AD-A239 907

Studies .Two on

Participation in

Decision-Maing and Equity Among FAA

Office ofAviation Medicine Personnel

Washington, D.C. 20591

L. Alan Witt

Jennifer G. Myers

Civil Aeromedical Institute

Federal Aviation Administration

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

July1991 D T IC '

LECTE D

Final Report A -cg 199b eD

This document is available to the public through

the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

1tiTO ORSTATERMT A

Approved kx public reecaq

Mh iikm Unlimited "

U.S. Department

of Transportation

Federal Aviation

Administration 91-08993

r,~~~ 2 R-IIIIItllltlllllll
NOTICE

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of

the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of

information exchange. The United States Government

assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof.
Technical Report Documentation Page

1. 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 1991

EQUITY 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 Institute

P. 0. Box 25082 11. Contract or Grant No.

Oklahoma City, OK 73125

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Office of Aviation Medicine

Federal Aviation Administration

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

Washington, D.C. 20591

15. 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 specialists indicated that equity perceptions moderated the relationship between participation in decision-making and

level of job satisfaction. Specifically, the correlation between participation in decision-making and job satisfaction scores was higher among subjects high in equity than those low in equity. These results

suggest that when individuals perceived their pay, promotional opportunities, and performance ratings

as being unfair, participation in decision-making may have had less effect on job satisfaction than when

individuals perceived them as being fair. In general, the success of managerial efforts to improve job satisfaction by implementing participation in decision-making efforts may be limited when subordinates

perceive their personal work situation as unfair.

Study 2

Extending research on the effects of participation in decision-making (PDM) and perceived environmental

uncertainty (PEU) on job attitudes, the present study investigated the hypothesis that PDM and PEU

scores would account for variance in perceptions of the leve!s of fairness in personnel decisions. As

hypothesized, data collected from 357 Federal Aviation Administration personnel indicated that

perceptions of participation in decision-making and environmental uncertainty accounted for unique variance in perceptions of levels of fairness in personnel decisions. Although limited by the possibility of method variance, these data suggest the importance of information in the development of equity

perceptions.

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement

participation in decision-making Document is available to the public

job satisfaction through the National Technical

equity 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 of

Contents

The Moderating Effect of Equity on the Relationship

Between Participation in Decision-Making and Job

Satisfaction

L. Alan W itt, Ph.D ......................................................................... 1

Perceived Environmental Uncertainty and Participation

in Decision-Making in the Prediction of Perceptions of

Fairness of Personnel Decisions

L. Alan Wit, Ph.D. and Jennifer G. Myers, Ph.D ....................... 9

Aeoession For

HTIS GRAI

DTIC TAB 0

Unarmounded 0

Justifigatio

By

Distribution/

Availability Codes

Avail and/or

Dist Special
THE MODERATING EFFECT OF EQUITY ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN

PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING AND JOB SATISFACTION

Of considerable conceptual and practical To the extent that subordinates can express

interest- 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 employees

will manifest responsible adult behaviors only Another problem in participation in decisionwhen their managers realize that they want to be making research -has been the possible effects of

involved in making decisions. Psychological variables that may moderate relationships befolklore suggests that participation in decision- tween participation in decision-making and outmaking will have uniformly positive benefits come variables (Schweiger & Leana, 1986).

(Greenberg & Folger, 1983). Empirical studies Several moderating effects have been inveshave 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 (Shaw

tion-processing capabilities (Castrogiovanni & & Blum, 1966); (d) hierarchical level (Lowin,

Macy, 1990), improvements in understanding 1968); and (e) environmental uncertainty (Burns

work tasks (Niehoff, Enz, & Grover, 1990), and & Stalker, 1961). Indeed, it is likely that the

employee health (Jackson, 1983). These findings effect of participation in decision-making on job

have led to a variety of participation in decision- satisfaction may be influenced by other contexmaking efforts (e.g., quality circles). tual factors.

In general however, empirical investigations Equity perceptions may moderate the relaof the effects of participation in decision-making tionship between participation in decision-making

on 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 organization

1988; Hammer, 1988; Kruse, 1984; Locke & members participate, they see the result as more

Schweiger, 1979; Strauss, 1982; Yukl, 1981). just and satisfactory. This effect occurs even

One of the problems with interpreting participa- when the participant is assured that his/her voice

tion in decision-making research has been the will be considered, but when there is no way

difficulty of identifying what participation in he/she can verify that it was (i.e., the "fair

decision-making entails (Dachler, 1978). process effect"; Greenberg & Folger, 1983).

