Course design: should we permit student participation?

Emery, Charles R. ; Tian, Robert G.

INTRODUCTION

Today's managers consider employee participation and empowerment vital to making organizations more competitive in the marketplace. Employee participation is said to lower operating costs, improve productivity, quality, commitment and morale, and reduce turnover (e.g., Kotter & Heskett, 1992; Milliken, 1996; Mumford & Hendricks, 1996; Scotto, 1996). Employee participation/empowerment is the centerpiece of the Total Quality Management movement. It is the heart and soul of the movement to autonomous work teams. Employee participation in the performance appraisal process has produced resounding improvements in morale (Cawley, et al., 1998). Even a number of colleges and universities allow their faculty members to individually weight areas of emphasis (e.g., teaching, research, service) prior to their year-end performance appraisal.

Amazingly, however, this fundamental management principle of the new millennium is not practiced in the classrooms of most business schools. Emery and Emery's (2001) survey of 106 business professors at ten colleges and universities found that only six had experimented with either allowing the students to develop the course syllabus (within accreditation standards) or to determine the weighting of the assessment vehicles (e.g., the students could weighting for the tests between 10-20% each, for the homework 30-40%, for quizzes 10-20%, for presentations 5-15%, for the final exam 15-30%, etc.). Each of these professors chose to implement it as a group rather than as an individual decision-making process. Further, only three of these professors still practice some form of student self-determination in their courses. The three that discontinued the process, cited lack of tangible benefits, lack of student consensus on syllabi or weighting decisions, increased class divisiveness, and lower student satisfaction (as measured by course evaluations). We believe, however, the time has come to increase student participation in determining the weighting of appraisal criterion. Discontinuing efforts in this area, because of failures, is a kin to throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, examine the participation literature from the standpoint of both a manager and an employee to determine whether the theories might be generalized to the teacher-student educational environment. Second, determine whether students favor taking on a more active role in weighting course assessments and if so which factors might be related to this desire.

LITERATURE REVIEW

There are two theoretically distinct approaches to examining the appropriateness of employee participation. One evaluates it as a consequence of leadership styles (e.g., job satisfaction, productivity). The other examines it as an outcome of organizational processes/strategies (e.g., participatory decision-making and appraisal design) and individual differences (e.g., self-efficacy, locus of control) on job satisfaction, commitment, productivity, motivation, learning and attitude.

LEADERSHIP THEORIES

Situational or contingency theories of leadership are considered by many to be the most valid approach to explaining leadership effectiveness. These theories grew out of an attempt to explain the inconsistent findings of trait and behavioral theories. Specifically, These theories propose that the effectiveness of a particular style of leader behavior depends on the situation. As situations change, different styles become appropriate. We will examine three leadership theories that suggest conditions under which a participatory style might be most effective.

Decision Process Theory

Reviewers of empirical leadership research over the last thirty years (e.g., Bass, 1990) suggest that the situational theory of leadership advanced by Vroom and Yetton (1973) and reformulated by Vroom and Jago (1988) is perhaps the most statistically valid model of predicting and prescribing leadership effectiveness. The theory suggests variations of authoritative, consultative and participative leadership styles depending on the total situation, i.e. decision elements and whether the leader's decision is for a group or an individual. The theory is operationalized in the form of a decision tree that forces the leader to answer as many as eight situational questions before it prescribes the appropriate leadership style.

