AD-A239 907

.Two Studies onParticipation in

Decision-Maing andEquity Among FAA

Office ofAviation Medicine PersonnelWashington, D.C. 20591

L. Alan WittJennifer G. Myers

Civil Aeromedical InstituteFederal Aviation AdministrationOklahoma City, OK 73125

July1991 D T IC '

LECTE DFinal Report

A -cg 199b eD

This document is available to the public throughthe National Technical Information Service,Springfield, Virginia 22161.

1tiTO ORSTATERMT AApproved kx public reecaq

Mh iikm Unlimited "

U.S. Departmentof TransportationFederal AviationAdministration 91-08993

r,~~~ 2 R-IIIIItllltlllllll

NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship ofthe U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Governmentassumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.

Technical Report Documentation Page1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No.

DOV/FAAAM-91-/10

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Dote

TWO STUDIES ON PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND July 1991EQUITY AMONG FAA PERSONNEL 6. Performing Organization Code

.8. Performing Organization Report No.7. Author's)

L. Alan Witt, Ph.D. and Jennifer G. Myers, Ph.D.9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

FAA Civil Aeromedical InstituteP. 0. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No.Oklahoma City, OK 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Aviation MedicineFederal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency CodeWashington, D.C. 2059115. Supplementary Notes

This work was performed under task AM-C-91-HRR-122.

16. Abstract

Study 1

Moderated multiple regression analyses on data collected from 2,177 FAA air traffic controller specialistsindicated that equity perceptions moderated the relationship between participation in decision-making andlevel of job satisfaction. Specifically, the correlation between participation in decision-making and jobsatisfaction scores was higher among subjects high in equity than those low in equity. These resultssuggest that when individuals perceived their pay, promotional opportunities, and performance ratingsas being unfair, participation in decision-making may have had less effect on job satisfaction than whenindividuals perceived them as being fair. In general, the success of managerial efforts to improve jobsatisfaction by implementing participation in decision-making efforts may be limited when subordinatesperceive their personal work situation as unfair.

Study 2

Extending research on the effects of participation in decision-making (PDM) and perceived environmentaluncertainty (PEU) on job attitudes, the present study investigated the hypothesis that PDM and PEUscores would account for variance in perceptions of the leve!s of fairness in personnel decisions. Ashypothesized, data collected from 357 Federal Aviation Administration personnel indicated thatperceptions of participation in decision-making and environmental uncertainty accounted for uniquevariance in perceptions of levels of fairness in personnel decisions. Although limited by the possibilityof method variance, these data suggest the importance of information in the development of equityperceptions.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statementparticipation in decision-making Document is available to the publicjob satisfaction through the National Technicalequity Information Service, Springfield,perceived environmental uncertainty Virginia 22161

19. Security Clossif. (of this report) 20. Security Classf. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Proce

Unclassified Unclassified 17

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

Table ofContents

The Moderating Effect of Equity on the RelationshipBetween Participation in Decision-Making and JobSatisfactionL. Alan W itt, Ph.D ......................................................................... 1

Perceived Environmental Uncertainty and Participationin Decision-Making in the Prediction of Perceptions ofFairness of Personnel DecisionsL. Alan Wit, Ph.D. and Jennifer G. Myers, Ph.D ....................... 9

Aeoession ForHTIS GRAI

DTIC TAB 0Unarmounded 0Justifigatio

ByDistribution/

Availability CodesAvail and/or

Dist Special

THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EQUITY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENPARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND JOB SATISFACTION

Of considerable conceptual and practical To the extent that subordinates can expressinterest- in recent years have been the outcomes opinions to the supervisor, they have a "voice"of increased employee "participation in decision- (Cohen, 1985).making." Argyris (1964) stated that employeeswill manifest responsible adult behaviors only Another problem in participation in decision-when their managers realize that they want to be making research -has been the possible effects ofinvolved in making decisions. Psychological variables that may moderate relationships be-folklore suggests that participation in decision- tween participation in decision-making and out-making will have uniformly positive benefits come variables (Schweiger & Leana, 1986).(Greenberg & Folger, 1983). Empirical studies Several moderating effects have been inves-have consistently shown participation in decision- tigated: (a) leader skills (Maier & Sashkin,making to be positively related to job satisfac- 1971); (b) personality (Abdel-Halim, 1983;tion (cf. Cotton, et al., 1988). Other empirically McCurdy & Eber, 1963; Ruh, White, & Wood,identified outcomes of participation in decision- 1975; Runyon, 1973; Schuler, 1980; Wexley,making include increased organization informa- Singh, & Yukl, 1973); (c) task attributes (Shawtion-processing capabilities (Castrogiovanni & & Blum, 1966); (d) hierarchical level (Lowin,Macy, 1990), improvements in understanding 1968); and (e) environmental uncertainty (Burnswork tasks (Niehoff, Enz, & Grover, 1990), and & Stalker, 1961). Indeed, it is likely that theemployee health (Jackson, 1983). These findings effect of participation in decision-making on jobhave led to a variety of participation in decision- satisfaction may be influenced by other contex-making efforts (e.g., quality circles). tual factors.

