Some Personality Determinants of the Effects of Participation

Victor H. Vroom

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• Print ISBN:
  9780367203344
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429536588
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Originally published in 1960, this study was carried out as part of the research of the Organizational Behavior and Human Relations Program of the Institute of Social Research. The primary purpose was to determine the effects of participation in decision-making on people with different personality characteristics. It was hypothesized that equalitarians and individuals with strong independence needs would be more positively affected by the opportunity to participate in making decisions than authoritarians and people with weaker independence needs. The results, based on data derived in an actual industrial setting, confirmed the hypothesis. The theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Psychologists have long realized the importance of both environmental and personality variables in the explanation of behavior. Theorists have employed a variety of terms to describe the necessity of using both sets of concepts. Lewin, for example, illustrates this dual focus in his statement that "behavior (Β) is a function (F) of the person (P) and of his environment (E), Β = F (Ρ, E)." (19)

However, there has been a tendency for researchers in social psychology to concentrate on one or the other of these sets of variables in their explanation of social phenomena. Some emphasize personality, conceived as the relatively enduring psychological properties of an individual, as the locus of the basic causes of behavior, while others look to environmental variables such as group structure, communication, and role. Few researchers investigate environmental and personality determinants of behavior simultaneously.

The situation in the field of industrial psychology is much the same. One major approach involves the prediction of an individual's job performance from a knowledge of his aptitudes, interests, and personality. Here the researchers are cognizant of the importance of environmental variables (e.g., the nature of the work performed) but make little attempt to treat them conceptually or use them as variables in prediction.

A second approach to the field of industrial psychology stresses environmental variables in the prediction of job performance. Historically this approach involved the determination of the effects of temperature, rest pauses, ventilation, and lighting on the performance of workers. More recently, however, the conception of work environment has broadened to include social aspects such as supervisory practices and group norms.

In both social and industrial psychology there has been a general reluctance to deal with personality and environmental variables simultaneously. As a result, while much is known about the separate effects of the two types of variables, little is known about the nature of their interaction. The need for research directed at this type of problem and for a theoretical framework capable of dealing with both personality and environmental variables is, however, widely recognized.

Katz has recently discussed the significance of this problem for social psychology:

In other words, we have perpetuated the old dichotomy of approaches: either all individuals are affected similarly by group conditions or all group effects are explained as the expression of personality mechanisms. If social psychology has any unique subject matter, it may well lie in this neglected area of the interaction effects of personality and social settings. (14, p. 352)

Cronbach reached a similar conclusion in his recent presidential address before the American Psychological Association:

In both applied work and general scientific work, psychology requires combined, not parallel, labors from our two historic disciplines. In this common labor, they will almost certainly become one, with a common theory, a common method, and common recommendations for social betterment. In the search for interactions we will invent new treatment dimensions and discover new dimensions of the organism. We will come to realize that organism and treatment are an inseparable pair and that no psychologist can dismiss one or the other as error variance. (8, p. 683)

The implications of this point of view for problems of leadership have been described by a number of writers (12). The general conclusion is that leadership cannot be regarded as a unitary trait and must be evaluated in terms of a number of other variables including the attitudes, needs, and expectations of the followers. The most effective behavior in dealing with individuals with certain personality characteristics may be completely ineffective in dealing with persons with different personalities.

A similar point is made by those who argue for the adaptive nature of leadership. After reviewing research on the effectiveness of different methods of supervision in industry, Likert reached the following conclusion:

Supervision is, therefore, always an adaptive process. A leader, to be effective, must always adapt his behavior to fit the expectations, values, and interpersonal skills of those with whom he is interacting. (21, p. 327)

The "authoritarian-democratic continuum" represents one aspect of leadership which has received much attention. In discussing studies dealing with this dimension Krech and Crutchfield suggest that its effects may vary from culture to culture, as follows:

All the experimental evidence to be reported has been obtained by the study of so-called "authoritarian" and "democratic" leadership situations in our democratic culture. It is entirely possible that similar studies in other cultures might yield different results. The advantage for morale, the experiments find, seem to lie with the democratically led group, but in an autocratic culture the reverse might possibly hold true. (15, p. 423)

Despite frequent speculations that the superior effects of democratic leadership are specific to certain personality types or cultures this problem has been virtually unexplored. The major purpose of the present study is to determine whether the effects of one aspect of the democratic leadership process—participation in decision-making—vary with the personality structure of the follower. The general hypothesis states that there is an interaction between those environmental conditions which are associated with participation and certain personality characteristics of the participant. Consequently, the effects of each variable can be understood best through the simultaneous study of both.

A secondary purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between ability and motivational variables in the determination of job performance.

1.1. Relevant Research

Most of the research on participation and related concepts has focused on a demonstration of their basic effects. Participation has been found to be related to such dependent variables as morale, productivity, turnover, and job satisfaction. Little research has been conducted, however, on the personality factors of the participant which influence these relationships.

Intimately related to amount of participation in decision-making is the democratic-authoritarian dimension of leadership, the pioneer study of which was carried out by Lewin, Lippitt, and White (20). They investigated the effects of authoritarianj democratic, and laissez-faire styles of leadership on the behavior of children organized into groups for the purpose of making masks. The democratically led groups were found to show less apathy, less aggression, and more group unity than the other two types of groups. While the general pattern of results favored the democratic leadership condition, Lewin, Lippitt, and White discovered two different types of reactions to the authoritarian condition. One reaction was clearly passive and dependent in nature, while the other was characterized by considerable aggression toward the leader. The authors attribute these differences to the personalities of the boys and to the order in which they experienced the different styles of leadership.

