 9 9 • o o o o o • o • 9 O • o • o 0 9 • o • 0 o 9 • o • • o • o • 0 0 9 O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 9 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o o 0 0 9 0 0 0 o o o 0 o o o o O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 : 0 0 0 9 0 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 i 0 o O O C 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * ' 0 9 O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ® 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 C O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 OO • i 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 o •' 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O O 0 10 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O '! 0 0 O O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 o • 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 o o 0 O 0 0 O • O 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 o o O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 o o o 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 0 G O C O 0 C» 0 0 O O O O 0 G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 o O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 : 0 o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 • o o 0 0 o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o o o 0 o 0 0 • • o • o 0 o o 9 9 o 0 0 e o o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 9 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 o o 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o ® o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O o 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O « 0 O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 ' 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O o 0 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 O 0 O 0 G 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 O G 0 C O 0 O 0 0 O 0 O O 0 Q O O O 0 O 0 0 O O G 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 O C 0 O 0 0 0 0 o 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O G 0 0 0 9 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 0 O O 0 0 o o » o 0 O O 0 0 0 O O 0 0 c • O O O O 0 0 O O O O C ® 0 o 0 o O 9 © 0 9 O O 9 0 o 0 o 0 O 9 O 9 O o 9 0 o 0 0 9 9 O 9 9 C 0 O 0 0 o o 9 O 9 0 o o o 9 0 o 9 O O 9 9 9 9 O 9 O 0 0 9 0 O O O o o o o O 0 o O • 9 9 O 9 9 9 9 O o 0 9 O O 9 O O 0 O 0 9 o o 9 O O 9 O O 9 9 o 9 o 0 O 9 O 9 O O O 0 o O o 0 O O O O 9 9 0 0 9 O 0 0 9 9 0 9 9 C 9 9 o 0 O O O O O O 9 O O 9 9 0 • O 9 9 9 9 O 9 O 0 O O O , O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 I 0 0 0 O O 0 C O 0 0 0 0 0 G O 0 0 O O 0 0 C 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 0 0 0 o O O O 0 O 0 O O O O 0 O i 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O 0 O ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 G O O 0 O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O 0 O 0 0 G O O O O 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 0 0 O O 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 o 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O 0 O 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 O 0 o 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O G 0 0 0 0 0 O G O O 0 0 O 0 0 O O 0 o o 0 G 0 O O 0 0 O O G O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 G 0 9 0 0 • G 0 O G 0 0 O G 9 0 G 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O G 0 O G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 G 0 C • G 0 O O 0 0 0 O G O O 0 0 0 0 0 O O O O O 0 0 O * 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 o o 0 O o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 O 0 o o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 O 0 o o o o 0 o 0 o 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o o o o 0 0 o o 0 o 0 o o o 0 o o 0 0 o o o o 0 o o 0 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o 0 o o o 0 o o o 0 0 o 0 0 0 o o 0 o o o 0 o o o o o o o 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 0 o 0 o « o 0 0 o 164. BIBLIOGRAPHY Argyle, M., G. Gardner and F. C i o f i , "Supervising methods re l a t e d to p r o d u c t i v i t y , absenteeism and labour turnover," Human Relations, 1958, 11, 23-40. Back, K.W., "Power, influence and pattern of communication," i n L. P e t r u l l o and B.M. Bass, (eds.) Leadership and Inter-personal Behavior, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston) 1961, 137-164. Barnard, C., Functions of the Executive, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press) 1948. Barnes, L.B., "Organizational change and f i e l d experiment methods," i n V i c t o r H. Vroom, (ed.) Methods of Organizational Research, (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press) 1967. B a s s , B.M. and H.S. L e a v i t t , "Some experiments i n planning and