In general however, empirical investigations Equity perceptions may moderate the rela-of the effects of participation in decision-making tionship between participation in decision-makingon employees have yielded mixed results (Cotton, and job satisfaction. Research on equity (e.g.,Vollrath, Froggatt, Lengnick-Hall, & Jennings, Bies, 1987) has indicated that when organization1988; Hammer, 1988; Kruse, 1984; Locke & members participate, they see the result as moreSchweiger, 1979; Strauss, 1982; Yukl, 1981). just and satisfactory. This effect occurs evenOne of the problems with interpreting participa- when the participant is assured that his/her voicetion in decision-making research has been the will be considered, but when there is no waydifficulty of identifying what participation in he/she can verify that it was (i.e., the "fairdecision-making entails (Dachler, 1978). process effect"; Greenberg & Folger, 1983).

Equity theory (Adams, 1963) has received con-Participation in decision-making has been siderable theoretical and empirical attention in

operationalized in a variety of ways but concep- organizational science over the last two decades.tualized as a unitary concept (Cotton, et al., Researchers have primarily emphasized how1988). Thibaut and Walker (1975) provided a distributions of organizational monetary rewardsuseful conceptualization with their identification (i.e., distributive justice) affect behavioral out-of two forms of participation: (a) choice, where comes (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover, andthe participant has some control over the out- performance). Recent research has suggested thecome, and (b) voice, where the participant utility of extending equity theory to the processesarticulates his/her interest to the decision-maker. through which outcomes develop or "proceduralVoice may include influence over defining the justice" (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and non-problem, gathering information bearing on the monetary outcomes (Greenberg, 1988).decision, and identifying alternatives, but notmaking the decision (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).

1

Piocedural justice refers to the individual's belief appraisal, and promotion decisions as well asthat "fairness exists when allocative procedures how they were made are important.satisfy certain criteria" (Leventhal, Karuza, &Fry, 1980, p. 195-196). The procedural elements Following equity-research (e.g., Bies,, 1987;of the decision process include participation in Lind. & Tyler, 1988), it is suggested here thatdecision-making (1hibaut & Walker, 1975). participation in decision-making will have aFollowing Leventhal (1980), Greenberg (1986a) greater effect on job satisfaction when employeesargued that these principles affect perceptions of perceive their personal work situation as fair thanprocedural justice: (a) the correctability rule (i.e., as less fair or unfair. In other words, when theprocedures should increase participant inputs into individual sees his/her situation as unfair, par-the decision process), (b) the accuracy rule (i.e., ticipation in decision-making opportunities mayprocedures should enhance the accuracy of be of little salience on the consideration of jobinformation used in the decision process), and (c) satisfaction. The present study examined thethe bias suppression rule (i.e., procedures should extent to .which perceived fairness or equity indiscourage supervisor motivations to use bias in the personal work situation would affect thetheir decisions). The fairness of procedures is relationship between participation in decision-important in organizational settings. For making and job satisfaction relationship. Specifi-example, budg-etary fluctuations may require cally, it was hypothesized that participation inreductions in hours worked. Most, if not all, decision-making would be more strongly relatedemployees may see this outcome as unfair (i.e., to job satisfaction when the aspects of the per-distributive injustice). However, if the supervisor sonal work situation were seen as fair than whenuses what is seen as a "fair" process to decide perceived as unfair.which employees are assigned reduced hours(e.g., equal distribution of reduced hours, ten- METHODured employees given less reductions), thenemployee job satisfaction may be affected very Subjects and Procedurelittle. If the supervisor uses what is seen as "an"unfair" process to make the decision (e.g., the Subjects were 2,177 (mean age = 28.8supervisor's golf buddy is not given reduced years) FAA air traffic controller specialistshours), then employee job satisfaction may be (1,895 males and 282 females), who voluntarilyconsiderably affected. completed and returned by mail a questionnaire

as part of the Airway Science Curriculum Dem-The equity theory approach, in looking at onstration Project. The subjects were fairly well

