power in organizations || power and participation in two school environments

Power and Participation in Two School EnvironmentsAuthor(s): Kerstin KiesslerSource: International Studies of Management & Organization, Vol. 7, No. 1, Power inOrganizations (Spring, 1977), pp. 33-46Published by: M.E. Sharpe, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40396810 .

Accessed: 17/06/2014 20:16

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

M.E. Sharpe, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Studiesof Management &Organization.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.163 on Tue, 17 Jun 2014 20:16:58 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mes

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40396810?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


POWER AND PARTICIPATION IN TWO SCHOOL ENVIRONMENTS

Kerstin Kiessler (Federal Republic of Germany)

A Field Experiment in Group Decision-making

Results of small-group research are as often used to demonstrate the superiority of hierarchical structures in organizations (1) as of equalitarian structures. (2) Doubting the external validity of many laboratory experiments on power and participation in small groups, we decided to investigate the effects of group structure in a field setting. In particular, we were interested in the influence of the power distribution in small, task-oriented groups on their productivity and on the satisfaction and the amount of learning success of group members (Kiessler and Scholl, 1976).

As we expected organizational impacts on group processes, we tried to simulate experimentally different organizational patterns, which should produce distinct group structures. But being ourselves in the experimental tradition of sociopsycho-

This article is abstracted from Kerstin Kiessler and Wolf- gang Schoirs book Partizipation und Macht in aufgabenorientierten Gruppen [ Participation and Power in Task-oriented Groups]. Frankfurt/Main: Haag und Herchen Verlag, 1976.

Dr. Kerstin Kiessler is Research Assistant, Institut für angewandte Sozialforschung, University of Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany.

33



34 Kerstin Kiessler (FRG)

logical thinking, we neglected a potential influence of the research site on the results of group processes. This means that, in comparison with traditional laboratory experimenting, we may have gained more valid data on the behavior of group members in their normal environment, but we did not take into account a specific aspect of the influence of this environment on group members' behavior. This taking the context as a constant is usually done in laboratory as well as in field experiments and seldom needs to be questioned, since systematic context variations are very rare in this kind of research. By chance we were forced to vary the context, which led to con- siderable alteration of our original model and to a revision of traditional theories about small groups.

First I shall outline our original model, combining arguments of the "human-relations" tradition (e.g., Likert, 1961; McGregor, 1960), the "power" tradition of Tannenbaum (1968) and others, and the "human resources" hypotheses of a special branch of the Tavistock Institute with some findings based on small-group research (especially Collins and Guetzkow, 1964).

The starting point of this original model is the consideration that groups need an organizational structure in order to use their resources fully. (3) In the "human resources" tradition (4), we assume that those groups would be most effective in using their resources whose organizational structure en- courages equal participation of all members, because only this structure will guarantee that powerful members cannot prevent less powerful members from making potentially valu- able contributions. Power equalization is also seen as a pre- requisite of a good group atmosphere, because it makes for less dissatisfaction of the group members in lower positions. (5) Consequently, we manipulated the (group-external) variable "formal distribution of influence" in order to test the model in the accompanying figure.

The experimental task was the management game "Delphi," a computerized wholesale game. In the first part of the experiment, 13 groups of 6 students each from a Fachhochschule par- ticipated as part of a regular course in Business Administra-



Power and Participation in Two Schools 35

Variables and hypotheses Measurement: Subjective = questionnaire

responses Objective = objective measures

Formal distribution Treatment (2 levels) External stimuli of influence 1. Hierarchical

I 2. Equalizing

Differentiation of ■*-- Standard deviation of

Power differences --J Standard deviation of indi- _ I vidual values (subj.) v J ' Reactions _ in v J '

interpersonal I relations _ --►Use of individual ■ Mean of individual

| resources values (subj.)

, Î + Group atmosphere: Group atmosphere 1 v mean of members' ratings (subj.)

A + Learning Learning success: ¡ success mean of individual values (obj.)