Application of the decision process theory to the question of which style of leadership would be most effective in the situation of determining the weighting of course assessments requires that one answer only three of the eight questions in the decision tree. The first question asks, "Does the problem possess a quality requirement?" The term "quality requirement" stands for the degree of importance that the manager or in this case the professor attaches to attaining a decision of high technical quality. In this case, the answer is "no" (i.e., the problem does not possess a quality requirement). No organizational goal or objective, external to the professor and his or her work group, is at stake, and any alternative that meets the constraints imposed by the problem (i.e., to have a assessment weighting schema) will be effective providing it is successfully implemented. Given that answer, the decision tree directs the leader to ask, "Is acceptance of the decision by subordinates important for effective implementation?" This question deals with the attaining the commitment of the subordinates to the decision. The answer is clearly "yes". Securing the commitment of an identified set of organization members to the decision can be important either because they have to carry out the decision or because it is somehow important to them and they, in turn, are important to the organization. Next, the decision tree asks, "If you were to make this decision by yourself, is it reasonably certain that it would be accepted by your subordinates? This doesn't ask whether the decision will be followed, it focuses on acceptance of the leader's expertise to make this decision. This is one of the most complex judgments required by the model. Weighing each of the relevant factors--culture, nature of followers and of their relationship to the leader, and the nature of the decision--the leader must judge the likelihood that the autocratic decision that he or she would make would elicit the needed commitment. The answer to this question is "yes". As such, this directs us to the conclusion that a participative or group process of joint decision-making is most appropriate for this situation (i.e., the class should determine the weighting of the assessments). If this same problem is analyzed from the standpoint of determining the best style for individualized decision-making, the model indicates the decision should be delegated to the student.

Path-Goal Theory

House (1971) developed the path-goal theory from Vroom's (1964) expectancy theory of motivation. The expectancy theory proposes that motivation to exert effort increases as the perceived relationships between effort and performance and performance and outcome expectations improve. The path-goal theory, however, focuses on how leaders influence a follower's expectations. House's model describes how expectancy perceptions are influenced by the contingent relationships among four leadership styles and various employee attitudes and behaviors. According to the path-goal model, leader behavior is acceptable when employees view it as a source of satisfaction or as paving the way to future satisfaction. Application of the path-goal theory to the question of assessment weightings, as modified by the classroom environment (e.g., student tasks, work group, authority system) and typical student characteristics (e.g., need for achievement, experience, locus of control, task ability, and need for clarity), suggests that the leader/professor would be most effective (based on outcomes of motivation, job satisfaction, and acceptance of the leader) using a participative style. House defines a participative style as consulting with employees and seriously considering their ideas when making decisions.

Situational Leadership or Life-Cycle Theory

Hersey and Blanchard (1982) developed a situational leadership theory that postulated four leadership styles: telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Each style was suggested as appropriate for certain kinds of situations defined by a subordinates' "maturity" level. Hersey and Blanchard see their theory as representing a life-cycle model, analogous to a parent-child relationship where the parent gradually relinquishes control as the child matures. Specifically, the prescribed leadership style is contingent on a follower's maturity, defined as "the degree to which followers are ready and willing to tackle the task facing the group." As such, Hersey and Blanchard would see the classroom environment as one in which the professor should use a delegating style of leadership when determine the weighting of assessment vehicles, i.e., the students are willing and able.

EMPLOYEE/STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Self-Esteem

Self-esteem is a belief about one's own self-worth based on an overall self-evaluation (Gecas, 1982). Several studies have indicated positive relationships between grading, self-esteem and learning (e.g., McGuire & McGuire, 1996; Pressley, et al., 1998; Smoll, et al., 1993). Students often view grades as the most important part of education and, as such, grades become a vital element in the development of their self-image. Not only do grades affect a student's development, they influence his/her desire to be continual learners. Further, grades are not always an accurate reflection of student knowledge or capabilities and, as such, may have a significantly negative impact on his/her developing self-esteem. Efforts at raising self-esteem often focus on goal-setting and self-determination exercises (Tubbs, et al., 1993; White, et al., 1995). Simply put, people can raise their self-esteem, motivation and task performance by establishing their criterions of appraisal.

Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person's belief about his or her chances of successfully accomplishing a specific task. Researchers have documented a strong linkage between high self-efficacy expectations and success in widely varied physical and mental tasks, anxiety reduction, addiction control, pain tolerance, illness recovery, learning and avoidance of seasickness in naval cadets (Gecas, 1989). Further, a great deal of evidence has been generated that students have fine-grained beliefs about what they can do and what they cannot do (e.g., Marsh, 1992). These beliefs go far in determining academic tasks that students will attempt and those they will avoid and, as such, has a great deal to do with the learning process (Bandura, 1995). Bandura (1986) suggests that efficacy can be effectively programmed by focusing on it four determinants: enactive attainments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological arousal. Enactive attainment is potentially the strongest source of efficacy change because it involves mastery experience. For example, research indicates that by successfully asking a question in class, one's confidence for asking questions will improve (Lent & Hackett, 1987). Additionally, within a work environment, Barling and Beattie (1983) found that managers who promoted self-determination (e.g., self-management and goal setting) tended to enhance perceived self-efficacy. As such, it seems logical that if students individually determine the weighting of the assessment criteria, it might promote the eventual sense of course mastery.