nonmonetary outcomes, has begun to yield educated, as 1,831 (84%) had received formalpromising findings. For example, an emerging education beyond high school.literature has examined the effects of perfor-mance appraisals on employee equity perceptions. MeasuresGreenberg (1986b) argued that the processes bywhich job information is collected and by which Three measures developed by the Office ofperformance ratings are made bear on matters of Personnel Management (1979) were employed --procedural rather than distributive justice, Evi- a 5-item job satisfaction scale (M = 17.58, SDdence suggests that a major component of an = 2.97), a 4-item participation in decision-mak-evaluation perceived as fair is one that contains ing scale (M = 12.4, SD = 2.67), and a 3-itemfair procedures (Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, equity scale (M = 9.5, SD = 2.22). Items and1978; Landy, Barnes-Farrell, & Cleveland, their means and standard deviations are presented1980). Of course, the outcomes of performance in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Items were presented on aappraisal and pay assignment reflect distributive 5-point, Likert-type scale (I = strongly disagree;justice considerations. Both procedural and 2 = disagree; 3 = undecided; 4 = agree; 5 =distributive outcomes of the employee's own strongly agree).work situation are important to the employee; inother words, the outcomes of pay, performance

2

Table 1.Job Satisfaction Scale Items

It m Mean SD

1. All in all, I am satisfied with my pay. 3.34 1.00

2. I am satisfied with the chances of gettinga promotion. 3.61 .95

3. I am satisfied with the amount of jobsecurity I have. 3.27 1.15

4. I am satisfied with the respect I receivefrom the people I work with. 3.50 .93

5. All in all, I am satisfied with my work group. 3.86 .77

Table 2.Participation in Decision-Making Scale Items

Item Mean SD

1. My supervisor encourages people to speak upwhen they disagree with a decision. 2.65 .95

2. My supervisor encourages subordinates toparticipate in important decisions. 3.11 .92

3. I have a great deal of say over what has tobe done in my job. 3.48 .85

4. I often offer suggestions to my supervisorto help solve work-related problems. 3.11 1.02

3

Table 3.Equity Scale Items

Item Mean SD

1 Considering my skills and the effort Iput into my work, I am satisfied with my pay. 3.40 .87

2. Promotions or unscheduled pay increases heredepend on how well a person performs his orher job. 3.19 1.09

3. My performance rating represents a fair andaccurate picture of my actual performance. 2.93 1.13

RESULTS

Moderated multiple regression was used to high: M = 18.76, SD = 2.54, F 1/2176 =assess the moderating effect of equity perceptions 509.12, p < .01) and perceived less favorableby adding the cross-product term as a separate PDM norms (low: M = 11.67, SD = 2.64 vs.predictor in the equation (Saunders, 1956; Ze- high: M = 12.9, SD = 2.54, F 1/2176 =deck, 1971). The job satisfaction scale scores 120.8, p < .01).were regressed on equity and participation indecision-making scale scores and their cross- DISCUSSIONproduct term. Hierarchical multiple regressionwas then used with the equity and participation in Several caveats should be emphasized, par-decision-making scale scores entered first and ticularly with regard to the generalizability of thetheir cross-product term entered second. Follow- results. Data were collected from ATCSs par-ing Cohen and Cohen (1975), the significance of ticipating in the Airway Science Curriculumthe incremental R2 (A R2) caused by the addition Demonstration Project, and they may not beof the cross-product term was assessed. The representative of all ATCSs. The respondentsincrement in R2 accompanied by the addition of may have completed the questionnaires in onethe cross-product term was significant (full model sitting; thus, these data may be subject to com-R2 = .34656, p < .01; A R' = .00147, F = mon method variance. In addition, other mea-4.84, p < .01). To test the direction of the sures of satisfaction, participation in decision-moderator effect, subjects were divided into two making, and equity may have yielded differentgroups (low vs. high equity) on a median split of results. It should also be noted that participationthe equity scores (Arnold, 1982). The correlation in decision-making may be the moderator of thebetween participation in decision-making and job equity-job satisfaction relationship rather than thesatisfaction scores indicated that participation in opposite, because personnel who experiencedecision-making was more strongly related to job certain levels of participation in decision-makingsatisfaction among subjects in the high equity and/or experience certain levels of job satisfac-group (r = .46, p < .01) than those in the low tion may report certain levels of equity.equity group (r = .35, p < .01; Fisher Z =2.94, p < .01). Furthermore, compared to air Despite these problems, these data suggesttraffic controllers in the high equity group, air that participation in decision-making accountedtraffic controllers in the low equity group were for about 21% of the variance in job satisfactionless satisfied (low: M = 16.15, SD = 2.85 vs. among personnel perceiving equity, but only

