Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Next article

Einstellungen und Reaktanzerleben bei geglückter und misslungener Partizipation

Welche Rolle spielt die erlebte und die gewünschte betriebliche Partizipation?

Published Online:October 02, 2015https://doi.org/10.1026/0932-4089/a000184

Abstract

Zusammenfassung. Prozesse betrieblicher Partizipation sind für die Persönlichkeitsentwicklung wichtig. Doch wie werden solche Zusammenhänge vermittelt und welche Rolle spielen Unterschiede zum Wunsch nach Mitsprache? Zur Untersuchung dieser Fragen nahmen 46 Arbeitnehmer an einer Laborstudie teil, in der Reaktanzerlebnisse bei der Einräumung vs. Blockierung von Mitbestimmungsmöglichkeiten ermittelt wurden. Der zuvor bei der Arbeit erlebte und gewünschte Einfluss wurde mit dem Fragebogen von Jeppesen, Jønsson und Shevlin (2010) erfasst, der als Akteur die eigene Person und andere Agenten (z. B. Betriebsrat) anspricht. Die Befunde bestätigten die erwarteten Zusammenhänge zwischen Einfluss und Kontrollablehnung bzw. arbeitsbezogener Identifikation. Diese werden durch die arbeitsbezogene Selbstwirksamkeit vermittelt. Bei der Blockierung von Mitsprache erlebten Personen mehr Reaktanz, wenn sie viel Einfluss an ihrem Arbeitsplatz hatten. Beim Wunsch nach Partizipation macht es einen großen Unterschied, welcher Akteur präferiert wird. Angesichts dieser Befunde kann das Instrument von Jeppesen et al. (2010) für eine genauere Analyse partizipativer Prozesse auch in Deutschland empfohlen werden.


Attitudes and Experience of Reactance in the Case of Successful and Failed Participation: What Role Does Experienced and Desired Operational Participation Play?

Abstract. Processes of organizational participation are important for the development of personality. We analyze how such relationships are mediated and whether the individual desire for participation makes a difference. In a laboratory study of 46 employees, feelings of reactance were induced by offering or by withdrawing participation. The previously experienced and desired work-related influence was measured with the questionnaire of Jeppesen, Jønsson, and Shevlin (2010). This instrument considers the person himself/herself and other agents as potential actors (e. g., works council). The results confirm the expected relationships between experienced influence, control rejection, and work-related identification. Work-related self-efficacy was found to be a mediator. Upon withdrawal of participation, persons used to having considerable influence reported more reactance. Moreover, the desire for participation also influenced outcomes depending on the specific agent that was chosen to have control. Thus, the questionnaire of Jeppesen et al. (2010) can be recommended for a detailed analysis of participative processes also in Germany.