Locus of Control

Rotter (1966) suggests that individuals vary in terms of how much personal responsibility they take for their behavior and its consequences. People who believe they control the events and consequences that affect their lives are said to possess an internal locus of control. On the other side of this personality dimension are those who believe their performance is the product of circumstances beyond their immediate control. These individuals are said to possess an external locus of control and tend to attribute outcomes to environmental causes, such as luck or fate. Unlike someone with an internal locus of control, an "external" would attribute a failing grade to an unfair test or grade weighting system (Rotter, 1990).

Researchers have found several important behavioral differences that relate to our study. First, internals have stronger expectations and as such display greater work motivation (Spector, 1982). Second, internals exhibit higher performance on tasks involving learning or problem solving, when performance leads to valued rewards (Norris & Niebuhr, 1984). Third, there is a stronger relationship between job satisfaction and performance for internals than externals (Nystrom, 1983). Fourth, people high in internal locus of control will be frustrated by things they cannot control and will display job dissatisfaction (Renn, et al., 1991). Fifth, externals who have been significantly involved in designing their organization's procedures and systems have more favorable attitudes toward the systems and procedures than their external-locus co-workers who had not participated (Hawk, 1989). The classroom implications of these findings are clear; direct participation can bolster the attitudes and performance of externals and internals alike.

ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESSES

Participatory Decision Making (PDM)

Participation in decision-making takes several distinct forms (e.g., participation in work decisions, consultative participation, short-term participation, informal participation, employee ownership, representative participation). For our purposes, the participation in work decision form most closely parallels the student self-determination efforts in the classroom. This is the type of participation in which the individual worker's influence is high; typically, it focuses on establishing the goals and determining how the work is organized. This form of PDM (participation in work decisions) has relatively consistent and positive effects on productivity and satisfaction. Of 15 studies, 11 found increases in performance/productivity and job satisfaction, whereas only 1 found a decrease (Cotton, et al. 1988). Further, motivation to improve performance has been reported to increase with increasing levels of access in PDM (Wexley, et al., 1973). As such, it seems logical to conclude that by allowing students to participate in determining the weighting of assessments, the professor will promote performance and satisfaction. Also, it is important to note that in a work environment, increased employee satisfaction has a significant and positive effect on attendance (Hackett, 1989), turnover (Tett & Meyer, 1993), and stress reduction (Bordwin, 1996).

Employee Appraisals

Early research demonstrated that employee satisfaction with the performance appraisal process affects variables such as productivity, motivation, and organizational commitment (Hgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Larson, 1984; Pearce & Porter, 1986; Wexley & Klimoski, 1984). More recently, Cawley, Keeping and Levy (1998) explored the relationship between participation in the performance appraisal process and various employee reactions using a meta-analysis of 27 empirical studies. They found that the overall relationship between participation and employee reactions is most strongly related to satisfaction. Specifically, value-expressive participation (i.e., participation for the sake of having one's "voice" heard) and instrumental participation (i.e., participation for the purpose of influencing the end result) had strong relationships with satisfaction, motivation to improve, and assessment of fairness.

Due to the importance of these outcomes of performance appraisal satisfaction, it follows that organizations should attempt to increase this type of employee satisfaction. Further, it seems reasonable to suggest that students should determine the weighting of assessments based on the research findings on employee participation in the design of appraisal systems.