operating," Management Science, 1963, 8, 574-585. Bavelas A., and G. Strauss, "Group dynamics and intergroup r e l a t i o n s , " i n W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne and R. Chin, (eds.) The Planning of Change, (New York: Holt) 1961. Bennet, E.B., "Discussion, decision, commitment and concensus i n 'group decisions,'" Human Relations, 1958, 18, 251-275. Brissey, F.L., F.R. Fossmire and R.J. H i l l s , "Problems, problem solving and human communication: A laboratory approach to t r a i n i n g i n interpersonal communication," Contract AF-AFOSR 1055-66 (Eugene: CASEA, University of Oregon) 1969. Campbell, D.T., and J.C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research, (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company) 1966. C a l v i n , A.D., F.K. Hoffman and E.I. Harden, "The e f f e c t of i n t e l l i g e n c e and s o c i a l atmosphere on group problem solving behaviour," Journal of S o c i a l Psychology, 1957, 45, 61-74. Coch, L., and J.P. French, "Overcoming resistance to change," Human Relations, 1948 , 1, 512-532-. 1 6 5 . Day, R., and R. H a m b l i n , "Some e f f e c t s of c l o s e and p u n i t i v e s t y l e s of s u p e r v i s i o n , " A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , 1964, 69, 499-510. ~ Dennison, J.D., H.G. J o n e s and A. T u r n e r , "The i m p a c t of community c o l l e g e s , " R e p o r t No. 3, P r o j e c t #71-5289 , (Vancouver: U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a ) M a r c h , 1972 E t z i o n i , A., Modern O r g a n i z a t i o n s , (New J e r s e y : P r e n t i c e - H a l l ) 1964 . F i e d l e r , F.E., " E n g i n e e r t h e j o b t o f i t t h e manager," H a r v a r d B u s i n e s s Review, 1965, 43, 115-122. F l e i s h m a n , E.A., " A t t i t u d e v e r s u s s k i l l f a c t o r s i n work g r o u p p r o d u c t i v i t y , " P e r s o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1965, 18, 253-266. F l e i s h m a n , E.A., and D.R. P e t e r s , " I n t e r p e r s o n a l v a l u e s , l e a d e r s h i p a t t i t u d e s and m a n a g e r i a l s u c c e s s , " P e r s o n a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1962, 15, 127-143. Freeman, L.C., E l e m e n t a r y A p p l i e d S t a t i s t i c s , (New Y o r k : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , I n c . ) 19 6 5. F r e n c h , J.R.P., E. Kay and H. Meyer, " P a r t i c i p a t i o n and t h e a p p r a i s a l s y s t e m , " Human R e l a t i o n s , 19 66, 19 , 3-20. F r e n c h , J.R.P., J . I s r a e l and D. A a s , "An e x p e r i m e n t i n p a r t i c i -p a t i o n i n a No r w e g i a n f a c t o r y , " Human R e l a t i o n s , 19 60, 13(1), 3-19. G o l e m b i e w s k i , R.T., O r g a n i z i n g Men and Power, ( C h i c a g o : Rand-M c N a l l y ) 1967. H a l p i n , A.W., "The L e a d e r s h i p b e h a v i o u r and combat p e r f o r m a n c e of a i r p l a n e commanders," J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1954, 49, 19-22. H a r e , A.P., " S m a l l g r o u p d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h p a r t i c i p a t i n g and s u p e r v i s o r y l e a d e r s h i p , " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y , 1953, 48, 273-275. H a y t h o r n , W., "The e f f e c t s o f v a r y i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s o f a u t h o r i -t a r i a n and e q u a l i t a r i a n l e a d e r s and f o l l o w e r s , " J o u r n a l o f Abnormal and S o c i a l Psychology,.19 5 6 , 53 , 210-219 . 166, Hays, W.L., S t a t i s t i c s f o r Psychologists, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and WinstonT~l !F6T^ Hempel, C.G., Philosophy of Natural Science, (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall) 1966. ~~ Kahn, R.L., and A.S. Tannenbaum, "Union leadership and member p a r t i c i p a t i o n , " Personnel Psychology, 1957, 10, 277-292. Katz, D., N. Maccoby and N. Morse, P r o d u c t i v i t y , Supervision and Morale i n an Offi c e S i t u a t i o n , (Ann Arbor, Mj.cn. : I n s t i t u t e for S o c i a l Research) 1951. Kenniston, K., "The source of student dissent," The Journal of S o c i a l Issues, 1967, 23, 108-137. , The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth i n American Society," (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World) 19 6 5. K i e s l e r , C.A., and L.H. Corbin, "Commitment, a t t r a c t i o n and conformity," Journal of Personality and So c i a l Psychology, 1965, 2, 890-895: ' Kornhauser, W., S c i e n t i s t s i n Industry, (Los Angeles: Univ e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press) 1963. K u r i l o f f , A.H., "An experiment i n management—Putting Theory Y to the t e s t , " Personnel, 1963, 40, 8-17. Lawrence, L.C. and