4

about 1% among personnel perceiving less Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 143-equity 'or inequity. While this finding is not 174.particularly robust, it does have some practicalsignificance. Indeed, these results have implica- Bies, R. J. (1987). Beyond "Voice": The in-tioris for the use of participation in decision-mak- fluence of decision-maker justification anding systems - both formal (e.g., quality circles) sincerity on procedural fairness judgments.and informal (e.g., individual managerial style): Representative Research in Social Psychol-participation in decision-making may be more ogy, 17, 3-14.likely to promote job satisfation when the per-sonal work situation is seen as fair. When in- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. T. (1961). The man-dividuals perceive their pay, promotional oppor- agement of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangletunities, and performance ratings as unfair, Books.participation in decision-making may have verylittle effect on job satisfaction. However, when Castrogiovanni, G. J., & Macy, B. A. (1990).individuals perceive their pay, promotional op- Organizational information-processing cap-portunities, and performance ratings as fair, abilities and degree of employee participa-participation in decision-making may have some tion. Group and Organization Studies, 15,effect, on job satisfaction. In other words, the 313-336.success of managerial efforts to improve jobsatisfaction by implementing participation in Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multipledecision-making efforts may be limited when regressioni correlation analysis for the be-subordinates perceive their personal work situa- havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrencetion as unfair. Of course, the veridicality of Earlbaum.perceptions may be reduced by individual dis-position, as fairness is in the eye of the per- Cohen, R. L. (1985). Procedural justice andceiver. Nevertheless, it is what the employee participation. Human Relations, 38, 643-perceives that affects the employee and his/her 663.co-workers. Therefore, perhaps managers shouldattend to enhancing perceptions of equity while Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-implementing participation in decision-making experimental design and analysis issues forefforts if job satisfaction is a desired outcome. field settings. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

REFERENCES Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L.,Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R.

Abdel-Halim, A. A. (1983). Effects of task and (1988). Employee participation. Diversepersonality characteristics on subordinate forms and different outcomes. Academy ofresponses to participative decision making. Management Review, 13, 8-22.Academy of Management Journal, 26, 477-484. Dachler, H. P. (1978). The problem nature of

participation in organizations: A conceptualAdams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding evaluation. In B. King, S. Sweufert, and F.

of equity. Journal qf Abnormal and Social E. Fiedler (Eds.), Managerial control andPsychology, 67, 422.436. organization democracy (pp. 17-29). New

York: John Wiley and Sons.Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual

and the organizafion. New York: Wiley. Greenberg, J. (1986a). Organizational perfor-mance appraisal procedures: What makes

Arnold, H. J. (1982). Moderator variables: A them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard,clarification of conceptual, analytic, and & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research onpsychometric variables. Organizational negotiation in organizations (pp. 25-41).

New York: JAI Press.

5

Greenberg, J. (1986b). The distributive justice Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J. Jr., Fry, W. R.of organizational performance evaluations. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of alloca-In H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. tion preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), JusticeGreenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations, and social interaction (pp. 167-218). 'New(pp. 337-35 1). York: Springer-Verlag.

Greenberg, J. (1988). Equity and workplace Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The gener-status: A field experiment. Journal of Ap- ality of procedural justice. New York:plied-Psychology, 73, 606-613. Plenum.

Greenberg, J., & Folger, R. (1983). Procedural Locke, E. A., & Schweiger, D. M. (1979).Justice, participation, and the fair process Participation in decision-making: One moreeffect in groups and organizations. In P. 'ook. In Barry Staw (Ed.), Research in or-Paulus (Ed.), Basic group processes (pp. ganizational behavior (Vol. 1, pp. 265-340).235-256). New York: Springer-Verlag. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Hammer, T. H. (1987, April). New develop- Lowin, A. (1968). Participative decision-making:ments in profit sharing, gainsharing, and A model, literature, critique, and prescrip-employee ownership. Paper presented at the tions for research. Organizational Behaviormid-year conference of the Society of In- and Human Performance, 3, 68-106.dustrial-Organizational Psychology, Dallas,Texas. Maier, N. R. F., & Sashkin, M. (1971). Specific

leadership behaviors that promote problemJackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision solving. Personnel Psychology, 24, 35-44.

making as a strategy for reducing jobrelatedstrain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, McCurdy, H. G., & Eber, H. W. (1953). Demo-3-19. cratic versus authoritarianism: A further

investigation of group problem-solving.Kruse, D. (1984). Employee ownership and Journal of Personality, 22, 258-269.

employee attitudes. Norwood, PA: NorwoodPress. Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A.