Equity theory (Adams, 1963) has received conParticipation 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 how

1988). Thibaut and Walker (1975) provided a distributions of organizational monetary rewards

useful conceptualization with their identification (i.e., distributive justice) affect behavioral outof two forms of participation: (a) choice, where comes (e.g., job satisfaction, turnover, and

the participant has some control over the out- performance). Recent research has suggested the

come, and (b) voice, where the participant utility of extending equity theory to the processes

articulates his/her interest to the decision-maker. through which outcomes develop or "procedural

Voice may include influence over defining the justice" (Thibaut & Walker, 1975) and nonproblem, gathering information bearing on the monetary outcomes (Greenberg, 1988).

decision, and identifying alternatives, but not

making the decision (Thibaut & Walker, 1975).

1
Piocedural justice refers to the individual's belief appraisal, and promotion decisions as well as

that "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 that

decision-making (1hibaut & Walker, 1975). participation in decision-making will have a

Following Leventhal (1980), Greenberg (1986a) greater effect on job satisfaction when employees

argued that these principles affect perceptions of perceive their personal work situation as fair than

procedural justice: (a) the correctability rule (i.e., as less fair or unfair. In other words, when the

procedures should increase participant inputs into individual sees his/her situation as unfair, parthe decision process), (b) the accuracy rule (i.e., ticipation in decision-making opportunities may

procedures should enhance the accuracy of be of little salience on the consideration of job

information used in the decision process), and (c) satisfaction. The present study examined the

the bias suppression rule (i.e., procedures should extent to .which perceived fairness or equity in

discourage supervisor motivations to use bias in the personal work situation would affect the

their decisions). The fairness of procedures is relationship between participation in decisionimportant in organizational settings. For making and job satisfaction relationship. Specifiexample, budg-etary fluctuations may require cally, it was hypothesized that participation in

reductions in hours worked. Most, if not all, decision-making would be more strongly related

employees may see this outcome as unfair (i.e., to job satisfaction when the aspects of the perdistributive injustice). However, if the supervisor sonal work situation were seen as fair than when

uses 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- METHOD

ured employees given less reductions), then

employee job satisfaction may be affected very Subjects and Procedure

little. If the supervisor uses what is seen as "an

"unfair" process to make the decision (e.g., the Subjects were 2,177 (mean age = 28.8

supervisor's golf buddy is not given reduced years) FAA air traffic controller specialists

hours), then employee job satisfaction may be (1,895 males and 282 females), who voluntarily

considerably affected. completed and returned by mail a questionnaire

as part of the Airway Science Curriculum DemThe 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 formal

promising findings. For example, an emerging education beyond high school.

literature has examined the effects of performance appraisals on employee equity perceptions. Measures

Greenberg (1986b) argued that the processes by

which job information is collected and by which Three measures developed by the Office of

performance 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, SD

dence suggests that a major component of an = 2.97), a 4-item participation in decision-makevaluation perceived as fair is one that contains ing scale (M = 12.4, SD = 2.67), and a 3-item

fair procedures (Landy, Barnes, & Murphy, equity scale (M = 9.5, SD = 2.22). Items and

1978; Landy, Barnes-Farrell, & Cleveland, their means and standard deviations are presented

1980). Of course, the outcomes of performance in Tables 1, 2, and 3. Items were presented on a

appraisal 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; in

other 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 getting

a promotion. 3.61 .95

3. I am satisfied with the amount of job

security I have. 3.27 1.15

4. I am satisfied with the respect I receive

from 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 up

when they disagree with a decision. 2.65 .95

2. My supervisor encourages subordinates to

participate in important decisions. 3.11 .92

3. I have a great deal of say over what has to

be done in my job. 3.48 .85

4. I often offer suggestions to my supervisor

to 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 I

put into my work, I am satisfied with my pay. 3.40 .87

2. Promotions or unscheduled pay increases here

depend on how well a person performs his or

her job. 3.19 1.09

3. My performance rating represents a fair and

accurate 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 favorable

by 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 in

decision-making scale scores and their cross- DISCUSSION

product term. Hierarchical multiple regression

was then used with the equity and participation in Several caveats should be emphasized, pardecision-making scale scores entered first and ticularly with regard to the generalizability of the