HYPOTHESES

H1: Students will prefer to determine the weighting of assessment vehicles rather than have it determined by the professor (p>.50, x [??] .05)

H2: Students will prefer self-determination to group determination in setting weighting schemes (p>.50, x [??] .05)

H3: Student grade point average will be positively correlated with a desire to determine the weighting of course assessments (x [??] .05)

H4: Student self-efficacy will be positively correlated with a desire to determine the weighting of course assessments (x [??] .05)

H5: Student locus of control will be positively correlated with a desire to determine the weighting of course assessments (x [??] .05)

METHOD

Seven participating faculty members from five colleges and universities administered a survey/questionnaire to two hundred and fifty four, junior and senior, undergraduate business students during class time. The survey included various demographics plus questions on their preference to participate (individual or group) in the determination of weighting course assessments, their beliefs on the relationship between participation and learning and their beliefs on the relationship between participation and motivation and grade achievement. Additionally, the survey contained a 7-item questionnaire on locus of control (Rotter, 1966) and a 7-item questionnaire on self-efficacy (academic scale of the College Self-Efficiency Instrument, Solberg, el al.).

RESULTS

Hypothesis testing

The response rate and usability of the questionnaires was 100 percent. The hypotheses were tested using z-tests and correlation analysis. Results of the z-tests confirm both the first and second hypotheses. One hundred and eighty eight students or seventy three percent indicated they supported the idea of determining the weight of course assessments (p<.01). Of the 73 percent voting for determining the weighting schema, one hundred and fifty four students or 82 percent voted for individual rather than group determination (p<.01). The third hypothesis which suggested that the desire for determining the weighting of grades would be positively correlated with grade point was not supported at p<.05. The fourth hypothesis which suggested that the desire for determining the weighting of grades would be positively correlated with student self-efficacy was supported (r=.37, p<.01). The fifth hypothesis which suggested that the desire for determining the weighting of grades would be positively correlated with student locus of control was supported (r=.33, p<.01).

Additional findings and demographic information

An evaluation of student preferences by gender, class size, course level and class level failed to reveal any significant correlation. Additionally, of the 73 percent that voted for determining the weighting schema, 76 percent believed it would improve their motivation to learn and 89 percent indicated that it would improve course satisfaction (top two blocks on a five-point scale). Also, 92 percent (of those students) believed it would push them to take more responsibility for the course grade. Lastly, it is interesting to note that of the students 154 students who voted for individual determination of assessment weighting, 68% said they would rather have the instructor determine the weighting than have it done as a group.

DISCUSSION

The literature review indicates there is good reason to believe that a number of management theories and strategies dictating the use of employee participation can and should be generalized to the classroom. Particularly noteworthy were the positive effects reported from studies in which employees determined the criterion weightings for their annual appraisal. Further, the positive relationship between participation and personal growth suggests that student participation in designing the assessment schema could have a positive effect on learning. American students place a high priority on grades and as such they allow grades to affect their self-concept. Consequently, we should search for ways to improve the links between expectations, instrumentalities and outcomes. Allowing students to participate in determining the weighting of assessments for a course may be an important contribution. Naturally, one must discount the students' self-reported claim that self-determination of assessment weighting will have a positive influence on motivation, responsibility, and learning, but the fact remains that they want more control of outcomes. Overwhelming support for the first hypothesis clearly indicates that students want to participate in designing their assessment schema.

It should not be surprising that students preferred to determine the assessment schema on an individual basis rather than as a group. Hofstede's (1980) seminal work on culture indicated that U.S. students tend to be more individual than collective, masculine than feminine, and have a lower perception of power distance. As such, one would expect grades to be important and that students would possess a desire for individual control and the belief that it should be their prerogative. It was interesting, however, that students preferred to have the professor set the schema over the other students rather than it determined by the class group. This finding probably indicates a lack of cohesiveness in a number of surveyed classes and as such the findings may vary by class size, date in the semester that the survey was administered, and the interdependence and familiarity of classmates. In any case, it appears the students believed that they didn't think they had a voice and as such took the more conservative approach, i.e., let the professor determine the weighting schema.