(1990). The impact of top-managementLandy, F. J., Barnes, J. L., & Murphy, K. R. actions on employee attitudes and percep-

(1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and tions. Group and Organization Studies, 15,accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal 337-352.of Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754.

Office of Personnel Management. (1979). Fed-Landy, F. J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, J. eral employee attitudes: Phase 1: Baseline

N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy survey 1979. Washington, D.C.: U. S.of performance evaluation: A follow-up. Government Printing Office.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356. Ruh, R. A., White, J. K., & Wood, R. R.

(1975). Job involvement, values, personalLeventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done background, participation in decision making,

with equity theory? New approa( hes to the and job attitudes. Academy of Managementstudy of fairness in social relationships. In Journal, 18, 300-312.K. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory Runyon, K. E. (1973). Some interactions be-and research (27-55). New York: Plenum tween personality variables and managementPress. styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57,

288-294.

6

Saunders, -D. R. (1956). Moderator variables inprediction. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 16, 209-222.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). A role and expectancyperception model of participation in decisionmaking. Academy of Management Journal,23, 331-340.

Schweiger, D. M. , & Leona, C. R. (1986).Participation in decision-making. In E. A.Locke (Ed.), Generalizing from the lab tothe field (pp. 147-166), Lexington, MA:Lexington Books.

Strauss, G. (1982). Workers participation inmanagement: An international perspective.In B. Staw & Larry L. Cummings (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior. (Vol.5). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Proceduraljustice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Wexley, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yuld, G. A.(1973). Subordinate personality as a moder-ator of the effects of participation in threetypes of appraisal interviews. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 58, 54-59.

Yukl, G. A. (1981). Leadership in organiza-tions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Zedeck, S. (1971). Problems with the use of"moderator" variables. Psychological Bul-letin, 76, 295-310.

7

PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY ANDPARTICIPATION 'IN DECISION-MAKING IN TIE PREDICTIONOF PERCEPTIONS OF FAIRNESS OF PERSONNEL DECISIONS

Recent research has suggested the utility of Thibaut and Walker (1975) identified twoextending equity theory (Adams, 1963) to such forms of participation: (a) choice, where the par-nonmonetary outcomes as personnel decisions ticipant has some control over the outcome, and(Greenberg, 1988). An emerging literature has (b) voice, where the participant articulates his/herexamined the effects of performance appraisals interest to the decision-makers., Voice mayon- employee perceptions of equity. Greenberg include influence over defining the problem,(1986b) argued that the processes by which job gathering information bearing on the decisioninformation is collected and by which perfor- (personnel evaluation), and identifying alterna-mance ratings are made relate to matters of tives, but not making the decision (Thibaut &equity. Evidence suggests that a performance Walker, 1975). To the extent that employees canevaluation perceived as fair is one that contains express opinions to the employer, they have aprocedures and an outcome perceived as fair "voice" (Cohen, 1985). Individuals typically have(Landy, Barnes, & Murphy; 1978; Landy, voice but no choice in determining their perfor-Barnes, Farrell, & Cleveland, 1980). The issue mance evaluations,of perceived fairness in personnel decisions (e.g.,who is recognized, promoted) is of both practical Equity theories generally suggest that theand conceptual importance, as employeeattribu- opportunity for employee input should enhancetions of fairness or unfairness will have an satisfaction with the procedure. Evidence sug-impact on their job attitudes and behaviors. gests that participation typically leads to satis-Managers who strive to make fait or equitable faction and what has been described as the "fairpersonnel decisions and who face claims of process effect" (cf. Schweiger & Leana, 1986).unfairness typically suggest that proponents of The fair process effect occurs when the person issuch claims operate on insufficient information, assured that his/her voice will be considered, butGiven the importance of perceptions of fairness there is no way he/she can verify that it wasof performance evaluations (cf. Greenberg, (Greenberg & Folger, 1983). Leventhal (1980)1986a, 1986b), the identification of factors that and Greenberg (1986a) argued that the followinginfluence perceptions of equity is needed, principles affect perceptions of procedural justice

of performance appraisals: (a) the correctabilityPARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING rule (procedures should increase ratee inputs into

the appraisal process), (b) the accuracy rule (pro-The outcomes of increased participation in cedures should enhance the accuracy of informa-

decision-making (PDM) have been of consider- tion used in the appraisal process), and (c) theable theoretical and practical interest for several bias suppression rule (procedures should dis-years. Argyris (1964) argued that workers will courage raters' motivations to bias their evalua-manifest responsible adult behaviors only when tions). Other arguments suggest that voice pro-th.ir managers realize that they want to be cedures (i.e., procedures in which the individualinvolved in making decisions. As noted by can express opinions or provide information butGreenberg and Folger (1983, p. 235), "psycho- have no decision-making power or vote) are seenlogical folklore" suggests that PDM will have as just, because: (a) of the symbolic value ofpositive benefits. Empirical studies have consist- opportunities for expression (Lind & Tyler,ently shown PDM to be positively related to 1988), or (b) they are believed to be instrumentalfavorable organizational outcomes, such as job in securing either favorable or equitable out-satisfaction (cf. Cotton, et al., 1988). This comes (Brett & Goldberg, 1983).finding has led to the use of a variety of PDMefforts (e.g., quality circles, employee involve-ment programs) in many organizations.

