Journal of Labor Research

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 379–401 | Cite as

Employee participation and assessments of support for organizational policy changes

  • Susan Schwochau
  • John Delaney
  • Paul Jarley
  • Jack Fiorito


We examine the effects of participation, profit sharing, and participation program structure on managerial assessments of employee support for policy changes. Evidence suggests that managers perceived greater support from employees covered by participation or profit-sharing programs than from other employees. Findings also suggest that managers perceived greater support where a larger percentage of employees were involved in the participation program, where employees had input on a larger number of issues, and where employees had a greater amount of authority to implement their recommendations.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Applebaum, Eileen, and Rosemary Batt. The New American Workplace. Ithaca, N.Y.: ILR Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Coch, Lester, and John R.P. French. “Overcoming Resistance to Change.” Human Relations 1(1948): 512–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations. Fact-finding Report. Washington, D.C.: Department of Labor, 1994.Google Scholar
  4. Conte, Michael A., and Jan Svejnar. “Productivity Effects of Worker Participation in Management, Profit-Sharing, Worker Ownership of Assets, and Unionization in U.S. Firms.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 6 (March 1988): 139–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooke, WilliamN. “Factors Influencing the Effect of Joint Union-Management Programs on Employee-Supervisor Relations.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (July 1990): 587–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. — “Product Quality Improvement Through Employee Participation: The Effects of Unionization and Joint Union-Management Administration.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46 (October 1992): 119–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — “Employee Participation Programs, Group-Based Incentives and Company Performance: A Union-Nonunion Comparison.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47 (July 1994): 594–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cotton, John L., David A. Vollrath, Kirk L. Froggatt, Mark L. Lengnick-Hall, and Kenneth R. Jennings. “Employee Participation: Diverse Forms and Different Outcomes.” Academy of Management Review 13 (January 1988): 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crampton, Suzanne M., and John A. Wagner, III. “Percept-Percept Inflation in Microorganizational Research: An Investigation of Prevalence and Effect.” Journal of Applied Psychology 79 (February 1995): 67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dachler, H. Peter, and Bernhard Wilpert. “Conceptual Dimensions and Boundaries of Participation in Organizations: A Critical Evaluation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (March 1978): 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Delaney, John Thomas, David Lewin, and Casey Ichniowski. Human Resource Policies and Practices in American Firms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, 1989.Google Scholar
  12. Dickens, William T., Lawrence F. Katz, Kevin Lang, and Lawrence H. Summers. “Employee Crime and the Monitoring Puzzle.” Journal of Labor Economics 7 (July 1989): 331–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eaton, Adrienne E. “The Survival of Employee Participation Programs in Unionized Settings.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47 (April 1994): 371–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eaton, Adrienne E. “The Extent and Determinants of Local Union Control of Participative Programs.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 43 (July 1990): 604–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Eaton, Adrienne E, and Paula B. Voos. “Unions and Contemporary Innovations in Work Organization, Compensation, and Employee Participation.” In Advances in Industrial and Labor Relations, Vol. 6. Edited by David Lewin and Donna Sockell. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1994, pp. 63–110.Google Scholar
  16. Goll, Irene. “Environment, Corporate Ideology, and Involvement Programs.” Industrial Relations 30 (Winter 1991): 138–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huselid, Mark A. “The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity and Corporate Financial Performance.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (June 1995): 635–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Judge, George G., W.E. Griffiths, R. Carter Hill, Helmut Lütkepohl, and Tsoung-Chao Lee. The Theory and Practice of Econometrics. Second Edition. New York: Wiley, 1985.Google Scholar
  19. Kandel, Eugene, and Edward P. Lazear. “Peer Pressure and Partnerships.” Journal of Political Economy 100 (August 1992): 801–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. The Roots of Corporate Progressivism: How and Why Corporations Respond to Changing Societal Needs and Expectations. Report submitted to the Russell-Sage Foundation, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. Kochan, Thomas A., Robert B. McKersie, and John Chalykoff. “The Effects of Corporate Strategy and Workplace Innovations on Union Representation.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 39 (July 1986): 487–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kokkelenberg, Edward C, and Donna Sockell. “Union Membership in the United States, 1973-1981.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 38 (July 1985): 497–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kossek, Ellen Ernst. “The Acceptance of Human Resource Innovation by Multiple Constituencies.” Personnel Psychology 42 (Summer 1989): 263–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kruse, Douglas L. Profit Sharing: Does It Make a Difference? Kalamazoo, Mich.: Upjohn Institute, 1993.Google Scholar
  25. Leana, Carrie R., and Gary W. Florkowski. “Employee Involvement Programs: Integrating Psychological Theory and Management Practice.” In Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 10. Edited by Gerald R. Ferris and Kendrith M. Rowland. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1992, pp. 233–70.Google Scholar
  26. Levine, David I. Reinventing the Workplace: How Business and Employees Can Both Win. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. —, and Laura D'Andrea Tyson. “Participation, Productivity, and the Firm's Environment.” In Paying for Productivity. Edited by Alan S. Blinder. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990, pp. 183–237.Google Scholar
  28. Lewin, David, and Richard B. Peterson. The Modern Grievance Procedure in the United States. New York: Quorum Books, 1988.Google Scholar
  29. Locke, Edwin A., and David M. Schweiger. “Participation in Decision Making: One More Look.” In Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 1. Edited by Barry Staw. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1979, pp. 265–339.Google Scholar
  30. Miller, KatherineI., and Peter R. Monge. “Participation, Satisfaction, and Productivity: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Academy of Management Journal 29 (December 1986): 727–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell, Daniel J.B., David Lewin, and Edward E. Lawler, III. “Alternative Pay Systems, Firm Performance, and Productivity.” In Paying for Productivity. Edited by Alan S. Blinder. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990, pp. 15–88.Google Scholar
  32. Neumann, Jean E. “Why People Don't Participate in Organizational Change.” In Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 3. Edited by Richard W. Woodman and William A. Pasmore. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1989, pp. 181–212.Google Scholar
  33. Osterman, Paul. “How Common is Workplace Transformation and Who Adopts It?” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 47 (January 1994): 173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pasmore, William A., and Mary R. Fagans. “Participation, Individual Development, and Organizational Change: A Review and Synthesis.” Journal of Management 18 (June 1992): 375–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Peters, Thomas J., and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. In Search of Excellence. New York: Harper and Row, 1982.Google Scholar
  36. Schweiger, David M., and Carrie R. Leana. “Participation in Decision Making.” In Generalizing from Laboratory to Field Settings. Edited by Edwin A. Locke. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, 1986, pp. 147–66.Google Scholar
  37. Scully, Judith A., Shelley A. Kirkpatrick, and Edwin A. Locke. “Locus of Knowledge as a Determinant of the Effects of Participation on Performance, Affect and Perceptions.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Performance 61 (March 1995): 276–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strauss, George. “Participatory and Gain-Sharing Systems: History and Hope.” In Profit Sharing and Gain Sharing. Edited by Myron J. Roomkin. Metuchen, N.J.: Scarecrow Press, 1990, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
  39. Voos, Paula B. “Managerial Perceptions of the Economic Impact of Labor Relations Programs.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 40 (January 1987): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wagner, John A., III. “Participation's Effect on Performance and Satisfaction: A Reconsideration of Research Evidence.” Academy of Management Review 19(April 1994): 312–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. —, III., and Richard Z. Gooding. “Effects of Societal Trends on Participation Research.” Administrative Science Quarterly 32 (June 1987a): 241–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. —. “Shared Influence and Organizational Behavior: A Meta-Analysis of Situational Variables Expected to Moderate Participation-Outcome Relationships.” Academy of Management Journal 30 (September 1987b): 524–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Weitzman, Martin L., and Douglas L. Kruse. “Profit Sharing and Productivity.” In Paying for Productivity. Edited by Alan S. Blinder. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1990, pp. 95–141.Google Scholar
  44. Williamson, Oliver E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press, 1985.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Schwochau
    • 1
  • John Delaney
    • 2
  • Paul Jarley
    • 3
  • Jack Fiorito
    • 4
  1. 1.University of IowaIowa City
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa City
  3. 3.Louisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge
  4. 4.Florida State UniversityTallahassee

Personalised recommendations