"Assembly + J + effect bonus" '-- Group productivity Game results: combined (see Collins and ' *• indices (obj.) Guetzkow, 1964)

Model to be tested in the experiments. Solid arrows represent direct relationships; dotted- line arrows represent feedback relationships.

tion. The experiment had been planned for more groups, but because of unforeseen events, these groups were not available at the same school. In order to obtain a statistically sufficient number of groups, we therefore were forced to replicate the experiment in a second school, in this case a Wirtschafts- gymnasium. We shall call the first school Context A and the second, Context B. In the second school, six groups partici- pated.

We took great care to find subjects in Context B who would be comparable with those in Context A, although this is harder in the field than in the laboratory. Finally, we thought subject homogeneity to be assured because:

- The subjects were of about the same age (17-20).




- The subjects were thought to have nearly the same amount of knowledge of economics, necessary to participate in the management game.

- Both sites of experimentation (= contexts) were institutions of education, but differed in their location in the German education system: Context A was a Fachhochschule, that is, a German form of college, granting, after three years of studies, degrees for technical and applied knowledge in economics or engineering; Context B was a Wirtschaftsgymnasium, prepar- ing students in the last years of their secondary school (6) to study economics at the university. As will be shown later on, these assumptions did not secure a homogeneous population in all relevant aspects.

In both studies the management game consisted of seven periods and was played within four days - time enough for the experimentally matched groups to become "real" groups. The manipulated variable "formal distribution of influence" repre- sented the "treatment." The treatment was either a simulated formal hierarchical power structure typically found in business organizations or a pattern of power equalization obtained in our attempt to allocate an equal amount of power to every group member. (7) The different forms of treatment were introduced through a combination of the following five compo- nents:

1. The organization chart set the formal structure and assigned the subjects to different positions.

2. The accessibility of information was varied. In the hierarchical structure, people in higher positions got more information than those in lower positions. In the equalizing structure, the information was distributed among the group members in such a way that they were informationally dependent on each other: every member had certain exclusive informa- tional resources at his disposal.

3. Working and decision rules reinforced either typically hierarchical or equalitarian modes of decision-making.

4. In the equalizing treatment, individual decisions had to be made before a group decision was reached, in order to




make sure that all members were equally engaged in the problem-solving process.

5. In the hierarchical treatment, members were assigned to positions based on previous test results. To simulate the recruiting of top personnel in business organizations, higher positions were given to those who displayed a higher degree of intelligence and/or emotional stability and/or motivation [ directiveness] . (8)

Results of the Experiment

From the 19 groups that played the game, 4 had to be ex- cluded from the analysis (1 because it ended up with only 4 members, and 3 because they were run with a "neutral" level of treatment that was not available for Context B and therefore had to be dropped). The success of the treatment was measured by a questionnaire that every participant completed after the end of the game. It proved reasonably successful. The differences in power distribution (as indicator of the power structure) between the hierarchical and the equalizing level of treatment were significant, though not as great as had been expected. Of seven groups with hierarchical treatment, five produced questionnaire results of above-average differentiation of power and participation among members; of eight groups with equalizing treatment, seven produced questionnaire results of below-average differentiation of power and participation.

The original plan was to use one-way analyses of variance to test the effect of the treatment levels on the dependent variables. A first comparison of means, however, revealed re- markable differences in the reactions of subjects in Context A and Context B. Thus, we had to introduce "context" as a second dimension and to perform two-way analyses of variance. The results for seven dependent variables are summarized in Table 1.

I shall not discuss here our finding the popular hypothesis of a positive relationship between a certain group structure




(either hierarchical or egalitarian) and group productivity false, since our results might be equally due to specific traits of our group task. (9)

Table 1

Two-way Analyses of Variance for Seven Dependent Variables(i)

Factor Dependent Treatment Context Interaction variable (T) (C) (T x C)

Power differences s.Q?) n.s.(?) n.s.

