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.