9

Thus, the literature suggests that when or- hypothesized that both PEU and PDM wouldganization members participate in decisions, they account for variance in perceptions of fairness insee the, results of those decisions as more just. personnel decisions.Workers who participate (or at least perceivethemselves as doing so) with their managers in MErHODmaking decisions, in comparison to those who donot, are likely to perceive fairness in personnel FAA personnel (N=357) in three fielddecisions, because they receive and give informa- facilities voluntarily participated in a one-timetion used in decision-making. research study. Perceptions of fair personnel

decisions (equity) were measured by 3 itemsPERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL tapping promotion, selection, reward, and recog-

UNCERTAINTY nition issues (alpha = .83, M = 7.62, SD =7.9). Six items assessed PDM and outcomes

A lack of information about one's job or (alpha = .74, M = 20.12, SD = 4.9), and 7circumstances in the work situation is often items measured PEU (alpha = .81, M = 34.06,referred to as perceived environmental uncertain- SD = 6.6). Items were presented on a 5-pointty (PEU; Duncan, 1972; Milliken, 1987). As Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 5 = to a verynoted by Bourgeois (1980), PEU has been a great extent). Scales were scored high for fair-central concept in theory and research examining ness, greater PDM, and less PEU, respectively.the organization-environment interface (e.g., Scale items are presented in Table 1.Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967; Koberg, 1987). Thethree most common operational definitions of RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONPEU have been: (a) an inability to accuratelyanticipate the likelihood of future events (Du- Both PDM scale scores (r = .70, p < .01)ncan, 1972; Pennings, 1981); (b) a lack of and PEU scale scores (r = .53, p < .01) wereinformation about cause and effect relationships positively and significantly related to equity(Duncan, 1972; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967); and scores. Hierarchical multiple regression (Cohen(c) an inability to predict accurately the outcomes & Cohen, 1975) was used to identify the utilityof a decision (Downey & Slocum, 1975; Duncan, of adding PEU to the equation predicting equity.1972; Schmidt & Cummings, 1976). The conse- PDM scores were entered into the equation first,quences of PEU (e.g., low productivity) have followed by the PEU scores. The results indi-been well documented (cf. Milliken, 1987). cated that the addition of the PEU scores to the

equation predicting equity scores added varianceWorkers high in PEU may perceive less over-and-above the variance contributed by PDM

equity than those experiencing less PEU, as the scores (full model R2 = .44973, p < .01; A R2

former group has less information about or- = .02049, F 2/354 = 6.88, p < .01).ganizational events and typically experiencesdis.onance from having less information. In other Confirming our hypotheses, these data indi-words, individuals experiencing uncertainty may cated that PDM and PEU contributed uniquebe likely to perceive less equity both in personnel variance to the explanation of equity. As in otherdecisions, because they may be lik,1y to perceive experimental research (cf. Bies, 1987), these datagreater uncertainty in how those decisions are suggested that when individuals participated inmade, as well as in decisions made about other decision-making, they saw the results. of person-aspects of the organizational context. nel decisions as more just. Employees who

participated (or at least perceived themselves asThe present study examined employee per- doing so) with their managers in making decis-

ceptions of participation in decision-making and ions, in comparison to those who did not, mayenvironmental uncertainty as predictors of per- have perceived fairness in personnel decisionsceptions of fairness in personnel decisions. We

10

Table 1: Scale Items

PDM Items

1. To what extent have you been able to contribute to decision-making that affects your job? (M2.64, SD = 2.21)

2. To what extent-does your supervisor actively involve you in-establishing goals for your work? (M- 3.06, SD = 1.35)

3. To what extent does your supervisor conduct "group" or staff meetings at which you or your co-workers influence the solutions and actions selected? (M = 2.93, SD = 1.23)

4. To what extent is:authority and responsibility appropriately shared in your organization? (M = 2.68,SD = 1.05)

5. To what extent do you feel that employee participation groups have expressed significant and validemployee concerns to management? (M = 3.47, SD = 1. 11)