Use of resources s. s. s. Group atmosphere n.s. s. s.

Cohesion^) n.s. n.s. s. Power (total amount of power per group)(i) n.s. s. s.

Group productivity n.s. n.s. n.s. Learning success n.s. n.s. n.s.

1) Means and F values are presented in Kiessler and Scholl (1976), Chapter 4.1.1.1.

2) s. Significant at the 5% level; n.s. - not significant. 3) The variable "Cohesion" is not contained in our model;

we included this index (see Schutz, 1958) in our questionnaire in order to validate our group-atmosphere indicator (see Fiedler, 1967).

4) Originally we were not interested in the total amount of power per group, but in the power differences within each group, so that we took as indicator the standard deviation of individual values. In addition, we computed the total amount of power in order to test Tannenbaum^ hypothesis that the total amount of power varies positively with power equalization in groups.




The most important finding is the dominance of context and interaction effects. Table 1 shows that only two of seven treatment effects were statistically significant, whereas three context and four interaction effects proved to be significant.

These results point to the existence of different patterns of interrelationship among the variables in each contextunder study.

An examination of correlations among the variables revealed three clusters that were positively interconnected in both con-

texts; these clusters seem to form general phenomena, invariant under context influences.

- The first of these clusters is formed by a positive interrelationship between the degree of member participation and the amount of members' power.

- The second cluster groups around the variable Ttgroup productivity. " In both contexts we found - as expected - slight, positive inter correlations between TTgroup productivity" and "individual

learning success." - The third of these clusters groups around the variable

Mgroup atmosphere." We found strong positive intercorrela- tions among the variables "group atmosphere," "member

satisfaction," "cohesion," "total amount of power per group," and "use of resources." These results also give further support to Schachter and co-workers' (1951) well-known hypothesis that group cohesion enhances the chances of group members' influencing each other and to Tannenbaume statement that the total amount of power in groups parallels the degree of member satisfaction (Tannenbaum, 1968). Finally, these results

support the "group dynamic " approaches maintaining that a good group climate has "social facilitating effects" (Zajonc, 1965), allowing group members to make full use of their resources without fear of any sanctions from each other (see, for ex-

ample, Schutz, 1973). We did not, however , find the expected relationship between the

"power -participation" cluster and the "group-atmosphere" cluster.

Although many other investigations on this subject report significant positive relationships between the degree of member participation and group atmosphere, we have not found a




significant effect of hierarchical vs. equalizing treatment on group atmosphere in either direction, at least if we do not take the school context into account at the same time. If we do, we notice that in Context A the differences in group atmosphere follow the predicted direction, while groups in Con- text B reveal differences in just the opposite direction. Finally, groups in Context B generally report a worse group atmosphere. The relevant questionnaire scores are shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Means of Group Atmosphere Scores

Treatment Context Hierarchical Equalizing

A 0.217 0.274 n = 4 n = 5

B 0.126 -1.099 n = 3 n = 3

The following effects are significant: Context: F (df 1.11) = 6.00; P < 0.05. Interaction (Treatment x Context) F (df 1.11) = 4.86; P < 0.05.

The interaction between structural variables (participation patterns) and aspects of group processes (group atmosphere) points to environmental influences, which prevents any further assumption that there is an invariant, general interrelationship between any kind of participation pattern and the degree of member satisfaction.

Before discussing the theoretical significance of these context and interaction effects, I shall attempt an ad hoc explana- tion of our findings.




Contrary to our expectation, students in Context A turned out to have more knowledge of economics than students in Con- text B. Hence, for the former, the management game was a challenging and motivating task, while for the latter it seemed to be a rather difficult task. Moreover, the two institutions differed in educational style: students in Context A had more opportunity for self-directed studies and were more accustomed to teamwork. For students in Context B, the combination of these factors created an unpleasant situation. The additional task of coping with the unusual equalitarian group structure made the situation even more ambiguous and unstructured, so that they became generally dissatisfied with it, the task, and their group. On the other hand, hierarchical relations were a familiar pattern of interaction and did not cause additional dis- turbances, but decreased the ambiguity of the situation.

