College and Research Libraries LOUIS KAPLAN The Literature of Participation: From Optimism to Realism Likert, whose New Patterns of Management appeared in 1.961, saw participation as· a remedy for those twin ailments suffered by employ- ees in hierarchical organizations: poor performance and tensions. Less optimistic have been recent writers on management. The conditions that facilitate better performance and fewer tensions are not fully understood. Often, there is no positive relationship between job satis- faction and improved performance. And for those who are invited to participate but do not wish to, participation can be a source of tension. THE LITERATURE OF PARTICIPATION IN MANAGEMENT is ·enormous, consisting mainly of reports of experiments and observations made by social scientists in complex organizations. Only a few ex- amples of this literature are cited in this essay, with emphasis on those that illustrate my thesis. (The literature dis- cussed is listed in a bibliography at the end of this article.) Most of these studies have been ·con- ducted in organizations other than li- braries, yet all have relevance for librar- ians because complex organizations have much in common: their structure is hierarchical; they tend to adopt bureau- cratic practices, such as the writing down of regulations; they employ an advanced technology, such as the use of computers and other mechanized equip- ment; and many of those employed in the organization are specialists. The thesis of this essay is that the optimism with respect · to participation that marked Likert's New Patterns of Louis Kaplan is professor in the Library School, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Management1 has been succeeded by a more realistic outlook. This greater realism stems from at least three fac- tors: theoretical formulations have come under suspicion or have had to be rejected; more variables are receiving consideration than when Likert wrote his book; and there is fear on the part of some social scientists that they have been working with imprecise definitions and unreliable instruments of measure- ment.2 Despite the new realism, participation remains an important tool of manage- ment. Though participation is easily misunderstood, is costly to introduce properly, and sometimes has led to ex- pectations that cannot be met, its use by management in the United States (and elsewhere) has grown; in fact, to a large number of managers participation is old hat, except that managemenf s un- derstanding of participation is seldom the same as Likert's. This is not surpris- ing, because there are various answers to the question Who participates and when? Likert recognized only two styles of management, namely, "authoritative" /473 474 I College & Research Libraries • November 1975 and "participative." Included in the former was the "consultative," even though Likert admitted that there was in this style "quite a bit" of "interac- tion and communication,'' and that "specific decisions at lower levels" were permitted.3 He . believed that manage- ment should be dyadic; that is, manage- ment and its employees should share decision making .in approximately equal amounts. Management in these circum- stances would not need to use its veto power. Delegation of decision making · (which is nondyadic) would not be practiced. Likert chose to omit discussion · of in- dividual personality differences, even though these differences largely deter- mine whether an employee will accept or reject the offer of participation; only a few ·years · later, Vroom demonstrated the · importance of personality in his widely acclaimed book, Work and M o- tivation.4 Nor did Likert concern him- self with organizational variables (such as the state of technology), to which much attention has been given in recent years. As for Likert's "either or" view of management style, many writers now believe that there is no one best style of management for every situation. WHAT Is PARTICIPATION? Participation can be conceived as a process in which power or influence is shared. This . is accomplished mainly through the making of decisions in which various levels of management and employees engage. When participa- tion is so viewed, management has alter- natives beyond the democratic and the autocratic; rather, there is . available to it a continuum of alternatives lying within the two managerial styles. Among the alternatives that can be viewed as par- ticipative, there is delegation. Another is consultation, which sometimes takes the form of seeking recommendations. With delegation and consultation the degree of participation runs high when the veto power is seldom exercised. Participation and hierarchy are not necessarily hostile. According to one model, the "process shifts the locus of some decisions downward in this dyadic organizational segment, from superior to subordinate."5 Within hierarchical structures there are considerable differ- ences in morale, rewards, and the growth of individual responsibility. The measurement of these and of re- lated factors leads to the determination of the hierarchical -gradient. Two orga- nizations with identical structures can nevertheless be marked by differences in gradient. 