their cross-product term entered second. Follow- results. Data were collected from ATCSs paring Cohen and Cohen (1975), the significance of ticipating in the Airway Science Curriculum

the incremental R2 (A R2) caused by the addition Demonstration Project, and they may not be

of the cross-product term was assessed. The representative of all ATCSs. The respondents

increment in R2 accompanied by the addition of may have completed the questionnaires in one

the cross-product term was significant (full model sitting; thus, these data may be subject to comR2 = .34656, p < .01; A R' = .00147, F = mon method variance. In addition, other mea4.84, p < .01). To test the direction of the sures of satisfaction, participation in decisionmoderator effect, subjects were divided into two making, and equity may have yielded different

groups (low vs. high equity) on a median split of results. It should also be noted that participation

the equity scores (Arnold, 1982). The correlation in decision-making may be the moderator of the

between participation in decision-making and job equity-job satisfaction relationship rather than the

satisfaction scores indicated that participation in opposite, because personnel who experience

decision-making was more strongly related to job certain levels of participation in decision-making

satisfaction among subjects in the high equity and/or experience certain levels of job satisfacgroup (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 suggest

traffic controllers in the high equity group, air that participation in decision-making accounted

traffic controllers in the low equity group were for about 21% of the variance in job satisfaction

less 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 practical

significance. Indeed, these results have implica- Bies, R. J. (1987). Beyond "Voice": The intioris for the use of participation in decision-mak- fluence of decision-maker justification and

ing systems - both formal (e.g., quality circles) sincerity on procedural fairness judgments.

and informal (e.g., individual managerial style): Representative Research in Social Psycholparticipation in decision-making may be more ogy, 17, 3-14.

likely to promote job satisfation when the personal work situation is seen as fair. When in- Burns, T., & Stalker, G. T. (1961). The mandividuals perceive their pay, promotional oppor- agement of innovation. Chicago: Quadrangle

tunities, and performance ratings as unfair, Books.

participation in decision-making may have very

little effect on job satisfaction. However, when Castrogiovanni, G. J., & Macy, B. A. (1990).

individuals perceive their pay, promotional op- Organizational information-processing capportunities, and performance ratings as fair, abilities and degree of employee participaparticipation 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 job

satisfaction by implementing participation in Cohen, J. & Cohen, P. (1975). Applied multiple

decision-making efforts may be limited when regressioni correlation analysis for the besubordinates perceive their personal work situa- havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

tion as unfair. Of course, the veridicality of Earlbaum.

perceptions may be reduced by individual disposition, as fairness is in the eye of the per- Cohen, R. L. (1985). Procedural justice and

ceiver. 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 should

attend to enhancing perceptions of equity while Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasiimplementing participation in decision-making experimental design and analysis issues for

efforts 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. Diverse

personality characteristics on subordinate forms and different outcomes. Academy of

responses 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 conceptual

Adams, 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 and

Psychology, 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 performance 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 on

psychometric 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 allocaIn H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. tion preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice

Greenberg (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 generstatus: 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 more

effect in groups and organizations. In P. 'ook. In Barry Staw (Ed.), Research in orPaulus (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 prescripemployee ownership. Paper presented at the tions for research. Organizational Behavior

mid-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 problem

Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in decision solving. Personnel Psychology, 24, 35-44.

making as a strategy for reducing jobrelated

strain. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, McCurdy, H. G., & Eber, H. W. (1953). Demo3-19. 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: Norwood

Press. Niehoff, B. P., Enz, C. A., & Grover, R. A.

(1990). The impact of top-management

Landy, 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). FedLandy, 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, personal

Leventhal, 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 Management

study 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 beand research (27-55). New York: Plenum tween personality variables and management

Press. styles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57,

288-294.

6
Saunders, -D. R. (1956). Moderator variables in

prediction. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 16, 209-222.

Schuler, R. S. (1980). A role and expectancy

perception model of participation in decision

making. 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 to

the field (pp. 147-166), Lexington, MA:

Lexington Books.

Strauss, G. (1982). Workers participation in

management: 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). Procedural

justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,

NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Wexley, K. N., Singh, J. P., & Yuld, G. A.

(1973). Subordinate personality as a moderator of the effects of participation in three

types of appraisal interviews. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 58, 54-59.