P.N. Smith, "Group decision and employee p a r t i c i p a t i o n , " Journal of Applied Psychology, 1955, 39, 334-337. L e a v i t t , H.J., "Applied organizational change i n industry," i n J.G. March, (ed.) The Handbook of Organizations, (Chicago: Rand McNally) 1956, 1144-1171. , "Unhuman organizations," Harvard Business Review, Vol . XL, No. 4 (July-August, 1962) 90-113. Levine, J . , and J . Bu t l e r , "Lecture versus group decision i n changing behaviour," Journal of Applied Psychology, 19 52, 36, 29-33. Lewin, K., "Frontiers i n group dynamics," Human Relations, 1947, 1, 2-23. L i k e r t , R., New Patterns i n Management, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.T~T9 61. The Human Organization, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.] 1967^ Lindblom, C.E., "The science of muddling through," Public Administrative Revue, 1959, 79-88. Lowin, A., " P a r t i c i p a t i v e decision-making: A model, l i t e r a t u r e , c r i t i q u e , and presc r i p t i o n s for research," Organisational Behaviour and Human Performance, 1968, 3, 68-106. Mackay, D.A., "Should schools be bureaucratic?" The Canadian Administrator, V o l . 4, No. 2 (November 19 64) 5-8. Maguire, T.O., "Expedience and counselling research," Canadian Counsellor, V o l . 5, No. 3 (June, 1971) 182-185. Maslow, A.H., Eupsychian Management, (Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press) 1965. McCurdy, H.G., and H.W. Eber, "Democratic versus a u t h o r i t a r i a n : A further i n v e s t i g a t i o n of group problem s o l v i n g , " Journal of P e r s o n a l i t y , 1953, 22, 258-269. McGregor, D., "The human side of enterprise," i n W.G. Bennis, K.D. Benne and R. Chin, (eds.) The Planning of Change, F i r s t e d i t i o n , (New York: Holt Publishing Co.) 1961, 422-431. Meltzer, L., " S c i e n t i f i c p r o d u c t i v i t y i n organizational s e t t i n g Journal of S o c i a l Issues, 1956, 12(2), 32-40. Misumi, J . , "Experimental studies on group dynamics i n Japan," Psychologia, 1959, 2, 229-235. Preston, M.G., and R.K. Heintz, "Effects of p a r t i c i p a t i n g vs. supervisory leadership on group judgements," Journal of Soc i a l Psychology, 1949 , 44 , 345-355. M., and D. K l i s u r i c h , "Experiments i n changing food i t s , " Journal of the American Dietetxc Association, 1947 403-40Ti Rice, A.K., "Productivity and s o c i a l organization i n an Indian weaving shed," Human Relations, 1953, 6, 297-329. Radke, M hab _ 23, - 9 168. Ronan, W.W., " I n d i v i d u a l and s i t u a t i o n a l variables r e l a t i n g to job s a t i s f a c t i o n , " Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol . 54, No. 1, Part 2, 1970, 1-31. Rubenstein, A.H., and C.J. Haberstroh, Some Theories of Organiza-t i o n , (Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press) 1966. Sales, S.M., "Supervisory s t y l e and p r o d u c t i v i t y : Review and theory," Personnel Psychology, 1966, 19, 275-286. Senter, R.J., Analysis of Data, ( C i n c i n a t t i : Scott, Foresman and Company) 19 69. S i e g a l , S., Non-parametric S t a t i s t i c s , (Toronto: McGraw-Hill Book Co.) 19 56. Simmons, W.D., "The group approach to weight reduction," Journal of the American D i e t e t i c A s s o c i a t i o n , 1954, 30, 437-441. Stryker, P., "How p a r t i c i p a t i v e can a company get?" Fortune, LIV (September 1956) 134-136. Tannenbaum, A.S., and F.H. A l l p o r t , "Personality and group structure," Journal of Abnormal S o c i a l Psychology, 1956, 51(3), 272-280. Tannenbaum, A.S., and B.S. Georgeopolous, "The d i s t r i b u t i o n of control i n formal organizations," S o c i a l Forces, 1957, 36, 44-50. Taylor, H., S c i e n t i f i c Management, (New York: Harper) 1947. Tomekovic, T., "Level of knowledge of requirements as a motiva-t i o n a l factor i n the work s i t u a t i o n , " Human Relations, 1962, 15, 197-216. Torrance, E.P., and R. Mason, "Instructor e f f o r t to influence: An experimental evaluation of s i x approaches," Journal of Educational Psychology, 1958, 49, 211-218. Shaw, M.E., "A comparison of two types of leadership i n various communication nets," Journal of Abnormal and So c i a l Psychology, 1955, 50, 127-134. Vroom, V.H., Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of P a r t i c i p a t i o n , (Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Hall) 1960. 1 6 9 . Weick, K.E., "Organizations i n the laboratory," i n V i c t o r H. Vroom, (ed.) Methods of Organizational Research, (Pittsburgh: U n i v e r s i t y of Pittsburgh Press) 1966, 1-56. Wickert, F.R., "Turnover and employees feelings at ego-involvement," Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4, 185-187. rf- 4 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0106769/manifest

Comment

Related Items