6 Who participates and when is of ob- vious importance to an understanding of participation. On this point, Follett, who wrote in the 1920s, argued that everybody should take part in decision making, but each according to his ca- pacity. Follett sought to downgrade the hierarchical element by insisting that "authority and responsibility go with function and not .with a certain posi- tion at the top of the chart." What was desirable, said Follett, was a "diffusion" of authority, but it was not simply a matter of how much control manage- ment was willing to surrender; equally important was the extent to which em- ployees could assume responsibility. 7 Participation is not necessarily tied to hierarchy. Representatives who are elect- ed or appointed may come together to act on organization-wide matters. The same is true of committees that are out~ side the hierarchy. In either example, we assume that those who act as repre- sentatives possess· the authority and knowledge to deal with matters appro- priate to their purview. PARTICIPATION AMONG MANAGERS According to Heller, who studied senior managers and the managers who reported directly to them, senior man~ agers made 36 percent of their decisions unilaterally. If we disregard the Likert model and count all other decisions as participative, including delegation, we come to the conclusion that these 260 managers in . fifteen large California firms permitted some degree of sharing in the making of 64 percent of their decisions. However, only 20 percent of their decisions fit the Likert model. With respect to about 50 percent of the decisions; Heller claimed that a ccsub- stantial" amount of sharing had been permitted.8 What conditions are favorable to sharing? In Heller~s view, sharing will be permitted when the skills of the sub- ordinate manager are perceived by the senior as c'similar" to his own. The more experienced managers, to Heller's sur- prise, tend to avoid delegation and uni- lateral decisions. The more important the decision is to the organization the more likely it is that the · senior manager will act unilaterally. Where the ccspan" of control is great, the senior managers are apt to make unilateral decisions, ·or to delegate. 9 Such studies make possible the opin- ion that celt makes more sense to talk about participative and autocratic situa- tions than it does to talk about partici- pative and autocratic managers."10 One important "situation" is hierarchical level; according to a study by Blanken- ship and Miles, 85 percent of high-level managers said they had a considerable degree of autonomy, compared with 38 percent of those in mid-level manage- ment and 20 percent of those in the lowest levels of management.11 pARTICIPATION, JOB SATISFACTION, AND PERFORMANCE Because so much has been written about job satisfaction and performance in relation t0 participation, this discus- sion must be limited· to those authors who have summarized the evidence. The two whose viewpoints are here presented Literature of Participation I 475 illustrate the · contradictory evidence that is encountered. ·Blumberg, who regards job satisfaction as no less important an ·outcome than good performance, argues that "There is hardly a study in the en- tire literature which fails to demon- strate that satisfaction in work is en- hanced or that other generally acknowl- edged beneficial consequences accrue from a genuine increase in workers' de- cision-making power."t2 Lowin, who creates a comprehensive model by which to judge the outcome of participation, and who defines it with care, is more circumspect in his -conclusions. Lowiri distinguishes be- ·tween experimental and observational studies within organizations. The for- mer are more meaningful, he argues, and among these he differentiates be- tween the "major" and the ccminor." The minor studies, he writes, are reason- ably well defined, but methodologically imperfect. Their data are inconclusive. The major studies more nearly meet the prescriptions of the Lowin model, "yet the data are at best suggestive." He con- cludes with the argument that the effec- tiveness of participation cannot be as- certained until certain variables (per- sonal ·and organizational) are further studied.13 Job satisfaction, of course, is not sole- ly dependent upon participation, and in any event, those who stress the rela- tionship of participation to job satisfac- tion, as, for example, Blumberg, are confronted by the evidence that good performance oftentimes · is not an out- come of job satisfaction.14 ON TENSIONS IN COMPLEX ORGANIZATIONS Likert said that the outcome of par- ticipation would be a cccooperative at- titude" marked by c'mutual trust and confidence."15 Quite at variance is the view of Presthus, who tells us