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

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

7
PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL UNCERTAINTY AND

PARTICIPATION 'IN DECISION-MAKING IN TIE PREDICTION

OF PERCEPTIONS OF FAIRNESS OF PERSONNEL DECISIONS

Recent research has suggested the utility of Thibaut and Walker (1975) identified two

extending equity theory (Adams, 1963) to such forms of participation: (a) choice, where the parnonmonetary 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/her

examined the effects of performance appraisals interest to the decision-makers., Voice may

on- employee perceptions of equity. Greenberg include influence over defining the problem,

(1986b) argued that the processes by which job gathering information bearing on the decision

information is collected and by which perfor- (personnel evaluation), and identifying alternamance 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 can

evaluation perceived as fair is one that contains express opinions to the employer, they have a

procedures and an outcome perceived as fair "voice" (Cohen, 1985). Individuals typically have

(Landy, Barnes, & Murphy; 1978; Landy, voice but no choice in determining their perforBarnes, 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 the

and conceptual importance, as employeeattribu- opportunity for employee input should enhance

tions of fairness or unfairness will have an satisfaction with the procedure. Evidence sugimpact on their job attitudes and behaviors. gests that participation typically leads to satisManagers who strive to make fait or equitable faction and what has been described as the "fair

personnel 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 is

such claims operate on insufficient information, assured that his/her voice will be considered, but

Given the importance of perceptions of fairness there is no way he/she can verify that it was

of performance evaluations (cf. Greenberg, (Greenberg & Folger, 1983). Leventhal (1980)

1986a, 1986b), the identification of factors that and Greenberg (1986a) argued that the following

influence perceptions of equity is needed, principles affect perceptions of procedural justice

of performance appraisals: (a) the correctability

PARTICIPATION IN DECISION-MAKING rule (procedures should increase ratee inputs into

the appraisal process), (b) the accuracy rule (proThe outcomes of increased participation in cedures should enhance the accuracy of informadecision-making (PDM) have been of consider- tion used in the appraisal process), and (c) the

able theoretical and practical interest for several bias suppression rule (procedures should disyears. Argyris (1964) argued that workers will courage raters' motivations to bias their evaluamanifest responsible adult behaviors only when tions). Other arguments suggest that voice proth.ir managers realize that they want to be cedures (i.e., procedures in which the individual

involved in making decisions. As noted by can express opinions or provide information but

Greenberg and Folger (1983, p. 235), "psycho- have no decision-making power or vote) are seen

logical folklore" suggests that PDM will have as just, because: (a) of the symbolic value of

positive 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 instrumental

favorable organizational outcomes, such as job in securing either favorable or equitable outsatisfaction (cf. Cotton, et al., 1988). This comes (Brett & Goldberg, 1983).

finding has led to the use of a variety of PDM

efforts (e.g., quality circles, employee involvement programs) in many organizations.

9
Thus, the literature suggests that when or- hypothesized that both PEU and PDM would

ganization members participate in decisions, they account for variance in perceptions of fairness in

see the, results of those decisions as more just. personnel decisions.

Workers who participate (or at least perceive

themselves as doing so) with their managers in MErHOD

making decisions, in comparison to those who do

not, are likely to perceive fairness in personnel FAA personnel (N=357) in three field

decisions, because they receive and give informa- facilities voluntarily participated in a one-time

tion used in decision-making. research study. Perceptions of fair personnel

decisions (equity) were measured by 3 items

PERCEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL tapping promotion, selection, reward, and recogUNCERTAINTY 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 7

circumstances 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-point

ty (PEU; Duncan, 1972; Milliken, 1987). As Likert-type scale (1 = not at all; 5 = to a very

noted by Bourgeois (1980), PEU has been a great extent). Scales were scored high for faircentral 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). The

three most common operational definitions of RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PEU have been: (a) an inability to accurately

anticipate 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) were

information 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 utility

of 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 indibeen well documented (cf. Milliken, 1987). cated that the addition of the PEU scores to the

equation predicting equity scores added variance

Workers 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 experiences

dis.onance from having less information. In other Confirming our hypotheses, these data indiwords, individuals experiencing uncertainty may cated that PDM and PEU contributed unique

be likely to perceive less equity both in personnel variance to the explanation of equity. As in other

decisions, because they may be lik,1y to perceive experimental research (cf. Bies, 1987), these data

greater uncertainty in how those decisions are suggested that when individuals participated in

made, as well as in decisions made about other decision-making, they saw the results. of personaspects of the organizational context. nel decisions as more just. Employees who

participated (or at least perceived themselves as

The present study examined employee per- doing so) with their managers in making decisceptions of participation in decision-making and ions, in comparison to those who did not, may

environmental uncertainty as predictors of per- have perceived fairness in personnel decisions

ceptions 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? (M

2.64, 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 coworkers 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 valid

employee 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 the

employee 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 or

organizational 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 these

changes 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 superin decision-iaking in other areas of their work. visory positions.

