The Coch and French Study: A Critique and Reinterpretation

Abstract

Coch and French's interpretation of their classic (1948) study of worker participation in decision-making is questioned. It is argued that the superiority of the combined experimental groups to the control group could have been due to differences in: the way in which the job changes were explained; the manner in which the time studies were conducted; and/or the amount of additional training given. Similarly, the superiority of experimental Groups II and III to Group I could have been an artifact of differences in the amount of work available, or of differences in group size. In addition, the failure to find a difference within Group I between direct and indirect participants would seem to argue against a participation interpretation of the findings. It is suggested that the perceived fairness of the pay rates was probably the key factor in this and in some similar studies. The wider issue involved may have been organizational trust.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

BENNIS, W. G. A reply: When Democracy works. Trans-action, 1966, 3(5), 35-36.

BRAGG, J. E. , & ANDREWS, I. R. Participative decision-making: An experimental study in a hospital. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1973, 9, 727-735.

CAREY, A. The Hawthorne studies: A radical criticism. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 403-416.

COCH, L. , & FRENCH, J. R. P., Jr. Overcoming resistance to change. Human Relations, 1948, 1, 512-532.

FEIN, M. An alternative to traditional managing. Unpublished manuscript, 1977.

FLEISHMAN, E. A. Attitude versus skill factors in work group productivity. Personnel Psychology, 1965, 18, 253-266.

FRANKE, R. H. , & KAUL, J. D. The Hawthorne experiments: First statistical interpretation. American Sociological Review, 1978, 43, 623-643.

FRENCH, J. R. P. Jr. , ISRAEL, J. , & AS, D. An experiment on participation in a Norwegian factory. Human Relations, 1960, 13, 3-19.

LAWLER, E. E. Pay, participation and organizational change. In. E. L. Cass and F. G. Zimmer (Eds.), Man and work in society. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.

10.

LEFKOWITZ, J. Effect of training on the productivity and tenure of sewing machine operators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 81-86.

11.

LOCKE, E. A. , & SCHWEIGER, D. M. Participation in decision-making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizationl behavior (Vol. 1). Greenwich: JAI Press, 1979.

12.

LOCKE, E. A. , FEREN, D. B. , MCCALEB, V. M. , SHAW, K. N. , & DENNY, A. T. The relative effectiveness of four methods of motivating employee performance. In K. Duncan , M. Gruneberg , and D. Wallis (Eds.), Changes in working life. Chichester, England: Wiley, 1980.

13.

SALVENDY, G. Effects of equitable and inequitable financial compensation on operator's productivity, satisfaction and motivation. International Journal of Production Research, 1976, 14, 305-310.

14.

SEEBORG, I. S. The influence of employee participation in job re-design. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 1978, 14, 87-98.

15.

SYKES, A. J. M. Economic interest and the Hawthorne researches. Human Relations, 1965, 18, 253-263.

16.

TAYLOR, F. W. The principles of scientific management. New York: Norton, 1967 (originally published, 1911).

17.

WHYTE, W. F. Money and motivation. New York: Harper and Row, 1955.