The significant relationships between the students' desire for self-determination and their degree of self-efficacy and locus of control support previous studies (e.g., Bandura, 1986; Lint & Hacket, 1987; Multon, Brown, & Lent, 1991) that have linked student self-efficacy and locus of control with their desire for performance. Surprisingly, however, a student's grade point average was not significantly correlated with their desire for self-determination of the weighting schema. This mostly likely can be explained by the broad-based support for self-determination and the fact that many variables affect a student's grade point average besides a desire for self-determination.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational institutions should be on the cutting edge of new ideas, yet we see very little change in way we incorporate the student into the learning process. Surprisingly, Swearington (1997) noted that the higher the education level of the organization's managers, the more likely they are to use a participative management style of management. Yet, the Emery and Emery (2001) study of instructor styles indicated that the average professor is predominately directive and on occasion consultative. This style of behavior is certainly in conflict with Vroom and Jago's (1988) contention that there are many instances where the manager/professor doesn't require a high quality decision, i.e., one that will affect organizational goals. It is during these instances that the manager/professor should take the opportunity to improve commitment and job satisfaction through participation. Perhaps now is the time to apply the concepts we teach too the way we teach.

The results of our review suggest the need for research in a number of important areas. First, it may be that the effect of allowing various forms of participatory decision-making in the classroom is additive. In other words, if different forms of PDM are associated with different outcomes (Cotton, et al., 1988), the combination of two or more forms of participation may produce interesting results. Second, there is a need for experimental studies investigating the reactions of students to the incorporation of self-determination in the assessment schema. In other words, does self-determination affect a student's sense of organizational justice and responsibility and subsequently his or her course satisfaction and attendance? Does self-determination affect motivation through increased expectancies and instrumentalities? If so, does this increase in motivation affect learning? It is suggested that the answers to these questions may be available to those professors who teach two sections of the same course. Third, most studies of college students focus on student achievement in a single course. This seems unnatural to us because it is the rare student who has the luxury of taking one course at a time. More typically, students are juggling multiple courses, and as they do so, they also juggle other responsibilities, including work and commitments to friends and families. As such, the positive effect of self-determination may be difficult to determine by experimenting with just one course in the student's schedule. Fourth, future conceptual and empirical work on student self-determination in course work should examine the effect of contextual and individual variables (e.g., path-goal moderators). Lastly, we should take a closer look at the use of participatory styles in classrooms across the globe. If present, we suspect these innovations may be found in masculine countries with low power distances, low uncertainty avoidance and a high sense of individualism (e.g., Australia, Canada, Great Britain, South Africa).

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1995). Self-Efficacy in Changing Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Barling, J. & Beattie, R. (1983). Self-efficacy beliefs and sales performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, Spring, 41-51.

Bass, B. M. (1990). Bass & Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York: Free Press.

Bordwin, M. (1996). Overwork: The cause of you next workers' comp claim? American Management Association, (March), 50-52.

Cawley, B. D., Keeping, L. M., & P. E. Levy. (1998). Participation in the performance appraisal process and employee reactions: A meta-analytic review of field investigations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 615-633.

Cotton, J. L., Vollrath, D. A., Froggatt, K. L., Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Jennings, K. R. (1988). Employee participation: Diverse forms and different outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 13(1), 8-22.

Emery, C. R., & Emery, M. J. (2001). Student participation in course design: An exploratory assessment of the pros and cons. Manuscript in preparation.

Gecas, V. (1982). The self-concept. In R. H. Turner, & J. F. Short, Jr. (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (vol. 8, p. 3). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Gecas, V. (1989). The social psychology of self-efficacy. In W. R. Scott, & J. Blake (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (vol. 15). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-Efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, (April), 183-211.

Hackett, R. D. (1989). Work attitudes and employee absenteeism: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 235-248.

Hawk, S. R. (1989). Locus of control and computer attitude: The effect of user involvement. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 199-206.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1982). Management of Organizational Behavior: Utilizing Human Resources. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Hgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, S. M. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 347-371.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's Consequences, International Differences in Work Related Values. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, (September), 321-328.

Kotter, J. & Heskett, J. (1992). Corporate Culture and Performance. New York: The Free Press.

Labenne, W. E. & Greene, B. I. (1969). Educational Implications of Self-Concept Theory. Pacific Palisades, CA: Goodyear Publishing Company.