While individual differences in reaction to a single leadership pattern were most obvious in the authoritarian condition, there is some indication of diverse reactions to the democratic and laissez-faire styles. Most notable is the authors' description of one boy, the son of an army officer, who found a democratic atmosphere as frustrating as others had found the authoritarian atmosphere.

Similar concepts of leadership were used in a more recent study by Baumgartel (5). He divided laboratory chiefs in a scientific organization into directive, participative, and laissezfaire groups, depending on their predominant style of leadership. Participative leadership was associated with substantially higher motivation and more positive attitudes toward the leader than either of the other two styles. This study did not attempt to explain individual differences in reactions to the various leadership styles.

F. H. Sanford's study (36) sheds some light on this problem. He found that authoritarian personalities prefer status-laden leadership, accept strongly directive leadership, and regard the authoritarian leader as more effective than his democratic counterpart. Equalitarian personalities, on the other hand, accept authoritarian leadership only as the circumstances demand it.

Closely allied to the concept of participation is Lewin's concept of group decision. Lewin (18) used this term to refer to a group discussion along with individual decisions concerning action. A number of behaviors have been studied and found to be affected by such a process. These behaviors include industrial productivity (7, 16), food habits (33, 37), amount of halo effect in merit rating (17), and volunteering as subjects for experiments (6). While methods and results have varied somewhat from one study to another, the general pattern of findings indicates the value of group decision as a method for changing behavior and as a theoretical construct.

In a recent study on group decision Bennett (6) attempted to determine which aspects of the process are important in producing its experimental effects. She isolated four variables: group discussion, decision, commitment, and degree of consensus, all of which are involved in the Lewinian process of group decision. Her results suggest that the factors of group discussion and public commitment do not affect the probability that group members will execute the decision. The other two factors, the process of making a decision and the degree to which group consensus is obtained, were found to account for variations in the effectiveness of different techniques. In the light of these findings Bennett proposes that " 'group decision' might profitably be redefined as 'decision about individual goals in a setting of shared norms regarding such goals'." (6, p. 272)

Maier (22, 24) has demonstrated that the effects of group participation on the solution of group problems are not confined to the "acceptance of decisions" by group members and their subsequent motivation to carry them out. He has shown that leaders trained in group decision techniques can greatly improve the quality of a group's thinking by stimulating group members to more inventive solutions to problems.

Another related concept, used by Morse and Reimer to describe the role of various organization levels in decision-making, is that of locus of "organizational control." In a large-scale field experiment in an industrial setting they set out to test hypotheses concerning the role of rank and file employees in decision-making and individual satisfaction and productivity. The experimental design is summarized by the authors as follows:

Using four parallel divisions of the clerical operations of an organisation, two programs of changes were introduced. One program, the Autonomy program involving two of the divisions, was designed to increase the role of rank-and-file employees in the decision-making processes of the organization. The other two divisions received a program designed to increase the role of upper management in the decision-making processes (the Hierarchically-controlled program). (30, p. 129)

As they had predicted, Morse and Reimer found that the satisfaction of employees increased in the Autonomy program and decreased in the Hierarchical program. Both programs, however, significantly increased productivity, with the Hierarchically-controlled program resulting in the greater increase. The difference between the two programs was not significant.

As part of the same experiment Tannenbaum investigated the role of personality factors in determining adjustment to the two experimental programs, one permitting workers greater opportunities for decision-making and the other restricting existing activities. Using paper and pencil personality tests, he obtained scores representing the strength of various personality trends and classified individuals on the basis of the estimated suitability of their personality structures to each of the experimental programs It was found that persons "suited" to the program in which they were placed wanted their respective programs to last longer and were more satisfied than persons who were less suited to the program structure in which they were placed. Tannenbaum concludes that "social systems cannot be fully evaluated without an understanding of the psychological make-up of the individuals participating in that system." (38, p. 222)

In other relevant studies amount of participation in decision-making or conceptually similar variables was found to be related to attitudes toward foremen and shop stewards (13), turnover (34, 41), concern with costs (27), and absences (26). All of these studies focused on the average effects of participation without attempting to explain individual differences.

One of the more recent experiments was designed to investigate the possibility that cultural or individual variables have an important influence on the effects of participation. In a study carried out in a Norwegian factory, French, Israel, and Ås (10) obtained over-all results similar to those obtained in this country. They found, however, that the response of workers to participation was influenced by whether or not the worker felt that the participation was "legitimate." Legitimacy is defined as the extent to which participation is considered right and proper by the parties involved. Workers who felt that their participation was legitimate were more favorably affected by this experience than those who felt that their participation was not legitimate.

In summary, our review of the literature has shown considerable evidence for a number of behavioral consequences of participation and other democratic processes. Participation has been found to be related to a wide number of dependent variables including attitudes, absences, productivity, morale, and turnover. There has been relatively little research, however, on personality variables which interact with participation. The research which has been conducted on this problem has produced positive results. The task remains to determine the nature of the personality variables and the manner of their interaction with participation.

1.2. Concepts and Hypotheses

Participation. M...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Original Title
• Original Copyright
• Contents
• CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
• CHAPTER 2 METHODOLOGY
• CHAPTER 3 RESULTS
• CHAPTER 4 ABILITY AND MOTIVATION
• CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
• APPENDIX I THE MEASURES
• APPENDIX II
• APPENDIX III
• APPENDIX IV
• BIBLIOGRAPHY