that the reaction to management, whether it uses sanctions, rewards, or other induce- 476 I College & Research Libraries • November 1975 ments, depends largely upon the per- sonality of the individual worker. These he classified as upward-mobiles, ambiva- lents, and indifferents. "Indifference," says Presthus, "is the typical pattern of accommodation for the majority of or- ganization men."16 Even when participa- tion is offered by management (see Flener, below), many in the organiza- tion will remain aloof. One source of conflict, of increasing interest to librarians, is collective bar- gaining. Most who have written on man- agement from the human-relations point of view tend to ignore unions, while proponents of unionism look up- on the human-relations school as among the worst enemies of unionism. Thus, Gomberg writes that the "style of per- missive management should not be con- fused with the essence of democracy, the distribution of real power."17 Writ- ing more directly to the point of ten- sion, Barbash sees both participation and unions as merely ameliorative; that is, either may serve as a means of reduc- ing tension, but each brings in its wake still additional sources of strife. To Barbash, tension is inevitable for a number of reasons, among these being the conflict between superiors and sub- ordinates and the envy that arises from differences in skills.I8 As for professionals in organizations, Blau and Scott have written that the "conflict between bureaucratic and pro- fessional orientation .. is a fundamental issue."19 Etzioni illustrates the conflict by pointing to the damage done to pro- fessional work when bureaucracies pre- vent autonomy.2o Apparently, the weight of bureaucra- cy is heavier on professionals in heter- onomous organizations than in the autonomous .. In a study by Hall we learn that doctors and lawyers serving in au- tonomous organizations are freer from authority than are librarians, nurses, and high-school teachers (typical pro- fessionals in heteronomous organiza- tions). 21 Of these three, public librari- ans experienced the greatest amount of bureaucratic repression. Not all persons in a particular profes- sional group are anxious to share in de- cision making. According to Alutto and Belasco, "teachers experiencing decision- al saturation tended to be older females teaching at elementary levels in the ur- ban district, perceiving moderate levels of role conflict and possessing moderate- ly unfavorable attitudes towards col- lective bargaining, strikes and unions."22 Among the writers who deal with par- ticipation in libraries, Marchant claims that one of the advantages of participa- tion is that group decisions "tend to be more readily accepted by the group."23 A contrary view, not specifically related to libraries, is expressed by Strauss, who cites four possible dysfunctional aspects of decision making by groups: individuals whose opinions have been rej.ected by the group may be alienated; the ex- pectations aroused by group participa- tion lead to further demands that man- agement cannot always satisfy; the pro- cess of group decision making may prove frustrating to several in the group; though participation niay bring about group cohesiveness, cohesiveness might be turned against, as well as in favor of, management.24 Bundy sees relief from tension through the formation in academic li- braries of departments modeled on those found elsewhere in academic in- stitutions. Bundy would have the chief librarian take on the functions of a dean; this would give librarians at some universities more influence in the choice of a chief librarian than they have at present. On the other hand, deans have the kind of authority ·normally assoCiat- ed with hierarchies. · As for the nonpro- fessional workers, who according to Bundy would remain in a hierarchical status, would these, feeling ·resentful, organize collective bargaining units?25 Kaser also advises freeing profession- als in libraries (though not the nonpro- fessionals) from the hierarchical struc- ture, but he comes to a. structural solu- tion different from Bundy's. Kaser would have the professionals who are ·not managers come together for the ex- press purpose of making policy; the policy made, the managerial staff would then administer it.26 This leaves un- answered the question whether top man- agement can surrender its policy-making responsibility in a heteronomous, ser- vice-type agency. And how would this affect the traditional policy-making role of faculty library committees? While Bundy and Kaser look primari- ly to the conflicts within libraries, Kap- lan considers the conflicts that arise as the result of controls applied by depart- ment heads, deans, presidents, and re- gents. · Despite these tension-producing controls, professors do enjoy consider- able discretion, mainly because there is general agreement that decisions relat- ing to "academic" affairs ought to · be delegated to the faculty. Nevertheless, the act of delegati