Similarly, employees experiencing uncertainty

may 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 method

group apparently had less information about variance and individual-level characteristics, such

organizational events. In other words, employees as level in the organization, performance ratings,

experiencing uncertainty may have perceived less and personality. Moreover, our sample was small

equity in personnel decisions, because they and may not be representative. Future research

perceived greater uncertainty in how decisions should: (a) attempt to replicate these results in

were made in this area and other parts of the different settings, (b) specifically examine the

organization, extent of the impact of PDM on equity perceptions, (c) investigate the impact of other "inforAs 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 in

performance evaluation process," it is likely that overall decisions versus participation in the

a major component of expressions of negative assessment of one's performance, and (e) identify

attitudes about the organization is based on means to reduce method variance in situations

perceptions of injustice. In line with Kanfer, where the type of perceptions of work-related

Sawyer, Earley, and Lind's (1987) finding that issues discussed in the present paper are of

individuals who were given the opportunity to interest. As noted by Nogradi and Koch (1981),

provide information about their performance the provision of additional opportunities for

prior to the performance evaluation perceived decision-making for personnel who are involved

more fairness in the evaluation, our data suggest in fewer than desired decisions is extremely

that work and performance-related information important from an organizational perspective.

may play a role in understanding and perceiving Personnel who are decisionally deprived typically

the fairness of personnel decisions. By including have less favorable job attitudes. "Allowing such

employees in decision-making processes and/or individuals to move toward a decisional equidescribing how decisions are made, managers librium state must be a high priority for the

may promote employee perceptions of justice manager" (Nogradi & Koch, 1981, p. 157).

(equity) in the organization and thus facilitate Optimally, managers should monitor the actual

favorable organizational outcomes, such as job and preferred levels of participation to avoid

satisfaction. 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 of

likely enhance perceptions of fairness. This decisional saturation is at the senior administrastrategy has been employed in the FAA Super- tive level and the highest level of decisional

visory Identification and Development Program deprivation is at the supervisor level. They

in 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). Medcourse, 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 capinformation and PDM as antecedents of or- abilities and degree of employee participaganizational 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 multiple

understanding work tasks (Niehoff, Enz, & regression! correlation analysis for the beGrover, 1990), have been empirically identified, havioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence

some managers avoid PDM and sharing informa- Earlbaum.

tion. Some managers may do so because they do

not know how to collaborate With their workers, Cohen, R. L. (1985). Procedural justice and

while 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 thought

about 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 Diverse

to indicate that efforts to increase PDM (as ap- forms and different outcomes. Academy of

propriate) 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 JourAdams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding nal, 18, 562-578.

of equity. Journal of Abnormal and

Social Psychology, 67, 422-436. Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived enArgyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual vironmental uncertainty. Administrative

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

ley.

Greenberg, J. (1986a). Organizational perforBies, 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 on

judgments. 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 of

vironment: A conceptual integration, organizational performance evaluations. In

Academy of Management Review, 5, 25- H. W. Bierhoff, R. L. Cohen, & J. Green39. 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 generjustice, 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 attitudes 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 Management Journal, 30, 798-807. Nogradi, G. S., & Koch, S. A. (1981). The

relationship between decisional participation

Jackson, S. E. (1983). Participation in ",ecision and commitment to the organization, cornmaking as a strategy for reducing jo.,-related munity, and profession among municipal

strain. 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 organizaaccuracy of performance evaluation. Journal tional effectiveness. Administrative Science

of 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, differentiation

of 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). Parganizatlon and environment. Boston: Har- ticipation in decision-making. In E.A. Locke

yard. (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 the

Gudy of fairness in social relationships. In Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural

K. 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: Plenum

Press.

Leventhal, G.S., Karuza, J. Jr., & Fry, W.R.

(1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.), Justice

and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New

York: Springer-Verlag.

14

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