6. To what extent do you feel that the agency has been responsive to concerns expressed by theemployee participation groups? (M = 2.44, SD = .97)

PEU Items

1. To what extent do you get useful information about how your job fits into the total picture? (M -

3.39, SD = 1.10)

2. To what extent does your job description accuratelyreflect your job duties? (M = 3.53, SD = 1.14)

3. To what extent are your job duties clear to you? (M. = 3.99, SD = .98)

4. To what extent do your performance standards accurately depict what is expected of you? (M =

3.40, SD = 1.07)

5. To what extent do you receive timely information from the agency concerning major decisions ororganizational changes that affect your job? (M = 2.42, SD = .98)

6. To what extent do you receive sufficient information from the agency to understand how thesechanges may affect you? (M = 2.32, SD = .91)

7. To what extent do changes made in the agency agree with initial information you received? (M =2.50, SD = .82)

Table 1 (continued)

Equity Iters

1. To what extent are promotions given to those who are best qualified? (M = 2.56, SD = 1.11)

2. To what extent are rewards or recognition given for good performance? (M = 2.54, SD = 1.06)

3. To what extent is the best qualified individual selected to fill a supervisory position? (M = 2.54,SD = 1.06)

because they received and gave information used capabilities of the applicant for first-line super-in decision-iaking in other areas of their work. visory positions.Similarly, employees experiencing uncertaintymay have perceived inequity or less equity than We urge caution in interpreting these results,those experiencing less uncertainty, as the former as possible confounds include common methodgroup apparently had less information about variance and individual-level characteristics, suchorganizational events. In other words, employees as level in the organization, performance ratings,experiencing uncertainty may have perceived less and personality. Moreover, our sample was smallequity in personnel decisions, because they and may not be representative. Future researchperceived greater uncertainty in how decisions should: (a) attempt to replicate these results inwere made in this area and other parts of the different settings, (b) specifically examine theorganization, extent of the impact of PDM on equity percep-

tions, (c) investigate the impact of other "infor-As argued by Greenberg (1986b, p. mation" variables on equity perceptions, (d)

350), "given the highly sensitive nature of the specifically examine the effects of participation inperformance evaluation process," it is likely that overall decisions versus participation in thea major component of expressions of negative assessment of one's performance, and (e) identifyattitudes about the organization is based on means to reduce method variance in situationsperceptions of injustice. In line with Kanfer, where the type of perceptions of work-relatedSawyer, Earley, and Lind's (1987) finding that issues discussed in the present paper are ofindividuals who were given the opportunity to interest. As noted by Nogradi and Koch (1981),provide information about their performance the provision of additional opportunities forprior to the performance evaluation perceived decision-making for personnel who are involvedmore fairness in the evaluation, our data suggest in fewer than desired decisions is extremelythat work and performance-related information important from an organizational perspective.may play a role in understanding and perceiving Personnel who are decisionally deprived typicallythe fairness of personnel decisions. By including have less favorable job attitudes. "Allowing suchemployees in decision-making processes and/or individuals to move toward a decisional equi-describing how decisions are made, managers librium state must be a high priority for themay promote employee perceptions of justice manager" (Nogradi & Koch, 1981, p. 157).(equity) in the organization and thus facilitate Optimally, managers should monitor the actualfavorable organizational outcomes, such as job and preferred levels of participation to avoidsatisfaction. Involvement in the contribution of conditions of decisional deprivation or saturation.information to the selection decision would also Nogradi and Koch noted that the highest level oflikely enhance perceptions of fairness. This decisional saturation is at the senior administra-strategy has been employed in the FAA Super- tive level and the highest level of decisionalvisory Identification and Development Program deprivation is at the supervisor level. Theyin the form of soliciting input from peers on the suggested that a relocation of decision-making

from higher to lower levels may improve the job

12

attitudes of the personnel at-the lower levels. Of Brett, J. M., & Goldberg, S.B. (1983). Med-course, this is not always-appropriate. Moreover, iator-advisors: A new third-party role. In M.increases in the number of decisions without H. Bazerman & R. J. Lewicki, -(Eds.),regard for the importance of the decision could Negotiating in organizations (pp. 165-176).result in overloading the individual without any Beverly Hills: Sage.positive effects.

Castrogiovanni, G. J., & Macy, B. A. (1990).Although the importance of work-relevant Organizational information-processing cap-

information and PDM as antecedents of or- abilities and degree of employee participa-ganizational outcomes, such as organization tion. Group and Organization Studies, 15,information-processing capabilities (Castro- 313-336.giovanni & Macy, 1990), job attitudes (Argyris,1964), employee health (Jackson, 1983), and Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multipleunderstanding work tasks (Niehoff, Enz, & regression! correlation analysis for the be-Grover, 1990), have been empirically identified, havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrencesome managers avoid PDM and sharing informa- Earlbaum.tion. Some managers may do so because they donot know how to collaborate With their workers, Cohen, R. L. (1985). Procedural justice andwhile others may explicitly decide to manage by participation. Human Relations, 38, 643-mystery to- keep their people unaware of goings- 663.on, and others may simply have not thoughtabout alternative management styles. Whatever Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L.,the reason, we suggest that the growing PDM Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R.and PEU literatures provide sufficient evidence (1988). Employee participation Diverseto indicate that efforts to increase PDM (as ap- forms and different outcomes. Academy ofpropriate) and reduce PEU may lead to favor- Management Review, 13, 8-22.able outcomes.

Downey, H. K., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (1975).REFERENCES Uncertainty: Measures, research, and sources

of variation. Academy of Management Jour-Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding nal, 18, 562-578.

of equity. Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, 67, 422-436. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of or-

ganizational environments and perceived en-Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual vironmental uncertainty. Administrative

and the organization. New York: Wi- Science Quarterly, 17, 313-327.ley.

Greenberg, J. (1986a). Organizational perfor-Bies, R. J. (1987). Beyond "voice": The in- mance appraisal procedures: What makes

fluence of decision-maker justification them fair? In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard,and sincerity on procedural fairness & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research onjudgments. Representative Research in negotiation in organizations (pp. 25-41).Social Psychology, 17, 3-14. New York: JAI Press.

Bourgeois, L. J. III (1980). Strategy and en- Greenberg, J. (1986b). The distributive justice ofvironment: A conceptual integration, organizational performance evaluations. InAcademy of Management Review, 5, 25- H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Green-39. berg (Eds.), Justice in social relations. (pp.

337-351) New York:Plenum.

13

Greenberg, J., & Folger, R.,(1983). Procedural Lind, E.A., & Tyler, T.R. (1988). The gener-justice, participation, and the fair process ality of procedural justice. New York:effect in groups and organizations. In P. Plenum.Paulus (17d.), Basic group processes (pp.235-256). -New York: Springer-Verlag. Millikin, F.J. (1987). Three types of perceived

uncertainty about the environment: State,Kanfer, R., Sawyer, J., Earley, P.C., & Lind, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy of

E.A. (1987). Fairness and participation in Management Review, 12, 133-143.evaluation procedures: Effects on task at-titudes and performance. Social Justice Re- Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A.search, 1, 235-249. (1990). The impact of top-management

actions on employee attitudes and percel.Koberg, C.S. (1987). Resource scarcity, en- tions. Group and Organization Studies, 15,

vironmental uncertainty, and adaptive or- 337-352.ganizational behavior. Academy of Manage-ment Journal, 30, 798-807. Nogradi, G. S., & Koch, S. A. (1981). The

relationship between decisional participationJackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in ",ecision and commitment to the organization, corn-

making as a strategy for reducing jo.,-related munity, and profession among municipalstrain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 3- recreation administrators. Leisure Sciences,19. 4, 143-159.

Landy, F.J., Barnes, JL., & Murphy, K.R. Pennings, J.M. (1975). The relevance of the(1978). Correlates of perceived fairness and structural-contingency model for organiza-accuracy of performance evaluation. Journal tional effectiveness. Administrative Scienceof Applied Psychology, 63, 751-754. Quarterly, 20, 393-410.

Landy, F.J., Barnes-Farrell, J., & Cleveland, Schmidt, S.M., & Cummings, L.L. (1976).J.N. (1980). Perceived fairness and accuracy Organizational environment, differentiationof performance evaluation: A follow-up, and perceived environmental uncertainty.Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 355-356. Decision Science, 7, 447-467.

Lawrence, P.R., & Lorsch, J.W. (1967). Or- Schweiger, D.M., & Leana, C.R. (1986). Par-ganizatlon and environment. Boston: Har- ticipation in decision-making. In E.A. Lockeyard. (Ed.), Generalizing from laboratory to field

settings (pp. 147-166). Lexington, MA:Leventhal, G.S. (1980). What should be done Lexington Books.

with equity theory? New approaches to theGudy of fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). ProceduralK. Gergen, M. Greenberg, & R. Willis justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.and research (27-55). New York: PlenumPress.

Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J. Jr., & Fry, W.R.(1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of alloca-tion preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justiceand social interaction (pp. 167-218). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

14

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991 - 561-020140087