A prolonged training phase in equalitarian teamwork would have been necessary, but was not introduced as, initially, we feared that training and treatment would be confounded.

Conclusion: The Dependence of Group Processes on Organizational Environments

The central theoretical premise of our investigation, that group processes are dependent on organizational environments, has been confirmed - though in another way than expected: We tried to simulate different intra-òrganizational environments by experimental manipulation, but we neglected the real environment of the research sites, i.e., the educational institutions in which the experiments took place.

As our original design did not take into account a possible influence of context, we failed to measure traits of the environment external to the experiment. Certainly the site of the research was carefully chosen, but then it was taken as a constant without consideration of systematic context variations.

By changing the experimental setting in the second case we discovered environmental effects usually not recognized as a problem in small-group theories. To our knowledge, only




Hackman and Vidmar (1970) have reported a similar finding from an experiment about group size and task type on group productivity. They found out that the place of investigation, Yale University vs. the University of Illinois, accounted for more variation in the data than treatment did. Vidmar and Hackman (1971) were confident that they had done everything to guarantee constant experimental conditions. They explain the results mainly by differences in the student population of Yale and the University of Illinois and by different modes of student recruitment.

In the light of the results of Hackman and Vidmar and of our own study, one might arrive at the radical conclusion that the results of most group experiments cannot be generalized, because we always have to reckon with differences in the population of universities, schools, and other preferred research sites.

In order to enhance external validity of small- group research on participation, it seems worthwhile to look for meaningful differences in organizational contexts that could account for differences in group processes. Once discovered, these environmental variables could be systematically varied in order to de- termine their influence on group variables.

Our findings suggest an interaction among the context variables: educational style of the schools, difficulty of the task, and interaction pattern preferred by group members. It turned out that a traditional hierarchical structure was preferred by members not accustomed to teamwork and expecting to be told what to do, who, moreover, initially felt the task to be too difficult for them. A structure of equal participation opportunity, on the other hand, was preferred by members recruited from a school that encouraged teamwork and self-direction among its students. In this context, however, in which the task was perceived as difficult enough to be motivating, but not too difficult to be frustrating, hierarchical structures were considered dys- functional to optimal problem-solving.

Generally, these findings suggest the investigation of the impact of the following organizational dimensions on group processes:




- The educational or (more generally stated) the managerial style of organizations. In particular, we are interested in the amount of self-direction expected of organization members and the extent to which they are accustomed to teamwork. Probably these traits of the organization influence the motivation of the individuals and their attitudes toward participation.

- Moreover, we propose to take into account the reward style of an organization. It is likely that only rewards for col- lective performance will encourage participatory patterns of group decision-making, whereas rewards for individual performance will further hierarchical structures in groups.

- Finally, the interaction of the above-mentioned organizational dimensions with the perceived complexity of the task is to be taken into account. We assume that whenever group members feel a task to be too complex, they prefer traditional patterns of group organization, that is, structures normally found in their organizational environment.

These considerations lead us to the conclusion that the optimal internal structure of groups depends on their specific environment. This interpretation comes close to the so-called "contingency approach." (10) Contingency theories presuppose that the effectiveness of the structure of social systems depends on their ability to adapt to their environment.

As our findings demonstrate, it is impossible to design optimal group structures for all possible organizational contexts. Conse- quently, there are no arguments in general for or against particular forms of group work or for or against participation and power equalization. Such technologies should not be offered as a general device, but only with reference to the specific conditions under which groups operate.

Notes

1) Evidence was drawn mainly from the results of experiments with communication networks in the Bavelas-Leavitt tradition.

2) Arguments in favor of equalitarian structures are based on experiments with leadership styles in the Lewin-Lippitt- White tradition.




3) See, for example, Guetzkow and Simon (1955), who dem- onstrated experimentally the superiority of groups that had been able to organize themselves according to the needs of their tasks.

4) See Miles (1965) and Heller (1969, 1971). 5) On the relationship between power and satisfaction, see

Tannenbaum (1968). 6) In Germany, 13 years of elementary and secondary

school are necessary to get an entrance certificate to a university.

7) A third treatment representing "neutral" conditions was planned, but later dropped.

8) In a pretest, intelligence was measured by the Leis- tungsprüf-System (Horn); emotional stability, by the Freiburger Personality Inventory; and motivation [directiveness], by a test developed by Bastine (1969).

9) Possible explanations are discussed in Kiessler and Scholl (1976), Chapter 4.1.1.3.

10) See, for example, Hickson et al. (1971), Child (1972), Hinings et al. (1974), Pennings (1975), and Fiedler (1964), who coined the term for use with small groups, but did not systematically vary organizational dimensions.

References

Bastine, R. (1969) "Untersuchungen zur Direktiven Einstellung1 von Lehrern und Konstruktion eines Fragebogens." Disser- tation. Hamburg.

Child, J. (1972) "Organizational Structure and Strategies of Control: A Replication of the Aston Study." Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 163-77.

Collins, B. E., and Guetzkow, H. (1964) A Social Psychology of Group Processes for Decision-Making. New York: Wiley.

Fiedler, F. E. (1964) "A Contingency Model of Leadership Ef- fectiveness." In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experi- mental Social Psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Academic Press.




Fiedler, F. E. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Guetzkow, H., and Simon, H. A. (1955) "The Impact of Certain Communication Nets upon Organization and Performance in Task-Oriented Groups." Management Science, 1^ 233-50.

Hackman, R. J., and Vidmar, N. (1970) "Effects of Size and Task Type on Group Performance and Member Reactions." Sociometry, 33, 37-54.

Heller, F. A. (1969) "The Managerial Role in the Effective Use of Resources." The Journal of Management Studies, 6, 1-14.

Heller, F. A. (1971) Managerial Decision-Making. A Study of Leadership Styles and Power-Sharing among Senior Man- agers. London: Tavistock.

Hickson, D. J., Hinings, C. R., Lee, C. A., Schneck, R. E., and Pennings, J. M. (1971) "A Strategic Contingencies Theory of Intraorganizational Power." Administrative Science Quarterly, 16, 216-29.

Hinings, C. R., Hickson, D. J., Pennings, J. M., and Schneck, R. E. (1974) "Structural Conditions of Intraorganizational Power." Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 22-44.

Kiessler, K., and Scholl, W. (1976) Partizipation und Macht in aufgabenorientierten Gruppen. Frankfurt /Main: Haag und Herchen Verlag.

Likert, R. (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

McGregor, D. M. (1960) The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miles, R. E. (1965) "Human Relations or Human Resources?" Harvard Business Review, 43, 148-63.

Pennings, J. M. (1975) "The Relevance of the Structural Con- tingency Model for Organizational Effectiveness." Adminis- trative Science Quarterly, 20, 393-410.

Schachter, S., EUertson, N., McBride, D., and Gregory, D. (1951) "An Experimental Study of Cohesiveness and Produc- tivity." Human Relations, 4, 229-38.

Schutz, W. C. (1958) Firo. A Three -Dimensional Theory of Interpersonal Behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.




Schutz, W. C. (1973) Joy. Expanding Human Awareness. Har- mondsworth: Penguin. (Originally published in 1967.)

Tannenbaum, A. S. (1968) Control in Organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Vidmar, N., and Hackman, R. J. (1971) trInter laboratory Gener- alizability of Small Group Research. An Experimental Study. " Journal of Social Psychology, 83, 129-39.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965) "Social Facilitation." Science, 149, 269-74.



power in organizations || power and participation in two school environments

Documents