Larson, J. R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76.

Lent, R. W. & Hackett, G. (1987). Career self-efficacy: Empirical status and future directions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 30, 347-382.

Lock, E. A., Schweiger, D. M., & Latham, G. P. (1986). Participation in decision making: When should it be used? Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 65-79.

Locke, E. & Schweiger, D. (1979). Participation in decision making: One more look. In B. M. Staw (Ed.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol 1, pp. 265-340). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Marsh, H. W. (1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42.

McGuire, W. J., & McGuire, C. V. (1996). Enhancing self-esteem by directed-thinking tasks: Cognitive and affective positivity asymmetries, (June), 1124-1125.

Milliken, W.F. (1996). The Eastman way. Quality Progress, (October), 37-42.

Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of self-efficacy beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.

Mumford, E. & Hendricks, R. (1986). Business process reengineering RIP. People Management, (May), 27-31.

Norris, D. R. & Niebuhr, R. E. (1984). Attributional influences on the job performance-job satisfaction relationship. Academy of Management Journal, (June), 424-31.

Nystrom, P. C. (1983). Managers' salaries and their beliefs about reinforcement control, The Journal of Social Psychology, (August), 291-92.

Pearce, J. L. & Porter, L. W. (1986). Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 211-218.

Pressley, M., Van Etten, S., Yokoi, L., Freebern, G., & Van Meter, P. (1998). The meta-cognition of college studentship: A grounded theory approach. In D. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in Educational Theory and Practice. Mahwah, NJ: L. rlbaum Associates.

Renn R. & Vandenberg, R.(1991). Differences in employee attitudes and behaviors based on Rotter's internal-external locus of control: Are they all valid? Human Relations, (November), 1161-77.

Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(609), 8-13.

Rotter, J. B. (1990). Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. American Psychologist, (April), 489-93.

Scotto, M. (1996). Seven ways to make money from ISO 9000. Quality Progress, (June), 51-55.

Smoll, F., Smith, R., Barnett, N. & Everett, J.(1993). Enhancement of children's self-esteem through social support training for youth sport coaches. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 602-611.

Solberg, V., O'Brien, K., Villareal, P., Kennel R., & Davis, B. (1993). Self-Efficacy and Hispanic college students: Validation of the college self-efficacy instrument. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 15(1), 80-95.

Spector, P. E. (1982). Behavior in organizations as a function of employee's locus of control. Psychological Bulleting, (May), 482-97.

Stumpf, S. A., Zand, D. E., & Freeman, R. D. (1979). Designing groups for judgemental decisions. Academy of Management Review, 4, 589-600.

Swearington, M. H. (1997). Participative Management: An Analysis of its effect on Productivity. New York: Garland Publishers.

Tett, R. P., & Meyer, J. P. (1993). Job Satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover intention, and turnover: Path analysis based on meta-analytic findings, Personnel Psychology, (Summer), 259-293.

Thomas, J. W. & Rohwer, W. D., Jr. (1993). Proficient autonomous learning: problems and prospects. In M. Rebinowitz (Ed.), Cognitive Science Foundations of Instruction, (pp. 1-32), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tubbs, M., Boehne, D. & Dahl, J. (1993). Expectancy valence and motivational force functions in goal-setting research: An empirical test. Journal of Applied Psychology, (June), 361-73.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and Motivation. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Vroom, V. H. & Jago, A. G. (1988). The New Leadership: Managing Participation in Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Vroom, V. H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership and Decision-Making. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Wexley, K. N. & Klimoski, R. J. (1984). Performance appraisal: An update. In G. R. Ferris & K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management (Vol. 2, pp. 35-79). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Wexley, K., Singh, J., & Yukl, G. (1973). Subordinate personality as a moderator of the effects of participation in three types of appraisal interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 58, 5459.

White, P. H., Kjelgaard, M. M., & Harkins, S. G. (1995). Testing the contribution of self-evaluation to goal-setting effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (July), 69-79.

Charles R. Emery, Lander University

Robert G. Tian, Erskine College