Literatur

  • Ashforth, B. E. (1989). The experience of powerlessness in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43, 207 – 242. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ashforth, B. E. & Saks, A. M. (2000). Personal control in organizations: A longitudinal investigation with newcomers. Human Relations, 53, 311 – 339. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045 – 2068. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191 – 215. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: University Press. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1 – 26. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bergmann, B., Pietrzyk, U. & Richter, F. (2009). Seelische Gesundheit und Entwicklung von Motivation und Leistungsfähigkeit als Funktion der Arbeitsaufgabengestaltung. Journal Psychologie des Alltagshandelns, 2, 12 – 21. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Brehm, S. S. & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological Reactance. A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Chawla, A. & Kelloway, K. E. (2004). Predicting openness and commitment to change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25, 485 – 498. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dawson, J. F. & Richter, A. W. (2006). Probing three-way interactions in moderated multiple regression: Development and application of a slope difference test. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 917 – 926. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deci E. L. & Ryan R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227 – 268. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne′, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J. & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930 – 942. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dickenberger, D., Gniech, G. & Grabitz, H.-J. (1993). Die Theorie der psychologischen Reaktanz. In D. FreyM. IrleHrsg., Theorien der Sozialpsychologie, Band 1: Kognitive Theorien (S. 243 – 273). Bern: Huber. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Frese, M. (1984). Do workers want control at work or don′t they: Some results on denial and adjustment (IfHA–Berichte). Berlin: Institut für Humanwissenschaft in Arbeit und Ausbildung der technischen Universität Berlin. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Frese, M., Erbe-Heinbokel, M., Grefe, J., Rybowiak, V. & Weike, A. (1994). „Mir ist es lieber, wenn ich genau gesagt bekomme, was ich tun muß“: Probleme der Akzeptanz von Verantwortung in Ost und West. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, 38, 22 – 33. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Frese, M. & Fay, D. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. Human Performance, 14, 97 – 124. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Frese, M., Garst, H. & Fay, D. (2007). Making things happen: Reciprocal relationships between work characteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084 – 1102. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A. & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between East and West Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 37 – 63. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gagné, M. & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331 – 362. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Haslam, S. A., Wegge, J. & Postmes, T. (2009). Are we on a learning curve or a treadmill? The benefits of participative group goal setting become apparent as tasks become increasingly challenging over time. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 430 – 446. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: Guilford Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Heller, F. (1998). Influence at work: A 25 year program of research. Human Relations, 51, 1425 – 1456. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Heller, F. (2003). Participation and power: A critical assessment. Applied Psychology, 52, 144 – 163. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE) International Research Group (1981). Industrial democracy in Europe: Differences and similarities across countries and hierarchies. Organization Studies, 16, 113 – 129. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Industrial Democracy in Europe (IDE) International Research Group (1993). Industrial democracy in Europe revisited. Oxford: University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jeppesen, H. J., Jønsson, T. & Shevlin, M. (2010). Employee attitudes to the distribution of organizational influence: Who should have most influence on which issues? Economic and Industrial Democracy, 32, 69 – 86. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Jønsson, T. & Jeppesen, H. J. (2009). Non-participatory intervention in a traditional participatory organization. Wirtschaftspsychologie, 11, 88 – 98. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kanungo, R. N. (1982). Work alienation. An integrative approach. New York: Praeger Publishers. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Alienation and empowerment: Some ethical imperatives in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 413 – 422. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Kasser, T. & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark site of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410 – 422. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Klocke, U. (2004). Folgen von Machtausübung und Einflussnahme für Wissenszuwachs und Effektivität in Kleingruppen. Doktorarbeit, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Psychologie. Berlin: Dissertation.de. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Lodahl, T.M. & Kejner, M. (1965). The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 24 – 33. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Martins, E., Pundt, A., Horsmann, C. S. & Nerdinger, F. W. (2008). Organizational culture of participation: Development and validation of a measure. Zeitschrift für Personalforschung, 22, 195 – 215. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Moser, K. & Schuler, H. (1993). Validität einer deutschsprachigen Involvement-Skala. Zeitschrift für Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 14, 27 – 36. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Nesterkin, D. A. (2013). Organizational change and psychological reactance. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 26, 573 – 594. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Neubauer, W. & Rosemann, B. (2006). Führung, Macht und Vertrauen in Organisationen. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Reimer, M. (2009). Verhaltensbedingte Hürden als Gegenstand des Changemanagement. In I. BehrendtH. J. KönigU. KrystekHrsg., Zukunftsorientierter Wandel im Krankenhausmanagement (S. 337 – 355). Berlin: Springer. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Scholl, W. (2013). Innovativität und Mitbestimmung. In W. SchollK. BreitlingH. Janetzke, Innovationserfolg durch aktive Mitbestimmung (S. 11 – 23). Berlin: edition sigma. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Ulich, E. (2004) Erwerbsarbeit und andere Lebenstätigkeiten–eine arbeitspsychologische Perspektive. In Eidgenössische Koordinationskommission für Familienfragen (EKFF)Hrsg., Zeit für Familien. Beiträge zur Vereinbarkeit von Familien- und Erwerbsalltag aus familienpolitischer Sicht (S. 53 – 71). Bern: BBL. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H. & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251 – 277. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Weber, W. G. (1999). Organisationale Demokratie–Anregungen für innovative Arbeitsformen jenseits bloßer Partizipation? Zeitschrift für Arbeitswissenschaft, 53, 270 – 281. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegge, J. (2004). Führung von Arbeitsgruppen. Göttingen: Hogrefe. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegge, J. & Haslam, S. A. (2003). Group goal setting, social identity and self-categorization: Engaging the collective self to enhance group performance and organizational outcomes. In A. HaslamD. van KnippenbergM. PlatowN. EllemersEds., Social identity at work: Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 74 – 99). London: Taylor and Francis. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegge, J. & Haslam, S. A. (2013). When group goal setting fails: The impact of task difficulty and supervisor fairness. In Ai-Girl TanEd., Creativity, Talent and Excellence (pp. 165 – 184). Springer: Singapore. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wegge, J., Jeppesen, H.-J., Weber, W. G., Pearce, C. L., Silvia, S. A., Pundt, A., Jonsson, T., Wolf, S., Wassenaar, C. L., Unterrainer, C. & Piecha, A. (2010). Promoting work motivation in organizations: Should employee involvement in organizational leadership become a new tool in the organizational psychologists’ kit? Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 154 – 171. First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar

  • Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., Wecking, C. & Moltzen, K. (2006). Work motivation, organizational identification, and wellbeing in call centre work. Work & Stress, 20, 60 – 83. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297 – 333. First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wilpert, B. (1998). A view from psychology. In F. HellerE. PusicG. StraussB. WilpertEds., Organizational participation. Myth and reality (pp. 40 – 64). Oxford: Oxford University Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Wortman, C. B. & Brehm, J. W. (1975). Response to uncontrollable outcomes: An integration of reactance theory and learned helplessness model. In L. BerkowitzEd., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, viii (pp. 277 – 336). New York: Academic Press. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar